That was published on June 19, 2017. Almost two years ago. About a year and a half.
But I didn't already know about it, so I am now better educated for it.
I think this must have been an interesting development for "one" Dan (Daniel) Snyder, who likely frequents a venue known as "FedEx Field" during the NFL season. A venue in the state of Maryland, not far from the District of Columbia and the city of Washington.
"No friends, I'm not talking about hate. I'm talking about eight. Dinner at eight..."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-28-2019).]
Yet Hate/Offensive Rules/Laws are still used by most or all States and Feds and no sign that will change anytime soon.
The add most sign away All Rights to use FB Patreon YT MS etc via ToS/EULA Contracts that they never read but whine and claim Free Speech etc when the companies demonetized or simple cancel the accounts like YT recently demonetized even more videos and likely cancel some accounts just for comments alone below whatever video.
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
Yet Hate/Offensive Rules/Laws are still used by most or all States and Feds and no sign that will change anytime soon.
The add most sign away All Rights to use FB Patreon YT MS etc via ToS/EULA Contracts that they never read but whine and claim Free Speech etc when the companies demonetized or simple cancel the accounts like YT recently demonetized even more videos and likely cancel some accounts just for comments alone below whatever video.
It is my opinion that if people do not like the " censorship" by social media offerings, then we should create our own. Those sites are businesses, NOT Constitutionaly bound agencies.. They don't have to honor freedom of speech or 2nd amendment rights.
Yes, that is true. People tend to forget the 1st amendment to the Constitution only protects against the federal gov't. Specifically, it prevents Congress from outlawing public speech, assembly, etc. I also agree that private individuals should have the right to censor speech in their private domains (for example, expecting people to be polite while they're in your home).
That said, I'm sure the founding fathers had no idea something like social media would exist. It would be interesting to see how they would approach it.
The whole concept of "hate speech" and "hate crime" is obscene. It criminalizes thought and opinion. Some thoughts and opinions might be abhorrent, but should never be illegal.
I have said it before; if someone hates me, I don't want them silenced, I want to know about it. What I hate is the coward who will not speak up.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 03-06-2019).]
Yes, that is true. People tend to forget the 1st amendment to the Constitution only protects against the federal gov't. Specifically, it prevents Congress from outlawing public speech, assembly, etc. I also agree that private individuals should have the right to censor speech in their private domains (for example, expecting people to be polite while they're in your home).
That said, I'm sure the founding fathers had no idea something like social media would exist. It would be interesting to see how they would approach it.
I don't see any type of 1st Amendment challenge or issue at all with social media or private businesses on line. UNLESS they are Government run. THEN it becomes a 1st Amendment issue. If YouTube wants to exclude gun videos and Facebook wants to forbid anti-homosexual verbiage or language then so be it. Those are not 1st Amendment issues. Those are just reasons to create a competitive company (if people do not find a product that they want). Because that is exactly what is being offered in social media:a product, by companies who are offering a service in return for money.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 03-07-2019).]
I tend to agree with the above. In a perfect world, some enterprising company would start up a competing service, and people would get to choose which they prefer. But this isn't a perfect world. In the current sociopolitical climate, a competitor who allows politically incorrect content will be harassed incessantly. Political activists will try to get the government involved. And the "big dogs" (Google, Facebook, etc) will use their vast resources to quell any serious competition.
Also keep in mind that Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc are all involved with the federal gov't. How closely do they need to be involved with the federal gov't before they're considered "constitutionally bound"?
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 03-07-2019).]
I tend to agree with the above. In a perfect world, some enterprising company would start up a competing service, and people would get to choose which they prefer. But this isn't a perfect world. In the current sociopolitical climate, a competitor who allows politically incorrect content will be harassed incessantly. Political activists will try to get the government involved. And the "big dogs" (Google, Facebook, etc) will use their vast resources to quell any serious competition.
Also keep in mind that Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc are all involved with the federal gov't. How closely do they need to be involved with the federal gov't before they're considered "constitutionally bound"?
Correct. I guess that is why the SCOUS appointments are so vital to our Constitution. Liberalism truly is a threat to freedom, democracy and the Constitution. How ironic, is it that they claim to be tolerant but are just as hateful as an other intolerant group.
I tend to agree with the above. In a perfect world, some enterprising company would start up a competing service, and people would get to choose which they prefer. But this isn't a perfect world. In the current sociopolitical climate, a competitor who allows politically incorrect content will be harassed incessantly. Political activists will try to get the government involved. And the "big dogs" (Google, Facebook, etc) will use their vast resources to quell any serious competition.
