Before anyone immediately disregards this entire post because there is a Fox News logo in the lower left corner, let me state that I have not watched Fox News in over 4 years, a friend sent this to me. Also note, the information comes from Axios.
Trump has been banned from the following social media sites:
Additionally, Parler, the only well-known site that hasn't taken to banning conservatives, has just been removed from the Apple Store, Google Play Store, and AWS (who hosts them) has stated they are removing them from their servers tonight.
I think some are aware, but most of these companies are run by individuals that have a heavy bias towards China due to the fact that they want access to the huge Chinese market. While they are technically allowed to do what they are doing (they are private companies after all), the moral and ethical aspect of what they are doing is extremely dangerous.
Furthermore, it's also hypocritical. I don’t think anyone can justify banning Trump, when you have dictators of foreign countries *LITERALLY* calling for the death of America every day on these sites. The Ayatollah has 11 Twitter accounts, one for each different language that he wants to have outreach to. Every other Twitter post calls for the extermination of Jews, and death of America. Not once has he been banned, or a “warning” put on his feeds. Trump on the other hand, never actually said... “invade the capitol building” despite the fact that some are suggesting that’s what he meant. Big contrast to the things that Kim Jung Un and the Ayatollah say (as well as others).
Did you know that the Taliban has a Twitter group? So does Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Hamas, and several others. These “official” accounts also have 100s of thousands of followers who say and do the same things. Not to mention that there are constant threats of death and assassination to Trump every day on Twitter that get completely ignored.
I watched some Tucker for the first time in the Summer and then steadily for about 2 months around the election. He cucked out to the China crap.
Now listen, people who know can tell the people who are still totally duped by mass media when they mention China and Iran as having significant impact to our system. It's not the Chinese, folks. They're making inroads, and in 20 years might be getting there some day. But for now, it's not the Chinese. And Iran is meaningless.
It's the owners of these platforms and they aren't Chinese. They don't work for the Chinese. Stop being duped. It also wasn't the Chinese who testified against Trump in the impeachment proceedings. It wasn't the Chinese in the Attorney General's position who wouldn't go after criminals burning cities and destroying national monuments. It wasn't the Chinese heading the FBI while they had the Biden laptop during the impeachment proceedings which proved the President wasn't guilty of Russian influence.
When they came for so-and-so, I said nothing because I wasn't so-and-so. When they came for blah-blah, I said nothing because I wasn't blah-blah. When they came for the President, I took the bait and blamed China because I didn't want them calling me names.
Now they're talking about compiling a list of Trump supports so they can go after them. The people making the list aren't Chinese. They are AOC and Democrat radicals in our government who openly call to take away things from people of a certain skin color to give to people of a different skin color.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 01-10-2021).]
I don't expect things to get better anytime soon. With a leftist executive and legislative stranglehold, there is nothing to stop them. I wonder how many Justices will be Scalia-fied over the next eight (sixteen?) years.
Big Tech is angry about President Trump wanting to remove Section 230 protection. So they're lashing out at him.
Big Tech is basically a cabal. They compare notes, and coordinate with each other. Since they're private entities, they can censor and oppress people at their discretion, without fear. They basically have the power to control public discourse. They can't be voted out of office, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to them. This is like the robber baron situation, all over again.
To make matters worse, Big Tech has aligned themselves with one of the political parties. So by default, a large number of politicians will be unwilling to confront them.
I remember watching the Max Headroom TV show back in the day. It was set in a dystopian future, where media megacorporations ran the country. Looking back, it seems prophetic.
Big Tech is angry about President Trump wanting to remove Section 230 protection. So they're lashing out at him.
The issue with the removal of Section 230 is that the internet will cease to exist as it does today. Section 230 offers certain protections to sites for the content they contain. Without these protections, the sites become vulnerable to prosecution for the content they contain, regardless of whether that data is provided by the site or the site's users, if there isn't a good policing process by these privately owned sites that manage the data they contain. The protections offered by Section 230 are specifically meant to allow the online forums that exist to continue to do so in a manner the complies with additional laws such as the distribution of CP, the advocation of violent and/or criminal actions, etc. Removal of this subjects sites and site owners to criminal prosecution for the content they contain as if they themselves posted the content that led to the criminal prosecution. Source: I am an IT Systems Engineer who works closely with the Legal and Security teams for privacy and security, including GDPR and content management. You can read Section 230 in its entirety here.
quote
Originally posted by Blacktree: Big Tech is basically a cabal. They compare notes, and coordinate with each other. Since they're private entities, they can censor and oppress people at their discretion, without fear. They basically have the power to control public discourse. They can't be voted out of office, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to them. This is like the robber baron situation, all over again.
