Author Topic: NEWS & POLITICS MEGATHREAD: Shitposts, Reasoned Argument & Everything in Between  (Read 4639 times)

Scrambler Fanny

  • Posts: 7238
  • Shawn Johnson
    • GE
    • Shawn's Goldeneye Times Page
Given that killing something may or may not be acceptable depending on the context you can't argue from a place of principle that killing is wrong.

I believe I used the term "murder," not killing. If I did not, that was what I meant. The two terms are vastly different.

The 22 weeks comes from the fact that babies simply cannot survive if removed from the womb before this point.

Not fact. Unlikely? Sure. Certain? No.

Before this point the baby has not developed and if removed will die no matter what we do.

Just because a life hasn't fully developed, does not mean that it is void of rights. And again, the child may NOT die. Death isn't certain in this instance. Probable, but not certain, as you assert.

Before this point it is completely dependant on being biologically attached the mother so I would not consider it as its own person with its own rights.

Fair enough. Your considerations are your prerogative. I (along with - let's say half the world's population [not sure of actual number, but this seems fair for the sake of discussion]) would staunchly disagree.

First of all, they satisfy my definition of biological independence.

YOU'RE definition. Doesn't make anything a reality for everyone. Again, your belief. I disagree whole heartedly, but I respect it as your own personal view.

Secondly, getting injured/sick etc does not forfeit your rights as an individual.

I agree. Neither does incomplete development. Neither instance is the person's fault.

The term 'viability' is used in a specific context and you cannot simply throw that term around and use it in other contexts in order to broaden its meaning.

First of all, they satisfy my definition of biological independence.

Didn't you just do what you said I could not? Utilize a term for YOUR contextual affirmations?

Until the baby can exist as its own individual it is only an extension of the mothers body.

This is a belief, or world-view which could easily be defined as a religion, not something that should be utilized in making policy for all. Any world-view can be defined as a system of beliefs or religion, which you later state opposes how laws are currently enacted within the system. This is EXACTLY how laws are enacted. Also, it is NOT simply an extension of mom's body. It is attached, sure. It is it's own distinct being.

You mentioned 'potential life' to which there is no logical argument against as the definition is vague and it's based on POSSIBILITY rather than reality.

Isn't that what you did here?

The 22 weeks comes from the fact that babies simply cannot survive if removed from the womb before this point.

Possible, not factual.

There is always the potential for anything.

And it should be lawful to kill it?

Even contraception, abstinence etc prevents life and could be seen as preventing life from existing.

This is personal belief, not factual for everyone. I believe that life does not begin until conception, therefore utilizing contraception (which, btw, I am all for MOST forms of contraception) does not constitute murder, which is what I am talking about. This belief is held by at least as many as believe that it does not.

For example, if a women who is poor/single gets an abortion it may allow her to financially recover and thus have more children later. Whereas having the baby now may financially cripple her forever meaning she can't support as many children in the future.

This is an excuse, not a reason for murder. There are many resources for assistance. Absolutely it will be hard, but since this was LIKELY (statistically speaking this was a poor decision on HER part, not the child's or anybody else's) or her own misdoings, this is a result. Precautions should've been taken. I understand that precautions aren't 100%, but so do the two consenting adults involved. I don't believe that murder is acceptable for something that they both knew could happen. I read that as a convenience, not something that should condemn the child to death for an action that he/she didn't commit.

Humans kill living beings all the time (animals AND humans) so killing in of itself is not morally wrong.

I agree that we (humans) kill on a massive scale. The difference, as I've stated several times, is that I have a problem with murder, not killing. We seem to be on the same page as far as that goes. Animals aren't murdered. They are killed for a variety of reasons. On the issue of animals, most Christians (even using the term loosely) do NOT believe that animals possess the ability to know God as man does. Many believe that animals do not posses a soul. Sure they are living creatures and I DO NOT condone the wreckless and reasonless killing of animals, but they do not posses the capacity of maintaining the knowledge of God as we do. This is a belief that I share in (which really cannot be proven either way) and this is how I differentiate between man and animal

Unless you believe that religion should also govern laws which is a big move from the system we use atm.

