>"We need a federal law prohibiting censorship of lawful speech on major social media platforms," Nehlen asserts. "It is well-known that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube discriminate against the right-wing, as evidenced by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's recent comments. While widely heralded for those comments, they rang hollow with no suggested solution. This law is that solution. It will extend Americans' First Amendment free speech protections onto major social media platforms."
>"We are not extensively regulating or trust-busting," Nehlen explains, "because people generally like how the platforms perform in terms of functionality. This law will not interfere with features or functionality, so market forces will remain in play. The problem is their censorship of lawful speech. Hypocritically, the same companies that support net neutrality also want to censor your speech. We say no."
>For purposes of this legislation, "censorship" includes: >Denial of platform access and normal use thereof (e.g., lockouts, suspensions, bans) >"Shadowbanning" >Issuance of "verified" status based on any factor(s) unrelated to identity authentication >"Throttling" accounts and/or content without disclosure >Embargoing content (i.e., no "memory-holing" content without the consent of the creator) >Manipulating "trending" algorithms without disclosure >Demonetization
>"Lawful speech" is based upon the standards enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, with the following limitations: >No child pornography >No explicit, credible threats of physical violence >No publishing any individual's nonpublic residential address, telephone number, or email address without their consent >Platforms may choose to prohibit otherwise-lawful pornographic video (i.e., video containing explicit sexual acts) >Restrictions on copyrighted content are already addressed by the DMCA
>"Major social media platforms" means social media platforms that enjoy a market share above minimum threshold level. At present, it would include Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit. (Smaller platforms and message boards will not be affected.)
>The legislation would impose company fines of $500,000 per instance of wrongful censorship, and would be enforced by the FCC. Judicial remedies (both monetary and non-monetary) may also be available to aggrieved parties.
>"The bedrock of American society is freedom of speech. Social media companies have usurped this freedom, and we intend to give it back to the American people," says Nehlen.
>"This is just one more instance where Paul Ryan has shown he isn't getting the job done in Washington. The GOP's voters are being systematically censored off of the primary channels of public communication by left-wing tech giants, and Ryan – indeed, the entire GOP Congress – has sat utterly mute for years and allowed it to happen. In the absence of leadership, I willingly step into the breach."
I love this fucking timeline. So many things are starting to look way up. Though honestly I wish there was more of a willingness to engage in trust-busting outright, I'll gladly take this.
>Thinks businesses should be allowed to refuse service to people for being gay >Doesn't think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to people who violate the contracts they sign when they enter into business with those companies.
>>416900 I don't know if it necessarily follows that people who abuse their power to coerce sex out of people they have power over are also conspiring against a presidential candidate because she's a woman. Like don't get me wrong--I'm a full on feminist, and I don't question the women who brought up charges against them at all. Nor the fact that it's an indication of a lack of respect for women. But it sounds like you're trying to extrapolate that to suggest these people were conspiring against Hilary Clinton in specific, which is a pretty big leap of logic.
>>>/mtv/48438 >Damn, son, does it hurt when you clutch your pearls that hard? So militant white people should be beaten and jailed but militant black people are a joke? Humans are humans. Angry racist humans are equally scary regardless of race.
>>417374 She was the only intelligent and honest person in that interview. She was trying to pin down and get something resembling human speech out of a vacillating and deceitful obscurant that is mealy-mouthed, logorrheic and unclear on purpose so he can seem wise and so his little insect fans can deduct what they want from his spiels.
>>417456 >…yeah, that wasn’t a serious question, and neither is “so you’re saying…?”. If you have to otherword someone during an argument, you have already lost. Well, how the fuck do you expect someone extract meaning from a non-argument like "Damn, son, does it hurt when you clutch your pearls that hard?".
>>417457 >Well, how the fuck do you expect someone extract meaning from a non-argument like "Damn, son, does it hurt when you clutch your pearls that hard?"