This is true.
quote
Originally posted by Blacktree: To make matters worse, Big Tech has aligned themselves with one of the political parties. So by default, a large number of politicians will be unwilling to confront them.
They have. Historically, Facebook has aligned themselves with the Republican party. Twitter has been relatively neutral, allowing anyone/everyone to post, and removing most tweets that violate terms of service, with the exception of the President's account, as it became an official form of communication over the last four years and is subject to the Presidential Records Act of 1978. 44 U.S.C. Chapter 22
quote
Originally posted by Blacktree: I remember watching the Max Headroom TV show back in the day. It was set in a dystopian future, where media megacorporations ran the country. Looking back, it seems prophetic.
I enjoyed that show.
This isn't a case of banning conservatives from Social Media, but more a case of the knee-jerk reaction to the violence perpetrated by far-right extremists on Wednesday at the instigation of the President. Many social media sites are knee-jerk reacting to this and just blanket banning anything that may cross a threshold as defined by them, without giving consideration to the actual content of the message. I do not believe it is being applied fairly across the board. I applaud the reaction solely because it is blocking hate speech and calls to violence and the like, but do not support the ideal of blanket banning everything just because.
When the dust settles, the damage will be done, and the nation will be further divided into us vs them.
Tear down the walls but lets be careful not to tear down our foundation at the same time.
Section 230 protection gives them immunity, what do they have to fear? This flexing is just as bad if not worse than any thing Trump has said on social media.
Perhaps that's the plan. Keep the fires burning. Just remember we all live in this house.
The issue with the removal of Section 230 is that the internet will cease to exist as it does today.
This is a bit dramatic. I remember you saying essentially the same thing about the proposed FCC "Net Neutrality" regulation. The internet will be fine. The United States does not own the internet anymore, and does not control ICANN. If the United States magically disappeared, the internet would still function for the rest of the world except a few small outlying Caribbean nations who's primary pipe runs through the US.
Personally, I'm not sure we need to get rid of it, but the whole point of 230 was protection of freedom of speech, which clearly... these corporations (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are not at all following. Funny enough, had we passed Net Neutrality, the Federal Government would have been allowed to place restrictions on these companies which they would have been forced to abide by.
Currently though, what's going on is that companies are ganging up on one or more companies to exact their supremacy in the name of something else. Private companies can do what they like, but they cannot gang up to defeat their competition, which they are presently doing with Parler.
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:
They have. Historically, Facebook has aligned themselves with the Republican party. Twitter has been relatively neutral, allowing anyone/everyone to post, and removing most tweets that violate terms of service...
This is not at all a view that is consistent with anything I've seen. I would say Facebook as remained relatively neutral, but Twitter has very candidly been far left radical. If you're telling me you think Twitter has been neutral, then I think you perhaps do not know who Jack Dorsey is?
This is a bit dramatic. I remember you saying essentially the same thing about the proposed FCC "Net Neutrality" regulation. The internet will be fine. The United States does not own the internet anymore, and does not control ICANN. If the United States magically disappeared, the internet would still function for the rest of the world except a few small outlying Caribbean nations who's primary pipe runs through the US.
Personally, I'm not sure we need to get rid of it, but the whole point of 230 was protection of freedom of speech, which clearly... these corporations (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are not at all following. Funny enough, had we passed Net Neutrality, the Federal Government would have been allowed to place restrictions on these companies which they would have been forced to abide by.
I think you are misunderstanding "Freedom of Speech" here... There is absolutely no way that "Freedom of Speech" can be impeded by a private business that offers a platform for end users to use to express their various viewpoints. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. Private entities as defined in my previous statement are not a part of that. Cliff can ban you from here because you said Happy Birthday to someone, if he wanted to, and that is not a violation of Freedom of Speech. With that in mind, applying that to Facebook, Twitter, etc, as you outlined in your comment is not viable.