As stated above, this is EXACTLY how the "system" operates - with a particular world-view.

About Roe vs Wade, basically most abortions would be legal before the 3rd trimester because getting an abortion is statistically safer than giving birth. Therefore, given that the fetus has no rights as an individual under the 14th amendment but the mother DOES have rights, she is within her rights to make the decision to abort as it is safer for her. Once the fetus is in the 3rd trimester and becomes viable then the state basically says that it has rights as an individual under the 14th amendment and therefore may not be killed. Basically at that point the rights of the fetus overrides the mother's fear of well-being.

There have been numerous times when the Supreme Court, or the law of the land, has been grossly wrong before. Just because some deemed "official(s)" have said it so, doesn't make it correct. One example is that up until the 1970's lobotomies were legal and deemed medicinally accepted by the population. They were legal. They are now illegal due to their inhuman and damaging effects. This might be a weak example, but my point is that laws can be wrong. They do not replace God (for those who believe in God, anyways).

Thanks for the back-and-forth, Karl. I hope that one day you see and value life as I (and many others do), but until then I wish you the best.

Cheers, Mate.


"And I mean, I'm the GE champ.  Did you actually expect I would have a normal relationship?" -David Clemens

Carathorn

  • Posts: 4209
    • Cara
    • PD
    • twitch
Question for Fanny /anyone else who wants to respond

Help me with this train of thoughts: Isn't one of the Christian/most religions commandments "not to murder"? When murder is considered unlawful killing and humans are left to decide the law, does that mean that people decide when you break this commandment? Does the Bible in any way provide guidlines as to when something is considered murder, or do you rely on manmade laws for this?

As Karl pointed out, humans kill humans all the time. How do you feel about lawful killing such as military killing? Not all military killings are done out of (self-)defense reasons. I'm intrigued by the idea of someone being able to kill for their country and not call it murder (even with non-defensive rationale used to start a war/kill), yet at the same time consider the abortion of a fetus (which is alive, but biologically an extension of the female body until it's viable) a murder. Is there any moral friction here at all?

Sorry for asking into a bit different direction, Karl's post got me thinking about all kinds of other things haha. It's actually an almost endless discussion constantly touching upon broader subjects.

Ogran

  • Posts: 358
  • Lookup
    • Ogran
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • 2014RankingsDev
    • 2015RankingsDev
    • 2016RankingsDev
    • 2017RankingsDev
Isn't one of the Christian/most religions commandments "not to murder"?

Sure, it may say that somewhere (RE christianity 'You must not commit murder' is one of the 613 commandments in the bible) but it sorta depends if you're the diety or a peon mortal who is allowed to live by His grace. Here's a funny informative video! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTKWIMYK_x0

The Quran I think sanctions murder if somebody stops following their religion, so there's that.

As Karl pointed out, humans kill humans all the time. How do you feel about lawful killing such as military killing? Not all military killings are done out of (self-)defense reasons. I'm intrigued by the idea of someone being able to kill for their country and not call it murder (even with non-defensive rationale used to start a war/kill), yet at the same time consider the abortion of a fetus (which is alive, but biologically an extension of the female body until it's viable) a murder. Is there any moral friction here at all?

It's not murder if it's done in the right circumstances as it is lawful - there's very likely actual murder done in the military and that (seems to be) handled though miltary trials/courts - though I guess it's pretty hard to keep a 100% watchful eye over what every soldier does in some locations.

