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This discussion has been archived.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.
Finagle's First Law:
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 16 2018, @05:08PM (2 children)
Here I go again, defending Trump. I really must be living in an alternate universe.
Trump has permitted coal pollution in streams via deregulation.
Has this actually amounted to anything? Coal isn't economically viable in this country any more; deregulation isn't going to bring back the glory days. Even China is cutting coal usage as they move to cleaner sources of power. Trump's actions may cause some short-term backslide, but coal's days are numbered, and nothing Trump can do can change that.
He has likewise encouraged more pollution from motor vehicles.
How so? Has it actually resulted in policy changes and real problems? Cars are getting cleaner all the time, and the fleet is getting cleaner as older cars are removed from usage (wrecks, wearing out, etc.) and are replaced with newer, cleaner ones. I haven't heard of any pollution standards being rolled back.
He has said some very stupid and destabilizing things about nuclear weapons, to those with nuclear weapons.
How's that worse than shooting down Russian military aircraft? The policies of the previous administrations haven't worked in NK, what makes you think continuing them will?
He has attacked the ACA and managed to cause some significant damage to it by undercutting the financial structure that made it work.
This is worrisome but we haven't seen any effects just yet. And to be fair, it was the whole GOP that's wanted to do this, for quite some time now.
He has engaged in wholly uncalled for fear mongering about immigrants, "human trafficking", and sanctuary cities.
Calling for stuff doesn't result in actual policy. The DACA thing is actual policy action. Really, I haven't seen a lot of change here, except from the DACA policy change.
He has acted to endanger rural train and air service.
Citation needed. I haven't heard anything about this. Amtrak has been a disaster for a long time.
He has interfered with already-issued visas.
That was bad, but it didn't affect that many people and was quickly fixed.
He has blatantly lied about all manner of things, including wiretapping, how many people attended his inauguration, and the national debt, not to mention the daily deluge of idiot tweets, which are often seasoned with lies and errors, when you can get past the sixth grade use of English.
So what? His lies don't automatically translate to policy changes. Him lying about the inauguration crowd doesn't result in policy changes, it's just fodder for the press and to anger people.
He has wasted huge amonts of money traveling in the process of pretending his golf resort is the "southern white house."
Obama wasted huge amounts of money traveling too, and I'm pretty sure Bush did as well. Nothing new here.
He continues to push for his ridiculous and disastrously expensive "wall."
I still don't see a wall.
he ignores the national security apparatus briefings and gets his news from right wing conspiracy sites.
And what exactly have been the negative effects of this?
He has pushed development of the environmentally dangerous pipelines back into motion... not using American steel, either.
Those pipelines were being built under Obama too. No change here.
He has interfered with women's and children's healthcare.
How so exactly? Remember, he's not a dictator. Healthcare has been terrible here for poorer people for ages. Trump hasn't improved it for sure, but I fail to see how he's made it much worse, esp. if you look only at him and not the Republicans in Congress.
He has proposed wasting even more money on our oversized military.
Proposing things does not automatically result in policy or budget changes.
He promised increases in infrastructure spending, but his budget cuts infrastructure spending.
Going back on campaign promises is not unique to Trump. Obama promised the most transparent administration in history, and look how that went.
He's supported white nationalists, abused the handicapped personally, called small countries "shitholes", made enemies out of the Australian prime minister and pretty much the entire government of England
Calling people names doesn't equate to policy changes.
pushed the drug war further downhill through his attorney general
So far, I haven't seen any changes here, though it may be too soon to tell. But Sessions has had a year now, and while Sessions certainly doesn't like it, the loosening of MJ laws doesn't seem to have reversed yet.
alienated both the FBI and the CIA,
What's the problem with the latter? The organization that organizes coups in 3rd-world countries? If anything, they should be cut back. How has any of this resulted in negative effects for the American people?
appointed ridiculous and incompetent people to important government posts
Nothing new here. Remember "Brownie"?
been caught outright in pussygrabgate while at the same time shaming his wife
Again, how does this affect the American people? There's no policy problems here.
Interviews with the man result in word salads that serve as a very clear window into a very bewildered mind; and that window is open to the world - we're a laughingstock.
Again, how is this causing problems in everyday life for the American people?
In short, how is life much worse now for the average American than it was under Obama 1, 2, or 4 years ago? You haven't proven your point here. All you've proven is that Trump is a buffoon and an embarrassment, but that doesn't prove anything about any alleged harm that his administration has caused.
I'm not seeing any real harm here so far.
Yes, I understand that you are not. It's very interesting. You're entitled to your opinions, of course. It's just unfortunate that the facts on the ground don't support them.
You're entitled to your opinions as well, but if you're going to make claims of harm, you need to actually provide evidence to back up your claims. You haven't done this. All you've done is show "Trump is an idiot and makes us look bad!". Sorry, that's not enough to prove actual harm. We've had a year now with this buffoon, and so far everything seems about the same as last year, except the weather is worse (which we can't blame on him in this short timeframe).
it's just an interval, one much more toxic than the Bush II era - and you know what happened after Bush II, right? We elected a very intelligent black man
That's not the way I remember it. The way I remember it, we re-elected Bush II and got stuck with 4 more years of him. From this and other posts from you, you seem to have somehow erased those 4 years from your memory. And after his 8 years were up, *then* we elected a black man who was an excellent speaker, and gave us basically more of the same, though he did give us a healthcare law that was the product of a right-wing thinktank.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday January 16 2018, @08:11PM (1 child)
Sigh. Really? I have to do your googling for you?