Also keep in mind that Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc are all involved with the federal gov't. How closely do they need to be involved with the federal gov't before they're considered "constitutionally bound"?
Companies will never be "constitutionally bound" for any work done for US Gov. Again, You "signed" away your "Rights" via ToS and EULA contracts to use FB MS etc. Scotus and Fed Courts have already allowed "shrink wrap" and "click agree" licensing and anything done in them and allow same companies to force you into Arbitration that they control like MS has this in Office and more and Win8 and up for ~ 10 years now to kill Class Action Lawsuits. Plus you get your "Rights" squashed on any service using AdSense etc by Google et al killing ad money to it like they did to PFF a few months ago. Is only a matter of time Google dumps PFF again for whatever PC reason.
Find a new or create service? Funny. Not. FB Google etc stops most or all competition. Was Simpson ep showing MS bought Homer's "Business" but many viewers wasn't laughing for a very good reason. More recently Is why FB bought Whatapp etc. And Patreon etc tries to kill S-Star when Patreon kills accounts for any reason and w/o warning. Is not just 1 user that got dumped a few weeks ago in these threads... https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/123123.html https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/123194.html If you don't sell at their price, MS etc likely has Patents and/or Copyright that covering your new service/programs that you "Violated" and bankrupt you for trying to fight them in court. Suggest look at Oracle vs Novell, Apple vs most others, Scientology vs anything, and allot more.
Also keep in mind that Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc are all involved with the federal gov't. How closely do they need to be involved with the federal gov't before they're considered "constitutionally bound"?
Think black ops. "The main difference between a black operation and one that is merely secret is that a black operation involves a significant degree of deception, to conceal who is behind it or to make it appear that some other entity is responsible ("false flag" operations)."
With respect to what "theogre" just said, going back two "posts" before this one...
It prompts me to remember the other day, when Massachusetts Senator and 2020 presidential aspirant Elizabeth Warren was talking about her animus towards some of the "600-pound gorillas" on the Internet and World Wide Web; particularly Amazon, Facebook and Google. She says that these "gorillas" need to be cut down to size by invoking the federal government's anti-trust regulatory powers to force these particular corporations to divest from, or spin off some of the products and services that they have gained for themselves through mergers and acquisitions involving what were previously smaller and more independent companies. Such as Instagram, for one example, which has become part of Facebook.
She's talking about this from more of an anti-trust or level playing field or preserving competition in the marketplace perspective, as distinguished from the Free Speech or First Amendment ideas that are of concern in this "Hate Speech..." topic that we have here.
This is not any kind of "plug" for Senator Warren and her 2020 presidential ambitions, but I think there is a distinctly measurable, or at least a detectable quantum-level connectivity between this "Hate Speech..." topic and the thought that flashed through my head about what Senator "Pocahontas" has been saying. A "signal" that emerges from the otherwise constant and universal background noise of thermodynamic entropy yada yada yada.
Here's what some Fox Business Network "avatars" had to say about what Senator Warren said; queue up YouTube segment of just over 3 minutes of video content: https://youtu.be/OQw8NzMRRiU
..."Hate Speech..." topic and the thought that flashed through my head about what Senator "Pocahontas" has been saying. A "signal" that emerges from the otherwise constant and universal background noise of thermodynamic entropy yada yada yada. ...
You were able to use hate speech and take a shot at Randye in the very same paragraph.
Ronald Inselberg, user of racist language. Heck, just bust out with the n word why don't ya? You are a liberal, say what you like, right?
Edit: Just observing. Nothing more. Ronald is free to post what he wants to embarrass himself further. I am not denying him his moment.
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 03-10-2019).]
I tend to agree that anti-trust laws should be enforced more vigorously. The situation with Patreon is a good example. In that situation, several businesses (Patreon, Paypal, and MasterCard) are colluding to oppress people whose opinions they don't like. They've even gone so far as trying to destroy the other businesses who the people turned to for help. IMO, that kind of behavior is despotic, and should not be tolerated.
You were able to use hate speech and take a shot at Randye in the very same paragraph.
Ronald Inselberg, user of racist language. Heck, just bust out with the n word why don't ya? You are a liberal, say what you like, right?
Edit: Just observing. Nothing more. Ronald is free to post what he wants to embarrass himself further. I am not denying him his moment.
[WTF..?]
This Topic (like all other Topics) is distinguished by the subject field or title, which is "Hate Speech ? ...Don't think so." That's all I was trying to get at, right there, when I typed in "Hate Speech..." THIS thread.
