Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
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.
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 - - -
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 - - -
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.
That's a very different claim than your assertion that nationalization is always bad.
Look at the libertarian claiming that the law - i.e. government regulation - is the source of morality. Rofl.Great, then show the law they are breaking, and take them to court.
The law that said courts are operating on is insufficient, hence the need for additional regulation.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
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.You keep claiming I said it, prove it.
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.Great, show me all the positive examples of the nationalization of all social media companies. I'll wait on that one, as well.
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.
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.And yet, you cannot even explain what that legislation would even look like.
What is it with libertarians and wanting a free ride? Sheesh. First demanding services without taxes and now this.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
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 - - -
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
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? Because if so - good luck with that argument, lol.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
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 - - -
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.
Fairly sure demanding more stringent regulations of social media companies due to their detrimental real world impacts is a position, bruh.You called for legislation
The need for regulation is backed up by the existence of the Big Lie, and antivaccination.
You're welcome.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Cherry-picked examples ignoring the broader scope, and thus an intentional lie.
That's another shift in the goalposts.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?
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 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?
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.
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:
bolded for emphasis.weeeeell to be fair the articles of confederation were as close to a "libertarian government" as we've ever come AFAIK.
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 - - -
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.