Biden Administration Faces Preliminary Injunction Against Putting Pressure on Social Media

[Foxi4]

This is a strawman created by the right that you now end up believing to be true for some reason

People wear that “strawman” on t-shirts, but I don’t care about that part of the discussion enough to have a debate about it.

 

[tabzer]

That is what you responded to, you just failed to fully grasp what you were reading before replying to it.

You said, "power should only extend to matters of public health and national security". You did not say, "the power (should) be limited to the extent that it cannot possibly be abused without serious consequences." There hasn't even been a context for it, as you originally entered the claim as a juxtaposition against whatever the republicans are doing. You are being extremely pathetic.

I didn't, I was exemplifying for you exactly how virtue signalling and double-standards within government can be damaging. It grinds everything to a halt, more or less.

Right, I know what you are talking about, but that's not what we were talking about. You missed my point a couple posts back, and you are still going full-sail with it.

 

[supermist]

People wear that “strawman” on t-shirts, but I don’t care about that part of the discussion enough to have a debate about it.

It's a shirt my guy. Maybe lay off the cork board

 

[Foxi4]

It's a shirt my guy. Maybe lay off the cork board

All I said was that Biden and Obama are surrounded by their very own flavour of cult of personality. Nobody puts Ronald Reagan on a shirt (we keep his picture in our little household shrines where such holy iconography belongs, surrounded by candle light and offerings of gold).

 

[supermist]

All I said was that Biden and Obama are surrounded by their very own flavour of cult of personality. Nobody puts Ronald Reagan on a shirt (we keep his picture in our little household shrines where such holy iconography belongs, surrounded by candle light and offerings of gold).

You're (potentially intentionally) ignoring the MAGA cult and nothing comes remotely close to that when it comes to any other political figure on the left or right.

 

[tabzer]

"Playing partisan politics refers to engaging in political activities or strategies that prioritize the interests of a particular political party over the broader needs of society or the best interests of the nation as a whole. It involves taking positions, making decisions, or engaging in behavior that is primarily driven by party loyalty or ideology, rather than considering objective facts, evidence, or the perspectives of other parties."

Nobody claimed that they were happy that "Republicans are conquering the Democrats". But the pushback is very telling.

 

[Foxi4]

You're (potentially intentionally) ignoring the MAGA cult and nothing comes remotely close to that when it comes to any other political figure on the left or right.

Okay, cool. Obama had a catchphrase too - “Change”, and it was on every bumper and lawn for 8 years. I don’t know what I’m supposed to tell you, I’m sorry that he’s popular with his base and that his supporters will take his word over just about anything else. “Did I do that?” - imagine this is a very accurate impression of Urkle. Now, I’m more interested in discussing free speech on the Internet, and whether or not the federal government should make thinly-veiled suggestions or issue recommendations to social media sites in regards to their moderation, just on principle, not necessarily based on any specific example.

 

[supermist]

Okay, cool. Obama had a catchphrase too - “Change”, and it was on every bumper and lawn for 8 years. I don’t know what I’m supposed to tell you, I’m sorry that he’s popular with his base and that his supporters will take his word over just about anything else. “Did I do that?” - imagine this is a very accurate impression of Urkle. Now, I’m more interested in discussing free speech on the Internet, and whether or not the federal government should make thinly-veiled suggestions or issue recommendations to social media sites in regards to their moderation, just on principle, not necessarily based on any specific example.

I dunno what to tell you other than it's very, very apparent you have no understanding of equivalency which makes a discussion on this subject with you not possible.

 

[tabzer]

I dunno what to tell you other than it's very, very apparent you have no understanding of equivalency which makes a discussion on this subject with you not possible.

There is no standard metric of determining of "how cult" something is. People use their eyes to see this, and it's has been observable on multiple sides for as long as America has been a nation (except Biden lol). @Foxi4 suggested that the behavior is genetic, do you disagree? Also do you not remember Urkle? I do not think that you are a stupid adult.

 

[Foxi4]

I dunno what to tell you other than it's very, very apparent you have no understanding of equivalency which makes a discussion on this subject with you not possible.

My guy, a Bernie Sanders fan got so lost in the DNC sauce that he shot up a congressional baseball game in an attempt to murder as many Republican politicians as he possibly could, please don’t tell me that cult of personality doesn’t exist on both sides because that’s a stupid hill to die on. If you want to say that Trump has a very large and very devoted following then that’s fair enough, but being good at a schtick is not a crime last I checked. As a quick reminder, I didn’t even *want* to debate this issue, I have no interest in it, so if your impression is that it’s impossible to do so then I’m doing something right because you’re picking up on the not-so-subtle social cues.

There is no standard metric of determining of "how cult" something is. People use their eyes to see this, and it's has been observable on multiple sides for as long as America has been a nation. @Foxi4 suggested that the behavior is genetic, do you disagree? Also do you not remember Urkle? I do not think that you are a stupid adult.

I use “it’s in our DNA” as a shorthand for saying that it’s a regular human trait, a number of factors can make someone more susceptible to become a devout follower. The same point in a couple more words is that it’s standard tribal behaviour - people bond together into a group and expect that group to have a leader, a form of paragon for what they stand for. Individuals with strong personalities are magnetic in the sense that they tend to attract people of a similar mindset, and those followers orbit around their de facto leader as a tribe would around a chief. It’s very base human behaviour and it’s not isolated to politics, it exists in all domains of life.

 

[supermist]

An overwhelming majority of political violence is committed by the right. Now I've posted data to support my claim and you've seen it and are still using an outlier to claim otherwise

 

[tabzer]

An overwhelming majority of political violence is committed by the right. Now I've posted data to support my claim and you've seen it and are still using an outlier to claim otherwise

You want to argue that one "side" is more cult than another, and that conversation isn't going to go anywhere. It doesn't matter how many they killed. They are all killing each other and it's a mess that you are jumping into by playing partisan politics.

 

[Foxi4]

An overwhelming majority of political violence is committed by the right. Now I've posted data to support my claim and you've seen it and are still using an outlier to claim otherwise

You’re clearly more interested in doing your own thing instead of sticking to the topic, so I’m just going to ignore your attempts at detailing the thread.

 

[Xzi]

You said, "power should only extend to matters of public health and national security". You did not say, "the power (should) be limited to the extent that it cannot possibly be abused without serious consequences."

"Only" in this context is synonymous with "limiting to." I can't be expected to teach an English class every time we interact.

Right, I know what you are talking about, but that's not what we were talking about. You missed my point a couple posts back, and you are still going full-sail with it.

Well then I might as well continue my rant. We elect people to govern, not to find new and creative ways to self-victimize. If Republicans hate democracy and their opposition party so much, they're free to dissolve and let a better party take their place. Beyond that, they've got an uphill battle ahead trying to convince a federal judge that their motivations are anything more than a partisan PR stunt, and that their priorities aren't totally scrambled.

There are a number of social media platforms which should 100% be triggering anti-trust action against them, and yet the Republican concern is with allowing them to monetize more disinformation instead. It's beyond satire.

 

[tabzer]

"Only" in this context is synonymous with "limiting to." I can't be expected to teach an English class every time we interact.

The thing you've taught me, is that you are willing to adjust what you originally said in order to stay relevent in a conversation. Up until your pearl clutching, there has been no indication that you were referring to controls preventing abuse of using "national security" as a convenient excuse. It was never a topic of conversation until you lost face. Anyway, that's besides the point of our pedantic showdown. Here's another lesson about your own language:

Even if you were to "limit" powers to matters of national security, you'd still need a definition and an arbiter of "national security". It's not hard to connect those dots. The lesson has already been demonstrated in this thread.

...

Lol. You are still talking about something that is wholly unrelated to anything I ever said. You really would rather talk over everyone than actually listen to them.

 

[Xzi]

The thing you've taught me, is that you are willing to adjust what you originally said in order to stay relevent in a conversation.

Precisely why we can't have civil conversations, you'd rather assume the worst of me than assume the worst of your own reading comprehension. If you need clarification on something I've said, just ask. That's a mark of intelligence, not weakness.

Even if you were to "limit" powers to matters of national security, you'd still need a definition and an arbiter of "national security". It's not hard to connect those dots. The lesson has already been demonstrated in this thread.

It's never required an arbiter before, but I'm not opposed to the idea of independent executive oversight on these matters, and I'm all in favor of independent SCOTUS oversight in general.

Lol. You are still talking about something that is wholly unrelated to anything I ever said. You really would rather talk over everyone than actually listen to them.

In this particular instance, yeah. You don't really have anything to add to the conversation other than antagonism, and that being the case, you're not providing any more value than a soapbox for me to stand on. Thankfully there are other people here willing to actually take the time to comprehend the arguments I'm forming, rather than just arguing with the strawmen in their heads as you're so fond of doing.

 

[tabzer]

Precisely why we can't have civil conversations, you'd rather assume the worst of me than assume the worst of your own reading comprehension. If you need clarification on something I've said, just ask. That's a mark of intelligence, not weakness.

If I assumed something, you'd have to point it out. You sound like a nice person, but it's a false platitude when you are saying that after losing an argument.

It's never required an arbiter before

There has always been an arbiter/s. It has been every politician who has ever used it as an excuse to do anything, throughout history, pretty much.

In this particular instance, yeah. You don't really have anything to add to the conversation other than antagonism, and that being the case, you're not providing any more value than a soapbox for me to stand on. Thankfully there are other people here willing to actually take the time to comprehend the arguments I'm forming, rather than just arguing with the strawmen in their heads as you're so fond of doing.

Yeah, what strawman? The more rational @Xzi that suicided himself a few posts back? It's clear that you are here to instigate partisan politics, and it's almost religious the lengths you'd go to do it. I need you to step back, and actually respond to what I said if this is going to go somewhere.

 

[Xzi]

If I assumed something, you'd have to point it out.

I don't like to attribute malice to what could instead be attributed to ignorance, but we're way beyond the point where you've established a pattern.

There has always been an arbiter/s. It has been every politician who has ever used it as an excuse to do anything, throughout history, pretty much.

There's no dedicated arbiter. The fallback currently is issuing an injunction from a federal court, but that shouldn't be necessary if we have a first line of defense.

 

[tabzer]

I don't like to attribute malice to what could instead be attributed to ignorance, but we're way beyond the point where you've established a pattern.

Why the evasion? This isn't Street Fighter. It's a conversation. You accused me of something and I am asking you to support it by being specific.

There's no dedicated arbiter. The fallback currently is issuing an injunction from a federal court, but that shouldn't be necessary if we have a first line of defense.

So the answer is either "government" or "make believe". Nice chat.

 

[pustal]

You've suggested the need for someone, or an institution, to be both correct and in charge.

Quote me then where.