And "Pocahontas"..? I can hardly think of Elizabeth Warren without having "Pocahontas" light up simultaneously in the Words Memory Compartmentalization of my consciousness. That's a meme that President Trump has created. I was not thinking particularly about "randye" at that moment. And I was not particularly unthinking or not thinking about "randye" at that moment. Neither side of the coin can be separated.
I was not anticipating any particular reaction (like that) from Tony Kania. So I am a little surprised. Maybe that's a good thing. Likely I was being reflexively political, instead of purposely political. A nanosecond of self-reflection, here, on my part.
It says "Gum Detoxify" on this toothpaste tube. I just brushed. One of those samples that they give out at the dentist's office. A routine hygiene. So I look at the Active Ingredient--Stannous fluoride, surprise, surprise--and the Inactive Ingredients. And it reminds me of like umpteen other kinds of toothpaste that are always on the shelf at Walgreens (or wherever.) But "Gum Detoxify"..? I don't remember seeing that before. Looks very suspect to me. Like the Same Old Same Old being delivered to the retailers, wrapped inside of a RIPS or Radically Improved Packaging Scheme.
I was just looking at what "theogre" had said, and that, more than anything else, was on my mind when I decided to indulge myself and create some public "word salad" in this thread.
[/WTF?]
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-10-2019).]
WTF..? vThis thread was started with the title of "Hate Speech ? ...Don't think so." That's all I was trying to get at, right there, when I typed in "Hate Speech..." THIS thread.
And "Pocahontas"..? I can hardly think of Elizabeth Warren without having "Pocahontas" light up simultaneously in the Words Memory part of my mind. That's a meme that President Trump created. I was not thinking particularly about "randye" at that moment. And I was not particularly unthinking or not thinking about "randye" at that moment. Neither side of the coin can be separated.
I was not anticipating any particular reaction (like that) from Tony Kania. So I am a little surprised. Maybe that's a good thing.
It says "Gum Detoxify" on this toothpaste tube. I just brushed. One of those samples that they give out at the dentist's office. A routine hygiene. So I look at the Active Ingredient--Stannous fluoride, surprise, surprise--and the Inactive Ingredients. And it reminds me of like umpteen other kinds of toothpaste that are always on the shelf at Walgreens (or wherever.) But "Gum Detoxify"..? I don't remember seeing that before. Looks very suspect to me. Like the Same Old Same Old being delivered to the retailers, wrapped inside of a RIPS or Radically Improved Packaging Scheme.
I was just looking at what "theogre" had said, and that, more than anything else, was on my mind when I decided to indulge myself and create some public "word salad" in this thread. ?..FTW. Click to show
Hold on, I get it now. Derogatory slang OK in some instances.
The highlighted paragraph is available for those questioning sanity.
Carry on Ronald. Enjoy tossing your "word salad". Heck, use any derogatory speech that you deem fit.
I am not calling the kettle black here. Only pointing out mental instability of the left.
I am the LEFT, the WHOLE LEFT and nothing but the LEFT. Amen.
Oh, I edited my previous message (some), but only after or while Tony Kania was already quoting it.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once. And Time has been violated by this sequence of messages, as they are linearly perceived.
Quantum decoherence. Qubit computation products unresolved. Click to show
Hiking Ronald. We are off on a hike. 1,350 elevation gain. Moose are possible. The dog will be unleashed illegally. Peace is what we shall find. Hope you find yours.
The toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube. Yet the forum abides. On the way back Home, the Conversation can be rerouted to avoid the same semantic bottlenecks and speed bumps that slowed its comprehension during the outbound leg of the trip, which first moved it from Home to Here.
Hike well and safely. May the [New York] Cosmos be with you.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-10-2019).]
It says "Gum Detoxify" on this toothpaste tube. I just brushed. One of those samples that they give out at the dentist's office. A routine hygiene. So I look at the Active Ingredient--Stannous fluoride, surprise, surprise--and the Inactive Ingredients. And it reminds me of like umpteen other kinds of toothpaste that are always on the shelf at Walgreens (or wherever.) But "Gum Detoxify"..? I don't remember seeing that before. Looks very suspect to me. Like the Same Old Same Old being delivered to the retailers, wrapped inside of a RIPS or Radically Improved Packaging Scheme.
[/WTF?]
quote
The toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube. Yet the forum abides. On the way back Home, the Conversation can be rerouted to avoid the same semantic bottlenecks and speed bumps that slowed its comprehension during the outbound leg of the trip, which first moved it from Home to Here.
Here's the "deal"... I was kind of blindsided by the first thing that Tony Kania said in this sequence. About "hate speech" and then he interpreted what I had said (originally) about Elizabeth Warren and her ideas about Amazon, Facebook and Google as rinselberg (me) "taking a shot" at another forum member.