But yeah, the abortion thing: military killings are legal when done correctly and is not murder & abortions when done correctly [and lawful] IS murder. Seems a bit of friction here  :pimp:
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 06:49:22 PM by Ogran »
Here in and of the dark, our city, it's streets and walls
Here we live, we are, inside our homes and malls

spec BFR player

  • Posts: 1204
  • what up
    • Spec
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
Appealing to war-apologists is not the way to justify abortion, dude. What if most of the wars the US pushes are indeed futile, and they're indeed, murdering innocent people? You kinda lose your point there. What the hell do you mean by "lawful" murder anyway? Are you talking about legitimate self-defense or something? "Law" doesn't mean anything, it has no value on justifying abortion as well.
Speedrun Times
Chat highlights not embed so that forums don't get clogged:
http://i.imgur.com/HPNYJKM.png
http://i.imgur.com/jDB72Q1.png

"Part of what makes a shitpost good is that it contains Truth."

Ogran

  • Posts: 358
  • Lookup
    • Ogran
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • 2014RankingsDev
    • 2015RankingsDev
    • 2016RankingsDev
    • 2017RankingsDev
Lawful as in respect to a definition of murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

I'm not using war to justify abortion, where did you get that? I was noting that calling abortion, 'murder' ; while recognising that military killing isn't murder just seems off as they (abortion, military killings) both conform to laws (few countries exempt).

* Likely some people may not accept that definition, so that could cause some confusion/disagreement i guess.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 08:00:10 PM by Ogran »
Here in and of the dark, our city, it's streets and walls
Here we live, we are, inside our homes and malls

Rigger in Chief

  • Posts: 846
  • SC Host
    • Austin Perroux
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016CommunityContributor
    • 2017CommunityContributor
What if most of the wars the US pushes are indeed futile, and they're indeed, murdering innocent people?

Um....literally every war post Korean War is futile for the US
Rigging Contests One Round at a Time

Scrambler Fanny

  • Posts: 7238
  • Shawn Johnson
    • GE
    • Shawn's Goldeneye Times Page
Question for Fanny /anyone else who wants to respond

Help me with this train of thoughts: Isn't one of the Christian/most religions commandments "not to murder"? When murder is considered unlawful killing and humans are left to decide the law, does that mean that people decide when you break this commandment? Does the Bible in any way provide guidlines as to when something is considered murder, or do you rely on manmade laws for this?

I suppose common sense was always implied. Murder - as I understand the meaning - is the taking of an "innocent" and defenseless person with malice and/or intent. I, along with any sane individual who believes in the law of God (from the bible) - would not disagree with that definition and would be absolutely against it. In the Hebrew, Exodus 20:13 simply means to "not do murder." I would say that there are certain laws, or human occurrences, that are written on man's heart and do not require any interpretation. But that is just my opinion. Murder shouldn't need a definition provided.

Manslaughter is the unintentional taking of a innocent and defenseless person. A penalty should be paid, but not necessarily life-for-life, if that makes sense.

As Karl pointed out, humans kill humans all the time. How do you feel about lawful killing such as military killing?

I believe I answered that pretty clearly. I have NO problem with killing (and death for that matter). This is, I believe, a natural occurrence since the moral plummet by mankind (started by Eve and then Adam and so on) as a result of choosing not to live in a harmonious and perfect balance with God. In short: it's because of sin. Where I DO take issue is the killing of defenseless and innocent (for lack of a better term: non-combatants)

Not all military killings are done out of (self-)defense reasons.

I agree. Motives are impossible to discern on our level. But if the combatants are willing participants, than it's their choice to engage in a potential life-taking endeavor. Obviously this is still a tragedy when they, or anyone dies. I do not wish death upon anyone. I hope that that sentiment is conveyed sincerely, but I have no moral issue with willing combatants dying.

I'm intrigued by the idea of someone being able to kill for their country and not call it murder (even with non-defensive rationale used to start a war/kill), yet at the same time consider the abortion of a fetus (which is alive, but biologically an extension of the female body until it's viable) a murder. Is there any moral friction here at all?

Friend, there is absolutely no friction here what-so-ever. That child inside it's mothers belly is defenseless, a non-combatant, and has committed no crime deserving of death. From my perspective, how is there no moral friction with thinking it's ok to kill it?

