davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 10, 2021 8:56:10 GMT -8
I did notice... either bots or uneducated young drones.
|
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Feb 10, 2021 11:01:14 GMT -8
I did notice... either bots or uneducated young drones. Same thing. I went to college and law school in the 21st century and they groom you to become woke robots. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 10, 2021 13:38:02 GMT -8
Here's another example of how canceling something can cause unintended side-effects:
For those here who aren't country music fans, Morgan Wallen is one of the brightest stars in the country music universe. A few weeks ago, he was recorded refering to one of his white band members as an N-word. A majority of the country music stations in the U.S. immediately stopped playing his records. At the same time, sales of his songs and albums have increased by 400%! It's a terribly divided P.C. world we live in now.
|
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Feb 10, 2021 14:58:18 GMT -8
I think the dude is out of control, but he’s currently mine and the SO’s top played artists.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 10, 2021 15:30:39 GMT -8
I think the dude is out of control, but he’s currently mine and the SO’s top played artists. Cuban caved... NBA laid down the law this afternoon... didn’t take him long to walk it back! |
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Feb 11, 2021 14:46:04 GMT -8
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
|
Post by Luca on Feb 11, 2021 16:46:18 GMT -8
And by the way, the San Francisco Unified School District announced yesterday or Monday that it has decided to stop using acronyms because acronyms are a sign of white supremacy. It's a vaccine for this kind of stupidity that Big Pharma should be working on. How did they conclude that acronyms are a sign of white supremacy? Or a sign of anything, for that matter? NASA? NFL? USC? USMC? LOL? OMG? NAACP? Admittedly I'm not my sharpest at 5pm on a Thursday afternoon, but I'm not seeing any subliminal trend in these commonly used acronyms. Now, if you were promoting the National Institute for the Greater German Eternal Reich, I can see where you might have a problem., but otherwise............. What was their reasoning? WTF, was there reasoning?.......................Luca |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 11, 2021 17:03:05 GMT -8
Luca, I think you're still constrained by the misperception that people like you, or I, or anyone else here, can comprehend the higher levels of intelligence and enlightenment that drive leftist woke positions. We can't. We're not bright enough. It would be like teaching physics to monkeys. Once you accept that, life becomes much easier and less stressful.
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,903
|
Post by Bick on Feb 12, 2021 1:10:58 GMT -8
Nice to be protected by those in the know about what is deemed acceptable information to consume.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 12, 2021 3:44:11 GMT -8
Nice to be protected by those in the know about what is deemed acceptable information to consume. I have two questions for you Bick: 1. Do you see no danger or downside to letting people who are in positions of authority or those who hold alleged expertise to expound conspiracy theories or pseudo-science? 2. Are you in favor of forcing private social media companies to let people post whatever they want on their platforms, or do you think these companies have the right to decide what rules to apply to their social media sites? |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 12, 2021 3:49:07 GMT -8
Luca, I think you're still constrained by the misperception that people like you, or I, or anyone else here, can comprehend the higher levels of intelligence and enlightenment that drive leftist woke positions. We can't. We're not bright enough. It would be like teaching physics to monkeys. So what you're saying is, that your opinions about the "left" are as valid and profound as a monkey's opinions about physics? Seems legit. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,903
|
Post by Bick on Feb 12, 2021 7:40:45 GMT -8
Nice to be protected by those in the know about what is deemed acceptable information to consume. I have two questions for you Bick: 1. Do you see no danger or downside to letting people who are in positions of authority or those who hold alleged expertise to expound conspiracy theories or pseudo-science? 2. Are you in favor of forcing private social media companies to let people post whatever they want on their platforms, or do you think these companies have the right to decide what rules to apply to their social media sites? Both good questions that I considered before posting that. The first answer is yes. There is certainly the possibility of downside, but the significantly larger downside is to silence opposing theories. That said, the worst danger of all is to rely on any one group to determine what is or isn't factual. People should have the right to determine for themselves what is or isn't true,and the extent to which it is. The second issue is a little trickier, but I also think the answer to that is yes...they do have the right to control what is written, and who is allowed to participate on their site. The purpose of the post within this thread is to once again identify the silencing of an opposing voice simply because it is an opposing voice. Do you think we need someone to protect us from what is or isn't acceptable to read? |
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Feb 12, 2021 7:48:14 GMT -8
Who watches the Watchmen?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 12, 2021 9:46:10 GMT -8
I have two questions for you Bick: 1. Do you see no danger or downside to letting people who are in positions of authority or those who hold alleged expertise to expound conspiracy theories or pseudo-science? 2. Are you in favor of forcing private social media companies to let people post whatever they want on their platforms, or do you think these companies have the right to decide what rules to apply to their social media sites? Both good questions that I considered before posting that. The first answer is yes. There is certainly the possibility of downside, but the significantly larger downside is to silence opposing theories. That said, the worst danger of all is to rely on any one group to determine what is or isn't factual. People should have the right to determine for themselves what is or isn't true,and the extent to which it is. The second issue is a little trickier, but I also think the answer to that is yes...they do have the right to control what is written, and who is allowed to participate on their site. The purpose of the post within this thread is to once again identify the silencing of an opposing voice simply because it is an opposing voice. Do you think we need someone to protect us from what is or isn't acceptable to read? I agree with your responses, but I want to go deeper into the first response: Although people (including those in authority) should not indulge untruth or conspiracy theories, who gets to decide what is or isn’t “real” science? Frankly, I’m not willing to settle for “truth” or “science” from a politician or from the politically motivated. Most of what the left insists is settled science is still only hypothesis and when the right questions it or offers a competing hypothesis, they are shouted down or branded heretics (etc) instead of given evidence that dispels their position. It is disingenuous for VP or anyone to gloss over their own culpability in defeating critical thought. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 12, 2021 14:00:48 GMT -8
I have two questions for you Bick: 1. Do you see no danger or downside to letting people who are in positions of authority or those who hold alleged expertise to expound conspiracy theories or pseudo-science? 2. Are you in favor of forcing private social media companies to let people post whatever they want on their platforms, or do you think these companies have the right to decide what rules to apply to their social media sites? Both good questions that I considered before posting that. The first answer is yes. There is certainly the possibility of downside, but the significantly larger downside is to silence opposing theories. That said, the worst danger of all is to rely on any one group to determine what is or isn't factual. People should have the right to determine for themselves what is or isn't true,and the extent to which it is. The second issue is a little trickier, but I also think the answer to that is yes...they do have the right to control what is written, and who is allowed to participate on their site. The purpose of the post within this thread is to once again identify the silencing of an opposing voice simply because it is an opposing voice. Do you think we need someone to protect us from what is or isn't acceptable to read? Well, I see no similarity between a scientific theory and a conspiracy theory so I don't believe they deserve "equal time", and I see little danger in relying on scientists to determine what is factual science and what is not. I don't think the general public is qualified to make that determination. I don't think we need anyone to tell us what's acceptable but we don't need anyone spouting falsehoods...ever. You seem to be certain that people's objections to certain points of view are politically motivated, but I'm not talking about disagreeing with someone's politics I'm talking about the difference between truth and fiction. There are some people here who believe that the left lies all the time...nothing the left says is true...ever. It's this kind of thinking (if you can call it thinking) that's led us to the place we are in today. Two different medias and two different truths...yet only one of them can be true. Do falsehoods deserve the same respect and deference as the truth? |
|
