American Politics Thread

[cheaptrailertrashglm 3,607]

: how does everyone feel about the tiktok ban? Everyone at work is freaking out about it. I’m not really upset or Oxford excited about it either. I wonder if Trump will do anything about it? The most normal I’ve ever heard him speak was when asked about the TikTok ban the other day

[dexter 2,404]

17 minutes ago, cheaptrailertrashglm said:

: how does everyone feel about the tiktok ban? Everyone at work is freaking out about it. I’m not really upset or Oxford excited about it either. I wonder if Trump will do anything about it? The most normal I’ve ever heard him speak was when asked about the TikTok ban the other day

I think it will probably go in a few days but be back in some capacity by the end of the year 

[Mer 63,354]

1 hour ago, cheaptrailertrashglm said:

: how does everyone feel about the tiktok ban? Everyone at work is freaking out about it. I’m not really upset or Oxford excited about it either. I wonder if Trump will do anything about it? The most normal I’ve ever heard him speak was when asked about the TikTok ban the other day

There’s a real concern over social media algorithms pushing certain narratives, creating echo chambers, etc. 

 

Ironically, the reason TikTok can be banned is because as a non-American company, it’s not protected by free speech. That’s why you cannot ban X, Meta, etc. which are American-based. 
 

And while the idea that a foreign adversary (China) is controlling the sort of content that is presented to viewers in America is deeply concerning—it’s not like the US social media companies don’t do the same. 
 

With Elon’s ongoing manipulation of X, which has a large presence in Australia, UK, Canada, etc—it can easily be argued that an American company is also influencing their elections (of course, they don’t label the US as an adversary, and doing so would be a major escalation). 
 

So TL;DR, I don’t think the ban is in bad faith, nor do I think it’s unreasonable, but it sets up a future where each country may want to have their own domestic social platforms in order to curtail foreign influence, and that’s unreasonable and teeters dangerously close to creating oligarch controlled propaganda machines at a wider scale. 

[baddisease 18,067]

3 hours ago, cheaptrailertrashglm said:

I’m honestly confused on how limiting speech limits your rights? Like I’m actually confused on this. 
 

Which has always been so wild to me because Trump hasn’t shut up about vaccines, and taking them, since Covid started. 

The rich are only gonna get richer and the middle class is going to keep disappearing. It’s a sad reality and I just have no idea what anyone can do to stop it

 

 

If you meant how not limiting their speech limits our rights it's because they lie about trans people, constantly and consistently. And publications that are right or right leaning pick up those lies, that hate speech. No amount of fact checks matter. Once the lies are out there, it validates the bigotry of a lot of the haters. 

 

My problem with the idea that hate speech should be okay, other than me not liking it, is that it's never based on logic, so engaging them the way free speech absolutists want is near impossible. They'll lie, twist or invent their own logic, and when all else fails they'll resort to slanders. They use children, for instance, to do this. People argue calmly for that rights, challenge the illogical beliefs of transphobes. And when the transphobes are losing, they just call trans people and people who support us pedophiles. Nobody can push back bc then they'll say "oh you're defending pedos now!"

 

As long as these people do this, I don't think the idealistic idea that facts and truth would win is realistic. The only recourse when these people lie, incite to violence, and incite to genocide (and calling to "end transgenderism" is, imo, a call to genocide) along with other examples of anti-trans hate speech is to keep them from being able to spew it consequences free.

 

[Mer 63,354]

26 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

 

If you meant how not limiting their speech limits our rights it's because they lie about trans people, constantly and consistently. And publications that are right or right leaning pick up those lies, that hate speech. No amount of fact checks matter. Once the lies are out there, it validates the bigotry of a lot of the haters. 

 

My problem with the idea that hate speech should be okay, other than me not liking it, is that it's never based on logic, so engaging them the way free speech absolutists want is near impossible. They'll lie, twist or invent their own logic, and when all else fails they'll resort to slanders. They use children, for instance, to do this. People argue calmly for that rights, challenge the illogical beliefs of transphobes. And when the transphobes are losing, they just call trans people and people who support us pedophiles. Nobody can push back bc then they'll say "oh you're defending pedos now!"