When I said "cease to exist as it does today", I didn't say it would disappear. What that means is that all of these sites that allow you to express your opinion would have to start heavily policing the content. There goes the "Freedom of Speech" you just complained about. The slightest misinterpretation of a statement you make could result in your account being banned simply so they avoid any trouble. Section 230 is necessary in order to allow you and I have to have a conversation such as this without putting the website we are choosing to use at risk of prosecution because one of us says something that is potentially illegal. If Cliff were in the US and the site were hosted here, he'd be at risk of being prosecuted for the content you or I posted that was illegal. Instead, with Section 230, the US Government can go after you or I for the content by reaching out to Cliff to get our IP Address as part of a discovery and investigation process, and Cliff as the site owner would be safe. He's not in the US, so therefor this is not a risk for him.
As for the Net Neutrality portion of this discussion, we are already seeing the negative consequences of this. XFinity has instituted additional data caps for higher fees, because apparently data is a commodity that is rare. They have also "accidentally" blocked legitimate sites that are in direct competition with services they offer. Net Neutrality is a requirement to prevent Comcast from dictating what you or I see, and instead allow us to make those decisions ourselves, even if it means we choose to use one of Comcast's competitor services over Comcast's internet connection.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Currently though, what's going on is that companies are ganging up on one or more companies to exact their supremacy in the name of something else. Private companies can do what they like, but they cannot gang up to defeat their competition, which they are presently doing with Parler.
Violation of an organizations terms of service and being kicked off the service is not "persecution". AWS is not in competition with Parler, but Parler's content by its users directly violates AWS' terms of service. AWS has every right to kick Parler off of their service. Section 230 allows Parler to not be sued by the US Government because people on Parler are calling for violence in the Capitol on Inauguration Day. Google and Apple's Terms of Service were violated by Parler. Apple's letter to Parler that explicitly calls out the various sections that were violated. This may be somethin that is not being enforced equally, but I don't know of any other right-centric social media platforms that have no moderation process to remove threats of violence, which are not subject to Freedom of Speech protections. WeMe is another right-centric platform, but I am not familiar with their terms of service or moderation process.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: This is not at all a view that is consistent with anything I've seen. I would say Facebook as remained relatively neutral, but Twitter has very candidly been far left radical. If you're telling me you think Twitter has been neutral, then I think you perhaps do not know who Jack Dorsey is?
Facebook is very right-centric.I know who Jack Dorsey is. I've met the man multiple times as the CEO of the organization I used to work for is good friends with him. He's a nice guy. As for Twitter being far left radical, I'd really love for you to provide evidence to back up your words.
I think you are misunderstanding "Freedom of Speech" here... There is absolutely no way that "Freedom of Speech" can be impeded by a private business that offers a platform for end users to use to express their various viewpoints. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. Private entities as defined in my previous statement are not a part of that. Cliff can ban you from here because you said Happy Birthday to someone, if he wanted to, and that is not a violation of Freedom of Speech. With that in mind, applying that to Facebook, Twitter, etc, as you outlined in your comment is not viable.
When I said "cease to exist as it does today", I didn't say it would disappear. What that means is that all of these sites that allow you to express your opinion would have to start heavily policing the content. There goes the "Freedom of Speech" you just complained about. The slightest misinterpretation of a statement you make could result in your account being banned simply so they avoid any trouble. Section 230 is necessary in order to allow you and I have to have a conversation such as this without putting the website we are choosing to use at risk of prosecution because one of us says something that is potentially illegal. If Cliff were in the US and the site were hosted here, he'd be at risk of being prosecuted for the content you or I posted that was illegal. Instead, with Section 230, the US Government can go after you or I for the content by reaching out to Cliff to get our IP Address as part of a discovery and investigation process, and Cliff as the site owner would be safe. He's not in the US, so therefor this is not a risk for him. .
Ignoring this whole part because I don't think you have read what I said and are making assumptions. If you re-read, I state several times that companies can do what they want as private entities. 230 granted companies and people the right to freedom of speech. Meaning that companies (and people) can say things and companies cannot get fined for it. Freedom of Speech. Companies are treated as persons. 230 grants companies freedom of speech. I was saying it was ironic because they are using 230 as a cover to regulate other's speech. But if you read everything I've said above... I've already made it clear that all of us acknowledge that companies can do what they want.
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:
Violation of an organizations terms of service and being kicked off the service is not "persecution". AWS is not in competition with Parler, but Parler's content by its users directly violates AWS' terms of service. AWS has every right to kick Parler off of their service. Section 230 allows Parler to not be sued by the US Government because people on Parler are calling for violence in the Capitol on Inauguration Day. Google and Apple's Terms of Service were violated by Parler. Apple's letter to Parler that explicitly calls out the various sections that were violated. This may be somethin that is not being enforced equally, but I don't know of any other right-centric social media platforms that have no moderation process to remove threats of violence, which are not subject to Freedom of Speech protections. WeMe is another right-centric platform, but I am not familiar with their terms of service or moderation process.