Sorry for asking into a bit different direction, Karl's post got me thinking about all kinds of other things haha. It's actually an almost endless discussion constantly touching upon broader subjects.

No need to apologize. The discussion thus far has been very healthy and respectful. These subjects shouldn't ever be discussed without intent to understand each other.

Cheers


"And I mean, I'm the GE champ.  Did you actually expect I would have a normal relationship?" -David Clemens

Rigger in Chief

  • Posts: 846
  • SC Host
    • Austin Perroux
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016CommunityContributor
    • 2017CommunityContributor
Rigging Contests One Round at a Time

wheatrich

  • Posts: 2846
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
Have you all figured out trump is nuts yet?

Carathorn

  • Posts: 4209
    • Cara
    • PD
    • twitch
wooow Wheat came out of his WWIII nuclear bunker :nesquik:

Selenium Webdriver

  • Posts: 3820
    • Ace
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
wrong thread

Grav

  • Posts: 828
  • Don't underestimate me.
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016SilverStar
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ABa4RdNPxU&t=1h08m56s

this timestamp (but the whole video too) is very enlightening. understanding personality makes understanding political stances a lot easier


WR or Bust
Proof Policy Champion
Data Visualization Enthusiast

RTA/IL Rankings:
Doom 64 - https://goo.gl/LdWxjB || Blast Corps - https://goo.gl/RppsSH || Pilotwings 64 - https://goo.gl/WnS8Sh


Rigger in Chief

  • Posts: 846
  • SC Host
    • Austin Perroux
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016CommunityContributor
    • 2017CommunityContributor
Rigging Contests One Round at a Time

Selenium Webdriver

  • Posts: 3820
    • Ace
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor

Carathorn

  • Posts: 4209
    • Cara
    • PD
    • twitch
Wait Merkel is a woman?

:nesquik:

Selenium Webdriver

  • Posts: 3820
    • Ace
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPolitics/videos/1498673280164157/?hc_ref=SEARCH

But who cares, he's just playing "4D chess". :nesquik:

Next up: "I never said I was gonna build the wall". :nesquik:

spec BFR player

  • Posts: 1204
  • what up
    • Spec
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
He striked out on the "it's gonna be so easy" part so far I guess.

A little late, but I gotta say I love these cuts in irrel sections of government (assuming they're not all irrel somehow).
Screw environment and labour. Education at -14%, should be even more!
Speedrun Times
Chat highlights not embed so that forums don't get clogged:
http://i.imgur.com/HPNYJKM.png
http://i.imgur.com/jDB72Q1.png

"Part of what makes a shitpost good is that it contains Truth."

Rigger in Chief

  • Posts: 846
  • SC Host
    • Austin Perroux
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016CommunityContributor
    • 2017CommunityContributor
Nice knowing you mates
Rigging Contests One Round at a Time

Grav

  • Posts: 828
  • Don't underestimate me.
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016SilverStar
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
THE GOOGLE MEMO
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf


THE SCIENCE:

Sex differences in personality/cognition:
Lynn (1996): http://bit.ly/2vThoy8
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Lippa (2010): http://bit.ly/2fBVn0G
Weisberg (2011): http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp
Del Giudice (2012): http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx

Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries:

Katz-Gerrog (2000): http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4
Costa (2001): http://bit.ly/2utaTT3
Schmitt (2008): http://bit.ly/2p6nHYY
Schmitt (2016): http://bit.ly/2wMN45j

These findings run precisely contrary to social constructionist theory: it's been tested, and it's wrong.