You look at the underlying premise of the insult. The "clutching your pearls" idiom means the pearl-clutcher in question acts mortified by some mundane or otherwise common idea—e.g., the idea of Black people owning guns or organizing into a group of two or more people. My insult, then, was an implication that the expressed fear of militant Black people is unfounded and based near-entirely in a racist mindset that sees Black people as inherently criminal and naturally dangerous.
Not sure if other countries do this, but I think at this point it's clear that the United States ought to get hotfixed such that failing to pass a yearly budget just results in funding for stuff that isn't designated temparary getting its budget from last year copied over, maybe adjusted for inflation, instead of defaulting to everything going into shutdown mode.
>>419230 (SEN = Special Education Needs or something) It's hard to make any judgement with this little information, but: 1) Sex != Gender. Is changing the noted sex the right solution to gender dysphoria? Would this cause issues for vaccination/medical emergencies/penis inspection day? 2) Liking trains and cars is a pretty low bar for gender dysphoria. If there is more evidence (there probably is) then this is different but otherwise that's fucked to judge binary gender from such a trivial counter-stereotype. Are all bronies categorically gender dysphoric? 3) Is the mother in denial and not mentioning legitimate evidence?
Wow, the United States sure is in a difficult diplomatic spot right now! Good thing President Trump, by his own admission the greatest negotiator we have, knows that visiting Iran to meet its leaders in person and drive a hard deal face-to-face like only he knows how is the surest way to quickly bring a end to this conflict.
>>419540 Everyone wants control over the Middle East (including Russia, China, or anyone strong at the moment), and no one wants an actual WORLD (see: planes and bombs over the ocean) war. It's about control over the region and destabilization, nothing else.
>>419782 >And is the middle image the same person or just a porn star that also has pigtails? It's almost certainly not her. I think the joke is /pol/anon feels that she is an angry virgin.
>>419783 Yep, prompting a lot of world leaders to essentially bully a teenager. Shit's surreal. That's why movements shouldn't use a single person as an 'inspiration', regardless of what corporate media will try to encorage.
>>419792 >I think the joke is /pol/anon feels that she is an angry virgin. No, the joke is that if she had a stable relationship or someone to give her love (or even just a man to put her in her place), then she'd be a happier person and perhaps a more productive member of society, and not just the current decade equivalent of LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE.
But that might not work in her case because last time I checked she was legit autistic and her parents are taking advantage of the fact, and fueling the media attention for their own benefits.
>prompting a lot of world leaders to essentially bully a teenager They are basically telling a dumb kid to go back to school and learn how the world works, and the fact that this is considered bullying tells you a lot about how viable victim stardomship is.
>>419793 >perhaps a more productive member of society Attempting to secure a future for the next century of human and animal life is one of the most productive things a human can do. Going about it poorly? You can debate that. Being unproductive? No.
>They are basically telling a dumb kid to go back to school and learn how the world works ...instead of acknowledging a legitimate problem and working with climate experts to mitigate it in a realistic way.
>>419879 I mean he pretty much freaking stood with a whole crowd of other people in the room while speaking about this virus, so he might have done a whole lot of other crazy unsafe stuff. He's a risky rich-ass after all.
I am conflicted: should I be grateful or concerned by the incompetent response to this pandemic? >many leaders giving harmful instructions to their own supporters, critical thinkers most likely have enough information to stay safe. Might actually have a positive effect on propaganda resistance >reported decrease in global CO2 emissions >social distancing measures could reduce the spread of other diseases >population control without creating an ethical dilemma
>>419918 Case study: Spanish Flu During World War I, countries heavily under-reported to maintain morale. Spain was neutral and reported their numbers reasonably, so it falsely appeared as if Spain was being hit far worse by the flu than any other country.
