SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Donald Trump has threatened to shut down NBC and other American networks, saying that they peddle fake news.
"With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!" Mr Trump wrote in a tweet.
Mr Trump's tweet came in response to a story written by NBC, which said that Mr Trump had sought to increase America's nuclear arsenal tenfold after taking a look at a briefing slide that showed stead reduction of the US nuclear arsenal since the 1960s. The story cited three officials who were reportedly in the room when Mr Trump made the comments.
Source: Donald Trump threatens to shut down NBC and other TV news networks that criticise him
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Donald Trump Threatens to Shut Down NBC and Other TV News Networks That Criticize Him
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 103 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Another good night not to sleep in a eucalyptus tree.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:03PM (11 children)
Sweet jesus how many times do we need to point out that you're simply re-inventing the government? Do people get to decide in advance whether they are OK with murder being illegal? How do you punish someone who says they never agreed to that? At what age will people be held accountable? What about tourists? You are basically describing a weird fusion of city states and corporations with no answer as to how it would actually work other than the "invisible hand".
The whole point of Democracy is that it is SUPPOSED to be "do as we agreed" but corrupt fuckheads gerrymander their way into power and we're too divided to vote out the corporate tit suckers.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:35PM (1 child)
I like an analogy to games. Games have rules and often judges. The stakes are carefully kept relatively low. For instance, almost always the losers are not executed or sacrificed to the gods. Even animal males fighting each other for mates doesn't usually end in death. It's too destructive, and could easily result in no winners because every player ended up hurt too badly.
All this talk of extreme competition under total anarchy, no rules or enforcement at all, simply isn't realistic. Life doesn't always work that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:43PM
You've constructed an extreme straw man.
Indeed, your desire to avoid "extreme competition" is undoubtedly shared by very many people, and thus would results in a law-by-contracts that is similarly risk-averse—perhaps even more so than the law that is crafted today by whimsical, vote-grabbing politicians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:39PM (8 children)
People drive on one particular side of the road, not because it's the government's law, but because that's what you do when in Rome, especially when you don't want to die!
To interact with others outside of a well defined contract (including cultural norms) is to put your life into peril. That's the whole point of negotiating a contract in the first place: To get people on the same page.
Why has democracy failed to produce a society based on "do as we agreed"? Well, simple: Democracy is fundamentally based on "do as I say" coercion. What else did you expect?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:56PM (7 children)
It is appalling that you see democracy as coercion and think "voluntary contracts" will not follow a similar route. You have yet to address the VERY SIMPLE "murder is illegal" conundrum. How do you punish those who don't think it should be illegal? They never agreed to it.
I feel like you're just a blind zealot, or an intentional plant to sow division and undermine the very concept of democracy. At this point, with so many times we've engaged your stupid rant, FUCK OFF!
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:00PM (3 children)
Easy, don't allow them to enter the areas where people have agreed that they shall not murder. Anarchy doesn't mean everyone is free to do what they want, it means that there is no government. Quit regurgitating archist propaganda.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday October 20 2017, @01:07AM (2 children)
Yes, we'll just need some organization to decide who gets in based on agreement to the terms of entry. And some sort of governing body to make sure the decisions are being made fairly.
Then, we'll need a group to decide if the rules have been violated by someone who agreed to be ruled. To jeep it impartial they can hold secret ballots. Place a peanut in the hat if the rules were violated, otherwise a mint. We can call it the goobermint.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Friday October 20 2017, @02:37AM (1 child)
None of that is required, just the normal social practices that already exist. If you're known as a child molester, do you have an easy time living anywhere? I bet not. You'll get threatened, attacked, and driven out. This is the way society works, it needs no government, no laws, none of the formalities that ostensibly make justice "just", just people looking out for their own best interests.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday October 20 2017, @08:58AM
You need to read something about organizations. Here: The Tyranny of Stuctureless [jofreeman.com].
When the "society" decides who is a child molester and who needs to be ostracised, there always forms a cabal dedicated to declaring its enemies as child molesters and manipulating others into agreeing with themselves. The purpose of government is to make sure this cabal can be recognized. This holds true even for primitive systems with a local leader and its henchmen to kings and kingdoms to democracy. Instead of dedicating all mental energy into doing politics, society decides proactively gives the power to the cabal so rest of the people can mind their own business. I mean literally - it is related to economics.
In a poor society fighting off natural calamities and lack of rain, people didn't have time to worry about the neighbour and his/her infatuation with children. All the talk about lack of governance relies on a utopian economical system where people actually have time to coordinate and strive to make fair judgements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:08PM (2 children)
You've already been answered: If you haven't agreed to an particular contract, then you are operating outside of the well defined bounds of a contract; the consequences for your actions are therefore also ill-defined—murder someone, and see what happens to you...
Of course, a sophisticated framework of contracts will naturally spell out the consequences for such behavior in most cases, so you'll be able to guess what people will do. For instance, vigilante justice may not be allowed within a certain community, so you can expect the response to be fairly official.
The shape of society will be found through the process of evolution by variation and selection.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:40AM (1 child)
So history up to now was what then? NOT an evolving society? mmhmmm
You do realize you are describing laws right? "Oh you entered our local domain and a certain group of contract agreements are inherently agreed to upon your entering." Yeah, sounds like a completely new process to me!
Sorry but yer a total jackass. Oh wait, I'm not sorry. I mean "you're welcome".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @05:05AM
Your "law" is a dictate, not a contract or collection of contracts.
They are superficially similar, but are actually quite different.
You're correct about one thing though: Society is already not far from what has been described; you already exist under a different "law" than I do, because you have contractual obligations in your life that are different from mine.
Keep thinking. You'll get it, eventually.