OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Hark_The_Sound_2010

Hall of Famer
Nov 10, 2009
11,585
13,536
113
Boston
Jim Jordan and right-wing MSM are hyped about cancel culture because Trump lost his twitter handle. That's it. If that didn't happen we wouldn't be talking about it.

Trump loses -> spreads big lie about fraud -> helps incite Capitol insurrection -> twitter yanks him cuz hate speech yields deaths and stuff at Capitol. If Trump just put on a mask and didn't downplay the disease...
Again, you think cancel culture is only a thing because Jim Jordan (and who the hell is that, even?) is talking about it?

Where have you been?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heelicious

Hark_The_Sound_2010

Hall of Famer
Nov 10, 2009
11,585
13,536
113
Boston
Of course it's a thing, but there are a million things, not all should be congress' top priorities.
I do agree that cancel culture shouldn't be a topic occupying congress' time. Both discussing preventing cancel culture, and cancelling things in the first place. There's more important stuff out there.
 

blazers

Hall of Famer
Oct 8, 2001
6,401
2,307
113
like a pointless impeachment show?
Not really similar, aside for them both being a waste of time.

One is more social / cultural and not that important compared to real problems Americans face daily. Put censorship (by private companies) on the list, but waaaaay down at the bottom, and good luck figuring out how to do anything about it.

The other is about holding someone responsible for helping incite a riot against our national legislators while trying to perform their duties. This was a waste because it was pre-ordained that Senators are only worried about their re-election, not justice or precedent.
 

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
8,870
1,625
113
Are you living with the delusion that I give a flying fuk what you think is funny or not? I’m starting to wonder if you’re maybe one of these satanic reptilian child molesters. Do you think of satanic reptilian child molesters a lot? Do you see yourself as one day being a Satanic reptilian child molester? Were you raised by satanic reptilian child molesters? Are you in a cult of satanic reptilian child molesters? That would explain being so defensive about chicks with Dicks. Nttawwt
well, apparently it isn't a delusion, judging by your wordy reaction. You must be living under the delusion that you don't give a flying fuk.

The SRCM thing still not funny, BTW; but I'll give you the old 'A' for boring effort. At the same time I'll remind you of how idiotic it is to keep trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Face it, it just is never going to be funny.
 

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
8,870
1,625
113
Not really similar, aside for them both being a waste of time.

One is more social / cultural and not that important compared to real problems Americans face daily. Put censorship (by private companies) on the list, but waaaaay down at the bottom, and good luck figuring out how to do anything about it.

The other is about holding someone responsible for helping incite a riot against our national legislators while trying to perform their duties. This was a waste because it was pre-ordained that Senators are only worried about their re-election, not justice or precedent.
And there needs no aside, but aside you go. This is what I was talking about with you. You constantly deflect in some manner or another. YOU were making a point of Congress wasting its time, aimed at the Republican side of things. I gave a counter example aimed at the dem side. PERIOD. No explanation needed beyond that, yet beyond that you go because that's what you do.

But to play your game again, I believe the cancel culture phenomenon is an issue that needs to be addressed because it affects that which we hold most dear idealogically, and that is freedom of expression. On the other hand, your bullshit impeachment show was pure politics and was based on bogus evidence, as you are aware. It was a hatchet job, just one more in an ongoing endeavor.
 

blazers

Hall of Famer
Oct 8, 2001
6,401
2,307
113
And there needs no aside, but aside you go. This is what I was talking about with you. You constantly deflect in some manner or another. YOU were making a point of Congress wasting its time, aimed at the Republican side of things. I gave a counter example aimed at the dem side. PERIOD. No explanation needed beyond that, yet beyond that you go because that's what you do.

But to play your game again, I believe the cancel culture phenomenon is an issue that needs to be addressed because it affects that which we hold most dear idealogically, and that is freedom of expression. On the other hand, your bullshit impeachment show was pure politics and was based on bogus evidence, as you are aware. It was a hatchet job, just one more in an ongoing endeavor.
I don't consider that deflection, I consider it contrast. YES the impeachment was a time-waste but it needed to be done, not only since the house majority passed it, but for precedent (surrounding justice and responsiblity).

In contrast "cancel culture" is barely defined. Is it the stuff Obama harped on when young people on campus and social media were overly judgemental? Or is it #meToo when Weinstein and Spacey are assaulting people? Or is it a book publisher deciding they don't like some of their books due to racism? Or twitter silencing hate-speech which helped incite a riot?

Which of the above can actually be legislated? Which of the above are impacting the immigration, economy, healthcare, climate, education, taxes, natsec, crime, income inequality, budget deficit, national infrastructure problems we all face?

These are important things, but they are barely even groupable, bigtech censoring is way diff from Mr Potatohead brand deciding they want to be just "potatohead". And they're all more about society/culture which are things you can't strong-arm or dictate.

Your freedom of expression isn't being taken away. You have the right to say what you want. But everyone else has the right to judge you for what you say. You can say anything you want inside a private restaurant, but that restaurant has a right to show you the door if they think you're being a disruptive or offensive asshat.
 

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
8,870
1,625
113
I don't consider that deflection, I consider it contrast. YES the impeachment was a time-waste but it needed to be done, not only since the house majority passed it, but for precedent (surrounding justice and responsiblity).

In contrast "cancel culture" is barely defined. Is it the stuff Obama harped on when young people on campus and social media were overly judgemental? Or is it #meToo when Weinstein and Spacey are assaulting people? Or is it a book publisher deciding they don't like some of their books due to racism? Or twitter silencing hate-speech which helped incite a riot?

Which of the above can actually be legislated? Which of the above are impacting the immigration, economy, healthcare, climate, education, taxes, natsec, crime, income inequality, budget deficit, national infrastructure problems we all face?

These are important things, but they are barely even groupable, bigtech censoring is way diff from Mr Potatohead brand deciding they want to be just "potatohead". And they're all more about society/culture which are things you can't strong-arm or dictate.

Your freedom of expression isn't being taken away. You have the right to say what you want. But everyone else has the right to judge you for what you say. You can say anything you want inside a private restaurant, but that restaurant has a right to show you the door if they think you're being a disruptive or offensive asshat.
your calling it something beside deflection doesn't mean you didn't deflect. A rose by any other name....

As for the rest of it, if one's countering opinion or unfortunate choice of words or topic is being opposed such that his life is altered and disrupted as a result, causing one to hesitate to freely express himself, that is cancel culture. You know, as in cancelling. Simply disagreeing and being met with a modicum of derision is OF COURSE not what we are talking about, even though it would benefit your argument to make that appear to be so. Just you being you.

Ever heard of assault and battery? The terms are often conflated, but battery is the actual physical attack while assault can merely be an action that causes one to fear that a physical attack is imminent. In other words, there is already a basis for concern over actions that fall short of physical contact but that nonetheless inhibit one's freedom.

And who says something has to be an object of legislation for the legislature to investigate it or cause it to be investigated? And who says there is something that is not subject to legislation?

In a more general way, you can disagree and deflect all you want, but the sane among us realize that this cancel culture bullshit is unhealthy and a cancer on a healthy and happy society. We don't need to more and more adopt the herd behavior that the left is so fond of, but instead we should find ways to CANCEL purely reactive animal behavior. We are supposed to NOT be about the mindless mob.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2

blazers

Hall of Famer
Oct 8, 2001
6,401
2,307
113
your calling it something beside deflection doesn't mean you didn't deflect. A rose by any other name....

As for the rest of it, if one's countering opinion or unfortunate choice of words or topic is being opposed such that his life is altered and disrupted as a result, causing one to hesitate to freely express himself, that is cancel culture. You know, as in cancelling. Simply disagreeing and being met with a modicum of derision is OF COURSE not what we are talking about, even though it would benefit your argument to make that appear to be so. Just you being you.

Ever heard of assault and battery? The terms are often conflated, but battery is the actual physical attack while assault can merely be an action that causes one to fear that a physical attack is imminent. In other words, there is already a basis for concern over actions that fall short of physical contact but that nonetheless inhibit one's freedom.

And who says something has to be an object of legislation for the legislature to investigate it or cause it to be investigated? And who says there is something that is not subject to legislation?

In a more general way, you can disagree and deflect all you want, but the sane among us realize that this cancel culture bullshit is unhealthy and a cancer on a healthy and happy society. We don't need to more and more adopt the herd behavior that the left is so fond of, but instead we should find ways to CANCEL purely reactive animal behavior. We are supposed to NOT be about the mindless mob.
To deflect is to turn off course or change topic right? So how am I changing the topic away from whether or not cancel culture or impeachment are comparable. You brought impeachment into the convo, indicating they were alike... i'm just telling you they aren't very comparable.

An example of deflection would be for me to segue the subject from congress wasting time to a discussion about how your wordy you are. You word-count per point or topic is bigly.
 
Last edited:

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
8,870
1,625
113
To deflect is to turn off course or change topic right? So how am I changing the topic away from whether or not cancel culture or impeachment are comparable. You brought impeachment into the convo... i'm just telling you they aren't comparable.
it means to go off point and it doesn't necessarily mean to go completely off course, so yes. And they ARE comparable, as you pointed out yourself, in their being a waste of time. You comparing the two beyond them being a waste of time, which is the point I made and the only point I was making, was a deflection. There was no need and no reason for further comparison, other than to give you something to be right about...and you weren't even right anyway. You are a compulsive deflector.
 

heelmanwilm

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
May 26, 2005
16,094
10,136
113
60
Wilmington NC
well, apparently it isn't a delusion, judging by your wordy reaction. You must be living under the delusion that you don't give a flying fuk.

The SRCM thing still not funny, BTW; but I'll give you the old 'A' for boring effort. At the same time I'll remind you of how idiotic it is to keep trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Face it, it just is never going to be funny.

Oh you’re delusional no doubt. Another sign of being a Satanic reptilian child molester. That plus no sense of humor.
 

blazers

Hall of Famer
Oct 8, 2001
6,401
2,307
113
it means to go off point and it doesn't necessarily mean to go completely off course, so yes.
thanks for defining it.
You comparing the two beyond them being a waste of time, which is the point I made and the only point I was making, was a deflection.
You simply say they're alike. I disagree that in broader terms they aren't alike. By your definition, me telling you how your vague comparison sucks is not me deflecting since i'm not going off point at all.

I think you are reaching for some term other than "deflect"...
 

Archer2

Hall of Famer
Aug 5, 2009
24,536
14,532
113
The Old North State
It would take a really long time to list the number of things that Congress needs to address prior to cancel culture (and big tech censorship).
Seems the founding fathers would disagree with you. They thought freedom of speech was important enough to be included in the First Amendment.

Amendment 1
- Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceablyto assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
 

blazers

Hall of Famer
Oct 8, 2001
6,401
2,307
113
Seems the founding fathers would disagree with you. They thought freedom of speech was important enough to be included in the First Amendment.

Amendment 1
- Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceablyto assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
free_speech.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010

dadika13

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Oct 20, 2007
17,190
25,597
113
NYC
After doing so great on our AMC shares, I've decided to jump on the SKT train to lose some more money. It's supposed to be the next big thing from WSB.

Yeah, I was tracking it yesterday - quick pull back after the gain. Market is frustrating this past week.

I went in on that Portnoy ETF $BUZZ. More of a longer term play but I like the idea of them using social data to make decisions on the stocks in the fund. However, I can already see Barstool Bros all mad cuz they don't understand that ETFs don't automatically go up when lots of people buy them.
 

tarheel0910

Hall of Famer
Jun 24, 2011
22,597
27,370
113
Atlanta
Yeah, I was tracking it yesterday - quick pull back after the gain. Market is frustrating this past week.

I went in on that Portnoy ETF $BUZZ. More of a longer term play but I like the idea of them using social data to make decisions on the stocks in the fund. However, I can already see Barstool Bros all mad cuz they don't understand that ETFs don't automatically go up when lots of people buy them.
I put in an order for SKT last night for $16.50. I actually checked it out some and it's actually a solid long term play I think. I'll have to check out the Portnoy ETF you're talking about. I guess we might need a financial thread to talk about all the genius financial moves that OOTB posters make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dadika13

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
8,870
1,625
113
Oh you’re delusional no doubt. Another sign of being a Satanic reptilian child molester. That plus no sense of humor.
if having no sense of humor means that I don't laugh at stuff that was intended to be funny but fails, you're right. Your post above being a case in point. Nothing funny and no sense of humor at all in that case.
 

prlyles

Hall of Famer
Aug 19, 2006
14,864
2,858
113
I put in an order for SKT last night for $16.50. I actually checked it out some and it's actually a solid long term play I think. I'll have to check out the Portnoy ETF you're talking about. I guess we might need a financial thread to talk about all the genius financial moves that OOTB posters make.
Sounds like a good idea.
 

heelmanwilm

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
May 26, 2005
16,094
10,136
113
60
Wilmington NC
if having no sense of humor means that I don't laugh at stuff that was intended to be funny but fails, you're right. Your post above being a case in point. Nothing funny and no sense of humor at all in that case.

Typical satanic reptilian child molester response
 

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
8,870
1,625
113
thanks for defining it.

You simply say they're alike. I disagree that in broader terms they aren't alike. By your definition, me telling you how your vague comparison sucks is not me deflecting since i'm not going off point at all.

I think you are reaching for some term other than "deflect"...
now not only are you deflecting (from an accusation of deflecting) as expected, you are being dishonest as well in creating a deflecting argument out of thin air based on a lie. I didn't merely say they generally were alike, I said they were specifically alike in being a waste of Congress' time. You put up an example of a Congressional waste of time (in your opinion) and I matched it with an example of a Congressional waste of time, WHICH YOU AGREED WITH as being such. But then you did what you do.

And what you do is to create these deflections when you have been rightly nailed.
 

heelmanwilm

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
May 26, 2005
16,094
10,136
113
60
Wilmington NC
I don’t support social media bans of the ex president. I miss having him prove on a daily basis he’s a fuking idiot. I really do. But it’s not a first amendment issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blazers

blazers

Hall of Famer
Oct 8, 2001
6,401
2,307
113
now not only are you deflecting (from an accusation of deflecting) as expected, you are being dishonest as well in creating a deflecting argument out of thin air based on a lie. I didn't merely say they generally were alike, I said they were specifically alike in being a waste of Congress' time. You put up an example of a Congressional waste of time (in your opinion) and I matched it with an example of a Congressional waste of time, WHICH YOU AGREED WITH as being such. But then you did what you do.

And what you do is to create these deflections when you have been rightly nailed.
You are arguing semantics without understanding what the word deflection means, that's funny to me.
 

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
8,870
1,625
113
You are arguing semantics without understanding what the word deflection means, that's funny to me.
there you go again, deflecting by claiming we are arguing semantics. You just refuse to be wrong...but you are.
 

gteeitup

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Nov 29, 2001
26,313
6,777
113
Columbia, SC
He was just bringing God back into the senate!


only saw part of this earlier...if his attorney advised him to respond this way and bring this story, he’s fukked.

secondly, maybe i didn’t pay enough attention to the video the first few times, but is that a capitol police officer walking in behind him or some other rioter dressed in security detail?
 

blazers

Hall of Famer
Oct 8, 2001
6,401
2,307
113
there you go again, deflecting by claiming we are arguing semantics. You just refuse to be wrong...but you are.
You bring up semantics (arguing about the word vague), i refute without changing topic, you claim deflection. This is fun.
 

blazers

Hall of Famer
Oct 8, 2001
6,401
2,307
113
only saw part of this earlier...if his attorney advised him to respond this way and bring this story, he’s fukked.

secondly, maybe i didn’t pay enough attention to the video the first few times, but is that a capitol police officer walking in behind him or some other rioter dressed in security detail?
It was police. That cop was in there, alone, the whole time while they were messing around in the chamber. It looks like he was chaperoning, but he was outnumbered by dozens. Aside for shooting them, I don't think there is anything he could've done other than use harsh language.
 

Archer2

Hall of Famer
Aug 5, 2009
24,536
14,532
113
The Old North State
The problem is that the people who get to determine what is "offensive, incendiary, BS, etc..." are largely from the left side of the political spectrum. Twitter is owned and overseen predominately by liberals. The same is true of Google, by far the most used search engine in the world by a large margin. And Google also happens to own YouTube, which dominates the video sharing platform industry. The vast majority of the donations from these companies go to liberal coffers. That's fine.

But when these so-called "non-political" companies use their platforms to promote liberalism, then they are no longer "non-political". That is the case with all three of these media giants. From shadow-banning to shutting down user's accounts, to removing videos, to writing algorithms to influence search results, these companies are trying to directly influence peoples' perception of reality. And they are succeeding.

Deemed to be "interactive computer services", companies like Twitter and Facebook cannot be sued for posts by their users. This is based on the premise, which these companies maintain, that they are not responsible for the content posted by users, they are merely the platform. But they are not merely the platform, they are "steering the ship" by silencing those whose opinions they disagree with. They have become politicized and are promoting an agenda. And their power to influence public opinion is growing daily.

IMO, they should be held liable for their actions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gunslingerdick

tarheel0910

Hall of Famer
Jun 24, 2011
22,597
27,370
113
Atlanta
The problem is that the people who get to determine what is "offensive, incendiary, BS, etc..." are largely from the left side of the political spectrum. Twitter is owned and overseen predominately by liberals. The same is true of Google, by far the most used search engine in the world by a large margin. And Google also happens to own YouTube, which dominates the video sharing platform industry. The vast majority of the donations from these companies go to liberal coffers. That's fine.

But when these so-called "non-political" companies use their platforms to promote liberalism, then they are no longer "non-political". That is the case with all three of these media giants. From shadow-banning to shutting down user's accounts, to removing videos, to writing algorithms to influence search results, these companies are trying to directly influence peoples' perception of reality. And they are succeeding.

Deemed to be "interactive computer services", companies like Twitter and Facebook cannot be sued for posts by their users. This is based on the premise, which these companies maintain, that they are not responsible for the content posted by users, they are merely the platform. But they are not merely the platform, they are "steering the ship" by silencing those whose opinions they disagree with. They have become politicized and are promoting an agenda. And their power to influence public opinion is growing daily.

IMO, they should be held liable for their actions.
I think you're partially right. They do some of the things you mention, but I don't believe it's motivated by politics. I think they are motivated by the same thing all large companies are motivated by, money. It's really that simple. Despite what you have heard, these companies cozy up to politicians and people on both sides. I do agree that people should be able to hold them accountable, even through lawsuits, but government needs to stay the hell away from private business unless there is some law being broken. Enforcement of anti trust laws would also be beneficial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blazers

bluetoe

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2012
8,870
1,625
113
You bring up semantics (arguing about the word vague), i refute without changing topic, you claim deflection. This is fun.
YOU brought up semantics, liar. We were arguing about a Congressional waste of time and nothing else and you began deflecting as usual. The only other thing I'm arguing about at this point is your compulsion to deflect. Now look where you have led us with your deflections while you deny doing so. It's like you're purposely making fun of yourself.
 

Heelicious

Hall of Famer
May 12, 2005
6,180
3,222
113
Well- I agree with most of this cartoon, but what applies to Google, FB, Twitter, Amazon, is, if they take editorial license on what is and is not fit to host or to publish, if they ban what they see as "hate speech" or offensive (example: removing Dr. Suess, Donald Trump, but allowing Iranian anti-American leaders, Mein Kampf) - then they aren't pure independent publishers or mere hosts. They are editorial media orgs, and should be assessed accordingly under section 230 laws
 

blazers

Hall of Famer
Oct 8, 2001
6,401
2,307
113
We were arguing about a Congressional waste of time and nothing else and you began deflecting as usual. The only other thing I'm arguing about at this point is your compulsion to deflect.
Us arguing about whether congress wasting time via A vs B is comparable is an argument about a single topic. That's not deflection.

An example of deflection would be me now changing the topic to a new topic, like this: you clearly don't know what deflect means, there is something wrong with you.