>>419919 Since it predominantly kills old people, once the virus is gone, the average age of people in the affected countries will be much lower. Less old folk means lesser burden on social spending due to less pensions to be paid out. This will increase the state budget. The large sums of inheritance taxes to be paid will increase it further. Most of those old people are indigenous population, so this will lead to immigrants becoming an ever bigger part (in percentage) of the populace, in particular because they breed faster. This will lead to the state having to spend more on them. On the other hand the indigenous populace will also gain some cash boost due to the inheritances, and perhaps this may lead to more children being born. Since politicians are nearly all very old and thus heavily endangered by the virus, we may see a large shift in political structures (many politicians such as Merkel or Trump were already found spending a lot of time around people who tested positive). Especially if the failed responses to the virus will empower more radical parties. The social distancing also means that digital conferences will be at least tested in practice, for fields such as schools and governments. This may lead to these becoming more and more prevalent in the future.
So whatever happens, the future will be at least interesting, and the world will finally change in a direction.
My favourite part is that so far in 2020 we had famines, floods, locusts, a pandemic, and it's not even April yet.
>>419919 I would be concerned. Even a competent response would still have people staying inside enough for emissions to go down and other diseases to also be affected by social distancing. Overall population isn't a pressing issue, at least as long as we stick with modern food production per acre. That only leaves propoganda resistance, and there's other ways to cultivate that.
If there was a way to specifically protect construction workers, this would be a nice time to overhaul our public transportation systems, since interruptions for upgrades and other service would be less of an issue with greatly reduced traffic.
Anyway, I have a hard time beleiving that the people trying to get everyone back to work as quickly as possible really can't make up excuses better than the ones we've been hearing. Like... Really? Anyone got something more beleivable than "people will just kill themselves" or "saving lives just isn't as important as the liberty and justice of face to face interaction"? Because so far the attempts to convince me that this lockdown needs to be limited have only managed to make me think we're even more able to withstand extending it than I previously expected.
So, no only are prisoners, epsecially nonviolent prisoners, not being released during to the virus in the US despite that easily being a death sentance for many of them, but it doesn't seem unlikely that pritate prisons might simply respond to the deaths by demanding more prisoners get sent in as the disease progresses.
Given that there's also likely to be a lack of hospital space, would it make sense to have private prisons converted to emergency hospitals to both get more hospital space and as a (politically easier?) way to get private prisons to stop demanding prisoners for a bit by giving them something else to get paid for?
>Do you have a source with full context? not the same anon, but I took the liberty of spending 10 seconds finding it for you. First, here's the politifact tl;dr analysis: > During a coronavirus press briefing, President Trump floated the idea of using disinfectants and sunlight to treat COVID-19 patients. > Trump has since walked back those remarks, and several websites and social media posts have taken them out of context. > The briefing transcript shows that Trump did not say people should inject themselves with bleach or alcohol to treat the coronavirus. He was asking officials on the White House coronavirus task force whether they could be used in potential cures. Here is the context from the transcript (supplied by politifact): >"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?" >"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful." My interpretation of that: >He didn't directly suggest people do it, but since sanitizer and UV over-exposure are accessible and he is, to many, a trusted authority, this is harmful behavior that should be discouraged. >Exaggeration from media circus and the cancer that is social media came up with 'bleach' which actually damages their criticism of his dangerous lack of responsibility.
>>420316 So it's basically just the social media and liberal news sites over-reacting on what he said, taking out of context parodies of it, and presenting it as straight up presidential quotes. In other words, the same way they treated him ever since he got elected.
I hope he gets re-elected just so he can trigger these whiny faggots for more years.
>>420321 >complains about whiny faggots while being a whiny faggot about those evil libs noted
>I hope he gets re-elected just so he can trigger these whiny faggots for more years. If it were about entertainment, I'd rather Biden. He triggers the Democrats AND Republicans. But you are completely trivializing the fact that a high authority figure is unironically presenting pseudoscience at a press conference. Media sensationalization is a secondary problem that has been just as prevalent with the Bush and Obama years. Them being antagonistic unprofessional cunts is a completely different problem to your choice of national representative. You have two separate cultural problems here.
>>420391 At this point this is just full-on anarchism. I can understand why middle class folk are fleeing from urban areas in the USA.
