SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
The Satanic Temple, an activist group based in Salem, Massachusetts, is threatening to sue Twitter for religious discrimination after one of its co-founders had his Twitter account permanently suspended.
Lucien Greaves, the Satanic Temple's co-founder and spokesman, said his Twitter account was permanently suspended without any notice after he asked his followers to report a tweet that called for the Satanic Temple to be burned down.
"We're talking to lawyers today," Greaves said Friday about whether he planned to take legal action.
Source: http://www.newsweek.com/satanic-temple-threatens-sue-twitter-over-religious-discrimination-780148
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Satanic Temple Threatens to Sue Twitter Over Religious Discrimination
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 203 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Conquering Russia should be done steppe by steppe.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 16 2018, @01:45AM (6 children)
> And, yes, Trump remains the lesser of the two evils that were offered to us.
Nonsense. Trump is an idiot, an incompetent, a blatant and habitual liar, an illiterate, an historical ignoramus, a racist, a scofflaw.....
That may all be true, but it still doesn't prove that Trump is worse. There was every indication that Hillary wanted to start a war with Russia in Syria. I was a Bernie fan, but I can still admit that Hillary was a horrible pick. Whether she was actually worse, I don't think we'll ever know for sure (unless you can invent a device to look at parallel universes). I will give Trump credit for the fact that we aren't yet in a new war. That may or may not have been the case with Hillary.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday January 16 2018, @03:02AM (3 children)
Yes, except... no, there wasn't. It was hysteria, the vast majority of the loudest nonsense coming directly from extremely dubious sources. What that was actually about was no more than the US declaring a no-fly zone in Syria. At the very most, that would have resulted in tensions in (okay, and over) Syria - not "a war with Russia." It's hyperbolic nonsense. Just like a great deal of the other poo-flingery that was held up as "omg" during the campaign.
The fact is, Russia doesn't want a war with us any more than we want a war with them. Neither country is friendly or respectful of the other, and yeah, it's unpleasant as hell. But neither country wants a major war - which it would most definitely be - and both will go to great lengths to avoid it. That's been amply demonstrated through all the years of the cold war. When tensions get high, both countries back off and/or deflect. We know these people; and they know us.
Clinton had serious - even terrible - warts. But "wanting to start a war with Russia" definitely wasn't one of them. Her problems were in fairly usual areas for a Democrat: fluffing the rich and powerful; constitutional erosion; crushing personal and consensual choice; the drug war; OMG "terrorists"; "think of the children"; that sort of thing. Basically, more of the same. This, against throwing a a wrench consisting of a visibly incompetent and socially retarded idiot into the mix. From my POV, it wasn't even a choice, once Sanders was eliminated.
The fact that some voters still can't recognize the magnitude of the error they made is a profound demonstration of confirmation bias. Trump's obvious proclivity - as easily determined from his own actions and statements - to do exactly the wrong thing should have been enough prior to entering the voting booth assuming only that the voter tried to take a serious look. Okay, for some, they weren't. Wow, but okay. For others, they didn't even look. Or where they looked was so toxic and misleading - Fox News, Breitbart - they were simply unable to get out of the mental morass imposed by those media outlets. That's sort of understandable. Sort of. These were the people running around thinking there's a war on Christmas, and that Obama wasn't a US citizen, and that his wearing a tan suit - a tan suit FFS - was "not presidential." The intractably deluded.
But now we're here. Trump's year-long list of errors, lies, and general incompetence still hasn't penetrated through many of these voter's heads; at that point, they have to be written off. They can't be reached within the context of any reasonable expenditure of effort. There's no point in extended arguments, there's no point in bumper stickers, posters, advertisements. We even know the magnitude of the problem: It's around 35%; Trump's amazingly low popularity tells the tale with very little uncertainty. Doesn't bother me; I've passed through the "omg" stage and am well into the "yes, apparently there are a lot of politically incompetent voters out there, oh well" stage. But we - I - know from past experience that when things go seriously off kilter, as they have with this president, the voters have always stepped up and swung the pendulum back. They did it with Bush; they'll do it again with Trump.
So he's a cooked goose, politically speaking. He'll either be firmly and incontrovertibly out at the end of four years, or congress will get tired of having the country led by a buffoon who specializes in revealing them as buffoons, and they'll impeach him or 25th amendment him before his term is up.
Me, I'm just waiting for the inevitable backlash. It's going to be a popcorn-heavy time.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 16 2018, @04:14AM (1 child)
Is there any hope the DNC will start appealing to real progressive values, or will they be running Oprah in 3 years? (Doesn't need to be Oprah specifically; pick any woman celebrity who's a household name.)