Differences in men and women's interest/priorities:
Lippa (1998): http://bit.ly/2vr0PHF
Rong Su (2009): http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU
Lippa (2010): http://bit.ly/2wyfW23
See also Geary (2017) blog: http://bit.ly/2vXqCcF

Life paths of mathematically gifted females and males:
Lubinski (2014): http://bit.ly/2vSjSxb

Sex differences in academic achievement unrelated to political, economic, or social equality:
Stoet (2015): http://bit.ly/1EAfqOt

Big Five trait agreeableness and (lower) income (including for men):
Spurk (2010): http://bit.ly/2vu1x6E
Judge (2012): http://bit.ly/2uxhwQh

The general importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development:
Hines (2015) http://bit.ly/2uufOiv

Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things or people (even when the exposure is among females):
Berenbaum (1992): http://bit.ly/2uKxpSQ
Beltz (2011): http://bit.ly/2hPXC1c
Baron-Cohen (2014): http://bit.ly/2vn4KXq
Hines (2016): http://bit.ly/2hPYKSu

Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences:
Lippa (2008): http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs
Ngun (2010): http://bit.ly/2vJ6QSh

Status and sex: males and females
Perusse (1993): http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8
Perusse (1994): http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6
Buss (2008): http://bit.ly/2uumv4g
de Bruyn (2012): http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh

To quote de Bruyn et al: high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. “This is true for human adults in many cultures, both ‘modern’ as well as ‘primitive’ (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).” Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: “For females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.”

Personality and political belief:
Gerber (2010): http://bit.ly/2hOpnHa
Hirsh (2010): http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB
Gerber (2011): http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb
Xu (2013): http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq
Burton (2015): http://bit.ly/2uoPS87
Bakker (2016): http://bit.ly/2vMlQ1N

Occupations by gender:
http://bit.ly/2vTdgPp

Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias:
Fielder (2006): http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP
Blanton (2009): http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)

Microaggressions: Strong claims, weak evidence:
Lilienfeld (2017): http://bit.ly/2vS28lg

And, just for kicks, two links discussing the massive over-representation of the left in, most particularly, the humanities:
Klein (2008): http://bit.ly/2fwdLrS
Langbert (2016): http://bit.ly/2cV53Q8
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 01:24:35 PM by Grav »


WR or Bust
Proof Policy Champion
Data Visualization Enthusiast

RTA/IL Rankings:
Doom 64 - https://goo.gl/LdWxjB || Blast Corps - https://goo.gl/RppsSH || Pilotwings 64 - https://goo.gl/WnS8Sh


Qwezzo

  • Posts: 717
  • Qweczol
    • GE
    • twitch
https://diversitymemo.com/ is also still up and has a little better formatting

Shadow

  • Posts: 1220
  • The American Shadow
    • GE
    • PD
    • 2017SilverStar
What annoys me most about the whole memo thing, is that agree with him or not, the document is being grossly mischaracterized, even by people who supposedly read it. Headlines calling it a "manifesto", a "rant", or worse, and article after article righteously denouncing it for making the horrific claim that "women are biologically inferior to men". How anyone can get that out of the document is beyond me.

I've been in engineering (studies or work) for 15 years now, and when 90% of the pool is male, expect 90% of employees to be male. We had two females in the electrical engineering program while I was there. They did perfectly fine, but they were also not the norm. The engineering honor society I belonged to regularly laments (in their quarterly publication) that there isn't a 50/50 split in engineering, so we must be doing something wrong. They also disproportionately give scholarships to women, to have equal representation. When only the top 10% of guys get a scholarship but ALL the women get a scholarship, one has to wonder if it's really merit based as is claimed. Out of all this, my central point of discussion has been: by all means, remove obstacles, provide equality of opportunity, but don't immediately start shaming and accusing when there isn't equality of outcome. There may be a very reasonable and non-abusive explanation.

What do our nordic members think of this? They have even more extremely polarized work spaces but I don't see anyone there calling it white cis-male privilege. 