Funny tho, 100 years ago if a black guy killed a white man, it was the white folk who gathered up and started killing blacks. But even then, they didn't start rioting and firebombing the city, it was just some good old fashioned lynching - not destroying every store or breaking every window on sight.
>>420395 Growing up in something resembling a shithole, I can explain this in a non-racist way:
You have to be raised by loving parentS, who would teach you self control, and the value of patience. If you are raised by 1 parent, the chances of you growing up into a thug rise greatly. If you have no parents, it is almost guaranteed. I guarantee you those looters mostly come from broken homes.
>>420395 >[lynchers were] not destroying every store or breaking every window on sight. Yeah but that's a seriously weak comparison, socially and economically speaking. I'm pretty sure nowhere near as many white people 100 years ago would be as economically motivated to loot. That said, civilians looted after the 1906 SanFran earthquake, so soldiers were sent in to shoot looters. Then the solders started looting. They didn't have a history of disadvantage, they had far more control over their lives and society. Plus, they or their friends owned the stores so why break them. If a town back then was mostly populated by black people and their black police force started killing unarmed white civilians dozens of times every year, I really doubt they would be tolerated. The looting and store destruction is, AFAICT, partly a mixture of anger and rebellion at 'the system', but more importantly, opportunists taking advantage of the chaos. Add in the fact that many people are facing further economic hardship than usual this year.
People are trying to justify it which I believe is (90%) stupid and probably a coping mechanism.
>>420404 >If a town back then was mostly populated by black people and their black police force started killing unarmed white civilians dozens of times every year, I really doubt they would be tolerated. Yeah, but if that happened back then, they'd call the state police or national guard to clean up the local police force - instead of starting a nationwide riot.
The disadvantage and lack of control over society you speak of, is a result of certain black folk choosing to live as dumb ass 'hood niggas who don't trust da racist wyte ppl. The ones who choose to lead a decent life do not get into such situations in the first place - and they don't dress like or talk in a way that they could be mistaken with a common criminal, which is what lead to the guy getting killed this time around.
And yeah, the looting this time around is anarchists fanning the flames.
>>420407 >who don't trust da racist wyte ppl Such as the police. I wonder what might lead them to not trust the police... But that's not what I'm talking about at all. I meant when nearly your entire race in a country is eventually freed from slavery with little-to-no reparations, plus ongoing segregation (by law and/or by racial prejudice) for another few decades bringing with it reduced access to education and 'skilled' working opportunities, that doesn't just evaporate within a lifetime. Being raised in disadvantaged circumstances generally puts you at a disadvantage (for example, less/no formal education, or less time with parents who work more to earn you those opportunities). And who the fuck wants to hire a person raised in a shithole over someone already well-integrated into your society? So the disadvantage echos to their kids. In some areas of the country there has been more success with active efforts in reintegration and so your point is valid there, for sure, but it certainly doesn't apply to other areas they did jack shit and wonder why most of these damn black people are hopeless failures who don't just get a good job instead of resorting to crime. That's like saying 'World War II happened because the Germans chose to invade countries instead of acting peaceful like the rest who were doing fine'. It's more complex and contextual than 'fucking Germans are aggressive dumbasses', many of the causes of their aggression directly resulted from the WWI aftermath that ended decades earlier.
>>420408 >I wonder what might lead them to not trust the police...
The reason why the police treats them like garbage is because a large portion of them act like garbage. They make up 10% of the populace but commit 90% of the crime. Look up any crime statistic that lists race for proof.
>>420407 >and they don't dress like or talk in a way that they could be mistaken with a common criminal, which is what lead to the guy getting killed this time around What the fuck does that even mean? If police are arresting people based on their general clothing or vernacular, there is a serious fucking problem with those police. In my country, police treat you by how you break the law. You'll get tackled for resisting but no-one will touch your neck, let alone with their knees.
