Forums - Politics Discussion - Google Bans Censorship-Resistant Competitor, LBRY

Immersiveunreality said:

That site you link to is extremely politically onesided.

At a first glance i see :

-Anti lockdown support
-Negative news towards Black Lives Matter
-Positive news towards Trump
-anti censoring enforced by leftists

''If you're tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net.''

What a joke, a good amount of people that flock to sites and youtube channels like this are part of cancel culture, so selective that they're unaware or ignorant of it.

It's sad what the US has become, if those views are regarded as "extremely politically onesided".

As a Swedish medical doctor I am very critical of lockdowns. We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself. It's sad how the covid pandemic became so politicized over there. Sweden never imposed hard lockdowns.

In my view, the whole basis for Black Lives Matter is extreme, to claim that the US is a systemically racist society that must be deconstructed, to demand that the police must be defunded. BLM is much more about revolution against an entire society than it's about racial justice.

Positive news about the president of the USA shouldn't be controversial! Trump has politically acomplished many great things. Trump tries to withdraw the US from foreign conflicts, he tries to correct the US support to questionable organizations and treaties (the UN, WHO, Nafta, NATO, the Paris Agreement), he has improved the US economy, he actively tries to confront cancel culture and the threat from big tech giants against Western democracy.

And cancel culture is the most dangerous movement that threatens Western liberal democracy. As a European, one would have imagined that censorship and cancel culture would have great difficulties taking root in the one nation in the world that was actually founded upon freedom of speech and liberty.



Around the Network
Nautilus said:
Jumpin said:

Yeah, all those militarized police forces murdering people for being black, brutalizing protesters, all without consequences. THEY’RE the ones fighting against authoritarianism. :/

Oh god damn it, you are right! It was just I was so blinded by all the people killed by the protestors only because they were doing their job or just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or all the lives they have ruined by pillaging and tearing down stores, in the name of something they had nothing to do about. I'm so sorry!

I'd say it's because you fundamentally lack any understanding of what authoritarianism means.

No amount of fictional red herrings is going to make your misunderstanding any less backward.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Nautilus said:
JWeinCom said:

Sorry, but this first paragraph is just beyond ridiculous. 

I will for argument's sake assume that the New York Times is a biased rag that promotes communism, authoritarianism, pedophilia, cannibalism, and rounding up an executing Trump supporters. Whatever.

No matter how biased the Times is, that does not have anything to do with how biased another source is. "I like my sources biased, because other sources are biased", is not a good argument. Attacking another thing does not make your thing better. If one food will kill you, and the other will make you go blind, you don't eat either.

Second paragraph is just a pure strawman argument.

Never said that I supported the site mentioned in the OP, though I did approve of it's overall approach to politic based on that one post(Because usually the people that makes that kind of comment are the ones that have tunnel vision, and thus anything they disagree with is something that I agree, but alas that's not the point). Actually I never heard of it before. The initial post I made regarding this subject is exactly what you pointed out: That it was being disregarded not by facts or actual arguments, like the posts you made, but rather because, and I will quote:

"-Anti lockdown support
-Negative news towards Black Lives Matter
-Positive news towards Trump
-anti censoring enforced by leftists"

All topics that have legitimate arguments for and against. So just disregarding it based on it being against something that you dont like or support, but not the arguments on why he is against, is faulty by itself. And the double standard about this whole discussion is, since every paper and website has some form of bias to one way or another(such as The New York Times being more left-leaned, as it is (usually) evident in the stories they run and how they phrase their editorials and such) disheartening and infuriating to say the least.

But if you want to argue with me, please dont attack me for saying this you dont agree, and then making things up that I didn't say. All I said is that The New York times is left-leaned, not "communism, authoritarianism, pedophilia, cannibalism, and rounding up an executing Trump supporters". Don't come to me saying my argument is a pure "strawnman argument" but you end pulling this.

Did I say that you said any of those things about the times? I mean, the post is right there. Show me where I said that, and I'll apologize.

The point is when questioned about preferring biased sources, you responded by attacking another source. And no matter how bad or extreme that source is it in no way validates any other source. Hence, the hyperbolic example. 

If you truly believe that there are legitimate arguments for or against each of those positions, then you should be extremely skeptical of a site that consistently expresses only one view, which is why the source should be treated with skepticism at the least and disregarding it is not unreasonable.

And you did indeed say you supported it. Unless you don't support sites that you like.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 29 September 2020

Slimebeast said:
Immersiveunreality said:

That site you link to is extremely politically onesided.

