It's this attitude that leaves you shocked if and when it happens. Maybe when someone makes a threat (and they have the means to even remotely try to achieve it), it should be taken under advisement?
A lot of things have come to a head at the moment. And a lot of idiots who don't understand the power they're playing with are overplaying their hand. How people react could change a lot of things. I'm not hopeful, but it's possible. But equally so, doing nothing and giggling at them won't change things at all. It'll just facilitate the status quo.
If I were to nitpick, I'd say 60 years isn't completely accurate, but that's certainly around when it ramped up.
I'd say it depends on the western nation. If we were talking the US/Canada, that's probably around right give or take a decade. If you're talking Aus/NZ, I'd easily add 20 years to the number, and if you're talking about the UK, then I wouldn't entirely argue against a century as being the early start of it. I'd say it was definitely early days, since mass immigration wasn't exactly that prevalent in the 1920s, but to deny the early examples of it is also silly.
You'd also have to do a similar breakdown of Europe. There's a big difference between the mass immigration rates of countries like Germany and Poland.
this is how public support for black lives matter declines so sharply
Are you sure it was the violence, and not where the violence was targeted?
Hell, are you sure violence was even a metric? Because it seems like the life cycle of BLM has ALWAYS been correlated quite nicely with elections. Almost like their growth and decline might have something to do with that.
You're determined to bury your head in the sand and do nothing all because you don't get to control the PR. Here's a newflash for you: You will never have the mainstream media on your side. Ever. It will never, ever happen. And so, if you cannot control the media perception of you, why are you still so determined to play by that rulebook? Is it fear? I wouldn't blame you. I'm scared myself. I admit it. I don't want to lose my life, either literally or in the figurative sense of what I have going for me. But I'm not going to wring my hands because of violence when violence is being used against the innocent public every single day.
You want to ignore the problem? Fine. Don't have a hissy fit because others are done ignoring it.
Well of course voting is a proxy for violence, though few are willing to accept that conclusion when taken to the logical extreme. Every law, every single one, is a threat of violence. Voting is, ultimately, what decides laws. Ergo, voting is violence.
How many times does peaceful means need to emphatically fail through unjust and evil measures before you're willing to accept that violence is, sadly, the answer?
I don't say that with glee. I don't say that happy at the idea of violence. It's awful that it will eventually come to this, but it inevitably will become the choice of "let injustice flourish, or fight back".
Better yet, instead of wringing your hands over it, what is the solution here? Voooooote harder? Vooooooote for some other establishment stooge of a different party colour? How many times have you voooooted and actually voted FOR someone you actually and wholly support? Or has it always been against the other, supposedly worse side from winning? Has that ever actually worked out in your favour and made actual progress? Or has it actually just maintained the status quo of perpetual state growth at the expense of the public?
I hate that it will come to violence. But it will come to violence at one point. It just disgusts me more what will happen if that doesn't occur.
Isn't it ran by hard leftists or something? Or am I getting that wrong?
I doubt that he "already" instituted the handshake thing, considering those other posts he just removed were from handshakes.
Dom just removed it right now.... two hours later.
He literally JUST arrived. 2 hours later. But hey, he clearly has it under control, right?
Jokes aside about nothing of value lost because it was a shit episode (it really was), this isn't a good thing. It's just another in a long line of post-humorous censorships. Attempts to hide, deny, and revise history. It might seem minor, and individually it is. But this shit is a cancer that will get worse and worse and worse, all in the efforts and worship of ideological purity.
Counterpoint: There shouldn't be any companies that dominant because government programs are what build these companies up. Just look at how many benefits, tax breaks, incentive programs and more Amazon alone get. Look at how cities have literally tried to throw money at Amazon to get them to open a warehouse in their city (the rationale being that they provide jobs). And it's not limited to a handful of companies. The entire aviation industry is BUILT upon this system. How many times have airline companies been bailed out? What about the pharma industry that is, yet again, propped up by government market interference?
These companies become dominant because of market interference. They become dominant through literally uneven ground. The idea of a free market doesn't exist when bailouts, tax breaks and financial incentives are as common as they are. Is the market "free-er" than other markets out there? Absolutely. But an argument in relativity means nothing when discussing objective measures. And the reality is that growing economic divide and a lack of economic mobility are directly caused through government market forces, not a lack-there-of.
