US Politics

[ZeEa5KPul]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1347924770977964033

The terrorist in your profile photo has been arrested. He looks thrilled.

How nice. Try answering the questions I posed in my post. Make an attempt at a serious answer if you're capable.

 

[Gomig-21]

That's an interesting point of view. I have two questions:

I would tend to say that it's more factual than only a PoV. It's the truth, hence fact.

1. Do you support extending "free speech" protections to avowed fascists who have the goal of overthrowing the constitutional order of the United States (and with it the First Amendment)?

lol, of course not. They have their own and many other platforms they can spew their garbage on. It's not like they're being silenced at all. Not even close.

2. What's your opinion on America's move toward a "Chinese-style" information management system (i.e. censorship) differing from the latter only in that it will be run incompetently by private corporations?;/quote]

Uhhhhmmmm......no thanks. Things are just fine the way they are and the system works. We've seen it happen right in front of our eyes. They tried, they created some damage, a few hours later they were removed and things went back to normal. Unfortunately a few lives were lost but the culprits will be rounded and justice will be served eventually,

 

[gambit]

That's an interesting point of view. I have two questions:

1. Do you support extending "free speech" protections to avowed fascists who have the goal of overthrowing the constitutional order of the United States (and with it the First Amendment)?

Yes. Speech is not action. You can talk all you want, but am interested in action. Of course, the more you talk, the more attention you will get, so if your goal is the overthrow of the US, is it wise to talk so much? But therein lies the problem, if you do not talk, you will get nowhere.

2. What's your opinion on America's move toward a "Chinese-style" information management system (i.e. censorship) differing from the latter only in that it will be run incompetently by private corporations?

Government is 'competent' only in the sense that it is able to hide its incompetency, so from that perspective, government is no better than private corporations. I should know. I used to work for the goobermint.

The goobermint is a monopoly in power. If there are contestant authorities, the result is a civil war. So out of necessity, there can be only one goobermint in a country. So if the goobermint is the only authority for information control and access, how are we to know if the authority is 'competent' or not? It is only with competition that we can make comparisons from which we can determine 'competency'.

The issue of censorship is about that monopoly inside a domain such as my house and your house. Inside our respective domains, we exercise exclusivity in everything. So from inside my house or your house, censorship cannot be discussed. Google cannot censor Duckduckgo, for example. Just like I, from my house, cannot censor information in your house. We can criticize the domains only if I am able to visit your house and you visit mine, then we analyze our observations.

Right now, America is not moving towards that 'Chinese-style' of censorship, despite what you see in the news. If there is a collusion of goobermint and private corporations, then that is for a different discussion.

Perhaps @gambit, @Hamartia Antidote, and @F-22Raptor can take a crack at answering these two questions as well. Although I will note that they tend to duck the tough questions.

Give me a break. For all yrs I have been on this forum, it has consistently been you guys who have the tendency to duck tough questions.

 

[gambit]

Of course not. And let's be clear about our "freedom of speech" and the boundaries within that concept. Just because we have something called 'freedom of speech,' doesn't mean we get to say anything we want in any context we wish and within any platform we chose without any consequences. Twitter and most social media outlets have all kinds of rules and regulations that pretty much degrade the levels of freedom of speech. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that just because you have that freedom, doesn't mean you can get on any of these networks, bypass their rules and conditions and incite violence and insurrection onto any public domain, let alone the capital of the United States.

Here are two examples...

1. "Fire...Fire...Fire...!!!" (in a crowded theater)

2. "I urge everyone to gather arms and overthrow the government"

Which situation will generate the most fear and most immediate reaction? Of course: Number One.

Let us say there are 100 people in both situations.

Situation One is why we prosecute those who yelled 'Fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire. When one's life is threatened by a non-intelligent threat like flames, there is no 'fight' but only 'flight'. I got that from a friend who is a firefighter. For regular people, there is no 'or' like the original 'fight or flight' response. Even an experienced firefighter will 'flight' first before he can gather his wits and resources to 'fight' based on his training. If some dies in the stampede to flee a real fire, we would write the deaths off as tragic collateral damage. But if some dies to flee from an imagined fire, we will call that at least 'manslaughter' and prosecute the person who started the stampede.