 

As long as these people do this, I don't think the idealistic idea that facts and truth would win is realistic. The only recourse when these people lie, incite to violence, and incite to genocide (and calling to "end transgenderism" is, imo, a call to genocide) along with other examples of anti-trans hate speech is to keep them from being able to spew it consequences free.

 

While I sympathize with what you’re saying completely, and understand that you approach this topic with first hand experience—let’s take the issue of “free speech” out of it for a second. 
 

Let’s say 3/4ths of the States ratify and amend the constitution to allow the government to punish speech that is inflammatory. How would that be logistically possible? There’s no reality in which the government can actually enforce such a rule at an individual level. That results in completely shutting down all the forums/social media sites operated in America. And so, because of the bad apples, you’ve now ripped away everyone’s chance at community or an online platform. 
 

It’s just not realistic or worth discussing. 

[baddisease 18,067]

25 minutes ago, Mer said:

While I sympathize with what you’re saying completely, and understand that you approach this topic with first hand experience—let’s take the issue of “free speech” out of it for a second. 
 

Let’s say 3/4ths of the States ratify and amend the constitution to allow the government to punish speech that is inflammatory. How would that be logistically possible? There’s no reality in which the government can actually enforce such a rule at an individual level. That results in completely shutting down all the forums/social media sites operated in America. And so, because of the bad apples, you’ve now ripped away everyone’s chance at community or an online platform. 
 

It’s just not realistic or worth discussing. 

 

I'm not sure how it would work in the USA but I know other countries do it and manage to do it in a way that other things are still legal.

[Mer 63,354]

1 minute ago, baddisease said:

 

I'm not sure how it would work in the USA but I know other countries do it and manage to do it in a way that other things are still legal.

The only countries that don’t have Freedom of Speech or Expression are North Korea, Iran, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam. 
 

Of those governments, the ones that actually do enforce their laws on speech and expression, social media is either flat out banned, or government operated. 
 

It’s not realistic in the USA. 

[cheaptrailertrashglm 3,607]

40 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

 

If you meant how not limiting their speech limits our rights it's because they lie about trans people, constantly and consistently. And publications that are right or right leaning pick up those lies, that hate speech. No amount of fact checks matter. Once the lies are out there, it validates the bigotry of a lot of the haters. 

 

My problem with the idea that hate speech should be okay, other than me not liking it, is that it's never based on logic, so engaging them the way free speech absolutists want is near impossible. They'll lie, twist or invent their own logic, and when all else fails they'll resort to slanders. They use children, for instance, to do this. People argue calmly for that rights, challenge the illogical beliefs of transphobes. And when the transphobes are losing, they just call trans people and people who support us pedophiles. Nobody can push back bc then they'll say "oh you're defending pedos now!"

 

As long as these people do this, I don't think the idealistic idea that facts and truth would win is realistic. The only recourse when these people lie, incite to violence, and incite to genocide (and calling to "end transgenderism" is, imo, a call to genocide) along with other examples of anti-trans hate speech is to keep them from being able to spew it consequences free.

 

I’m really not meaning this in a rude way but I’m still Not understanding how any of this makes you lose your rights? Inciting violence is already against the law. People already go to prison for hurting other people. 

 

1 minute ago, Mer said:

The only countries that don’t have Freedom of Speech or Expression are North Korea, Iran, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam. 
 

Of those governments, the ones that actually do enforce their laws on speech and expression, social media is either flat out banned, or government operated. 
 

It’s not realistic in the USA. 

It’s not realistic in any civilized society. 

[DeadSeaOfMercury 23,670]

I think this belongs here because it’s Trump?

Just got an email from Kahr Firearms,

The Desert Eagle is The most beautiful pistol & they do this to it?!?

And people pay a premium for this shit.

[ultrabanisters 47,198]

1 minute ago, DeadSeaOfMercury said:

I think this belongs here because it’s Trump?

Just got an email from Kahr Firearms,

The Desert Eagle is The most beautiful pistol & they do this to it?!?

And people pay a premium for this shit.

something truly telling about using the image of trump after being shot at to advertise a gun.. they are soooo close to getting it

[Mer 63,354]

1 hour ago, ultrabanisters said:

something truly telling about using the image of trump after being shot at to advertise a gun.. they are soooo close to getting it

I'm sure in their heads they think that if Trump was armed when that happened, he'd have fired right back and taken out the assassin himself with a hand held Like that's genuinely how their brains work...

[baddisease 18,067]

2 hours ago, cheaptrailertrashglm said:

I’m really not meaning this in a rude way but I’m still Not understanding how any of this makes you lose your rights? Inciting violence is already against the law. People already go to prison for hurting other people. 

 

It’s not realistic in any civilized society. 

 

You're not understanding how anti-trans rhetoric influences politicians, the people who pass laws and make policy, and how that makes me lose rights? I don't mean to be rude either but I don't know how to make this any more clear. 

 

Hate speech by both private individuals and political thinkers and influencers enters the media which influences politicians who pass laws that restrict trans rights.

 

Do you get it?

[Mer 63,354]

3 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

You're not understanding how anti-trans rhetoric influences politicians, the people who pass laws and make policy, and how that makes me lose rights? I don't mean to be rude either but I don't know how to make this any more clear. 

 

Hate speech by both private individuals and political thinkers and influencers enters the media which influences politicians who pass laws that restrict trans rights.

 

Do you get it?

This is a Venn Diagram of politicians who would be willing to abolish free speech and who also support trans rights:

[dexter 2,404]

America is so cooked Trumps cabinet is the worst thing I’ve ever seen. There all the first to call “DEI” as well despite 90% of them being unqualified. 
 

[baddisease 18,067]

51 minutes ago, Mer said:

This is a Venn Diagram of politicians who would be willing to abolish free speech and who also support trans rights:

 

For some reason, I think the Venn Diagram of politicians who would be willing to support hate speech and trans rights are the same, so....

[Dark Angel 204,747]

1 hour ago, baddisease said:

 

You're not understanding how anti-trans rhetoric influences politicians, the people who pass laws and make policy, and how that makes me lose rights? I don't mean to be rude either but I don't know how to make this any more clear. 

 

Hate speech by both private individuals and political thinkers and influencers enters the media which influences politicians who pass laws that restrict trans rights.

 

Do you get it?

 

i feel like politicians are going to do what they want to do regardless of what people actually want, also, as much as there's plenty of people who don't agree with being trans, there's plenty who do, people usually will support politicians who match their beliefs, i really don't believe regular, everyday people should be held responsible for what politicians do, of course, society's beliefs, what they bring attention to, and what they find to be most important, will influence politicians, however, many people didn't want roe v. wade to be overturned, and most people do not believe abortion should be completely banned, but that didn't stop the supreme court from overturning roe v. wade, and that didn't stop some states from completely banning it, or heavily restricting it

 

i just don't personally believe changing free speech, or criminalizing hate speech, which, depending on how you look at it, can be an incredibly vague term, is really a good idea, because, whether or not i agree with what certain people might say or believe, i think people should have the right to say what they believe without persecution, of course, i don't expect people who hold discriminatory, or extreme beliefs to be safe from being banned on social media platforms, or to be safe from having trouble finding work, but charging people for holding extreme, hateful beliefs just enables legal systems and governments to control what we're allowed to say or believe even more, and regardless, people are going to feel how they feel even if they aren't allowed to publicly say it, of course, we shouldn't just freely enable it and allow it to happen simply due to the fact that it's hard to control... i don't know... i explained it more in my previous post here, but i just simply don't believe people should receive criminal charges or should go to jail for saying something discriminatory, if they're threatening to hurt or kill people, then, yes, they should get into trouble for that, but that's not the same, people get in trouble for making threats even if they aren't motivated by hate or discrimination

 

also, just another thought, but free speech isn't just about people being able to say whatever they want, even if it's hateful, it allows us to criticize our governments without persecution, it allows us to make art without much limitations, it allows people to believe in whatever religion they want (which i find extremely important), among other things