Trust busting is a result of government losing control of what they themselves created. It's got nothing to do with protecting the public.
"Why lie" Simple. Because the person(s) running that account believed that, and they don't want to come to terms with the idea that their views aren't mirrored identically by those around them.
Kinda unrelated, but I'm kinda sick of this buzzword that leftists started to push about private entities engaging in "election interference" because ultimately it comes with the implicit baggage that therefore Something™ needs to be done about this and that the entity to do this Something™ is always some government agency. And I'm just sick of the endless growth of the state, as if it will ever turn out to be anything less than a tool to help further reinforce the establishment and never let anyone else in.
Don't like this shit? Sure, expose it and call it out. But don't fucking expect the government to fix it. Stop using these companies, stop giving them your business, and look for alternatives that don't pull this shit. We need more situations like the Digg Exodus and less situations where people shrug their shoulders and behave like it's all pointless and powerless.
He's not wrong, though it should be said that it's implicitly because there is nothing special about celebrities. Their chosen profession is to literally lie and deceive people. Usually for entertainment purposes, but there's nothing to say that skill can't and won't be used elsewhere.
They are literally clowns for our amusement. They are by their very nature of employment out of touch with the average person. Their disconnect is insane. And that extends to those that don't support the left. If their points are valid, then sure. But don't listen solely because they're an actor.
No they wouldn't. Australia is already incredibly docile compared to other nations. And when Americans did nothing after an assassination attempt on a former president, can you really believe that there's any number of people who will suddenly "rise up"?
People as a whole really, REALLY need to learn one thing: For people to "rise up", things have to get much, MUCH worse. I don't support Accelerationism, but there is one undeniable truth there that people will do nothing until it gets worse. People need to get to a stage where life is so shit that risking what they have got is worth it. Because currently, we don't have it so bad that we're willing to risk our homes, our loved ones, our lives. Shit's bad, but it's peanuts in comparison to the risk of what we could lose.
You want to know why people don't burn it down? Because we're complacent with what we currently have, and don't know how bad it can get. And until it gets that bad, people won't stand up to prevent it.
People here love to believe that Australia is now a free nation, but they forget that our roots was a prison colony and that the people running the show were jailors. And the reason this is important is because there was never a revolution. We never even tried to strip away these roots. Australia as a nation is literally built upon penal colony law.
The politicians of yesterday were jailors and the politicians of today follow in that tradition. It's why Australia is so strongly a paternalistic nanny state.
Every study I've seen has shown that pre-pubescent "trans kids" overwhelmingly grow out of it. Even the lowest rate was showing 60% were desisting after puberty, and it was an outlier. Most were high 80% to low 90%. And frankly, I'm not convinced on those that continued. I think the vast majority are just stuck in the sunk cost mentality and continuing with it rather than accept the massive mistake they've made.
And that's presuming that transgenderism isn't just a massive mental illness (it absolutely is).
it's their speech advocating for depriving others of their speech specifically.
And is that speech destroying freedom of speech, or is it their ensuing actions?
but when someone goes around demanding others be silenced for words they say and then gets hoist by their own petard? sorry, I'm not gonna actively try to get them banned, but I'm not gonna waste time trying to get them unbanned, either...
Sure, I can agree with that. I'm not going to shed a tear or waste too much energy on them. But I wouldn't cheer it on, nor advocate for such situations either. A dose of their own medicine is funny, but it's not a principle I'd uphold.
Too bad I wasn't talking about the Constitution and the First Amendment, but Freedom of Speech as a Human Right.
The constitution is intended to protect Human Rights, but at the end of the day it's just a piece of paper.
The "high road" for me is ensuring that the law is being enforced
That's not a "high road". That's the status quo for most knuckle dragging dipshits. Okay, in this instance you're pro-law enforcement. What's your stance on any number of immoral laws? You pro-enforcement then? You just gonna shrug your shoulders and go "oh well, the law's the law"? The Freedom Convoy in Canada broke some laws. They're getting what's coming, right? What about J6? The response is blown out of proportion, but there were broken laws. You're pro-enforcement there too, right?
To cut to the chase, is this statism, or are you just utilising statism because it's convenient against your enemies?
Ah yes, the good ol' conflation of Freedom of Speech with the First Amendment.