Situation Two is problematic. How do I know if 100 people will respond and respond immediately? The government rarely is an immediate threat. The government is always a READIED threat. Standing by, if you will. A fire, a collapsing roof, or a burst water main, those are immediate threats. So if I want to overthrow the government, it would require forethought, planning, and execution. This would mean time delayed by some of that 100 people. What if some chose not to respond? What if no one respond?

Back to social media. The 'freedom of speech' lies in Situation Two in varying degrees. Some platforms will prosecute immediately. Some are more laissez faire. What if instead of saying 'overthrow the government' I say 'we have a bad government and it should be replaced'? If you say either one in Xi's house or Putin's house, you would be expelled. Whereas in my house, if you say either one, I would ask for a discussion. It is not that I cannot differentiate between 'overthrow the government' and 'bad government should be replaced'. The first is incitement. The second is opinion. But the First Amendment does not make that distinction.

Incitement: the act of encouraging someone to do or feel something unpleasant or violent

Prosecution for incitement was once against abolition of slavery and other forms of social injustice.

Idea -- Speech -- Action

Incitement is speech. But why bother with speech? Why not go for the root cause: Idea?

Of course, neither Xi nor Putin can read minds, but their governments can do some things that can guess at Idea and preempt Speech.

Here is an abstract of a paid article...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

Why have few journalists ever stood in the dock for incitement to violate international humanitarian law? Their work as propagandists has been essential to governments committing war crimes, crimes against peace and genocide. The answer matters both because impunity emboldens further violation and because the traditional distinctions between news reporting, news commentary and propaganda, and between journalists, commentators and activists, have eroded due to global news markets and social media. After presenting a brief history of prosecutions and non-prosecutions to establish the relative infrequency of prosecutions, this article reviews possible explanations, several of which are revealed in the foregoing historical survey. This investigation will suggest a multi-causal explanation that leans heavily on assumptions about the privileged position of journalists in liberal societies.​

​

One can be a propagandist without being in the service of the government. The article implied that incitement SHOULD be prosecutable.

Social media prosecuted Trump by removing him from their platforms. Their houses, their rights. But now, some Democrats urges the US, a greater house, to legally prosecute Trump and his associates in all three ares: Idea, Speech, and Action.

This is why the First Amendment do not make the distinction between 'incitement' and 'opinion'. The latitude is too wide for any government to have.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Uhhhhmmmm......no thanks. Things are just fine the way they are and the system works. We've seen it happen right in front of our eyes. They tried, they created some damage, a few hours later they were removed and things went back to normal. Unfortunately a few lives were lost but the culprits will be rounded and justice will be served eventually,

Well, that's this time. Your system barely held against an incompetent fascist like Trump, would it hold against a competent fascist like a President Tom Cotton or President Tucker Carlson? And by the way, I would consider it pretty heavy-handed censorship when the sitting president (soon to be former president) is excommunicated from all major social media. Is he going to be a fixture on /pol/ now? I can't see Weibo ever banning Hu Jintao or Jiang Zemin.

As amusing as it is to watch the imperial collapse of the US in real-time, I do ultimately have some skin in this game. If fascists manage to get into power in the US then Canada won't be far behind. As you might imagine, that would be an outcome I prefer to avoid.

Being as you're originally from Egypt, I'd like to ask you your opinion on President Sisi. I've been following the geopolitics of the Middle East off and on since the Arab Spring and Syrian Civil War (it's an irl Game of Thrones), and I have to say that I consider myself a fan. He rescued the Egyptian state from the ikhwan, he implemented painful and necessary economic reforms that were delayed for decades, and he's got a pretty good relationship with China despite Egypt being in the American camp since the Yom Kippur War (as I recall, China is also heavily involved in building Egypt's new administrative capital). The Pharaoh Sisihotep I gets a from me.

