Page 93 of 94 FirstFirst ...
43
83
91
92
93
94
LastLast
  1. #1841
    The Unstoppable Force Puupi's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    23,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Not interested in pro-slavery historical revisionism.

    Go read Articles of Secession: the only reason States' Rights came up was slavery. It was the central, overwhelming issue for all involved.
    "Pro-slavery historical revisionism."

    I was just pointing out that the USA and the CSA were both founded for mostly the same reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by derpkitteh View Post
    i've said i'd like to have one of those bad dragon dildos shaped like a horse, because the shape is nicer than human.
    Quote Originally Posted by derpkitteh View Post
    i was talking about horse cock again, told him to look at your sig.

  2. #1842
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Puupi View Post
    "Pro-slavery historical revisionism."

    I was just pointing out that the USA and the CSA were both founded for mostly the same reason.
    This is flat-out untrue.

    Nearly every single Articles of Secession document clearly describes slavery as the primary issue over which they were seceding.

    It isn't mentioned at all in the Declaration of Independence.

    What you're posting is historical revisionism. It is contrary to the actual historical facts. It is not, in any respect or quality, true.

    It's as galling as claiming that the Nazis were just interested in economic growth and national security.


  3. #1843
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Not interested in pro-slavery historical revisionism.

    Go read Articles of Secession: the only reason States' Rights came up was slavery. It was the central, overwhelming issue for all involved.
    It is funny how they say it was over state rights when the slave owning states say they’re doing it for spaces and cite it being their constitutional right because the constitution didn’t explicitly say slavery. Though they clearly alluded.

  4. #1844
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is flat-out untrue.
    Nearly every single Articles of Secession document clearly describes slavery as the primary issue over which they were seceding.
    It isn't mentioned at all in the Declaration of Independence.
    What you're posting is historical revisionism. It is contrary to the actual historical facts. It is not, in any respect or quality, true.
    It's as galling as claiming that the Nazis were just interested in economic growth and national security.
    I agree on most points.
    I recall reading that congress before the Civil War likened the issue of slavery to a biblical plague; "Frogs everywhere we turn..." Basically saying that no matter where any argument on any issue, it always came back to slavery.

  5. #1845
    Scarab Lord downnola's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Made in Philly, living in Akron.
    Posts
    4,572
    Quote Originally Posted by CryotriX View Post
    Dude, it's not that it's worthy. (At least I) am not defending either this meme or what it stands for, not even remotely. It's just that I am able to recognize memes from reality, and able to tell when shitty jokes end and human suffering starts. Those that aren't able to tell these differences are ILL, they are psychopaths.

    These platforms just keep removing shit randomly, and new memes will arise, ban those too, and so on, until when? And why?

    Gonna be completely honest here. Here's what I would do if I were YT.

    - put a BIG link to the Srebrenica massacre, with PHOTOS, on each of the remove kebab trash videos. And make them watch a history lesson before the video too, or at least have an intro injected in a video stream with the repercussions. I'd use the opportunity for education. If you see what happened there and STILL want to kill Muslims and "remove kebab", nothing can fix ya.
    Platforms can remove what they want because it's their platform. If Youtube doesn't want songs about ethnic cleansing on their platform, who has the right to force them to keep it on their platform? Freedom of association is the key that you're missing here. Most people would benefit if they listened to opposing views in a good faith effort to understand them, but I'm going to go ahead and draw the line at shitty ethnic cleansing memes. Calls for genocide and violence are outside the limits of political discourse. If people don't start enforcing those boundaries, then nihilism creeps up behind us with a bit of lead piping ready to take a swing.
    Populists (and "national socialists") look at the supposedly secret deals that run the world "behind the scenes". Child's play. Except that childishness is sinister in adults.
    - Christopher Hitchens

  6. #1846
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It doesn't matter what century we're talking about.

    This whole bit of bullshit where people pretend that privately-owned social media are public spaces is an entitlement complex, nothing more. You feel entitled to other people's property, and get angry when the property owner says "nah" because you broke their rules and they banned you.

    The reality is that you had no right to use their property. Ever. It was a privilege they granted you, and one they could (and did) revoke.