At a first glance i see :

-Anti lockdown support
-Negative news towards Black Lives Matter
-Positive news towards Trump
-anti censoring enforced by leftists

''If you're tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net.''

What a joke, a good amount of people that flock to sites and youtube channels like this are part of cancel culture, so selective that they're unaware or ignorant of it.

It's sad what the US has become, if those views are regarded as "extremely politically onesided".

As a Swedish medical doctor I am very critical of lockdowns. We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself. It's sad how the covid pandemic became so politicized over there. Sweden never imposed hard lockdowns.

In my view, the whole basis for Black Lives Matter is extreme, to claim that the US is a systemically racist society that must be deconstructed, to demand that the police must be defunded. BLM is much more about revolution against an entire society than it's about racial justice.

Positive news about the president of the USA shouldn't be controversial! Trump has politically acomplished many great things. Trump tries to withdraw the US from foreign conflicts, he tries to correct the US support to questionable organizations and treaties (the UN, WHO, Nafta, NATO, the Paris Agreement), he has improved the US economy, he actively tries to confront cancel culture and the threat from big tech giants against Western democracy.

And cancel culture is the most dangerous movement that threatens Western liberal democracy. As a European, one would have imagined that censorship and cancel culture would have great difficulties taking root in the one nation in the world that was actually founded upon freedom of speech and liberty.

Clearly you have not studied First Amendment jurisprudence. Freedom of speech means the government can't make laws restricting speech regarding matters of public concern. It means that when a company or an individual says something that another company or person feels is fucked up, they can say "that's fucked up and you shouldn't say it". And that company is free to either agree with them and stop saying it or say fuck you we're going to keep saying it. If the company feels pressured by public opinion to change their ways because they feel it will hurt their business that's what is called the free market. 

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want and nobody can say you're an asshole for it. The right to call someone an asshole for saying something is just as important as the right to say the thing in the first place. Criticism is not antithetical to free speech it's the whole damn point.

So for instance when Trump tells everyone to cancel their subscription to New York Magazine because he doesn't like what they're saying (I'm assuming that's part of what you mean by cancel culture) his right to call for cancelling things he doesn't like is part of Freedom of Speech. I don't know about you, but while I disagree with Trump calling for cancellation of things he doesn't like (in his capacity as a private citizen at least), I fully support his freedom to do so. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/politics/fact-check-trump-cancel-culture-boycotts-firings/index.html

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 29 September 2020

JWeinCom said:
Slimebeast said:

It's sad what the US has become, if those views are regarded as "extremely politically onesided".

As a Swedish medical doctor I am very critical of lockdowns. We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself. It's sad how the covid pandemic became so politicized over there. Sweden never imposed hard lockdowns.

In my view, the whole basis for Black Lives Matter is extreme, to claim that the US is a systemically racist society that must be deconstructed, to demand that the police must be defunded. BLM is much more about revolution against an entire society than it's about racial justice.

Positive news about the president of the USA shouldn't be controversial! Trump has politically acomplished many great things. Trump tries to withdraw the US from foreign conflicts, he tries to correct the US support to questionable organizations and treaties (the UN, WHO, Nafta, NATO, the Paris Agreement), he has improved the US economy, he actively tries to confront cancel culture and the threat from big tech giants against Western democracy.

And cancel culture is the most dangerous movement that threatens Western liberal democracy. As a European, one would have imagined that censorship and cancel culture would have great difficulties taking root in the one nation in the world that was actually founded upon freedom of speech and liberty.

Clearly you have not studied First Amendment jurisprudence. Freedom of speech means the government can't make laws restricting speech regarding matters of public concern. It means that when a company or an individual says something that another company or person feels is fucked up, they can say "that's fucked up and you shouldn't say it". And that company is free to either agree with them and stop saying it or say fuck you we're going to keep saying it. If the company feels pressured by public opinion to change their ways because they feel it will hurt their business that's what is called the free market. 

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want and nobody can say you're an asshole for it. The right to call someone an asshole for saying something is just as important as the right to say the thing in the first place. Criticism is not antithetical to free speech it's the whole damn point.

So for instance when Trump tells everyone to cancel their subscription to New York Magazine because he doesn't like what they're saying (I'm assuming that's part of what you mean by cancel culture) his right to call for cancelling things he doesn't like is part of Freedom of Speech. I don't know about you, but while I disagree with Trump calling for cancellation of things he doesn't like (in his capacity as a private citizen at least), I fully support his freedom to do so. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/politics/fact-check-trump-cancel-culture-boycotts-firings/index.html

It's scary that you seem to brush the whole thing off as just private companies having the freedom to act like they seem fit. It's already a classic response.