Running Oprah is a good way to irrevocably shatter the country. Real progressive values, as opposed to fake SJW horseshit, is the only thing that can save us from this simultaneous assault from two camps of right-wing authoritarians (Murkins and SJWs). The lesson the DNC needs to learn from 2016 is that the people want a progressive like Sanders, not whichever lizard person whose turn it is.
I'm expecting to see firsthand what an irrevocable shattering looks like, though I eternally hold out hope that past results don't guarantee future.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 16 2018, @04:43PM
If Oprah becomes president, she'll appoint Dr. Oz as surgeon general, and he'll be pushing all kinds of quackery bullshit. Public health in the US will be a disaster; even Trump is better.
The Democratic Party really epitomizes the wise saying from Lord Dark Helmet: "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 16 2018, @04:41PM
What that was actually about was no more than the US declaring a no-fly zone in Syria.
How exactly would that *not* have started a war with Russia when the US shot down a Russian jet that inevitably disregarded the no-fly zone? And what gives the US authority to declare a no-fly zone in Syria in the first place, especially when the Russian military is already operating there? What makes you think the Russians would agree to that?
Clinton had serious - even terrible - warts. But "wanting to start a war with Russia" definitely wasn't one of them.
I disagree. Even W. Bush wasn't that bad: at least he had the intelligence to invade countries that didn't have Russia already operating there. You may think Russia doesn't want a war, but that doesn't mean they're just going to knuckle under any time the US decides to unilaterally impose its will.
Her problems were in fairly usual areas for a Democrat: fluffing the rich and powerful; constitutional erosion; crushing personal and consensual choice; the drug war; OMG "terrorists"; "think of the children"; that sort of thing.
But now we're here. Trump's year-long list of errors, lies, and general incompetence still hasn't penetrated through many of these voter's heads
And compared to Hillary (whose problems you yourself list here), exactly how has Trump done such a terrible job? Honestly, I'm aghast that I'm defending Trump here, but as lousy as he's been, I really don't see how the outcome is any worse than Hillary, and in fact it's probably been better. We would absolutely have gotten involved in some type of military conflict with Russia in Syria, and if you can't see that, I feel sorry for you. The biggest problems I've seen with Trump's actions this first year are 1) nominating (successfully) a very conservative SCOTUS justice, who we'll now be stuck with for several decades, and 2) picking Jeff Sessions for AG, who's now attempting to bring back federal MJ enforcement, though not much has actually happened there yet. Sometimes I wonder if Trump isn't just a puppet for the PTB, because we're really not seeing the complete disaster that seems like should have happened with his incompetence, and he seems to have actually picked a few good subordinates (Mattis and Tillerson in particular), and his antics are just a diversion.
But we - I - know from past experience that when things go seriously off kilter, as they have with this president, the voters have always stepped up and swung the pendulum back. They did it with Bush; they'll do it again with Trump.
Now you've actually proven that you don't know what you're talking about. The voters didn't "step up" with Bush (II), they re-elected him for another term after he started two, not one, but *two* wars in the mideast. The same thing is going to happen in 2020: the Dems are going to pick another lousy candidate (either Hillary again for a 3rd time, or maybe that idiot Oprah who peddles snake oil and quackery on her show), and they're going to lose, and we'll have 4 more years of Trump. And it's not just the voters that are incompetent, it's the opposition party, for picking such terrible choices. And Kerry wasn't even that bad, but these days the Dems are intent on picking people that are far, far worse, so the Reps can get away with some really awful candidates.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 17 2018, @09:47PM (1 child)
My general take on both of the major party candidates when it comes to foreign policy:
- Donald Trump could very easily start World War III by accident. His complete lack of experience with diplomacy, government, and military matters, combined with a hot temper and impulsiveness, could get us all into real trouble. For instance, a Twitter feud with a foreign leader could easily escalate.
- Hillary Clinton could very easily start World War III on purpose. Her extensive experience with diplomacy, government, and military matters, combined with close friendships with Cold War war criminals like Henry Kissinger, could get us all into real trouble. This scenario has her listening to people who think like Buck Turgidson in Dr Strangelove.
I'm fairly certain Clinton's scenario would be less bad, just because she'd be more prepared and thus more likely for the US to win it, but I didn't see a path to things not getting very ugly.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:24PM
I have to disagree. As another poster said, it's better to have incompetent evil rather than competent evil. With Trump, at least his hot temper and impulsiveness are IMO less likely to turn into anything, because they aren't really policy, and he has other people in the chain of command. And the foreign leader does too. With Hillary, she knows how to work the system and the people around her to achieve her goals, and that's really scary.
So far, it looks like Trumpism is actually working: the two Koreas are now planning to attend the Olympics in a unified fashion, the first time ever. Maybe by being such an incompetent stooge, the two Koreas decided they needed to just ignore the US and work things out between themselves.