I wasn't talking about the First Amendment. I was explicitly talking about the human right to Freedom of Speech. Tell me, is there any other human right that is only considered immoral because the government engages in it? Is slavery worse if it's the government but better if it's private citizens owning or trading people? Is it less evil to be forced to house people if it's a private entity forcing you to relinquish your property?
Yes, everyone has the right to association, and I do hold that in higher accord than freedom of speech. HOWEVER, Freedom of Speech even on an individual level should be strived for, and so eagerly abandoning it is silly and is what has lead to websites like Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc all having direct communications to working with the state to easily and quickly get around these restrictions.
So yes, they have these freedoms. That doesn't mean it should be abused. Just like I also think that any other human right can also be abused, be it screaming in peoples faces, bearing arms against the innocent, or arbitrarily barring people from publicly-accessible private property. You have the freedom. It doesn't make it instantly right to do so.
Is their freedom of speech the thing that is destroying freedom of speech, or is it their actions?
That's not a principle in my opinion, it's an excuse to break principles as you see fit on a selective basis. Don't like a person? Enemy. Like a person? Friend. Friend did something I don't like? Now they're an enemy!
Part of the issue is that there's too much laxness because politics is filled with friends that don't punish each other. That's why they go after Trump like they have. He's an outsider. Pre-2015, Trump was relatively loved by Democrats. He was literally friends with the Clintons. Then he entered the political domain. And lo-and-behold, the uni-party instantly turned on him. Because he was an outsider.
Good This For Friends Bad Things For Enemies is, funnily enough, a big thing that caused all of this shit. And I don't buy the idea that more of the same will reverse course. That doesn't mean course doesn't need to be reversed, but I do believe things have to get worse to the point that people are actually willing to risk what they have rather than cling to their comforts first. I don't think anything will change until then. Midwits look at censorship and political jailings and love to make the comparisons to 1984, but the reality is far closer to Brave New World where our comforts and relative luxury keep us docile and placated. And I don't blame anyone for not wanting to give up what they have. I certainly don't want to risk my life, my family, or my loved ones either. I completely get it. But it's these ties that keep the problem advancing.
There definitely is an argument in favour of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". I'd still prefer to stick by my principles, but I have to admit that it's the most compelling argument out there that these people deserve to be treated how they treat others, and that's not a failing to want it to happen.
I just don't support mocking dead children at their graveside
Yes, I get it. That's your emotional appeal of a motte in the typical motte and bailey "argument". You know you have no leg to stand on by calling it censorship, so you go for an emotional plea instead.
I also don't support a massive industry like Boeing getting off with a paltry fine.
Nobody has ever contested you on this. Continuing to bring it up makes it seem like you're virtue signalling at this stage. Though I guess that's just par for the course for you.
This was my original stance and it still is.
That was your original statement, and still is. Your stance on the matter is that censorship is fine when you get to apply it to topics you find objectionable.
If you feel that compelled speech, self-censorship and outlandish claims without evidence are somehow better or worse than the innocent murder of people in a plane rather than by a gun that's up to you.
What in the fuck are you even talking about? Do you seriously believe that I think Boeing shouldn't be fucking punished for their actions all because I believe Jones shouldn't have been punished for his speech? Are you that fucking delusional, or are you just that entrenched in a spat that you refuse to even try to understand another person?
Nobody was advocating for compelled speech. Nobody was advocating for self-censorship. And I'm still unsure how outlandish claims matter, unless you're referring to Jones and then I have to question how you think this will be enforced through anything less than some kind of Fact Checker™ that deems what is and isn't acceptable to discuss. Is that what you want? You want a Ministry of Truth? Because it seems like you want a Ministry of Truth. And you can call it any other name you want, but it will still be the same thing in function.
I just get to be consistent with my stance despite the going-ons over last weekend whereas you have to consider what free speech leads to in certain individuals and the responsibility which goes with the associated freedoms therein.
I have been consistent, and I haven't had to reconsider anything. You're being awfully presumptuous to assume I'm not steadfast in my beliefs. It's funny though, because you can't even admit that you're in support of censorship. You're so proud of your supposed consistency, but you refuse the label. Maybe it's because like all snakes, you hate it when people identify you for what you are.
EDIT
lol, he blocked me because he got called on his pro censorship stance.
Don't forget, all of this while standing around idly filming instead of stopping the thieves. He didn't even try to get close to get ANY information on them.
Physically and mentally incapable of basic action.