Rhaedas

Remember the Boston bomber and the Reddit fiasco? For some reason I have a feeling we’re being reversed Reddited here (law enforcement grabbing or gasp manufacturing something to calm down the social media). I mean maybe he is the guy…but your points are accurate on how this is being played.

And now that AI is in the mix, I don’t know what to believe anymore anyway.

His comments highlight a mix of contradictory statements.

ORLY

That’s how MIKE was discovered in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”. He was playing subtle pranks throughout the Moon bases that appeared as weird glitches, and the tech who figured out MIKE existed had to teach him about humor. What was funny every time, what was funny once, and then the jokes that seemed funny to a computer but could get people killed (like a malfunctioning airlock).

The parallel is with not having great choices against him, as well as an established GOP who could pull the votes when they need them. Outside of that, the problems and crimes, and the level of insanity were different.

What about Reagan? Same parallel of weak opposition, for a much longer time since Bush followed, and Clinton was more centrist. Perhaps that’s a start of the movement to the center.

Elected, but they didn’t say who elected him.

That’s the usual take, and we certainly shouldn’t have removed so much of those forests to begin with. The scale of carbon removal that will do is not enough to really solve much, after all we’re quickly burning ancient plant-sourced hydrocarbons made from thousands or more years of collection, so one forest isn’t going to balance that equation. And planting trees is more complex than many think, for it to survive and thrive it has to be diverse and not a single species. We should reforest, but for the purpose of recovering what we destroyed in biodiversity, not for any carbon capture effect.

It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.

That’s not a reason they would throw a pizza party. Parties and company shirts and hats are for when you get the signs that people might be quitting or not motivated. And according the HR’s data, it always makes them happy and ready to get back to work and stop asking for more money and benefits.

Instead of money they should offer some decent health care coverage.

Legolas might be a better analogy.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists calls on Anthem to reverse this proposal immediately.

Anthem cackles and croaks, “You have no power here!”

And there’s no Gandalf present.

Constitutionally there isn’t a restriction for a self pardon. However it goes against the definition of the word and action. Some things by meaning you don’t do towards yourself. That probably won’t matter, since its validity is up to the courts and we know how they’re stacked to do what he wants.

Not Arch though. It would say so.

Remember, when he uses the “nobody knew this” that actually means he didn’t know it. And he says it a lot.

It’s not about the cuts, it’s about sending a message.

The difference between the two is intent at the time, so either the defense was really good at showing she didn’t mean to shoot and kill (?!), or the prosecution did a crap job of showing that she did.

Unfortunately you’re right that in a system where true dialogue can’t exist to make bad arguments die appropriately this doesn’t work well or at all. However neither does a censorship ideology since that can be manipulated, being my point that drawing lines results in new lines further. Given the Catch-22, I’d rather be open than allow someone control who can say what.

Don’t you think rather than the problem being anyone being able to say racist or hateful things, maybe the problem is too many other people are fine with such things when they’re said? That’s why I said it’s deeper than just the 1st Amendment.

The problem with drawing lines is that lines can then be moved. The most obvious gets censored first, then the next, and at some point people can’t talk about anything because it is offensive to someone in power. Who decides what is and isn’t censorable? If the counter to vile speech is its opposing view treated also openly, hate and violence won’t grow under a censorship. Again, it’s not the freedom of speech that creates these problems, but other issues in society that make hating others attractive. Ignorance and segregation and pitting one group against another for power purposes.

The two should have different consequences. Maybe look at it like the joking statement of having a bomb in certain places isn’t illegal itself, but causing extra concern and panic requiring actions to ensure there isn’t a threat has its own penalties. The intent of what you say or do is very important. Shouting fire in a crowded area when there isn’t a fire is another example of the misuse of the freedom that could cause harm to others.

The original source of the “fire in a theater” example comes from a court case where a defendant was charged with passing out flyers opposing the draft into the first World War. The case was later overturned because it was not analogous to causing immediate panic or lawless action like a riot. I do wonder how social media’s ability to directly influence people into action holds up to this ruling. As an example, one can post an opinion or call to action for something and be covered under the 1st, but imagine a streamer in real time inciting people to riot. Where’s the line? Maybe it falls under what I said at the top, it’s determined by the consequences and not by some perceived “future crime” that it could cause.

Those problems are deeper than a freedom of speech, and controlling that speech won’t and has not fixed the problems that cause them. It’s better to keep the openness of expression and tackle the systemic causes of racism and hatred, not try and hide them and let them fester.