SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
FatPhil
on Monday February 06 2017, @09:17PM
from the is-there-an-all-fake-news-sites-are-liars-paradox dept.
from the is-there-an-all-fake-news-sites-are-liars-paradox dept.
Over the last few months, we've talked about the weird obsession some people upset by the results of the election have had with the concept of "fake news." We warned that focusing on "fake news" as a problem was not just silly and pointless, but that it would quickly morph into calls for censorship. And, even worse, that censorship power would be in the hands of whoever got to define what "fake news" was.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bad Idea or the Worst Idea? Having the FTC Regulate "Fake News"
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 134 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 06 2017, @11:43PM
Ya reckon? I haven't RTFA yet. Saw it in my RSS feed and did an automated submission through IRC because I knew it'd stir some interesting discussion.
A) Religious conservatives are not a significant power in the Republican party and haven't been since the 80s.
B) Check your bullshit on violence. Republicans aren't the ones rioting, looting, burning shit, assaulting people, and causing the deaths of innocents simply because someone dared to disagree with them. That would be progressives. Entirely progressives, not even a mixed bag.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:00AM
I was not talking about rioting, I was talking about the government authority that libertarians complain so vocally about. The "monopoly on violence" to push laws on us poor folks. The US has gotten incredibly more progressive in the last 60 years: no more legal segregation, women's rights over their own bodies, etc. Religious conservatives can't stand this and this, along with other more valid issues such as immigration and outsourcing of jobs, and this election cycle they were able to come out on top with a winning minority.
Let's see if we can look at history and not just the last few crazy months of this election. Y'know, to get some real perspective.
On the conservative side: lynchings, beatings, murders, destruction of property, vandalism, bombing abortion clinics. All done by extremist conservatives.
On the liberal side: destruction of property, vandalism, much less murder and physical violence against people.
All humans can be violent, but progressives/liberals are more humane as a general group. Conservatives are less humane as a group unless you are on their side. This holds true across all countries, and I'm sure you'll trot out "communists" as an example of failed liberal/progressive ideas but don't bother, that red herring is about dictatorship not progressive/liberal ideology.
So historically the religious conservatives are the ones reacting with violence and hatred, progressive liberals are more likely to destroy equipment to stop projects they don't like but actual murder and physical violence is much lower. 8 years of Obama and we have a loooot of evidence for how batshit crazy conservatives can be, but you aren't crying foul there, nope nope only now that liberals are causing a ruckus.
I'm gonna go with "piss off" for your one sided view of reality. Twist the facts to suit your purposes and ignore the facts that show you're wrong. Good show, TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP! (I know you're not his biggest fan, but you sure fit the profile)
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:43AM
That liberal and progressive largely coincided until the late 90s should not be taken as an endorsement of progressiveism. Progressiveism can never end or those making money off of it stop making money off of it. Thus, once a rough equality was reached, they turned away from equality and began progressing in another direction entirely. So, no, progressiveism is not a good thing. It is an entirely self-serving and quite vile thing.
Bullshit. Pick any timespan ending now in the US that conservatives were more violent than progressives. Conservatives simply are not as inherently malevolent as progressives. As for the current decade? It's all you lot, baby. All of it. Your lot's hissy fit over Trump getting elected stopped ambulances and people died. Your lot viciously beat students at UC Berkeley for having different views. Your lot needs to take a long, hard look at itself and see if its actions are really how they want to go about things, because I guarantee you conservatives and the actual liberals, libertarians, won't tolerate it for much longer.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:17AM
I never said there weren't extremist liberals, there totally are. However, percentage-wise the conservative base has typically had a more violent population and no amount of hissy fits from you will change that fact. As usual you have selective memory where the facts only support your world view, so we can stop this back and forth as we obviously disagree and will find no common ground. If you hadn't thrown in your little editorial "some people upset by the results of the election" then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But no, you had to throw partisan spin into it.
Without common ground we have no way forward, so I guess we can spit at each other across no man's land once the civil war breaks out.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:21AM
He means un-sanctioned violence. Y'see when the state does it, so long as he agrees with it, it's fine.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:29AM
Yes, do please tell everyone how the poster boy libertarian adores state use of power. Might as well say you're a libertarian yourself and then go on about how you want the government to use its power to make people act, speak, and think like you believe they should some more.
Here's a clue since I know you'll never get one for yourself: if you find yourself thinking your plans would work wonderfully if only you had better people, you're a tyrant. Or a wannabe tyrant in your case.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:25AM
How many cases of lightbulbs do you go through a month, projecting like that? You fool no one but yourself. I've seen all this shit happen before and it never ends well.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08 2017, @02:46AM
She's got you there, TMB you're definitely more the type that would make other people conform to your desires. I recall some thread where you bitched about employees and had all sorts of gripes, you're a tyrannical boss which is common for computer nerd types. Flexing your authority because you believe you're so much smarter / more insightful than everyone else.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 08 2017, @05:58AM
Look closer at his history: he is about the same as the very Steve Bannon we're railing against. He's in favor of "burning it all down," which is thinly-disguised code for a complete coup d'etat and remaking of the nation in his desires' image...and if you've seen the shit he posts you know what that is.
The worst part is the bizarre, almost teenaged sense of invincibility and entitlement he has. He actually seems to think he's some kind of temporarily-embarrassed elite who will be showered in money and power in the new world. I've been telling him for ages now that the kind of fire that will burn it all down will consume him with it...and continue to ravage him in hell.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:49AM
"so I guess we can spit at each other across no man's land once the civil war breaks out."
That would be funny, if it weren't so stupid. Ask yourself - "Who bought all those guns that Obama prompted Americans to buy?" The vast majority of gun owners are independent, libertarian, or conservative. Those "blue islands" in the political maps are where the liberals live, and those islands have the strictest gun laws in the nation. So, you envision the hoplophobic left suddenly acquiring arms, in sufficient quantities to overcome the conservative element in the US? You also presume that you will find sufficient numbers of lefties who are proficient in the use of those weapons?
You better search harder for that common ground you mentioned, because the civil war won't go the way you envision.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:36AM
QED huh? Speaking of stupid I guess you are doubling down?
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:40PM
My Gawd Runaway, you are an idjit! Doncha know that there are more liberals than racist conservatives in 'Merica? Don't you know that number of liberals who have guns is almost twice the number of conservatives? Don't you know that liberals are better shots, since they do not foam at the mouth and violently shake with rage? And most importantly, liberals tend not to get shot with their own firearms as much as conservatives do, when they are "playing" with them, when the toddler gets a holt of them, when they "didn't know it was loaded". So the left does not need to acquire, they are already ready. The are the descendants of those flamin' liberals, the Minutemen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:39PM
Ah, so we finally reach the nub of the matter: might makes right. It's refreshing, in an odd sort of a way, that you have finally dropped all pretense that you are at all interested in democracy. And Obama did not prompt you guys to buy any guns; that is entirely on you and your paranoid fantasies.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:42AM
"On the conservative side: lynchings, beatings, murders, destruction of property, vandalism, bombing abortion clinics. All done by extremist conservatives.
On the liberal side: destruction of property, vandalism, much less murder and physical violence against people."
Except - the KKK was made up of Democrats. Historically, the "left" have killed far more people than the right, by orders of magnitude. Or - are you redefining Russia and China as right? Interesting thing I read today - when a left leaning government starts killing people off, the global "community" just shrugs, and mutters crap about making omelets, and broken eggs. But, when a right leaning government kills some people, then the same global "community" is up in arms, ready to commit their own atrocities in the name of "justice".
And, the masses accept that kind of shit, because mass media writes it up in pretty terms.
Please, do look at history. But, don't just look at the few years of your own lifetime.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:02AM
Yes it was. Democrats who were trying to preserve the status quo. i.e. Conservatives
The Republicans were fighting against that, trying to bring some measure of equality to the USA. i.e. progressives.
Then the Southern Strategy happened. Things are different now.
Democratic/Republican and Conservative/Progressive are largely unrelated axes. Neither party has a monopoly on either concept.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:25AM
Dylann Roof is a progressive now.