I used to work for the goobermint.

You used to work for the American government. To put it kindly, America is hardly the gold standard in governance, even if we were to confine the discussion to liberal democracies, which are inherently inferior governments.

The issue of censorship is about that monopoly inside a domain such as my house and your house. Inside our respective domains, we exercise exclusivity in everything. So from inside my house or your house, censorship cannot be discussed. Google cannot censor Duckduckgo, for example. Just like I, from my house, cannot censor information in your house. We can criticize the domains only if I am able to visit your house and you visit mine, then we analyze our observations.

That analogy would be germane to our discussion only if everyone had his own "house". In reality, there are a small handful of very large houses, whose patriarchs all form a very tightly-knit clique. If Google decides to soft-censor something, that something might as well not exist. Google is a de facto Great Firewall like that in China - sure, you can bypass it (like you can bypass China's), but how many people are going to bother when just using the service is perfectly adequate for their needs.

I think that if Facebook and Twitter stick to their censorship of Trump, his movement would fizzle out (just the hardcores would remain on places like /pol/ and that Reddit-clone that starts with a 'p'). It would be a powerful demonstration in the efficacy of censorship to foster social stability.

Right now, America is not moving towards that 'Chinese-style' of censorship, despite what you see in the news. If there is a collusion of goobermint and private corporations, then that is for a different discussion.

There is always collusion between the American government and major corporations. In fact, it would not be going too far to say that the government is nothing more than a confederation of major corporations with a thin political veneer applied to it.

 

[gambit]

You used to work for the American government. To put it kindly, America is hardly the gold standard in governance, even if we were to confine the discussion to liberal democracies, which are inherently inferior governments.

How bad is the corruption in your goobermint? Or is corruption NOT a factor in grading against that gold standard for authoritarian style of governance?

That analogy would be germane to our discussion only if everyone had his own "house". In reality, there are a small handful of very large houses, whose patriarchs all form a very tightly-knit clique. If Google decides to soft-censor something, that something might as well not exist. Google is a de facto Great Firewall like that in China - sure, you can bypass it (like you can bypass China's), but how many people are going to bother when just using the service is perfectly adequate for their needs.

There are other search engines like Duckduckgo and even MS Bing. Sure, Google maybe technically superior, but having other search engines is akin to having contestant authorities inside a country. So yes, we do have an information civil war, if you will, among many houses. The reason why Google get so much attention is because of the sheer volume of people inside and outside the US who uses it, and because Google offers other services that other search providers do not. Lastly, there is the old text based usenet where not even mighty Google can displace.

I think that if Facebook and Twitter stick to their censorship of Trump, his movement would fizzle out (just the hardcores would remain on places like /pol/ and that Reddit-clone that starts with a 'p'). It would be a powerful demonstration in the efficacy of censorship to foster social stability.

And what would happen if Congress decide to break up Google, Twitter, and Facebook? Right now, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are considering it. The US Congress, divided as it is, is not merely entertaining the idea, but getting readied to debate it when the Biden Admin is seated. The threat is so real that I see a daily full page ad by Facebook in WaPo, which is not cheap, trying to rehabilitate Facebook's tarred image.

The rise of Parler was an alarm that no one expected. And the reason no one expected was because they underestimated the average Americans. If Amazon et al decide to sever service to Parler, someone will step up. You can bet your next yr's salary on it.

Social stability? The best form of social stability is by mutual compact among the people, not by top down imposition. In that, America and Americans are more stable than you think. I dare say that perhaps you are too used to that Chinese top down imposition model of social stability that you got unnerved by American periodic brief spikes in social issues, re 1 out of 7 in Hong Kong who are protesting to this day. What is happening in HK is American style activism and it is right in your face.

There is always collusion between the American government and major corporations. In fact, it would not be going too far to say that the government is nothing more than a confederation of major corporations with a thin political veneer applied to it.

