Page 17 of 33 FirstFirst ...
7
15
16
17
18
19
27
... LastLast
  1. #321
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Just because you don't like speech
    It's also hilarious for him to claim this given aforementioned bitching about his positions being misrepresented.

    People don't want this speech curtailed because "they don't like it" - they want it curtailed because it has severe and damaging real world effects.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  2. #322
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    It really does, nearly every other political ideology you care to name understands that no right or legal precept is limitless in scope.

    But that's because most of them have had to form governments that actually function as opposed to being an astroturfed minority that was handcrafted by the propertied classes for the express purpose of roadblocking reform regarding slavery and then capitalism.
    weeeeell to be fair the articles of confederation were as close to "libertarian government" as we've ever come AFAIK. but that lasted all of... 5 years? such a smashing success in the aftermath of the revolutionary war they had to drop it and start a new government that could actually... function.

  3. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Bringing up the spectre of "what would happen if authoritarian autocrats were in power" is not a concern relevant to nationalization questions.

    It's a deflection. To try and get us to talk about authoritarianism, rather than nationalization.



    You are either willfully lying, here, or you've lied in prior posts.

    You've made arguments that you oppose social media nationalization, because, in your own words;
    "Just because you don't like speech, doesn't mean it ought to be censored. That is the way it is, and that is the way it ought to be."

    The only way that functions as an argument is if you oppose curtailing those freedoms, regardless of the reason; you skip right past asking if there's a justification for doing so, to insisting there cannot be, because no speech should be "censored".

    If you don't mean that, you shouldn't have said that. If you did, then you're lying right here, right now. It's one of the two, because those two positions you've taken are directly contradictory.



    This is not an argument. There are plenty of positive examples of nationalization, too, and cherry-picking to avoid them means your position here is willful disinformation.

    Lying about things isn't the basis of any argument.
    Once again, I gave real-life examples of what happens if his drams come to fruition. That was a direct refutation. "You see that, that's where it leads if you have your way."

    You keep claiming I said it, prove it.

    Great, show me all the positive examples of the nationalization of all social media companies. I'll wait on that one, as well.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    It's also hilarious for him to claim this given aforementioned bitching about his positions being misrepresented.

    People don't want this speech curtailed because "they don't like it" - they want it curtailed because it has severe and damaging real world effects.
    Great, then show the law they are breaking, and take them to court.

    Considering the court case you cited actually backed up my stance, I'm guessing this may be a bit of work for you.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by uuuhname View Post
    weeeeell to be fair the articles of confederation were as close to "libertarian government" as we've ever come AFAIK. but that lasted all of... 5 years? such a smashing success in the aftermath of the revolutionary war they had to drop it and start a new government that could actually... function.
    Except for the part about... you know... people being property.

    I'll look forward to your evidence to back up such claims.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-09-23 at 01:29 AM.

  4. #324
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Great, show me all the positive examples of the nationalization of all social media companies.
    That's a very different claim than your assertion that nationalization is always bad.

    Great, then show the law they are breaking, and take them to court.
    Look at the libertarian claiming that the law - i.e. government regulation - is the source of morality. Rofl.

    The law that said courts are operating on is insufficient, hence the need for additional regulation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  5. #325
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    That's a very different claim than your assertion that nationalization is always bad.



    The law that said courts are operating on is insufficient, hence the need for additional regulation.

    Look at the libertarian claiming that the law - i.e. government regulation - is the source of morality.
    Where did I make that claim? I'll wait. I pointed to the dangerous precedent of the government controlling all the media, and how easy it would be to abuse. I gave real-life examples.

    And yet, you cannot even explain what that legislation would even look like.

  6. #326
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Once again, I gave real-life examples of what happens if his drams come to fruition. That was a direct refutation. "You see that, that's where it leads if you have your way."
    And that was an objectively false argument. You cherry-picked the data and ignored a wide swath of contradictory data points, which I pointed out to you several pages back.

    If you're still pushing that position, then you're willfully lying about things.

    You keep claiming I said it, prove it.
    That you oppose all restrictions on speech? Right there with a quote and a link to the post you said it in.

    Great, show me all the positive examples of the nationalization of all social media companies. I'll wait on that one, as well.
    Pretty much any universal health care system in the developed world, just as a for-instance. You want a specific one, let's go with Canada's.

    Renault, in France, is another.

    Ontario Hydro and Hydro-Quebec.

    Plenty of others if you bother to even make a cursory effort to look things up.


  7. #327
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Where did I make that claim? I'll wait.
    Hey if you get to make false claims like "people want this banned because they don't like it", don't get mad at the precedent it sets.

    And yet, you cannot even explain what that legislation would even look like.
    I can - I just don't feel like engaging in unpaid labor for the benefit of someone who would want to see said legislation fail regardless.

    What is it with libertarians and wanting a free ride? Sheesh. First demanding services without taxes and now this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  8. #328
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    What is it with libertarians and wanting a free ride? Sheesh. First demanding services without taxes and now this.
    "I have done precisely zero actual research and now demand YOU do all the work to disprove my fevered imaginings!"

    Gets tiresome.


  9. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And that was an objectively false argument. You cherry-picked the data and ignored a wide swath of contradictory data points, which I pointed out to you several pages back.

    If you're still pushing that position, then you're willfully lying about things.



    That you oppose all restrictions on speech? Right there with a quote and a link to the post you said it in.



    Pretty much any universal health care system in the developed world, just as a for-instance. You want a specific one, let's go with Canada's.

    Renault, in France, is another.

    Ontario Hydro and Hydro-Quebec.

    Plenty of others if you bother to even make a cursory effort to look things up.
    No, it was dead on, current examples were provided.

    Let's see your contradictory data points. let's see all the other times that the government nationalized social media, and it went well. Or, did you forget what the thread was about?

    Remember, we're talking about social media, so let's see those data points.

    You still have not offered any evidence I said that free speech should be unlimited. How long am I going to need to wait on that one?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Hey if you get to make false claims like "people want this banned because they don't like it", don't get mad at the precedent it sets.



    I can - I just don't feel like engaging in unpaid labor for the benefit of someone who would want to see said legislation fail regardless.

    What is it with libertarians and wanting a free ride? Sheesh. First demanding services without taxes and now this.
    So, you agree I didn't make those claims. Finally.

    I'm saying you are admitting you cannot even form an argument... other than wanting some form of legislation... that does something.

  10. #330
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    "I have done precisely zero actual research and now demand YOU do all the work to disprove my fevered imaginings!"

    Gets tiresome.
    Hyep.

    It's the equivalent to people claiming sexism doesn't exist because of male combat fatalities. They don't actually give a shit about male combat fatalities, they're interested in derailing the discussion and making the good faith participants' lives more miserable for twenty minutes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  11. #331
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    "I have done precisely zero actual research and now demand YOU do all the work to disprove my fevered imaginings!"

    Gets tiresome.
    It's his fucking claim.

    Are you unaware of the burden of evidence in a debate?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Hyep.

    It's the equivalent to people claiming sexism doesn't exist because of male combat fatalities. They don't actually give a shit about male combat fatalities, they're interested in derailing the discussion and making the good faith participants' lives more miserable for twenty minutes.
    But, it's literally your argument I'm calling out. Why am I supposed to research your argument for you?

  12. #332
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    But, it's literally your argument I'm calling out. Why am I supposed to research your argument for you?
    Because an informed debater is, at a minimum, cognizant of the basis of the opposition's position.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's his fucking claim.
    Which is supported by both the Big Lie as well as the anti-vax problem in the US.

    Or is your contention that social media does not have damaging real world impacts that require regulation? Because if so - good luck with that argument, lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  13. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Because an informed debater is, at a minimum, cognizant of the basis of the opposition's position.
    You haven't even staked a position. You called for legislation, yet couldn't even say what such legislation would even cover, or how it would be done.

    It's not my job to make your claims for you.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Because an informed debater is, at a minimum, cognizant of the basis of the opposition's position.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Which is supported by both the Big Lie as well as the anti-vax problem in the US.

    Or is your contention that social media does not have damaging real world impacts that require regulation?
    This is your argument, why are you asking me to back it up?

    I have made my own, and backed it up, it's your turn.

  14. #334
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You haven't even staked a position.
    You called for legislation
    Fairly sure demanding more stringent regulations of social media companies due to their detrimental real world impacts is a position, bruh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    This is your argument, why are you asking me to back it up?

    I have made my own, and backed it up, it's your turn.
    The need for regulation is backed up by the existence of the Big Lie, and antivaccination.

    You're welcome.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  15. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Fairly sure demanding more stringent regulations of social media companies due to their detrimental real world impacts is a position, bruh.



    The need for regulation is backed up by the Big Lie, and antivaccination.

    You're welcome.
    Like I said, how exactly would you do that?

    "Legislation" isn't much of an argument.

    No wonder I'm not on board with such defined policies.

  16. #336
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Like I said, how exactly would you do that?
    First I'd insist that people who want me to write legislation pay me for said service rather than getting a free ride.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  17. #337
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    No, it was dead on, current examples were provided.
    Cherry-picked examples ignoring the broader scope, and thus an intentional lie.

    Let's see your contradictory data points. let's see all the other times that the government nationalized social media, and it went well. Or, did you forget what the thread was about?
    That's another shift in the goalposts.

    I'm not playing your dishonest games any more. I'm just going to point it out when you refuse to answer a point and deflect to something new.

    Also, remember when you said you had examples? They weren't social media either. So this new double standard is double dishonest.

    You still have not offered any evidence I said that free speech should be unlimited. How long am I going to need to wait on that one?
    Literally quoted you directly and linked to the post.

    You're ignoring it and lying about that.

    Are you acknowledging that legal restrictions on speech (namely, that not all speech is protected speech) is the status quo and that you agree with that? Let's be clear about where you stand, for once.


  18. #338
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Except for the part about... you know... people being property.

    I'll look forward to your evidence to back up such claims.
    this isn't the fantasy you exist in where libertarianism is against chattel slavery. also you SERIOUSLY need to get your eyes checked when I said and I quote:
    weeeeell to be fair the articles of confederation were as close to a "libertarian government" as we've ever come AFAIK.
    bolded for emphasis.

  19. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    First I'd insist that people who want me to write legislation pay me for said service rather than getting a free ride.
    Why would I pay you, it's your legislation you want.

    Meanwhile, this would have to limit Section 230 of the CDA, which would likely put a huge chill on the internet as a whole. If you are going to make all websites responsible for the things people post, then that is going to be problematic for many of them, if not all.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Cherry-picked examples ignoring the broader scope, and thus an intentional lie.



    That's another shift in the goalposts.

    I'm not playing your dishonest games any more. I'm just going to point it out when you refuse to answer a point and deflect to something new.

    Also, remember when you said you had examples? They weren't social media either. So this new double standard is double dishonest.



    Literally quoted you directly and linked to the post.

    You're ignoring it and lying about that.
    It's not a lie, it's examples, like China. Hell, like North Korea. China controls social media quite heavily. There's other examples of the government putting heavy control over social media.

    t's not shifting goalposts, we're talking about the nationalization of social media companies. This isn't a healthcare conversation.

    Link the post, let's see it.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-09-23 at 01:54 AM.

  20. #340
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    First I'd insist that people who want me to write legislation pay me for said service rather than getting a free ride.
    Who here's actually written proposed legislation for actual governments?

    I have.

    I got paid for that shit, and it took months, and it wasn't just me working on the project.

    I'm not repeating that for free for a rando post on a web forum.


Posting Permissions

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