Selenium Webdriver

  • Posts: 3820
    • Ace
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/facebook-admits-zuckerberg-wiped-his-old-messages-which-you-cant-do/

Zuckerberg has been in hot water lately since he was EXPOSED providing third-party companies with user data to target specific campaign ads at them, in an effort to sway the 2016 election results. He's been doing other shady things, such as removing his own messages, actively advocating fake news stories on Facebook and encouraging his employees to act like hackers. The company has lost $100b+ the past few weeks (worth noting that Zuckerberg himself sold $500m in stocks a couple of months ago) and a lot of people are expressing their disdain towards him. I think his intentions are actually good. He is intentionally causing a ruckus to make the public (at least people with an IQ > 115ish) want to delete their Facebook accounts and stop using Social Media in general. Very good video on this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgwluZdJwpo

What do you think? Is Zuckerberg actually a villain or he is just having some rough days?

AForgottenEvent

  • Posts: 27
I can't decide if zucc is a lizard or a robot. Or both. Who knows.

Grav

  • Posts: 828
  • Don't underestimate me.
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016SilverStar
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor


WR or Bust
Proof Policy Champion
Data Visualization Enthusiast

RTA/IL Rankings:
Doom 64 - https://goo.gl/LdWxjB || Blast Corps - https://goo.gl/RppsSH || Pilotwings 64 - https://goo.gl/WnS8Sh


Botched Movie Quotes

  • Posts: 4407
  • Frankly, my dear, I don't care
    • Karl
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
Insane photo.
*Creator of 'waiting half a sec more cutscene' on b2 agent*
*Creator of 'bounce boost' on streets agent*
*Creator of 'strafe change laser skip' on inves*

Grav

  • Posts: 828
  • Don't underestimate me.
    • GE
    • twitch
    • 2016SilverStar
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor


WR or Bust
Proof Policy Champion
Data Visualization Enthusiast

RTA/IL Rankings:
Doom 64 - https://goo.gl/LdWxjB || Blast Corps - https://goo.gl/RppsSH || Pilotwings 64 - https://goo.gl/WnS8Sh


The man who trolled and lost everything

  • Posts: 19335
  • I'll be the backboost starring in your bad dreams
    • Goose
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • 2014CommunityContributor
    • http://www.twitch.tv/rwhitegoose
BASED Jimbo
~ S T A Y ❄ T R U E ~   |   ~ S T A Y ❄ B L E S S E D ~   |   Verax Maneret

Jimbo

  • Posts: 4012
  • Elite Historian
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • 2015CommunityContributor
    • 2016RankingsDev
That was pure luck, got invited to a big shot tailgate party and he happened to be there. He's a very hated man around here, I personally dgaf but cool pic anyway!

Selenium Webdriver

  • Posts: 3820
    • Ace
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
Ben is owning this idiot SO HARD

"why can't you identify as 60"

"BUT MAH GENDER IS DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

The good thing is that these cucked liberals don't ever really take up more than 50% of the population at most, even when heavily bandwagoned, so society isn't dead yet.

Also, I didnt read these long posts, but Ben Shapiro is a Jew, not a Christian, though I'm sure someone pointed that out to Cara.
Destiny RIPS APART Shapiro (this very same argument) in this and this video.

Selenium Webdriver

  • Posts: 3820
    • Ace
    • 2017RankingsDev
    • 2017CommunityContributor
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/technology/paypal-blocks-infowars.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Just WEEKS after he was booted off Facebook, Apple, Twitter & Spotify. Do you think this was a reasonable action, or just further evidence of tech giants that are systematically censoring & shutting down the doors of freedom of speech?

A lot of people are upset, calling this is a slippery slope because it sets a dangerous precedent and allows. But let's also not forget the many others who think this is justified because of his EGREGIOUS actions such as doxxing, harassing the parents of dead children, spreading rumors / lies, etc.

What do you think?

SGT RAGEQUIT

  • Posts: 482
    • Tyler Deel
    • GE
    • PD
    • twitch
    • soundcloud
freedom of speech isn't freedom from repercussion of what you speak
he's not entitled to any of those services, he can make his own platform and market himself there.

not to say that there's not a problem with the monopoly these companies have on the market, but there's not a specific issue with them pretty much telling this one guy to fuck off.