Why coal pollution in streams is a problem regardless of the trend of coal usage [vox.com]
Then you're simply not paying attention. [nationalgeographic.com]
Yes, we most certainly have. The removal of the subsidies has caused insurance rates to rise, and plans to reduce coverage, and plans to exit regions. Yes, the current crop of Republicans are complicit, no argument there. Our citizens will die as a direct result of this.
He hasn't just "called for stuff", he's issued executive orders that have caused direct and rather immediate harm, and have now made it through SCOTUS. Quite aside from that, yes, it does cause harm. There's a reason we say here on the net "Don't feed the trolls", it's because doing so raises the noise level and deters actual sane dialog, and in so doing, makes the environment uncomfortable for the sane and serious. That's what Trump's bloviating amounts to, only writ on the national (and international) political stage. It's bad, in and of itself, and again, makes this country look like it encourages a jingoist, xenophobic society, when really, that's not been the case, and should never be the case.
Here's the thing that many – including you – don't seem to understand. Rural air and Amtrack are not like a business. They are like the highways, only way better / faster, variously. The primary benefit of these transport modalities are not that they directly make a profit, any more than the highways primary benefit is that they directly make a profit; what they do is enable travel and so enable commerce and much tighter family ties and so make living in the boonies, where much of your food and raw materials are produced, a reasonable proposition. It's hard to live hundreds of miles from family and supplies. It's hard to get heavy equipment in and out of here. It's hard to move expertise in and out of here. Here are your citations:
Amtrack cuts [theguardian.com]
Rural air cuts [seattletimes.com]
The economic value of rural America to non-rural America is huge; that is why there are roads here, trains here, communications services here, hospitals here, postal service here, schools here, and so on. Very little of that can make a direct profit. But if you have even the most basic understanding of economics, you will, once you actually think it through, immediately grasp why the value gained is worth the costs. Or, if you can't figure it out... well, you're not alone, anyway.
There's no valid "but" here - it was an asshole move, by an asshole, that hurt people.
So this degrades the office, the respect other countries have for us, the reception of American citizens elsewhere, the attitudes when commerce and treaties are at stake - the man is visibly and profoundly untrustworthy, or more probably simply batshit insane. It bloody well matters.
Again, you're not paying attention. The process has already started with prototypes. [washingtontimes.com] We will likely see further damage as long as that idiot is playing to his brownophobe cheering section, which seems to me to be likely to be as long as he can stay in that office.
...you know there's a reason for those briefings, right? How comfortable will you be with that habit if something happens and he doesn't know the relevant facts, can't make an informed decision or even understand the situation, and shit goes sideways? Your dismissal of this tells me you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and not thinking.
Well no, I don't. I just have to be sure of my facts. And I am, very much so, because I've actually looked into this stuff as it went down instead of just sucking down the first media blurb or impassioned web post I see. From what you've said so far, you appear to be focused almost entirely on immediate and first-order effects. This blinds you to the actual weight of the issues at hand here (and others as well.) You can't even be bothered to Google up the issues, and you're not giving me serious responses, as amply demonstrated by your remark about the briefing issue.
I will comment on one more thing. This:
That is either absurdly disingenuous, or massively uninformed, and either way it's an utterly unworthy statement.
Yes, Obama was a traditional politician, warts and all. No, the Obama era wasn't even remotely "more of the same." The list of things Obama supported and pushed for that were positive is unusually long and varied for any president and in many cases more significant than most presidents. [washingtonmonthly.com] And the list I linked there is not complete, either - I just can't be bothered to do the rest of the work you should be doing – should have already done – if you want to actually take an informed stand as opposed to throwing out nonsense like the foregoing quote. It would really benefit you to refresh (or inform) your memory.
I am no fan of the evil and wrongful things government does, and can rail about them at length, and that most certainly includes various harmful actions taken, and the stated harmful positions of, Obama and his administration. But I don't bury my head in the sand about positive thing X because I am offended by negative thing Y. No matter how long the list of Y things is. I also don't miss the point that I'm not - no one is - going to get perfection in a president. So WRT election, I pick the best available candidate that can reasonably be expected to have a chance of winning; and WRT a president's actions in office, I laud the important things (Obama gave me a great deal of cause for that... Bush did not produce much, and Trump has not produced more than one or two as yet, and that amidst a profound flurry of errors, incompetence, and what actually has every appearance of outright evildoing.) The whole thing involves actually paying attention, and then doing some checking on what the media - and the various denizens of the web - feed us. Use a search engine if you want to know what's actually going on. If you don't, then just watch TV like the rest of the mushrooms.
I can't make you do that. But I can hope you will.
Enough, then. You are welcome to the last word.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 16 2018, @09:17PM
Ok, you've got a few good points here.