The business of America is business. President Calvin Coolidge said in 1925. And your China adopted that model when China realized she was failing everywhere in her house. You guys have been arguing on this forum on how meritocratic China's government is combining business experience with Party loyalty. So it looks like that Chinese veneer is thicker than ours.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

How bad is the corruption in your goobermint?

I'll assume you're speaking about China here, since Canada's government is Yet Another Democracy no one sane expects much from. That it doesn't fall into an abyss (probably following the US as it always does) is all anyone can ask of it.

Corruption in China is much better than it used to be, and in future it's going to be much better than it is now. Why? Because the Chinese government is not captured by special interests using it to advance their own goals. It is a responsive, adaptive entity that's always changing to better execute its function: governing China.

Westerners conceive of governments as necessary evils, as impositions from above to be endured in the best of times and destroyed in the worst. This contempt is evident in your pejorative "goobermint" - although it is amusing that your contempt wasn't enough to stop you from working for and taking money from it.

Chinese civilization simply does not share this view - to China, its government is an intrinsic part of its cultural identity, not an outside invader. Government is part of what China is.

Or is corruption NOT a factor in grading against that gold standard for authoritarian style of governance?

It is a factor, an important one but not the biggest one. The biggest one is adaptability - how well a government improves and adapts in response to the social and political stresses applied to it. Here the Chinese government gets the full grade, while the US government fails miserably.

Corruption is also relative. For a country too poor to provide health care to all its citizens, not having universal healthcare is forgivable. A country wealthy enough to do it but doesn't because of its corruption is monstrous.

There are other search engines like Duckduckgo and even MS Bing.

Here are the relevant market shares:

Search Engine Market Share United States Of America | Statcounter Global Stats

This graph shows the market share of search engines in United States Of America based on over 5 billion monthly page views.

gs.statcounter.com

And what would happen if Congress decide to break up Google, Twitter, and Facebook?

We shall see. This whole imbroglio started because traditional media don't like that social media and alternative outlets are cutting into their action. The big tech firms will just take a slap on the wrist and censor themselves further to placate their foes, but nobody is getting broken up. Why? Because big tech - like big anything - owns the Congress.

Social stability? The best form of social stability is by mutual compact among the people, not by top down imposition.

This might be how it's written in American political science textbooks, but I'm not seeing this theory playing out in the real world. All I see is increasing polarization and rising fascism and extremism. And this isn't a recent thing, this has been happening over decades. It seems a lot of people want to renegotiate the terms of the "mutual compact".

In that, America and Americans are more stable than you think. I dare say that perhaps you are too used to that Chinese top down imposition model of social stability that you got unnerved by American periodic brief spikes in social issues

Have some shame, my guy. Your national legislature was just looted and trashed by a violent, insurrectionist mob incited and supported by your president and you're giving me the "this is fine" line? I don't think so.

The business of America is business.

Glad you agree with me.

So it looks like that Chinese veneer is thicker than ours.

There is no veneer. The business of China is government.

 

[Gomig-21]

 

[gambit]

Corruption in China is much better than it used to be, and in future it's going to be much better than it is now. Why? Because the Chinese government is not captured by special interests using it to advance their own goals. It is a responsive, adaptive entity that's always changing to better execute its function: governing China.

No, the corruption in China is not getting better. It is getting better at being covered up by the Party. But the sheer money involved is too tempting for the issue to be eradicated, only managed at least for perception's sake. Keep in mind that Party officials, including Xi himself, benefited from corruption long before the drive to supposedly 'combat corruption'. You cannot dismiss testimonies about corruption from foreigners who has to deal with Party officials at all levels.

Granted, testimonies are trailing indicators, or statistically time delayed. You cannot record and analyze something UNTIL that something occurred. But in dealing with statistics of anything, including recorded instances of corruption, we have the same trends out of China: frequency and grouping. Namely, corruption in China did not decreased. The same amount of money bribed to the same levels of organization as testified by foreigners, from CEOs down to line level contractors. I want something fixed? For an additional 'fee' to another subcontractor, I can get it fixed. So your claim that the Chinese government is somehow above the fray is absurd in the face of reality. The Chinese government is swimming in money.

