banner

/baw/ - General Discussion

Board updated. Please use this thread to report bugs.

Mods & Janitors: If you've forgotten your login details but would like to continue helping, please e-mail me: [email protected]

radio
6MB jpg, 6MB png, 8MB gif, 6MB mp3, 12MB swf, 8MB webm, 8MB mp4
37 posts, 5 images (total attachments: 5)
416639
RodyleCljnc/gZnM
savepng188.428KB
jones3.png
650396
Politics Thread #19: The Last One

Cheers to all as we fade away with the year, but most especially to our friends from /pol/.
replyreportdelete
416642
Anonymous
>>416636
>Sweden changed the legal definition of rape to be much broader
Please explain.
replyreportdelete
416643
RodyleCljnc/gZnM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42346192
May loses the Brexit vote
replyreportdelete
416644
Anonymous
>416642
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Swedish_rape_statistics
replyreportdelete
416646
Anonymous
>416644
That's pretty interesting stuff.
replyreportdelete
416649
Anonymous
I want to invite you all to http://www.getchan.net/ as a replacement
replyreportdelete
416650
Anonymous
>416649
Please provide a good argument for me to visit that link.
replyreportdelete
416651
Anonymous
savepng18.974KB
Marsh v. Alabama.png
691273
https://twitter.com/pnehlen/status/941370447278440448

>"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.
replyreportdelete
416652
RodyleCljnc/gZnM
████████████████████████
replyreportdelete
416653
Anonymous
savegif1.508MB
black man cannot believe this.gif
250250
replyreportdelete
416655
Anonymous
>416652
nice rebuttal
replyreportdelete
416661
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>416651

>We need a federal law prohibiting censorship of lawful speech on major social media platforms

Translation: “We want the Nazis to be able to use Twitter without being banned for being Nazis.”
replyreportdelete
416663
Anonymous
>416661
Then ban them for a proper reason, like inciting racial violence.
replyreportdelete
416664
RodyleCljnc/gZnM
>416663
They're Nazis, they do that by definition. It is literally part of the ethos.
replyreportdelete
416665
Anonymous
>416663
They *are* being banned for a proper reason: violating the site's ToS.
replyreportdelete
416680
Anonymous
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/365670-house-will-have-to-vote-for-tax-cut-bill-again

If I never see another PAUL RYAN, POLICY WONK profile again it will be too soon
replyreportdelete
416699
Anonymous
>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.

"Anti-regulation" party, amirite?
replyreportdelete
416900
Anonymous
So Matt Lauer, Glenn Trush, Chris Matthews and a few other major election media guys that shaped coverage are proven misogynists or fucking sex criminals like Trump, and then we have Comey.

We can criticize Hillary for a slew of reasons, but if you can't admit the deck was stacked against her, you're out of your mind.
replyreportdelete
416909
Anonymous
>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.
replyreportdelete
416926
Anonymous
and so year one of donald's presidency ends with a government shutdown
replyreportdelete
416927
Anonymous
What did I miss now?
replyreportdelete
417138
Anonymous
John Bolton as NSA. Fuck everyone who voted for Trump.
replyreportdelete
417140
Anonymous
It seems pretty obvious what is going on with Trump and Russia. I am honestly surprised there has only been one reported assassination attempt.
replyreportdelete
417234
Anonymous
>>/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.
replyreportdelete
417315
Anonymous
>417234
>All Lives Mattering domestic terrorism
replyreportdelete
417374
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
savejpg47.422KB
So You're Saying.jpg
462693
>417234
>So militant white people should be beaten and jailed but militant black people are a joke?
replyreportdelete
417454
Anonymous
>417234
>So militant white people should be beaten and jailed but militant black people are completely non-existent except to senile White boomers who should we pray die tomorrow?

Yep, got it in one.
replyreportdelete
417455
Anonymous
>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.
replyreportdelete
417456
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>417455
So you're saying Jordan Peterson is a lizard person who eats the heads of children?

…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.
replyreportdelete
417457
Anonymous
>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?".
replyreportdelete
417458
Anonymous
>417456
>If you have to otherword someone during an argument

It's because they are worse writers than Dan Brown and their fans, collectively, have less culture, genetic value and personality in them than a Big Bang Theory box set.
replyreportdelete
417459
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>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.
replyreportdelete
417483
Anonymous
They're going all-out to gin up war with Iran today, aren't they. Bolton's only been in two weeks and Pompeo what, a few days?
replyreportdelete
417484
Mr. StonezWb42fBPMM
>417483
This is what happens when you have Rapture-believing nutjobs in the same administration as a guy who has openly asked why we do not use nukes.
replyreportdelete
417486
Anonymous
History repeats itself, right? Can we get the Ides of March without the fall of a republic?
replyreportdelete
417901
User 9
How To Shake Handsyoutube thumb revving up for 2020
replyreportdelete
417933
User 9
savepng9.97KB
posted this earlier but then deleted it thinking...
484272
replyreportdelete


File selected.
top