Now it may be--could well be, in truth--that I was anything but Spot On in my estimation of how my original message (about what Elizabeth Warren said) would be received.
Nevertheless, that first reaction from Tony Kania took me by surprise. I saw it as a slider that was going to be a Strike but then, right at the last millisecond--microsecond, even--broke incredibly sharply, suddenly it emerges in an almost quantum-like way as an Inside pitch, and I'm like "Man, I'm just gettin' out of here..!" So I bailed out of the batter's box completely, and then I'm on my backside, trying to recollect my thoughts.
I tossed in that bit (or qubit) about the toothpaste as an INS. Intentional Non Sequitur. Because rightly or wrongly, I thought that first response in this sequence from Tony Kania was kind of a Non Sequitur. That "slider" from him, that broke so sharply inside on me at the very last moment.
So, I think I am making sense, in an intentionally Al-Gore-ical (allegorical) kind of way.
I've got kind of a mashup (another one) going on here. I've been looking at one of the Cardinals' spring training games on the MLB Network. The Grapefruit League, as they like to say.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-10-2019).]
And "Pocahontas"..? I can hardly think of Elizabeth Warren without having "Pocahontas" light up simultaneously in the Words Memory Compartmentalization of my consciousness. That's a meme that President Trump has created.
It might be helpful to understand that the use of Pocahontas, to refer to Elizabeth Warren, did not originate with Trump. As a matter of fact, his use of that “aboriginal American” moniker is something of a malapropism. Although I am unsure of the origin, it looks likely that it began within the ivy covered walls your very alma mater, and should be “Fauxcahontas”, as in fake Pocahontas.
With respect to what "theogre" just said, going back two "posts" before this one...
It prompts me to remember the other day, when Massachusetts Senator and 2020 presidential aspirant Elizabeth Warren was talking about her animus towards some of the "600-pound gorillas" on the Internet and World Wide Web; particularly Amazon, Facebook and Google. She says that these "gorillas" need to be cut down to size by invoking the federal government's anti-trust regulatory powers to force these particular corporations to divest from, or spin off some of the products and services that they have gained for themselves through mergers and acquisitions involving what were previously smaller and more independent companies. Such as Instagram, for one example, which has become part of Facebook.
She's talking about this from more of an anti-trust or level playing field or preserving competition in the marketplace perspective, as distinguished from the Free Speech or First Amendment ideas that are of concern in this "Hate Speech..." topic that we have here.
This is not any kind of "plug" for Senator Warren and her 2020 presidential ambitions, but I think there is a distinctly measurable, or at least a detectable quantum-level connectivity between this "Hate Speech..." topic and the thought that flashed through my head about what Senator "Pocahontas" has been saying. A "signal" that emerges from the otherwise constant and universal background noise of thermodynamic entropy yada yada yada.
Here's what some Fox Business Network "avatars" had to say about what Senator Warren said; queue up YouTube segment of just over 3 minutes of video content: https://youtu.be/OQw8NzMRRiU
Sorry but Anti-trust actions will Not help you for "problems" when you sign away all "Rights" under ToS and EULA contacts. They are two completely different animals. Patreon and S-Star have same ToS terms that basically says can dump any account for any reason and without warning. S-Star only wants "Banned" and other users from Patreon to get money right now. Many of them should expect to get banned again as S-star grows. And not a new issue either as AOL CompuServe and others had the same terms in ToS Decades ago and all dumped accounts every day for violating ToS rules.
Warren and a few others now wants to jump on Google etc only because the EU and others are attacking the same companies. After Years of investigation... If charged, Most will pay huge fines and make Token efforts like MS did for IE anti-trust in EU. EU Browsers Selection Menu (Wiki) for WinXP, Vista and Win7 was a Joke that done little to stop IE dominance for years. The only thing stop IE now is MS and current stupid management of IE and Edge. Worse, Edge will soon be a just Skin for Chrome. Chrome is taking #1 market share because is default browser on tablets and phones and some PC users use it too.
Google etc on the internet is not the only problem for Anti-trust. The Feds that signed off Comcast buying NBC that now controls NBC News and all NBC stations. ABC is Owned by Disney that loved Obama and Why ABC had "Exclusives" to most PR from Obama Admin. These 2 are controlling most things you see on TV and in Theaters and keep buying more outlets and sources to get control for making more shows and movies.