Westerners conceive of governments as necessary evils, as impositions from above to be endured in the best of times and destroyed in the worst. This contempt is evident in your pejorative "goobermint" - although it is amusing that your contempt wasn't enough to stop you from working for and taking money from it.

Chinese civilization simply does not share this view - to China, its government is an intrinsic part of its cultural identity, not an outside invader. Government is part of what China is.

All governments are intrinsic to their countries. Even Americans accepts that. But why did you state the obvious when it was about China but then call it an 'evil' when it was about US? The opposite of 'evil' is 'good', right? So why not say for Chinese, the government is always 'good' in contrast to how Westerners views the government? Or is it because you are afraid of the words 'good' and 'benevolent' as descriptors for the Chinese government because you KNOW that in essence, ALL goobermints are necessary evils, no matter you want to spin it for China.

Nay...You are not merely afraid of the words 'good' and 'benevolent' for China. You are TERRIFIED of them while Americans have no problems calling the goobermint for what it is.

Intrinsic? I expected better than that.

It is a factor, an important one but not the biggest one. The biggest one is adaptability - how well a government improves and adapts in response to the social and political stresses applied to it. Here the Chinese government gets the full grade, while the US government fails miserably.

By what metrics? If we go with hard metrics, such as tangibles like economics and STEM, the US, as young as it is, quite rivaled the much older China in terms of achievements. And it is hard to disassociate economics and STEM from those social and political stresses. Often, advances in economics and STEM creates unknown social and political stresses.

In vitro fertilization. For all of human history, the alternative is adoption. Now we have laws on what to do with frozen eggs when a couple is going thru a divorce and fights over what to do with the eggs.

Slavery. The US went thru a civil war, exited intact, and abolished slavery. Hard to over emphasize the great immorality that is slavery and the sacrifice the country made to rectify that sin.

So now we have China emulating US in some areas and fight US in other areas. And remember that China lost an ideological Cold War. How was that social and political stress? You boasted on how China is great in pulling so many out of poverty, but then you guys ran away from the inevitable question of how did China got so poor in the first place. That was one hell of a social stress when Chinese had to resort to eating tree bark and even cannibalism to survive.

Corruption is also relative. For a country too poor to provide health care to all its citizens, not having universal healthcare is forgivable. A country wealthy enough to do it but doesn't because of its corruption is monstrous.

Spare US all the universal health care argument. You look at this from the usual top down perspective and it revealed how little you understand Americans. You are used to using the top down method because you are essentially a dictator wannabe. You believe that you know better for me than I for myself.

If I do not want universal health care, then it is the government's fault? What kind of logic is that?

This has nothing to do with national wealth and how to use it. For now, most Americans do not want a government health care system. The ACA or 'Obamacare' is not universal health care but a pathetic attempt at trying to convince Americans into the idea. If you want to use the word 'monstrous' to describe the situation, then the target is AMERICANS, not the goobermint.

Call ME a monster for not supporting universal health care because AT THIS TIME, I have not seen a palatable alternative to my employer provided health care plan. Convince, not force, ME. Unlike you, the Democrats know that the 'monsters' are the average Americans who stands in their way towards universal health care. But as with all dictators, choice for the people and persuasion are alien concepts, ain't it? We are too stupid to know what is good for us so you must do it for us, right?

What you have is a shaming, not a logical, argument.

Here are the relevant market shares:

Search Engine Market Share United States Of America | Statcounter Global Stats

This graph shows the market share of search engines in United States Of America based on over 5 billion monthly page views.

gs.statcounter.com

So what? For now, Google is good enough for what most people uses it for. But you missed the point. Just like how Chinese VPN-ed their way out of China, if Americans want, we will have or find alternatives to Google.

We shall see. This whole imbroglio started because traditional media don't like that social media and alternative outlets are cutting into their action. The big tech firms will just take a slap on the wrist and censor themselves further to placate their foes, but nobody is getting broken up. Why? Because big tech - like big anything - owns the Congress.