    Your participation on those sites is not something you have ever had any legal or ethical right to. No more than you had a right to have a newspaper publish your article, or a concert venue give you the use of their stage. It's a private venue.
    The problem is these platforms have grown to become so powerful that they've become the default form of communication. We have govt officials who aren't quacks like Trump who see Twitter as a viable method of relaying information to citizens. They have in essence become weaponized by governments to impact elections, they are much greater than simply a place for you and I to share ideas.

    However if you refuse to accept regulating these platforms, do you also agree with deregulating television? Allow foreign entities to purchase air time in Canada to alter our upcoming election for their benefit?
    Last edited by smegmage; 2019-03-18 at 08:17 PM.

  7. #1847
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by smegmage View Post
    The problem is these platforms have grown to become so powerful that they've become the default form of communication. We have govt officials who aren't quacks like Trump who see Twitter as a viable method of relaying information to citizens. They have in essence become weaponized by governments to impact elections, they are much greater than simply a place for you and I to share ideas.
    None of this is a "problem". It's just you explaining why you want free and unrestricted access to someone else's property.

    Which isn't an argument. I might really want go shop at the local shopping mall, but if they banned me for streaking in the fountain, tough nuts to me. It doesn't matter if it's the primary shopping area for my town, where all the kids my age hang out. I'm the one that fucked up, and they don't have to put up with me.

    However if you refuse to accept regulating these platforms, do you also agree with deregulating television? Allow foreign entities to purchase air time in Canada to alter our upcoming election for their benefit?
    These platforms are already regulated. I'm arguing against the idea that those who run these companies should have their property rights taken away, just because some abusive dickwads can't take personal responsibility for their own bad behaviour. Which is all this complaint boils down to.

    And no; why would I agree to deregulating platforms like television? That has nothing to do with what we're discussing.


    I'm standing up for basic principles. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, rights to property, personal responsibility.


  8. #1848
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is flat-out untrue.

    Nearly every single Articles of Secession document clearly describes slavery as the primary issue over which they were seceding.

    It isn't mentioned at all in the Declaration of Independence.
    Just because it's not flat out in the declaration of independence, it doesn't mean it wasn't a primary driving factor for many states and land owners. What the declaration DIDN'T do is specifically put an end to slavery, which is what the British wanted to do there. Contrary to popular belief, there wasn't unanimous support for indepence at first. A lot of the Southern states didn't put their weight behind war until the Dunmore declaration made them shit themselves. (ie any slave who came to the British would be freed). Europe had already been arming Africans and using them to gain strategic and military advantage. Considering Africans outnumbered white settlers in places such as the Carolinas, you can't honestly believe that this wasn't an immense concern to the settlers there at the time?

    For the War of 1812 it was certainly a bigger part. Britains original demands actually included freeing the slaves and setting up a state for the native Indians. As part of the truce, Britain even had to pay huge amounts in comepensation after the war to America to pay back for all of the slaves that it freed. Not even joking.

    The US was built on slavery, and even those in the nortern states got fat on its profits. (I'm not saying that Britains history isn't far more fucked up)
    BASIC CAMPFIRE for WARCHIEF UK Prime Minister!

  9. #1849
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by rogueMatthias View Post
    Just because it's not flat out in the declaration of independence, it doesn't mean it wasn't a primary driving factor for many states and land owners. What the declaration DIDN'T do is specifically put an end to slavery, which is what the British wanted to do there.
    The slave trade was still active in Britain at the time. You're engaging in historical revisionism. Britain, at that time, was not opposed to the slave trade.

    Contrary to popular belief, there wasn't unanimous support for indepence at first. A lot of the Southern states didn't put their weight behind war until the Dunmore declaration made them shit themselves. (ie any slave who came to the British would be freed). Europe had already been arming Africans and using them to gain strategic and military advantage. Considering Africans outnumbered white settlers in places such as the Carolinas, you can't honestly believe that this wasn't an immense concern to the settlers there at the time?
    Dunmore's Proclamation wasn't about ending slavery wholesale, he was trying to put a spike in a growing revolution, by both increasing his own forces and giving the colonials the threat of a slave revolt to worry about. It was strategic, not about the institutions in question.