I'm not going to litigate it here for you. You're not a lawyer, I don't even know if you've even been in court. I've served several times as an expert witness in Federal court w/ cybersecurity law and personally IRAC'ed multiple cases for an appeal (defending the Government), so let's cool the inflection you're giving (if that's unintentional, then I take it back).
As I said, there are two things going on, but both are based in the same idea:
1 - Trump can possibly file a suit for injury based on mistreatment... that is, he's being targeted and / or the company is not following their own guidelines (likely to fail though). 2 - Parler can file an lawsuit against Apple and Google stating that they are being unfairly targeted. Companies are people.
In both cases, these companies are not fairly implementing their own terms of service. For example, every dictator in the world has an account on Twitter. Ayatollah has nearly 11 accounts, one for every language that his statements are shared in. Most of his comments are about death to America, or the extermination of Jews. Likewise, every terrorist organization has an account... as I said, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Al-Shabab, Hamas, and several others... including their millions of followers, all of whom may from time to time post videos of beheadings that they themselves have committed, as well as rape and other atrocities. These accounts remain, most of which aren't even given a warning. Twitter is clearly violating the terms of service of both Google and Apple stores to a substantially more degree than Parler is. I fully expect Parler to be allowed back on both stores. I don't expect Trump to win anything, if he even files a suit.
quote
Originally posted by Synthesis:
Facebook is very right-centric.I know who Jack Dorsey is. I've met the man multiple times as the CEO of the organization I used to work for is good friends with him. He's a nice guy. As for Twitter being far left radical, I'd really love for you to provide evidence to back up your words.
I'm curious what you're doing with that link? I clicked on it. It doesn't say anything at all like you are suggesting. The article talks about a program that they were looking to implement that they decided not to use because Zuckerberg said he was losing interest in the topic and didn't want to regulate content and how users communicated with each other. About the only thing I can find in there is that they had implemented a program that, "while proposals in the US would affect conservatives it would [also] affect opposite groups in other countries," so they didn't use it. No where in that article does it even reference (at all) about being right-wing biased in any way. Matter of fact, it states it's entirely neutral, with an emphasis on at least at one time, wanting to regulate some Conservative speech.
As for Twitter, not sure how you come to that conclusion, but I think what's going on right now is a clear example of liberal bias. They've literally removed nearly 100+ Conservative talking heads, the least of which is the President.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-10-2021).]
We are basically seeing a repeat of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
The left has been embolden with election victories, companies fall in line so they aren't targets of their ire. Tech social companies know that they need 230 to keep their dominance. The left has always wanted to and will silence dissenting voices and they have no tolerance to others who are not left. This cumulated to what we are seeing now. We have yet to see the beginnings of the left to begin their auschwitz for those that are not woke.
It isn't a surprise, but it is deeply saddening. As we will be living in a hyper left-narrative driven information world for quite some time. At least till the old guards die off and the Gen-Xers take their place. So this will go on for about 10-years or so, then we will start seeing a reversal towards rationalism and greater freedoms and tolerance. But it will be a hard 10 or so years for many people, especially those who are boomers or getting ready to retire.
Everyone else will also have to walk in a Stasi environment too, but will outlast them, so just have to keep your heads up and do what those under Nazi / Communist rule did. Secret meetings, messages, books and etc will be in place in an underground environment. If you are caught not subscribing to woke or speaking against woke, you will be doxxed, fired from your job, stripped of your working credentials and financially ruined. So be very careful who you mingle with or who you call your friend. Stasi's are already abound in our world.
I wouldn't join any groups that are public policy vocal or are politically charged. Also, be careful on social media. Also, be aware that there are people here on PFF that would take great pleasure in seeing any of your conservatives lives to be ruined, so remember that even on here, the Stasi and Woke Police are trolling PFF as well. It isn't just limited to Twitter and FB.
In the far future, when we all survive all of this irrationality of the woke and left, we must all take the moral high road and not get tempted in turning the tables on them like they did on everyone else. Sure, we will have our Nuremberg Trials on those that committed the most heinous crimes against their fellow citizens, but those that are nobodies but participated as Stasis, it's best to forgive and let it be. Don't be like them. Be rational and logical.