Chinese big tech owns the government.

What is the likelihood of the US Congress breaking up Facebook? Serious enough to bring life into Zuckerberg's android like face. We broke up AT&T. Kodak, Standard OIl, and Microsoft are other terrifying examples. Standard Oil became 34 separate entities and they competed against each other.

What is the likelihood of the Party breaking up Huawei or Beidou? Practically zero. The money is too good and the services are too vital to the country. The Party may punish INDIVIDUALS such as Jack Ma, but his creations will continue as is to serve the financial interests of the country and the Party.

This might be how it's written in American political science textbooks, but I'm not seeing this theory playing out in the real world. All I see is increasing polarization and rising fascism and extremism. And this isn't a recent thing, this has been happening over decades. It seems a lot of people want to renegotiate the terms of the "mutual compact".

And yet, American neighbors with diverse political views are not killing each other. No one charged anyone with 'desecrating' the Constitution and a mob stoned the alleged offender to death. This year, I drove cross country relocating to the east coast and along the way, that mutual compact got state troopers saluting me and meal discounts at diners once they saw 'VETERAN' status on my driver's license. My new neighbors, including a black grandmother, welcomed me with beers and homemade cookies as the movers drove up with my household goods.

The ones that are killing Americans does it indiscriminately, not specifically. In this, they are anarchists, ANTIFA and BLM, and anarchists do not care of your political views. They have divorced themselves from that mutual compact long ago. They used political views only as cover for their actions, not as deeply held credo. They are social outliers and the average Americans, the ones that Democrats ridiculed as 'clinging to their guns and religion', are not motivated by anarchist beliefs.

Have some shame, my guy. Your national legislature was just looted and trashed by a violent, insurrectionist mob incited and supported by your president and you're giving me the "this is fine" line? I don't think so.

Shame? Really? How many were at Tiananmen Square and what did they do? Right now, the Party is glad that the 1-out-of-7 situation in HK is mostly peaceful. Proportionally, that is greater than the American Trumpeteers who are crying foul over the election. In the end, this will blow over, and everything will be business as normal.

Glad you agree with me.

And about 150 millions other Americans. And about unknown number of non-Americans outside our borders who agreed with the model and tries to emulate in their countries, including China.

There is no veneer. The business of China is government.

Not today, it ain't. The switch was dire enough that the Party had to insert its commissars into every Chinese corporation that has greater than X employees and Y financial status to keep the capitalistas from running amok.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Trump becomes first U.S. President to be Impeached twice!

 

[CrazyZ]

Trump becomes first U.S. President to be Impeached twice!

View attachment 706640

Its not all losing. Trump got tax cuts for the rich and peace for Israel. Trump also convinced impoverished white supremacists to become expendable foot soldiers for rich Zionists (show some respect for that).

 

[Gomig-21]

Trump becomes first U.S. President to be Impeached twice!

View attachment 706640

I mean, the sad part is that this one individual has single-handedly almost destroyed the hallowed institution that is the president of the United States. Let's just take a quick look at the scum he brought with him to the White House.

1) Fake News.
2) The media is the enemy of the people
3) Hoax this, hoax that
4) Great people ON BOTH SIDES...
5) Proud Boys stand back stand down or some crap like that
6) Displayed the WORST behavior of a thug in the first presidential debate
7) COMPLETELY botched the handling of the corona virus calling it a hoax at first
8) And the worst of all IMO, calling the voting process of the election rigged and stolen because that's what really has brought this country to the brink of disaster.

You would think all this behavior was coming from an enemy of the US! Not the president!!!! What a sad day in the history of this country and shows how dangerous it is to elect just anyone to this great position of super authority that comes with an unequivocal level of responsibility that clearly was completely lacking by this disaster of the freak!

 

[denel]

Banana republic of Trump.

our Zapiro gets it right always. Lunnie tunes.

 

[Sharma Ji]

 

[Destranator]

This is a brutal demolition of Dave Rubin's grifty career: