Broke Wave
The GOAT
Trump is the among the most popular political figures in the US. What did he do to warrant being kicked of Twitter that was so bad that 100 percent it wasn’t a politically motivated censorship move?
Noam Chomsky: “We’re approaching the most dangerous point in human history”
- Thread starter BK The Great
- Start date
“If they become destitute then some measures should be taken…”he’s quite benevolent isn’t he?
I knew you were going to try to deflect rather than admit that you had outright lied. Twice.
cell phone ≠ social media. The primary way people read traditional print outlets like the NYT is now via their cell phone. Yes, far more people get their news from some combination of online news sites, search engines, print, and radio than they do from social media. Sorry that you don't like documented reality. Only 70% of Americans even use social media, and most who do use it are using it for being social, not as their primary news source.
You're just repeating yourself, you're not making a case. Twitter is a private company, it's not "authoritarian" for them to disallow Trump from publishing on their private platform just like they had previously disallowed thousands of other people. Trump literally tried to use the platform to help him overturn a Democratic election, but you think that somehow makes Twitter the authoritarian one and not Trump himself?
Broke Wave
The GOAT
With regards to Chomsky, we are arguing semantics. It seems that he did a weak back pedal after letting his true feelings be known. That’s just my opinion.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other forms of social media constitute the vast majority of information disseminated by the US. That’s also apparently just my opinion that’s fine. But Twitter censoring someone and hiding behind the veil of private ownership, then having people on the left defend that decision is outrageous. What Trump did on Twitter was no different than what Hillary did on TV and on Twitter for years. She tried to get the results of the 2016 election overturned and to this day doesn’t accept it. Twitter is actually owned partially by someone now who agrees with me entirely. Who is the arbiter of what is acceptable speech is a more important dialogue to have. Just because you don’t use Twitter for news doesn’t mean you aren’t subjected to news on Twitter by force. Therefore, Twitter is a preeminent place for disseminating information for its users a pretty simple concept.
Bullshyt. He never said what you claimed he said, he never even implied it, that was not at all the thrust of what he said, and the one thing he said that could be distorted in that manner was immediately clarified in his very next sentence.
You had to outright lie because his actual words weren't disqualifying enough for your slander, doubled down on your lie when caught, and are now just making excuses.
Not in terms of news, that's ridiculous. Twitter/Facebook/Instagram hardly even produce news themselves, they simply regurgitate news from other sources. And anyone who wants to can still post news about Trump, interviews with Trump, and so on and so forth, just like they post any other news.
Can you imagine any other politician claiming they'd be irrelevant without their social media account? It would be idiocy. If reality was as you describe it, then every politician who didn't maximize their own social media account would have no influence - and you can objectively see that that's not how reality works.
"Hiding behind the veil of private ownership" is an idiotic statement.
"I went into a Catholic Church and they kicked me out when I tried to worship Satan! How dare they! I stated that I had freedom of religion but they're trying to hide behind the veil of private ownership!"
Next you'll bytch that Ted Turner doesn't let you practice freedom of assembly on his ranches.
How stupid do you think the people reading this are?
Again, this cant be a serious argument, as this whole argument rests heavily on the "town square" spin that disingenuous pundits conjured in order to simultaneously claim businesses have the same rights as a person, as well as the flipside that these corporations are censoring them(as opposed to exercising the authority to enforce rules on their private platform).
All that fool did was use Twitter as a bully pulpit and to lie. He broke the rules of the platform constantly, on Facebook as well. Just because he is popular, he gets to break the rules? They gave that a$$hole all kinds of leeway and he still managed to get kicked off. Lets be real here.
Godless Socialist CEO
Superstar
I couldn’t imagine being this ignorant on something and speaking as if I knew what I was talking about
Alternatively, we have a global fascist movement, encroaching ubiquity of corporate control, and an irreversible climate disaster that's already leading to global issues.It's historical and cultural pessimism meant to shock humanity into change.
He broke the rules of the platform.
The only reason needed to ban a user from Twitter.
I've had Twitter accounts banned before for breaking the rules.
You're fundamentally wrong.
Neg for being a moron.
Lmao you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Where do you get your news information out of curiousity?
His fallout, similar to the doomsday clock, lacks any proven objective model. Which is why I have framed it as such.
The spanish flu going on during WWI was a more tumultuous time. The world was ripe with fascism then too.
Fascism was rampant during WWII and we were actually dropping nuclear bombs with no thought. The years following nuclear tests were going off all over the world.
The idea that what we are going through now is worse than what happened before is faulty for many reasons. One here being that the end of humankind is on a continuum and that we will build towards an ELE.
Humans think they have more control over everything than we do. Enjoy the ride.
I bet you believe the CNN shyt that shutting down Keystone didn't effect prices
Wait until you find out that Keystone-XL was never operating at all, never even finished, and couldn't have operated this year no matter what Biden did. Every other Keystone pipeline is already up and operating, mostly due to the Obama administration. And if Keystone-XL did operate, it would have had a minimal impact on oil prices.
That's basic information, easy to look up anywhere. You don't need CNN, there's literally no legitimate source of info who would have told you that Biden could have started oil pumping through Keystone-XL by now. Who do you get your information about Keystone or oil in general from?
Name one thing Biden did with the pipelines or "enviro crap" that resulted in inflation.
The spanish flu going on during WWI was a more tumultuous time. The world was ripe with fascism then too.
But in terms of human history, what was so dangerous about it? Spanish Flu and WW1 both did their worse and.....we kept going. There was no existential threat.
Again, fascism did its absolute worse and literally every existing atomic bomb was dropped....and humanity kept going, heck almost had a golden age following. Where was the existential threat?
The years following nuclear tests were going off all over the world.
No, they weren't going off "all over the world", there are a very select few nations who had them, fewer than there are now and many of the nations that have them now have less stable leaders in charge.
Global environmental issues are worse than ever. That is objectively true.
Nuclear proliferation is worse than ever. That is objectively true.
Even if you debate how bad the fascism is now compared to previous eras, which is a far point, the increase in environmental collapse and nuclear proliferation cause the fascism to be more dangerous than it's ever been.
That's literally the entire point about pessimism.
There is quite literally a site that has tracked the over 2k nuclear weapon tests and they are all over the world. Please look at the map from 1940s to 1970s.
Nuclear Test Sites
The impact of environmental changes aren't as dire due to technology. Same with viruses. You alluded to that. Again, we're circling back to pessimism.
I believe it's more along the lines that the purpose of this speech and language isn't primarily driven to elicit through fear porn. It's proven to be effective so I understand it because that doesn't mean it true.
A fun study on it if you care reading about stuff like that.
Optimistic vs. pessimistic endings in climate change appeals | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
All of this has been a long speech to say that while I agree that these issues exist and need to be addressed coupling them together comes across as fear porn and I think Chomsky himself understand ls this specifically based on how he's spoken about the individual scenarios differently when discussed on their own.
Anyways, good talk. I enjoyed it as always
I disagree that technology has meaningfully mitigated any of the systemic threats - in fact I'd say it's primarily exacerbated them. What technology has reduced the impacts of climate change on out global ecosystems? What technology has addressed the collapse in insect populations, or the collapse in global fisheries? What technology has restored depleted soil fertility? When we get hundreds of millions or potentially billions of climate refugees from Africa, the Middle East, India, Southeast Asia, Oceana, and Central/South America, how is technology going to solve the immigration crisis that will ensue?
Regular people who don't study ecosystems already experience climate change in terms of droughts, heat waves, intensified storms, water shortages, intensified fires, etc. But those are perceived as point issues, each to be dealt with in isolation. If you don't study ecosystems, if you don't work with this stuff on system-level scales, then you're unlikely to realize how entirely we've fukked-up the system and the ways in which potential for collapse is accelerating.