Spot on post. As it gets worse, you gotta adapt to a different tactic. And even when one of us gets picked off it shows who the people are who did it and everyone learns something about both involved. We've already got the railroading going on. Not sure what you think about Julian Assange or Edward Snowden, but those are 2 who they want gone. Really surprised Edward is still alive.
We are basically seeing a repeat of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
The left has been embolden with election victories, companies fall in line so they aren't targets of their ire. Tech social companies know that they need 230 to keep their dominance. The left has always wanted to and will silence dissenting voices and they have no tolerance to others who are not left. This cumulated to what we are seeing now. We have yet to see the beginnings of the left to begin their auschwitz for those that are not woke.
It isn't a surprise, but it is deeply saddening. As we will be living in a hyper left-narrative driven information world for quite some time. At least till the old guards die off and the Gen-Xers take their place. So this will go on for about 10-years or so, then we will start seeing a reversal towards rationalism and greater freedoms and tolerance. But it will be a hard 10 or so years for many people, especially those who are boomers or getting ready to retire.
Everyone else will also have to walk in a Stasi environment too, but will outlast them, so just have to keep your heads up and do what those under Nazi / Communist rule did. Secret meetings, messages, books and etc will be in place in an underground environment. If you are caught not subscribing to woke or speaking against woke, you will be doxxed, fired from your job, stripped of your working credentials and financially ruined. So be very careful who you mingle with or who you call your friend. Stasi's are already abound in our world.
I wouldn't join any groups that are public policy vocal or are politically charged. Also, be careful on social media. Also, be aware that there are people here on PFF that would take great pleasure in seeing any of your conservatives lives to be ruined, so remember that even on here, the Stasi and Woke Police are trolling PFF as well. It isn't just limited to Twitter and FB.
In the far future, when we all survive all of this irrationality of the woke and left, we must all take the moral high road and not get tempted in turning the tables on them like they did on everyone else. Sure, we will have our Nuremberg Trials on those that committed the most heinous crimes against their fellow citizens, but those that are nobodies but participated as Stasis, it's best to forgive and let it be. Don't be like them. Be rational and logical.
I've heard that Sooo many times in my life thru different ordeals and eras and yet, here we all STILL are. Odd, how each generation thinks they are going thru something completely new and they alone have the answers.
I've heard that Sooo many times in my life thru different ordeals and eras and yet, here we all STILL are. Odd, how each generation thinks they are going thru something completely new and they alone have the answers.
It might take a little time but conservative "social media" will just re-form itself with offshore servers the same way the online gambling sites did. I'm already using Me-We more than Facebook for selling stuff just to get around the censors.
The end? It's probably near the end of the current economic setup. There's already another one being worked up and the USD will be a part of it. Something else will be there in it's place. The erosion of rights, freedoms and privileges will march onward. I just listened to a Zappa interview from 6-19-1989 Arsenio Hall and the parental advisory warnings debate. He said his stuff wasn't under fire but sticking up for the other artists who were under fire is what people should be doing, like he was doing. Awkward interview, but there was a reason for that.
I've heard that Sooo many times in my life thru different ordeals and eras and yet, here we all STILL are. Odd, how each generation thinks they are going thru something completely new and they alone have the answers.
Perspective.
Those of us that have been around long enough tend to have a bit more of it.
President Ronald Reagan, arguably the father of modern conservative politics*, was elected to office long before Bookface, Twatter or any kind of social media and before 24 / 7/ 365 cable news media was so prevalent.
* I intentionally said "modern conservative politics" because conservative ideology has been around far longer than modern conservative politics.
Oppressive governments throughout history have tried to abolish competitive speech and ideas, all have failed and it has been my observation that the harder they try, the harder they fail.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-11-2021).]
It might take a little time but conservative "social media" will just re-form itself with offshore servers the same way the online gambling sites did. I'm already using Me-We more than Facebook for selling stuff just to get around the censors.
Well, apparently Parler is no longer an option, just read that Amazon shut them down. Why am I feeling like that frog in the pan of boiling water? It seems the heat keeps getting turned up. Probably just my imagination, ya think?
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-11-2021).]
This is a business opportunity. If Twitter and FB think 75 million people are to be shut down they will be shoved towards My Space relevance soon enough. How long before a Rupert Murdoch type starts up a competitor?