    The American Revolution wasn't about the institution of slavery; both the rebel colonials and the British Empire they were rebelling from were slave trading nations at the time.


  10. #1850
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by rogueMatthias View Post
    Just because it's not flat out in the declaration of independence, it doesn't mean it wasn't a primary driving factor for many states and land owners. What the declaration DIDN'T do is specifically put an end to slavery, which is what the British wanted to do there. Contrary to popular belief, there wasn't unanimous support for indepence at first. A lot of the Southern states didn't put their weight behind war until the Dunmore declaration made them shit themselves. (ie any slave who came to the British would be freed). Europe had already been arming Africans and using them to gain strategic and military advantage. Considering Africans outnumbered white settlers in places such as the Carolinas, you can't honestly believe that this wasn't an immense concern to the settlers there at the time?

    For the War of 1812 it was certainly a bigger part. Britains original demands actually included freeing the slaves and setting up a state for the native Indians. As part of the truce, Britain even had to pay huge amounts in comepensation after the war to America to pay back for all of the slaves that it freed. Not even joking.

    The US was built on slavery, and even those in the nortern states got fat on its profits. (I'm not saying that Britains history isn't far more fucked up)
    The only northern states that benefited from slavery weren't even states or a multitude of places at all. Rather it was literally confined to Manhattan Island where the Dutch/British/European brokers lived and did business.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  11. #1851
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It doesn't matter what century we're talking about.

    This whole bit of bullshit where people pretend that privately-owned social media are public spaces is an entitlement complex, nothing more. You feel entitled to other people's property, and get angry when the property owner says "nah" because you broke their rules and they banned you.

    The reality is that you had no right to use their property. Ever. It was a privilege they granted you, and one they could (and did) revoke.

    Your participation on those sites is not something you have ever had any legal or ethical right to. No more than you had a right to have a newspaper publish your article, or a concert venue give you the use of their stage. It's a private venue.
    Sorry, but it does matter what century we're talking about.

    Social media has become THE public platform. It is where everyone gathers, it is where everything is posted, and it is where all information that is relevant is located. The fact that they are owned by private companies is clearly becoming a relic of the past, and they are starting to show the problems with having that. We already have precedent. President Trump's twitter account was ruled to be public space, and thus he can't ban people from them. All it's gonna take is a high profile lawsuit by someone of twitter before the right judge to set further precedent. Ideally I'd see it filtering down the government down into the private sector, ultimately making the website public. Yes, Twitter is currently a private company. Yes, they can ban whoever they want. Yes, there is no real viable alternative to Twitter. All of those things are true. No one is arguing with that. The question, is what can we do to fix that? Can the US government start a Twitter competitor? Would anyone even use it? I can guarantee there would be privacy issues. People would think their info would be harvested by the government. And, they'd probably be right.
    Quote Originally Posted by blobbydan View Post
    We're all doomed. Let these retards shuffle the chairs on the titanic. They can die in a safe space if they want to... Whatever. What a miserable joke this life is. I can't wait until it's all finally over and I can return to the sweet oblivion of the void.

  12. #1852
    The Patient vondevon's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by rogueMatthias View Post
    Just because it's not flat out in the declaration of independence, it doesn't mean it wasn't a primary driving factor for many states and land owners. What the declaration DIDN'T do is specifically put an end to slavery, which is what the British wanted to do there. Contrary to popular belief, there wasn't unanimous support for indepence at first. A lot of the Southern states didn't put their weight behind war until the Dunmore declaration made them shit themselves. (ie any slave who came to the British would be freed). Europe had already been arming Africans and using them to gain strategic and military advantage. Considering Africans outnumbered white settlers in places such as the Carolinas, you can't honestly believe that this wasn't an immense concern to the settlers there at the time?

    For the War of 1812 it was certainly a bigger part. Britains original demands actually included freeing the slaves and setting up a state for the native Indians. As part of the truce, Britain even had to pay huge amounts in comepensation after the war to America to pay back for all of the slaves that it freed. Not even joking.

    The US was built on slavery, and even those in the nortern states got fat on its profits. (I'm not saying that Britains history isn't far more fucked up)
    I don't understand where or how you picked up the belief that the Colonies broke from GB because GB wanted to end slavery. That is factually inaccurate.

    The primary motivation for the Colonies declaring independence is that GB imposed the Stamp Tax and a fellow by the name of James Madison began writing op-eds in The Federalist Papers claiming that Britain wanted to enslave the colonists in the same way that Britain and the Colonies had enslaved the African tribes. Madison's claim was picked up by several prominent statesmen who would later be known as the Founding Fathers.

    So the Colonies declared independence because they (falsely) believed that Britain wanted to enslave them, not because Britain wanted to end slavery.

  13. #1853
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Fincayra View Post
    Social media has become THE public platform.
    It is not a public platform.

    You don't get to rewrite reality because you have an unwarranted sense of entitlement to other people's property. Which is your entire argument.

    It is where everyone gathers, it is where everything is posted, and it is where all information that is relevant is located. The fact that they are owned by private companies is clearly becoming a relic of the past, and they are starting to show the problems with having that.
    This is both factually incorrect and just feeds into that sense of entitlement I mentioned.

    We already have precedent. President Trump's twitter account was ruled to be public space, and thus he can't ban people from them. All it's gonna take is a high profile lawsuit by someone of twitter before the right judge to set further precedent.
    Clearly, you didn't understand what that ruling meant.

    It didn't mean Twitter was a public space. It meant that using a Twitter account for official communications, that account had to be treated as public space by those who used it.

    That ruling would not apply to Twitter, who could ban that account if they wanted to. It also doesn't apply to any accounts that aren't used in that way, nor to Twitter as a whole.

    You are again trying to rewrite reality to support an unwarranted and undeserved sense of entitlement to other people's property.

    Yes, Twitter is currently a private company. Yes, they can ban whoever they want. Yes, there is no real viable alternative to Twitter. All of those things are true.
    No, that last one is blatantly false. There's tons of other tools for communication. There's no other service but Twitter that is exactly like Twitter, but that's not an argument for anything. It's like arguing that Toyota needs to give you a car because you need a car and nobody else makes Toyotas. It's exactly that silly.


  14. #1854
    Quote Originally Posted by Fincayra View Post
    Sorry, but it does matter what century we're talking about.

    Social media has become THE public platform. It is where everyone gathers, it is where everything is posted, and it is where all information that is relevant is located. The fact that they are owned by private companies is clearly becoming a relic of the past, and they are starting to show the problems with having that. We already have precedent. President Trump's twitter account was ruled to be public space, and thus he can't ban people from them. All it's gonna take is a high profile lawsuit by someone of twitter before the right judge to set further precedent. Ideally I'd see it filtering down the government down into the private sector, ultimately making the website public. Yes, Twitter is currently a private company. Yes, they can ban whoever they want. Yes, there is no real viable alternative to Twitter. All of those things are true. No one is arguing with that. The question, is what can we do to fix that? Can the US government start a Twitter competitor? Would anyone even use it? I can guarantee there would be privacy issues. People would think their info would be harvested by the government. And, they'd probably be right.
    A publicly funded platform would be the answer to your problem, a spot that is only maintained by government employees with only bare minimum regulation (like no child porn). If many or few people use it, that's just the market working as intended.

    As for information harvesting, pretty sure big tech has long been accused of such practice.
    The wise wolf who's pride is her wisdom isn't so sharp as drunk.

  15. #1855
    Hey guys.

    I know we like to talk shit and flamebait especially after a mass shooting, but I'd like to try something different.

    Let's remember the victims, honor the survivors but most importantly change the way these stories are covered. Given the manifesto of the this shooter it seems his intent was to use the infamy this brought to divide and sew chaos.

    That's my job. Fuck that guy.

    Something that really gets to me is these shooters really do crave attention and fame above all else. I know we can't agree on gun control but let's agree not to feed these monsters nor the trad-media that creates them.

  16. #1856
    Mind if I roll need? xskarma's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Netherlands, EU
    Posts
    27,585
    Since this thread has gone way off topic and is unlikely to return to what it was supposed to discuss in a civil manner, I'm going to close this here.



    CLOSED.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •