Was that an invitation to discuss school shootings, serial killers, police brutality statistics, and come out of it thoroughly convinced that we need to discuss 'americans' whenever we discuss 'murder'?
Because there are certainly a lot of things we can say about the afghanistan and pakistan region of the world when it comes to drug trade but religion doesn't actually enter the equation once you begin looking at causation. Geopolitics does. Geography does. And, of course, the fact that it's a hard area to farm anything you can sell and live on doesn't help.
Myeah, no matter how much brain I grind on this topic, I still only come up with two direct beneficiaries of conflating 'israeli government' with 'jew';
1) A corrupt, fascist, and self-serving israeli government trying to hoodwink their own citizenry once again into the belief that the world consists of jews and of gentiles who hate jews.
2) Actual bona fide anti-semites eager to tar anyone jewish with the same brush with which they can see israel's government being tarred.
...and ironically on top of that, actual anti-semites tend to be VERY pro-israeli. 'Let them go home' didn't work too well against black people during the BLM protests but for jews there is an israel.
And best of all, one which has one of the demographics anti-semitic white supremacists hate embattled with another demographic they hate..
Conflating opposition to israeli policy with anti-semitism is most definitely more harmful.
Because if you need to be called an 'anti-semite' when you oppose Netanyahu publicly having supported Hamas for the express purpose of delegitimizing the entire palestinian leadership from negotiations...then it becomes really hard to disavow that label.
Simply because most people probably don't think it's kosher for a head of state to actively sabotage any possibility of peace talks with an opposing party by financially supporting an actual terror group in their grasp for leadership of said opposing party. Not even most israeli, judging by the statistics.
The reality is that no one should get a pass on acting like an ass. Whether they're white or black, jew or gentile.
Oh, you never know. It is possible that some 70% of the israeli citizenry is anti-semitic. /s
That, after all, has been the precise argument proposed by a certain number of israeli politicians whenever jewish people, or even israeli jews, start criticizing the israeli government.
The fact is that when we have on record, prominent israeli politicians coming out swinging for an essential endlösung for the 'palestinian problem' in the knesset it's fair to say that somewhere, israel has lost the plot. There's no damn way most sane and rational jews in israel can maintain the illusion of 'one people, united' when walking down the wrong street in Tel Aviv will see them meeting a few of the strapping lads of Otzma Yehudit eager to show them what it means to be the wrong sort of jew, in true Ernst Röhm Style.
Israel isn't judaism as a whole. Never was, no matter what their charter says. And Netanyahu himself - a man investigated for corruption and nepotism who has salvaged his career by embracing the utterly worst extremists to be found - isn't someone any normal person, jewish or not, would wantrepresenting them.
...I don't think you'd have to be Jewish to be an enemy of a human-rice dish. It not being kosher isn't going to be the deciding disqualifier for anyone is all I'm saying. I don't see there being much of a market for any demographic of significance, to be fair.
I mean, they don't even make Soylent Green out of real people anymore.
To paraphrase Beau of the fifth column, the fight between Zuck and Musk here is going to be much like a US election - you pick the candidate you want to lose.
The Musk-Twitter shitshow begs belief from start to finish but you know twitter's owner done trod in it good and proper when other platforms start muscling in on what used to be twitters almost exclusive fiefdom not even two years ago...
"If a claim is made, shouldn’t a bit of evidence be provided?"
Under normal law, yes.
Under the DMCA, in practice, no.
Problem there is the DMCA's safe harbor provisions. Due to how it's worded any online platform needs to err on the sight of utmost caution - because they risk losing safe harbor if they refuse as much as a single takedown request which turns out to be valid.
When, courtesy of bots, Youtube alone receives 4 million takedown requests daily it's obvious no one has the resources to investigate or fact-check even a thousandth of them beyond what a programmed algorithm can produce. And there is literally no burden of proof required - or sanctions possible unless it can be proven that a given takedown has been sent in bad faith. Which, ironically, is easier to do when the takedown has, as in the OP, been manually generated.
Problem is, for this issue to be addressed at all, Google would have to lobby in order to get several key provisions of the DMCA overturned or seriously altered. That's the law which reverses burden of proof in practice and ensures that any online platform needs to treat every takedown request as legitimate without proof or questions asked, lest they risk their safe harbor.
Meanwhile anyone having their content taken down due to false claim only gets to reinstate that content by delivering actual evidence.