Why coal pollution in streams is a problem regardless of the trend of coal usage [vox.com]
From your link:
Appalachian Voices, an environmental group, estimates that coal companies have buried over 2,000 miles of streams in the region through mountaintop removal mining since the 1990s. And there’s growing evidence that when mining debris and waste gets into water supplies, the toxic metals can have dire health impacts for the people and mostly rural communities living nearby.
Ok, but at least we know that this mostly affects Trump voters, so they're getting exactly what they voted for. I feel sorry for the wildlife though.
The removal of the subsidies has caused insurance rates to rise, and plans to reduce coverage, and plans to exit regions.
Last I checked, subsidies were still in place. Some plans were exiting regions before Trump came along; ACA has always been a bad law, a band-aid on a massive open wound. It was never going to work very well.
Yes, the current crop of Republicans are complicit, no argument there. Our citizens will die as a direct result of this.
Yes, but this would have happened with any Republican in office, and maybe even with a Democrat since Congress is controlled by the GOP. Trump wasn't unique in his opposition to ACA, and some of his bloviating was actually much more reasonable-sounding than what the other mainstream GOP politicians were calling for. Trump specifically said on the campaign trail that he wanted everyone to have coverage; GOPers like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul do not want this.
That's what Trump's bloviating amounts to, only writ on the national (and international) political stage. It's bad, in and of itself, and again, makes this country look like it encourages a jingoist, xenophobic society
So now you're mad that Trump is just showing America for what it really is? I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but much of American society really is racist, jingoist, and xenophobic. Just look at what happened in Charlottesville, and the defense the neo-Nazis and other racists got all over the country, even right here on SN. How is it bad for Trump to be honest?
what they do is enable travel and so enable commerce and much tighter family ties and so make living in the boonies, where much of your food and raw materials are produced, a reasonable proposition
That's a bunch of crap. I'm very well-acquainted with rural life and rural dwellers; most of my family lives that way. The vast majority of people in rural areas aren't there to produce your food and raw materials, they're there because stuff like this subsidizes their existence there, so they can drive around gigantic vehicles they don't need and use far more energy per capita than anyone in the world, while not doing any kind of work that actually needs to be located remotely, or frequently not doing any kind of work at all because they live on government benefits. Most food now is produced by large agribusiness corporations with a lot of automation, and most rural areas do not have any mining operations nearby.
It's hard to live hundreds of miles from family and supplies.
Then don't. Move into a city. The vast majority of people living in the boonies don't need to be there, and aren't an important part of the economy there. These people simply don't like cities, but they're being subsidized to live the way they do.
Amtrak isn't really needed for rural areas. It's needed for inter-city travel, and it's pretty lousy for that compared to trains in Europe and Japan.
The economic value of rural America to non-rural America is huge; that is why there are roads here, trains here, communications services here, hospitals here, postal service here, schools here, and so on.
No, it's because of inertia, and because of people who refuse to leave. In case you haven't noticed, Americans have been urbanizing in droves in the past several decades, and small towns are dying, and for good reason: their industries are obsolete, and we don't need armies of people to work on farms any more thanks to automation and mechanization. The people who are left are generally old people who refuse to leave, and young ones too stupid to leave.
So this degrades the office, the respect other countries have for us, the reception of American citizens elsewhere
So what? We had that when Dubya was in office. And again, *we voted for Trump*, so if that means other countries respect us less, then we're getting what we voted for.
Again, you're not paying attention. The process has already started with prototypes.
We've had a wall along parts of the southern border for probably decades now. Have you ever been to San Diego? Prototypes do not equal an actual wall, or significant spending.
There's no valid "but" here - it was an asshole move, by an asshole, that hurt people.
I can point to asshole moves that hurt people by all the Presidents during my lifetime I'm pretty sure.
From what you've said so far, you appear to be focused almost entirely on immediate and first-order effects.
I'm focused on *actual* effects, which I'm not seeing many of so far. Basically, your claim is "well nothing too horrible has happened yet, but it will!!!" Maybe, maybe not. So far, not. You haven't proven anything, your whole argument seems to be "Trump is an idiot and should be impeached based on that alone!". Dubya was an idiot too, and look what happened there. Being an idiot isn't a disqualifier for the Presidency.
As for your list of accomplishments, that's extremely biased. Many of those are genuine improvements, others not so unarguably, such as the GM bailout (should have let it die and be broken up and bought up by competitors), the broadband subsidies (which went to incumbent companies who pocketed the money and didn't deliver anything), and the space program (Obama was a disaster here; we haven't had manned space launch capability in ages because of him, and the decision to abandon/bypass the Moon was just stupid; we're in no shape to send humans to Mars when we can't even build a semi-permanent presence on our nearby Moon).
Is Trump bad? Sure. Is he the complete world-ending disaster you claim he'll be? Sorry, but I'm not yet seeing evidence of that. We already had an idiot buffoon as President back in 2000, and we re-elected him, and we managed to survive that. I'm not seeing yet how Trump is actually worse than Bush. When Trump starts two (not just one, but two) separate wars, and actually has people tortured, *then* I'll admit that he's at least as bad as Bush.