Cancel culture and censorship. There's two dimensions, a cultural element but also a political, judicial element. Public discourse can change the culture and attitudes in society, but there's also a legal battleground with the human right called freedom of speech that is regulated through The First Amendment and corresponding legislature in all Western liberal democracies.

Cancel culture refers to a cultural phenomenon, about a totalitarian mindset among a vocal minority. Mainly among the leftist intelligentia. We're now seeing the radical left pushing wokeness like a religion. An important tool of this is policing the language of other people in order to shame and control people. Often throughout history the left has had totalitarian tendencies to silence its opponents and impose restrictions on speech and on expression of free thought, but this has gone totally overboard in the last decade. Due to the explosive nature of internet, cancel mobs have a disproportionate amount of power against the individual.

I have no problem being criticised and I think I can speak for everyone on the right. That's not the problem. And I think you know this very well. The problem is that we have a culture of fear where dissenting opinions are disproportioanately punished by deplatforming, by losing your job, by people not wanting to associate with you because they in turn fear the consequences. By the opposition using it as an extremely powerful punishment. It's similar to how the religious power structures of the Middle ages, how people were ostraziced and silenced if they dared to speak up. It totally goes against our values of freedom and tolerance and it's unworthy of a modern democratic society.

If J.K. Rowling tweats about women who menstruate, it's wrong to demand her publisher to drop her. It's wrong to create such a hysterical atmosphere of hate that emotion-driven mobsters are able to pressure colleges to cancel invited speakers. It's wrong that people are being fired for making  insensitive jokes, or getting fired for criticising BLM. Such behaviour is legal, we know that, but it's also totally immoral and evil. It's a culture that censors and supresses freedom of speech.

This is deeply inhuman. We cannot allow a culture of fear. We will soon be living in a democracy by name only.

It's scary that the country who once embraced freedom of speech and was famous all over the world for it, has suddenly become the strongest force in the West to suppress diversity of opinion. Just a few decades ago we as Swedes saw America, that you venerate freedom of speech. You even allowed nazis to march openly because freedom of speech was so holy. Now it's the other way around, cancel culture is rapidly spreading from the US universities, Big Tech and HR departments to Sweden and Europe. US college after college is being taken over by the woke mob with critical race theory and intersectionality being enforced in all areas, from school bureaucracy, to the curriculum, to recruitment and hiring practices.

But there is also a possibility to change laws. The big tech internet companies now control freedom of speech to such an extent that they effectively make up a monopoly and their bias against voices on the right is infringing on our democracy, it's infringing on freedom of speech. We can regulate big tech if we want to, by forbidding Google, Facebook and Twitter to arbitrarily suppress certain opinions, mainly conservative voices. We can accomplish this legally by many ways if we want to, perhaps by changing their legal status as platforms and instead make them accountable as publishers, or force them to disclose the bias of their algorithms and require that they're unbiased, demand more hearings with their CEOs, or simply break up the companies. There is a lot we can do politically.

There is an opposition on the left, a part of the left that embraces liberalism and classic Western values, who are also deeply concerned by this. Who realizes that they have to cooperate with conservatives on the right to oppose wokeness, to oppose cancel culture and defend Western democracy. Look up Bret Weinstein and Evergreen college. These people are increasingly realizing that right now, Trump is the only sensible choice to combat this dangerous movement on the legal front. Biden is a good man but far too weak and too blind and gullible to be able to stand up against this woke crazyness.



Around the Network

Conservatives: Trump will save us from cancel culture
Trump:
"Fire Chris Matthews"
"Fire Vanity Fair staff"
"Boycott Glenfiddich"
"Boycott HBO"
"Boycott Rolling Stone"
"Boycott New York Magazine"
"Boycott Mexico" (seriously)
"Fire National Review staff"
"Boycott Univision"
"Boycott Macy's"
"Fire Fox News staff"
"Fire CBS staff"
"Fire MSNBC staff"
"Boycott Apple"
"Fire Wall Street Journal staff"
"Boycott Megyn Kelly's show"
"Boycott CNN"
"Boycott Harley Davidson"
"Boycott AT&T"
"Boycott Goodyear"

Tell me more about how our Lord and Savior Trump will save us from the evils of cancel culture...



Slimebeast said:
JWeinCom said:

Clearly you have not studied First Amendment jurisprudence. Freedom of speech means the government can't make laws restricting speech regarding matters of public concern. It means that when a company or an individual says something that another company or person feels is fucked up, they can say "that's fucked up and you shouldn't say it". And that company is free to either agree with them and stop saying it or say fuck you we're going to keep saying it. If the company feels pressured by public opinion to change their ways because they feel it will hurt their business that's what is called the free market. 

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want and nobody can say you're an asshole for it. The right to call someone an asshole for saying something is just as important as the right to say the thing in the first place. Criticism is not antithetical to free speech it's the whole damn point.

So for instance when Trump tells everyone to cancel their subscription to New York Magazine because he doesn't like what they're saying (I'm assuming that's part of what you mean by cancel culture) his right to call for cancelling things he doesn't like is part of Freedom of Speech. I don't know about you, but while I disagree with Trump calling for cancellation of things he doesn't like (in his capacity as a private citizen at least), I fully support his freedom to do so. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/politics/fact-check-trump-cancel-culture-boycotts-firings/index.html

It's scary that the country who once embraced freedom of speech and was famous all over the world for it, has suddenly become the strongest force in the West to suppress diversity of opinion. Just a few decades ago we as Swedes saw America, that you venerate freedom of speech. You even allowed nazis to march openly because freedom of speech was so holy. Now it's the other way around, cancel culture is rapidly spreading from the US universities, Big Tech and HR departments to Sweden and Europe. US college after college is being taken over by the woke mob with critical race theory and intersectionality being enforced in all areas, from school bureaucracy, to the curriculum, to recruitment and hiring practices.

But isn't it an objective and decisive truth that Nazis are bad, and that their speech should be completely suppressed and cancelled?



Slimebeast said:
JWeinCom said:

Clearly you have not studied First Amendment jurisprudence. Freedom of speech means the government can't make laws restricting speech regarding matters of public concern. It means that when a company or an individual says something that another company or person feels is fucked up, they can say "that's fucked up and you shouldn't say it". And that company is free to either agree with them and stop saying it or say fuck you we're going to keep saying it. If the company feels pressured by public opinion to change their ways because they feel it will hurt their business that's what is called the free market. 

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want and nobody can say you're an asshole for it. The right to call someone an asshole for saying something is just as important as the right to say the thing in the first place. Criticism is not antithetical to free speech it's the whole damn point.

So for instance when Trump tells everyone to cancel their subscription to New York Magazine because he doesn't like what they're saying (I'm assuming that's part of what you mean by cancel culture) his right to call for cancelling things he doesn't like is part of Freedom of Speech. I don't know about you, but while I disagree with Trump calling for cancellation of things he doesn't like (in his capacity as a private citizen at least), I fully support his freedom to do so. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/politics/fact-check-trump-cancel-culture-boycotts-firings/index.html

It's scary that you seem to brush the whole thing off as just private companies having the freedom to act like they seem fit. It's already a classic response.

Cancel culture and censorship. There's two dimensions, a cultural element but also a political, judicial element. Public discourse can change the culture and attitudes in society, but there's also a legal battleground with the human right called freedom of speech that is regulated through The First Amendment and corresponding legislature in all Western liberal democracies.

Cancel culture refers to a cultural phenomenon, about a totalitarian mindset among a vocal minority. Mainly among the leftist intelligentia. We're now seeing the radical left pushing wokeness like a religion. An important tool of this is policing the language of other people in order to shame and control people. Often throughout history the left has had totalitarian tendencies to silence its opponents and impose restrictions on speech and on expression of free thought, but this has gone totally overboard in the last decade. Due to the explosive nature of internet, cancel mobs have a disproportionate amount of power against the individual.

I have no problem being criticised and I think I can speak for everyone on the right. That's not the problem. And I think you know this very well. The problem is that we have a culture of fear where dissenting opinions are disproportioanately punished by deplatforming, by losing your job, by people not wanting to associate with you because they in turn fear the consequences. By the opposition using it as an extremely powerful punishment. It's similar to how the religious power structures of the Middle ages, how people were ostraziced and silenced if they dared to speak up. It totally goes against our values of freedom and tolerance and it's unworthy of a modern democratic society.