As for Constitution & 1st A etc... FCC still have rules for speech/obscenity since Carlin made "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" (YT) in 72 and Fine TV and Radio Stations 10's of Thousands of $ at minimum for violating them and SCOTUS etc allows this. FCC didn't stop at Fining the Network and every station that aired J. Jackson Half Time stunt. They got worse and fined more. The whole reason HBO allowed Carlin et al to be on HBO in the 70's is because FCC couldn't regulate Paid Networks like HBO And why now most "Comedy" acts are nothing but F this and far worse in every sentience.
Originally posted by williegoat: It might be helpful to understand that the use of Pocahontas, to refer to Elizabeth Warren, did not originate with Trump. As a matter of fact, his use of that “aboriginal American” moniker is something of a malapropism. Although I am unsure of the origin, it looks likely that it began within the ivy covered walls your very alma mater, and should be “Fauxcahontas”, as in fake Pocahontas.
ABSTRACT The author (rinselberg) "owns" a Gratuitous Meme Reference charged against him in yesterday's Box Score, and connects it with a 2017 White House ceremony that honored two surviving World War Two veterans and Navajo Code Talkers for their service to the nation.
It may well be that the entire Pocahontas "thing" is based on misconceptions or faulty historical research from academics that were cloistered within ivy-covered walls-- as the always estimable Pennock's "williegoat" provides--but that no more lets President Trump off the hook for the Code Talkers moment than it would be to forgive a criminal shooter because he wasn't part of history's very first firearms engineering project.
MY BAD for using the "Pocahontas" meme for Elizabeth Warren in this discussion without my having any specific reason or purpose for it. It wasn't germane to this discussion. So, a GMI (Gratuitous Meme Invocation) charged against "rinselberg" goes in the Box Score for this discussion.
One of the more deplorable Pubic Relations moments (there are several) of the Trump presidency was when the President used this same "Pocahontas" meme for Elizabeth Warren meme during a White House ceremony to honor two Navajo Indian Code Talkers from World War Two.
If it were possible for that to have been perceived as a light-hearted or humorous comment from the President, my estimation of it could be very different. But that's not possible, given the kind of relentless and hard-edged political partisanship that President Trump has come to represent. He had already invoked the Pocahontas meme in connection with Elizabeth Warren in 12 different Twitter messages that he had tweeted (or retweeted).
It was out of line for him to have done that at that White House ceremony. That was not a setting or an event for any Campaign Rally kind of banter or partisan political barbs. That it was a ceremony to honor two World War Two veterans of American Indigenous (Indian) ancestry made it even worse. Although, perversely, that was also the particular circumstance that prompted him to do it.
He used--misused--the Navajo Code Talkers that he was there to honor by setting them up as partisan political props.
More than just relentless and hard-edged political partisanship, it was a uniquely Trumpian moment of self promotion and narcissism.
I don't know that either of the Code Talkers are on record for having said anything about it, afterwards; but to me, it wouldn't matter if they were on record as just kind of shrugging it off, or of having been amused by it in a positive way. I would still condemn the President's indiscretion and rudeness during that moment.
It may well be that the entire Pocahontas "thing" is based on misconceptions or faulty historical research from academics that were cloistered within ivy-covered walls-- as the always estimable Pennock's "williegoat" provides--but that no more lets President Trump off the hook for the Code Talkers moment than it would be to forgive a criminal shooter because he wasn't part of history's very first firearms engineering project.
So is this a Big Deal"..? Only in the sense that I am explaining why "Pocahontas" was so incandescently illuminated in the the Words Memory Compartmentalization of my consciousness when I was putting up that first message in this sequence. From a psychological perspective, the "Pocahontas" meme was so conspicuously "lit" that I carelessly failed to dismiss the thought of Just Going With It. That's why there is a Gratuitous Meme Reference charged against my screen name in the Box Score for this discussion. It Is What It Is.
I didn't want to go to that other recently active "Pocahontas is 1/1024 injun" for this, because of concern on my part that I might be tempted to get drawn into that discussion in a way that would be inconvenient for the other plans that I have for this afternoon and evening. Maybe that's My Bad, as well. Safety First, though.
Does this open the door of this discussion to What About-isms..? What about the time that Obama..? What about the time that Hillary Clinton..? Is it germane to a larger discussion about whether Trump is more good, or more bad, or about the 2020 elections that are ahead, or about any substantial slice of the political world? Maybe it does open the door of this discussion in that way, but maybe, for the sake of the Original Topic, others will find the inner strength of restraint and elect to not enter through that door, where I myself failed and so committed a Gratuitous Meme Reference.
Did Elizabeth Warren check the Native American box when she ‘applied’ to Harvard and Penn? Josh Hicks for Washington Post 'Fact Checker'; September 28, 2012.' https://w ww.washingtonpost....m_term=.ef7f1f03d3e2
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-12-2019).]