>>420411 Now distribute those percentages by proportion of the populace. According to the 2010 census, 12.4% of the populace of the USA is black. If 27% of the arrests made are blacks, then a black person is twice as likely on average to commit a crime, or 4 times as likely to commit murder or robbery, according to the statistics.
Maybe that's why the cops have less tolerance against them, I dunno.
>>420409 So the whole "make up 10% of the populace but commit 90% of the crime. Look up any crime statistic that lists race for proof" assertion was complete horseshit, but I agree that there is a significant over-representation of crime committed by black peoples. I don't think that justifies treating civilians with violent prejudice.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/table-42 Now distribute those percentages by proportion of the populace. According to the census that year, 48.9% of the populace of the USA is male. If 73% of the arrests made are males, then a male person is three times as likely on average to commit a crime, over six times more likely to commit robbery, seven times as likely to commit murder or non-negligent manslaughter, and thirty-five times more likely to commit rape according to the statistics.
I don't think that makes it ok for policemen to treat men like garbage. Treat us with more caution? That's reasonable. Not like garbage though.
>>420438 I'm sorry I did not look up the exact numbers. How many decimals of accuracy do you require for the numbers to be not horseshit? Should I also factor in percentage of ethnicities in every region? Should I also factor in ethnicities and crime levels per capita or per urban region vs rural ones?
>Treat us with more caution? That's reasonable. Not like garbage though.
If you are a person who commits robbery, murder, manslaughter or rape, then you ARE garbage. And the police have to deal with that shit all day long, and often have to deal with people who are bigger and stronger than they are, plus stoned or drunk on top of that. So responding violently is a survival reflex, not racism. It doesn't help that any of them could get fired at any time if accused of racism. They have to deal with greatly increased risk of losing their livelihood to losing their lives every day because of this.
That does not excuse the death of the black guy, that was clearly unnecessary brutality. But they should just let the cop get tried and put into jail for it, instead of launching nationwide riots and lootings. People are murdering on the street for no reason and looting stores that had nothing to do with the entire thing. It's the police who have to deal with that shit; which in turn will just generate more police brutality.
>How many decimals of accuracy do you require for the numbers to be not horseshit? It's based on percentage difference, not decimal precision: >Imperial countries like America - 10% or nearest 10% >Metric countries - 5% The difference between your claimed 90% and admitted 27% is so far above these thresholds that it qualifies as 'bullshit', as its current definition in formal writing is that a bullshitter, unlike a liar, "doesn't care if what they say is true or false, but rather only cares whether their listener is persuaded." I'm being a cunt about it, sure, but confidently claiming a statistic that was off by over 60% is not alright.
>If you are a person who commits robbery, murder, manslaughter or rape, then you ARE garbage. Yes, they are. If you're arresting someone strongly suspected of those types of crimes, you can treat them with less dignity. Arresting people for non-violent crimes usually doesn't warrant the same treatment.
>So responding violently is a survival reflex, not racism. To a degree, yes it is a survival reflex. Especially so if they are arresting someone acting violent or armed and suggesting they might use that weapon. That makes complete sense even if it's not ideal. To the degree that a submissive person needs their head, neck or back touched, no. That's the part that I see as the problem, it's normalized for some police to go beyond reasonable force. >fired at any time Fired if they fuck someone up or commit negligent manslaughter. I can get arrested or fired at any time too but (generally) only when I do something bad enough to earn it.
>final paragraph I completely agree with you here. I don't think the behavior which leads to these deaths is acceptable, but the response by the rioters and looters is just as messed up. In my mind, they're just as bad as the 'bad cops'.
 On Bullshit (2005), by Harry Frankfurt. p. 61.
>>420510 As if CHAZ itself wasn't hilarious enough, the garden is a bunch of cardboard paper with random soil plastered over it, and a couple of room vegetables planted here and there (room vegetables sprout no seeds). Due to the cardboard, it's not like the plants can reach the actual soil either, so they will either wither and die or will be overgrown with weed.
Having some potted plants in there is just the cherry on top.