Originally posted by blackrams: Why am I feeling like that frog in the pan of boiling water? It seems the heat keeps getting turned up. Probably just my imagination, ya think?
Perhaps you should think outside the box, . Get out of the pan.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: This is not at all a view that is consistent with anything I've seen. I would say Facebook as remained relatively neutral, but Twitter has very candidly been far left radical. If you're telling me you think Twitter has been neutral, then I think you perhaps do not know who Jack Dorsey is?
If you view this against his ideas then it makes sense. His views are far left. Therefore, a moderate approach as FB has had is viewed as being right because it’s right of his views. Dorsey and his company seem middle of the road because they are in the middle of his road which is far left of the traditional views. IMHO
I've heard that Sooo many times in my life thru different ordeals and eras and yet, here we all STILL are. Odd, how each generation thinks they are going thru something completely new and they alone have the answers.
MJ, if I'm using your logic in the way that I think you're suggesting... then the Revolutionary War would never have happened, and Rome would never have fallen.
My perspective is that we're only a generation away from losing this country... we always are. While I'm sure the bad people will always end up losing... I'm not willing to let the US be sacrificed as another example of how liberalism destroys countries so we learn (yet again) that liberalism doesn't work.
quote
Originally posted by Hudini:
If you view this against his ideas then it makes sense. His views are far left. Therefore, a moderate approach as FB has had is viewed as being right because it’s right of his views. Dorsey and his company seem middle of the road because they are in the middle of his road which is far left of the traditional views. IMHO
Sure... this was in my head the entire time I was talking with him. I just don't understand how someone could be so delusional. I fully recognize that I am very right-leaning. But what is left and right has changed dramatically over the years. I'm much more left leaning than Bill Clinton was when I voted for him... but that I am more left than Bill Clinton means that I am far more right than the current leftist party. I'm fully aware that Fox News has a far right bias (though the new owners are changing that). I'm also aware that OAN has a far right bias, or the EPOCH times, etc. But how someone else could be so oblivious of their own perceptions is beyond me.
The end? It's probably near the end of the current economic setup. There's already another one being worked up and the USD will be a part of it. Something else will be there in it's place. The erosion of rights, freedoms and privileges will march onward. I just listened to a Zappa interview from 6-19-1989 Arsenio Hall and the parental advisory warnings debate. He said his stuff wasn't under fire but sticking up for the other artists who were under fire is what people should be doing, like he was doing. Awkward interview, but there was a reason for that.
Interesting to know that the "Parental Advisory Warning" was pushed by Democrats and spearheaded by none other than Al & Tipper Gore.
In other words:
DEVELOPING: Democrats in both the House and Senate are planning to draft legislation to classify MAGA rallies as "domestic terrorist activity" and require the FBI, DOJ & DHS to take steps to prevent such "domestic terrorism." Sen. Durbin is leading effort along with Rep Schneider
Strange that MAGA will be classified as domestic terrorist, but not Antifia?
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 01-11-2021).]
I've heard that Sooo many times in my life thru different ordeals and eras and yet, here we all STILL are. Odd, how each generation thinks they are going thru something completely new and they alone have the answers.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
MJ, if I'm using your logic in the way that I think you're suggesting... then the Revolutionary War would never have happened, and Rome would never have fallen.
I'm old, but not that old. Those 2 events didn't happen in my lifetime.
quote
My perspective is that we're only a generation away from losing this country... we always are. While I'm sure the bad people will always end up losing... I'm not willing to let the US be sacrificed as another example of how liberalism destroys countries so we learn (yet again) that liberalism doesn't work..
Can be less than a generation but I take issue with the phrase 'losing this country'.
Even tho I believe this nation and it's democracy is still very much in infancy, I also believe we are no where near close to our Constantinople moment tho one would think (we are so) considering all the sword keyboard rattling that has been going on for the last few months.
I am also surprised at all the dismay. Many people screamed for the Covid19 to be out of the headlines. They got their wish, but not in the way they had hoped for. Impeachment pt 2 is likely to now take center stage, tho the sickness and deaths will continue.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-11-2021).]
Can be less than a generation but I take issue with the phrase 'losing this country'.
Even tho I believe this nation and it's democracy is still very much in infancy, I also believe we are no where near close to our Constantinople moment tho one would think so considering all the sword keyboard rattling that has been going on for the last few months.
I am surprised at all the dismay. Many people screamed for the Covid19 to be out of the headlines. They got their wish, but not in the way they had hoped for. Impeachment pt 2 is likely to now take center stage, tho the sickness and deaths will continue.
"Can be less than a generation but I take issue with the phrase 'losing this country'."
... as in, annulment of the US Constitution. There are a lot of things at play that would lead to this, massive debt, a general dislike for the country and its foundation, and maligned influence from foreign governments.
Well, apparently Parler is no longer an option, just read that Amazon shut them down. Why am I feeling like that frog in the pan of boiling water? It seems the heat keeps getting turned up. Probably just my imagination, ya think?
Rams
You are now a dissenter, if you want access to that type of free speech. It's wrong think.
And way before that, editorial sections of the newspapers, complete with rebuttal by citizens were social media, as were coffee shops and barstools. The public meetings that (I assume) every county has, is social media. In other nations, they do it a bit different, often rowdy, sometimes much more deadly but it's all social media. This nation began in the ale houses/taverns, which were the real social medias of that era.
However, to truly comprehend the roles alcohol, and more specifically bars, have played in America’s history, one must harken back to the Colonial era when taverns, as they were then called, helped shape American history.
While alcohol was a prominent fixture in Colonial life, oftentimes the location where one consumed said alcohol was equally as relevant. Public houses, and more specifically taverns, played an especially important role — they weren’t simply places to drink. Rather, they served as a venue to meet like-minded individuals, and functioned as clearinghouses and test beds of revolutionary ideas. As the colonies took shape, taverns became central locations for several aspects of colonial life. According to the U.S. Postal Service, early colonists adopted a practice used frequently in Europe and established taverns as a place to collect and distribute mail sent from overseas. In addition, according to the Gettysburg Historical Journal, taverns became a “means of direction for travelers, as well as settings where they could eat, drink, be entertained, and spend the night.” Taverns were also “utilized as meeting places for assemblies and courts” and became a central location for discussion and debate. In taverns across the colonies, literate patriots drank and read the news of the day aloud to their fellow revelers, thereby stoking revolutionary fervor. The network of taverns not only provided travelers with a place to rest and enjoy a beverage, but also a place to bring news from other colonies, and promulgate ideas from the likes of Thomas Paine, James Chalmers, and Thomas Jefferson.
However, arguably the taverns’ most important role in society (and American history) is the role they played in the beginning of the Revolutionary War. As anger spread throughout the colonies, many took to the tavern to discuss, argue, and debate what needed to be done. One location in particular, Boston’s Green Dragon Tavern (or as Daniel Webster put it “the Headquarters of the Revolution”) played host to the infamous “Sons Of Liberty” who, presumably after a couple of pints of spruce beer or molasses-infused porters, plotted the “Boston Tea Party.” It’s not hard to imagine why a couple of ales could have played a role in nudging along the idea of dressing like a Native American and dumping some of the East India Company’s finest tea into Boston Harbor.
Yes, I knew what you meant, even tho I have no membership in any of those. Social media, outside govt meeting places ,is extremely important and always has been. Care must be taken tho, not to be led down rabbitholes by conspiracy theories and outright lies that seem to permeate those type platforms. And I have no membership in this one either, (assuming it is real).
CloutHub is a place that brings people back together again to socialize in a healthy way, but also to positively discuss important issues, find common ground, solve problems, improve our communities and hold those we elect accountable for their actions and results.
Those type conspiracies I mentioned above are also pretty prevalent here on this (PFF/OT) social media.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-11-2021).]
Yes, I knew what you meant, even tho I have no membership in any of those. Social media, outside govt meeting places ,is extremely important and always has been. Care must be taken tho, not to be led down rabbitholes by conspiracy theories and outright lies that seem to permeate those type platforms. And I have no membership in this one either, (assuming it is real).
CloutHub is a place that brings people back together again to socialize in a healthy way, but also to positively discuss important issues, find common ground, solve problems, improve our communities and hold those we elect accountable for their actions and results.
Those type conspiracies I mentioned above are also pretty prevalent here on this (PFF/OT) social media.
A lot of things were conspiracy until they weren't, MJ. We are all entitled to our opinion... but a lot of conspiracy is rooted in some reality.
There are some things that are total nonsense... but other things that are not. It's a very dangerous position for you to take that you believe the Government has some kind of role in determining what conspiracies are legitimate and which ones are not.
. Get out of the pan.