If J.K. Rowling tweats about women who menstruate, it's wrong to demand her publisher to drop her. It's wrong to create such a hysterical atmosphere of hate that emotion-driven mobsters are able to pressure colleges to cancel invited speakers. It's wrong that people are being fired for making  insensitive jokes, or getting fired for criticising BLM. Such behaviour is legal, we know that, but it's also totally immoral and evil. It's a culture that censors and supresses freedom of speech.

This is deeply inhuman. We cannot allow a culture of fear. We will soon be living in a democracy by name only.

It's scary that the country who once embraced freedom of speech and was famous all over the world for it, has suddenly become the strongest force in the West to suppress diversity of opinion. Just a few decades ago we as Swedes saw America, that you venerate freedom of speech. You even allowed nazis to march openly because freedom of speech was so holy. Now it's the other way around, cancel culture is rapidly spreading from the US universities, Big Tech and HR departments to Sweden and Europe. US college after college is being taken over by the woke mob with critical race theory and intersectionality being enforced in all areas, from school bureaucracy, to the curriculum, to recruitment and hiring practices.

But there is also a possibility to change laws. The big tech internet companies now control freedom of speech to such an extent that they effectively make up a monopoly and their bias against voices on the right is infringing on our democracy, it's infringing on freedom of speech. We can regulate big tech if we want to, by forbidding Google, Facebook and Twitter to arbitrarily suppress certain opinions, mainly conservative voices. We can accomplish this legally by many ways if we want to, perhaps by changing their legal status as platforms and instead make them accountable as publishers, or force them to disclose the bias of their algorithms and require that they're unbiased, demand more hearings with their CEOs, or simply break up the companies. There is a lot we can do politically.

There is an opposition on the left, a part of the left that embraces liberalism and classic Western values, who are also deeply concerned by this. Who realizes that they have to cooperate with conservatives on the right to oppose wokeness, to oppose cancel culture and defend Western democracy. Look up Bret Weinstein and Evergreen college. These people are increasingly realizing that right now, Trump is the only sensible choice to combat this dangerous movement on the legal front. Biden is a good man but far too weak and too blind and gullible to be able to stand up against this woke crazyness.

Should I just repeat the same thing I said before? Because you keep bringing up the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of speech, and again neither has anything to do with what you just said. You just spewed out buzzwords that have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Just your opinions on what is moral to say or not to say, and I don't really care at all.

You then suggested that the government should regulate private enterprises and define what view points they can choose to platform or not platform. THAT is in violation of the First Amendment. If people don't like the restrictions these platforms place, they are free to go somewhere else. If it is not viable for any competing platform to emerge, then that's an anti-trust issue, wholly separate from the First Amendment.

And, no you can't speak for everyone on the right. Ffs.

"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!"

Let us assume for a second that Donald Trump is not the President, since that actually DOES create pretty severe First Amendment concerns. But lets say he's a private citizen who objects to players kneeling for the pledge of allegiance. Why is it wrong for him call for those players to be fired or suspended?

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 29 September 2020

JWeinCom said:
Slimebeast said:

It's scary that you seem to brush the whole thing off as just private companies having the freedom to act like they seem fit. It's already a classic response.

Cancel culture and censorship. There's two dimensions, a cultural element but also a political, judicial element. Public discourse can change the culture and attitudes in society, but there's also a legal battleground with the human right called freedom of speech that is regulated through The First Amendment and corresponding legislature in all Western liberal democracies.

Cancel culture refers to a cultural phenomenon, about a totalitarian mindset among a vocal minority. Mainly among the leftist intelligentia. We're now seeing the radical left pushing wokeness like a religion. An important tool of this is policing the language of other people in order to shame and control people. Often throughout history the left has had totalitarian tendencies to silence its opponents and impose restrictions on speech and on expression of free thought, but this has gone totally overboard in the last decade. Due to the explosive nature of internet, cancel mobs have a disproportionate amount of power against the individual.

I have no problem being criticised and I think I can speak for everyone on the right. That's not the problem. And I think you know this very well. The problem is that we have a culture of fear where dissenting opinions are disproportioanately punished by deplatforming, by losing your job, by people not wanting to associate with you because they in turn fear the consequences. By the opposition using it as an extremely powerful punishment. It's similar to how the religious power structures of the Middle ages, how people were ostraziced and silenced if they dared to speak up. It totally goes against our values of freedom and tolerance and it's unworthy of a modern democratic society.

If J.K. Rowling tweats about women who menstruate, it's wrong to demand her publisher to drop her. It's wrong to create such a hysterical atmosphere of hate that emotion-driven mobsters are able to pressure colleges to cancel invited speakers. It's wrong that people are being fired for making  insensitive jokes, or getting fired for criticising BLM. Such behaviour is legal, we know that, but it's also totally immoral and evil. It's a culture that censors and supresses freedom of speech.

This is deeply inhuman. We cannot allow a culture of fear. We will soon be living in a democracy by name only.

It's scary that the country who once embraced freedom of speech and was famous all over the world for it, has suddenly become the strongest force in the West to suppress diversity of opinion. Just a few decades ago we as Swedes saw America, that you venerate freedom of speech. You even allowed nazis to march openly because freedom of speech was so holy. Now it's the other way around, cancel culture is rapidly spreading from the US universities, Big Tech and HR departments to Sweden and Europe. US college after college is being taken over by the woke mob with critical race theory and intersectionality being enforced in all areas, from school bureaucracy, to the curriculum, to recruitment and hiring practices.

But there is also a possibility to change laws. The big tech internet companies now control freedom of speech to such an extent that they effectively make up a monopoly and their bias against voices on the right is infringing on our democracy, it's infringing on freedom of speech. We can regulate big tech if we want to, by forbidding Google, Facebook and Twitter to arbitrarily suppress certain opinions, mainly conservative voices. We can accomplish this legally by many ways if we want to, perhaps by changing their legal status as platforms and instead make them accountable as publishers, or force them to disclose the bias of their algorithms and require that they're unbiased, demand more hearings with their CEOs, or simply break up the companies. There is a lot we can do politically.

There is an opposition on the left, a part of the left that embraces liberalism and classic Western values, who are also deeply concerned by this. Who realizes that they have to cooperate with conservatives on the right to oppose wokeness, to oppose cancel culture and defend Western democracy. Look up Bret Weinstein and Evergreen college. These people are increasingly realizing that right now, Trump is the only sensible choice to combat this dangerous movement on the legal front. Biden is a good man but far too weak and too blind and gullible to be able to stand up against this woke crazyness.

Should I just repeat the same thing I said before? Because you keep bringing up the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of speech, and again neither has anything to do with what you just said. You just spewed out buzzwords that have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Just your opinions on what is moral to say or not to say, and I don't really care at all.

You then suggested that the government should regulate private enterprises and define what view points they can choose to platform or not platform. THAT is in violation of the First Amendment. If people don't like the restrictions these platforms place, they are free to go somewhere else. If it is not viable for any competing platform to emerge, then that's an anti-trust issue, wholly separate from the First Amendment.

And, no you can't speak for everyone on the right. Ffs.

"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!"

Let us assume for a second that Donald Trump is not the President, since that actually DOES create pretty severe First Amendment concerns. But lets say he's a private citizen who objects to players kneeling for the pledge of allegiance. Why is it wrong for him call for those players to be fired or suspended?

You say "Attacking another thing does not make your thing better. If one food will kill you, and the other will make you go blind, you don't eat either." but continue to bring up Trump as if that invalidates his points ... weak sauce Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.



The_Yoda said:
JWeinCom said:

Should I just repeat the same thing I said before? Because you keep bringing up the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of speech, and again neither has anything to do with what you just said. You just spewed out buzzwords that have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Just your opinions on what is moral to say or not to say, and I don't really care at all.

You then suggested that the government should regulate private enterprises and define what view points they can choose to platform or not platform. THAT is in violation of the First Amendment. If people don't like the restrictions these platforms place, they are free to go somewhere else. If it is not viable for any competing platform to emerge, then that's an anti-trust issue, wholly separate from the First Amendment.

And, no you can't speak for everyone on the right. Ffs.

"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!"

Let us assume for a second that Donald Trump is not the President, since that actually DOES create pretty severe First Amendment concerns. But lets say he's a private citizen who objects to players kneeling for the pledge of allegiance. Why is it wrong for him call for those players to be fired or suspended?

You say "Attacking another thing does not make your thing better. If one food will kill you, and the other will make you go blind, you don't eat either." but continue to bring up Trump as if that invalidates his points ... weak sauce Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

He brought up the issue of demanding people be fired.

I gave an example of that exact kind of behavior, and asked why it is objectionable to him. 

In no way did I imply that Trump's actions made any other action better or worse, or that he should support any other person due to Trump's actions. I did not compare his actions to any other person's. I did not attack Trump whatsoever. I specifically said that I support Trump's right, if acting as a private citizen, to call for the cancellation of anything he pleases.

This is a failure of comprehension on your part. Do not call me a hypocrite.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 29 September 2020