Google may have a lot of money but the amount they'd have to spend in lobbying and legal fees to get the DMCA brought in line with fundamental principles of law isn't going to be peanuts even for them.
Important to note that it was the DMCA itself which created that culture of blind obedience when it came to taking shit offline.
In practice as soon as the topic is copyright the DMCA reverses burden of proof*, meaning that unless you want to risk your safe harbor the **only way for any platform to act is to treat every takedown request as legally valid without question but demand actual proof when the uploader wants to reinstate or re-monetize their content.
Guilty until proven innocent is the legal logic as soon as the DMCA gets involved.
And this is of course, by design. Not only does it mean copyright trolls need no further proof than what can be produced by an automated trawler/mass-mailer but anyone trying to publish outside of major publishers gets hit hard with this - as illustrated by the amount of time youtube channel owners need to waste on a daily basis fending off automated takedown requests generated by one bot trawler or another.
They usually don't. One of the things most bigots have in common is a severe lack of imagination and ability to think long term. In the minds of these bigots they themselves are "good, decent and upstanding" so will never have anything to fear.
As the french revolution showed those most eager to overturn the rights of others over personal principles will be the first against the wall once the more ruthless and opportunistic manage to grab the reigns of power.
But the bigot rarely realizes this. Even less so the religious nut - who is basically a bigot with denial built right in by default.
To be fair the most telling indication that "Valis" is shilling for the PRC is when the topic is about Xinyiang, Tibet, Hong Kong or any other facet of PRC being oppressive or outright committing genocide/ethnic cleansing - at which point he comes out swinging HARD for China, usually wielding bothsiderist "But lookit how the US donbe bad things too!" arguments as a club.
THAT is the reason most people here who've read his work by now assume he's either in the 50 cent army or for other reasons all too willing to find the PRC exculpated for anything and the US condemned for everything.
"I’ve no doubt that a good chunk of them are all but lost causes, so invested in the whole ‘everyone but me and those on my side are to blame for my woes’ worldview they’ve been sold that it would be damn near impossible to convince them otherwise, all the more so since a big part of doing that would require them to admit that they’ve not only been had but far from being the persecuted they are the the ones engaging in persecution."
Got it in one. Fox whole business model is in supplying grievance to addicts. I like to describe it as "America's second opioid crisis" - because the addiction caused by being in a permanent state of fear and hatred is every bit as harmful and difficult to kick as heroin, with the DHS and the FBI having issued studies where reformed white supremacists found themselves going through actual withdrawal.
We're talking about dozens of millions hard addicts. To them accepting factual reality means to let go of the needle. For the overwhelming majority of them that's not going to be a thing short of outside intervention - and you can't scale drug detoxification to include that many people.
Bluntly put, we might not want to. The junkie who spends their evening frothing at the mouth while screaming at the TV screen is one who deprived of his fix isn't going completely postal and looking for a final adrenaline ride bringing their AR-15 into a gay club or known liberal hangout.
It will take generations to get rid of this large cadre of grievance addicts, and it'll still only happen after we manage to somehow make major media abstain from making outrage farming part of their revenue stream.
If we're lucky the Fox case might de-incentivize them from that, but I wouldn't hold my breath unless it ends with them finding out that lying to their audience means meaningful fiscal risk far exceeding their expected revenue of continuing as-is.
You know, davec, we've figured you for a dishonest troll for a long time now but honestly? You're off your game there.
The US military has patrolled actively hostile zones like Baghdad and Kabul with fewer civilians killed than US law enforcement racks up by orders of magnitude.
When even the fucking military, trained to kill, can restrain themselves in a hostile warzone where the public often loathes them, what's your excuse for Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and this latest attempt by officers of the law to turn a living human being into a pinata?
Nowhere else on this planet will you find officers of the law racking up anywhere near this sort of body count, except in one particular type of place.
Countries in the developing world run by warlords and totalitarian regimes. That's where the US cop finds peers today. No civilized nation has these issues with their police officers. None.
Every last excuse of yours as to why US police officers need to do shit this way has been proven fallacious already. This is now an "only in america" problem where those defending cops are left trying to argue that the US alone seems somehow unable to do better.
When your arguments all boil down to *"But...we just suck! We CAN'T do better! Every other nation is just so much better than we are at this!" it's time to face reality.
"The Midas myth."
Doesn't quite track. Midas wanted wealth and turned everything he touched to gold as a result of the "blessing" of Dionysys.
Musk also wants for wealth but everything he touches turns to shit instead. Either he's just a fuck-up whose dunning-kruger finally hit the limit of what his networked wealth could dissipate or the deity handing him a "blessing" was Loki or Coyote.
"Its amamzing how many Muskrats are trying to spin this as a positive."
Ah, but you forgot that clinching argument of theirs - "Musk is a genius and the facts you bring just shows factual reality is envious of him!"
There are roughly four types of people currently defending Musk;
1) His cultists. Those for whom Musk walks on water and upon whose tongues his name is that of the sky wizard. Honestly, there are fewer of these than of any other category of Muskovite, simply because that sort of sectarian behavior is self-destruktive and they don't live within the shelter of their chosen lord and savior.
2) Libertarians. They just love Musk's long history of pissing on the rulebook. In their eyes he's just the perfect example of the "rugged individual" who "made it big" in the US - despite already being quite wealthy when he got there - and who can usurp and assume traditional government functions such as space exploration. Musk is the closest they've got to an affirmation of Reagan and Ayn Rand. He's John Galt.
3) The Beholden. And here we have the poor schmucks who have significant portions of their life savings invested in TSLA and SpaceX. They may or may not believe Musk knows what he's doing but if their voice can keep their TSLA stock from shrinking further these people will be screaming louder than anyone other than Musk's own cultists. Given how much money is riding there I wouldn't be too surprised if some genuine paid-for astroturfing was part of this platform.
4) Nazis, Bigots, Fascists and Racists. Musk has let them all out of Twitter jail. The misogynistic braggart who enjoys teaching like-minded men how to coerce "consent" and the sheethead deliriously happy to once again be able to raise his voice in a hearty "Gawd dam ALL those N_____rs and their jew masters!". The neo-nazi eager to convince young minds of the "Great Replacement Theory" and his fascist compatriot convinced democrats of any stripe drink the blood of babies.
Musk is the Great White Hope of all of these people now and his background, seen by them as being a refugee from a fallen apartheid regime, certainly doesn't hurt.
Broadly speaking those four types of muskovites exist. All in all a bunch of very fine people, lunatics and marks conned by the latest shady witch doctor to cross their path with a miraculous cure for all ills.
As good a summary of the libertarian mindset as any. I have yet to see any actual libertarians happy about the rare cases where their dreams have turned true and they discover it wasn't the utopian ideal they thought it'd be.
"So you approve of all the nazis, racists and bigots posting their shit among all the CSAM and Crypto-scams that is the current state of Twitter “discourse”?"
Most of "Bennet"'s discourse does, in fact, suggest that he'd be heartily on favor of nazis, racists, bigots and crypto-scammer and gives exactly zero fucks about child abuse.
It's really not a good look for Musk when the most avid defenders he has are people with long records of being alt-right activists.
Something he should have thought about before he decided to be their great white hope and let them all out of twitter jail.
Another plausible explanation is that there are people so invested in Musk succeeding, by having their life savings in TSLA and SpaceX stock, their pensions literally depend on Musk never being revealed as a dunning-krugered edgelord whose marketing genius can't save his reputation, credit rating or stock evaluation at this point.
I'm all on board with people believing in the sky wizard.
I'm less OK with people who believe that they have the right and obligation to tell other people how to live their lives because of what some galilean sheepherder wrote two thousand years ago.
Was that an invitation to discuss school shootings, serial killers, police brutality statistics, and come out of it thoroughly convinced that we need to discuss 'americans' whenever we discuss 'murder'? Because there are certainly a lot of things we can say about the afghanistan and pakistan region of the world when it comes to drug trade but religion doesn't actually enter the equation once you begin looking at causation. Geopolitics does. Geography does. And, of course, the fact that it's a hard area to farm anything you can sell and live on doesn't help.
Myeah, no matter how much brain I grind on this topic, I still only come up with two direct beneficiaries of conflating 'israeli government' with 'jew'; 1) A corrupt, fascist, and self-serving israeli government trying to hoodwink their own citizenry once again into the belief that the world consists of jews and of gentiles who hate jews. 2) Actual bona fide anti-semites eager to tar anyone jewish with the same brush with which they can see israel's government being tarred. ...and ironically on top of that, actual anti-semites tend to be VERY pro-israeli. 'Let them go home' didn't work too well against black people during the BLM protests but for jews there is an israel. And best of all, one which has one of the demographics anti-semitic white supremacists hate embattled with another demographic they hate..
Conflating opposition to israeli policy with anti-semitism is most definitely more harmful. Because if you need to be called an 'anti-semite' when you oppose Netanyahu publicly having supported Hamas for the express purpose of delegitimizing the entire palestinian leadership from negotiations...then it becomes really hard to disavow that label. Simply because most people probably don't think it's kosher for a head of state to actively sabotage any possibility of peace talks with an opposing party by financially supporting an actual terror group in their grasp for leadership of said opposing party. Not even most israeli, judging by the statistics. The reality is that no one should get a pass on acting like an ass. Whether they're white or black, jew or gentile.
Oh, you never know. It is possible that some 70% of the israeli citizenry is anti-semitic. /s That, after all, has been the precise argument proposed by a certain number of israeli politicians whenever jewish people, or even israeli jews, start criticizing the israeli government. The fact is that when we have on record, prominent israeli politicians coming out swinging for an essential endlösung for the 'palestinian problem' in the knesset it's fair to say that somewhere, israel has lost the plot. There's no damn way most sane and rational jews in israel can maintain the illusion of 'one people, united' when walking down the wrong street in Tel Aviv will see them meeting a few of the strapping lads of Otzma Yehudit eager to show them what it means to be the wrong sort of jew, in true Ernst Röhm Style. Israel isn't judaism as a whole. Never was, no matter what their charter says. And Netanyahu himself - a man investigated for corruption and nepotism who has salvaged his career by embracing the utterly worst extremists to be found - isn't someone any normal person, jewish or not, would wantrepresenting them.
...I don't think you'd have to be Jewish to be an enemy of a human-rice dish. It not being kosher isn't going to be the deciding disqualifier for anyone is all I'm saying. I don't see there being much of a market for any demographic of significance, to be fair. I mean, they don't even make Soylent Green out of real people anymore.
To paraphrase Beau of the fifth column, the fight between Zuck and Musk here is going to be much like a US election - you pick the candidate you want to lose. The Musk-Twitter shitshow begs belief from start to finish but you know twitter's owner done trod in it good and proper when other platforms start muscling in on what used to be twitters almost exclusive fiefdom not even two years ago...
"If a claim is made, shouldn’t a bit of evidence be provided?" Under normal law, yes. Under the DMCA, in practice, no. Problem there is the DMCA's safe harbor provisions. Due to how it's worded any online platform needs to err on the sight of utmost caution - because they risk losing safe harbor if they refuse as much as a single takedown request which turns out to be valid. When, courtesy of bots, Youtube alone receives 4 million takedown requests daily it's obvious no one has the resources to investigate or fact-check even a thousandth of them beyond what a programmed algorithm can produce. And there is literally no burden of proof required - or sanctions possible unless it can be proven that a given takedown has been sent in bad faith. Which, ironically, is easier to do when the takedown has, as in the OP, been manually generated.
Problem is, for this issue to be addressed at all, Google would have to lobby in order to get several key provisions of the DMCA overturned or seriously altered. That's the law which reverses burden of proof in practice and ensures that any online platform needs to treat every takedown request as legitimate without proof or questions asked, lest they risk their safe harbor. Meanwhile anyone having their content taken down due to false claim only gets to reinstate that content by delivering actual evidence. Google may have a lot of money but the amount they'd have to spend in lobbying and legal fees to get the DMCA brought in line with fundamental principles of law isn't going to be peanuts even for them.
Important to note that it was the DMCA itself which created that culture of blind obedience when it came to taking shit offline. In practice as soon as the topic is copyright the DMCA reverses burden of proof*, meaning that unless you want to risk your safe harbor the **only way for any platform to act is to treat every takedown request as legally valid without question but demand actual proof when the uploader wants to reinstate or re-monetize their content. Guilty until proven innocent is the legal logic as soon as the DMCA gets involved. And this is of course, by design. Not only does it mean copyright trolls need no further proof than what can be produced by an automated trawler/mass-mailer but anyone trying to publish outside of major publishers gets hit hard with this - as illustrated by the amount of time youtube channel owners need to waste on a daily basis fending off automated takedown requests generated by one bot trawler or another.
They usually don't. One of the things most bigots have in common is a severe lack of imagination and ability to think long term. In the minds of these bigots they themselves are "good, decent and upstanding" so will never have anything to fear. As the french revolution showed those most eager to overturn the rights of others over personal principles will be the first against the wall once the more ruthless and opportunistic manage to grab the reigns of power. But the bigot rarely realizes this. Even less so the religious nut - who is basically a bigot with denial built right in by default.
To be fair the most telling indication that "Valis" is shilling for the PRC is when the topic is about Xinyiang, Tibet, Hong Kong or any other facet of PRC being oppressive or outright committing genocide/ethnic cleansing - at which point he comes out swinging HARD for China, usually wielding bothsiderist "But lookit how the US donbe bad things too!" arguments as a club. THAT is the reason most people here who've read his work by now assume he's either in the 50 cent army or for other reasons all too willing to find the PRC exculpated for anything and the US condemned for everything.
Not religious but...if you were a deity would you be in a hurry to welcome the likes of Murdoch to your neck of the woods?
"I’ve no doubt that a good chunk of them are all but lost causes, so invested in the whole ‘everyone but me and those on my side are to blame for my woes’ worldview they’ve been sold that it would be damn near impossible to convince them otherwise, all the more so since a big part of doing that would require them to admit that they’ve not only been had but far from being the persecuted they are the the ones engaging in persecution." Got it in one. Fox whole business model is in supplying grievance to addicts. I like to describe it as "America's second opioid crisis" - because the addiction caused by being in a permanent state of fear and hatred is every bit as harmful and difficult to kick as heroin, with the DHS and the FBI having issued studies where reformed white supremacists found themselves going through actual withdrawal. We're talking about dozens of millions hard addicts. To them accepting factual reality means to let go of the needle. For the overwhelming majority of them that's not going to be a thing short of outside intervention - and you can't scale drug detoxification to include that many people. Bluntly put, we might not want to. The junkie who spends their evening frothing at the mouth while screaming at the TV screen is one who deprived of his fix isn't going completely postal and looking for a final adrenaline ride bringing their AR-15 into a gay club or known liberal hangout. It will take generations to get rid of this large cadre of grievance addicts, and it'll still only happen after we manage to somehow make major media abstain from making outrage farming part of their revenue stream. If we're lucky the Fox case might de-incentivize them from that, but I wouldn't hold my breath unless it ends with them finding out that lying to their audience means meaningful fiscal risk far exceeding their expected revenue of continuing as-is.
You know, davec, we've figured you for a dishonest troll for a long time now but honestly? You're off your game there. The US military has patrolled actively hostile zones like Baghdad and Kabul with fewer civilians killed than US law enforcement racks up by orders of magnitude. When even the fucking military, trained to kill, can restrain themselves in a hostile warzone where the public often loathes them, what's your excuse for Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and this latest attempt by officers of the law to turn a living human being into a pinata? Nowhere else on this planet will you find officers of the law racking up anywhere near this sort of body count, except in one particular type of place. Countries in the developing world run by warlords and totalitarian regimes. That's where the US cop finds peers today. No civilized nation has these issues with their police officers. None. Every last excuse of yours as to why US police officers need to do shit this way has been proven fallacious already. This is now an "only in america" problem where those defending cops are left trying to argue that the US alone seems somehow unable to do better. When your arguments all boil down to *"But...we just suck! We CAN'T do better! Every other nation is just so much better than we are at this!" it's time to face reality.
"The Midas myth." Doesn't quite track. Midas wanted wealth and turned everything he touched to gold as a result of the "blessing" of Dionysys. Musk also wants for wealth but everything he touches turns to shit instead. Either he's just a fuck-up whose dunning-kruger finally hit the limit of what his networked wealth could dissipate or the deity handing him a "blessing" was Loki or Coyote.
"Its amamzing how many Muskrats are trying to spin this as a positive." Ah, but you forgot that clinching argument of theirs - "Musk is a genius and the facts you bring just shows factual reality is envious of him!" There are roughly four types of people currently defending Musk; 1) His cultists. Those for whom Musk walks on water and upon whose tongues his name is that of the sky wizard. Honestly, there are fewer of these than of any other category of Muskovite, simply because that sort of sectarian behavior is self-destruktive and they don't live within the shelter of their chosen lord and savior. 2) Libertarians. They just love Musk's long history of pissing on the rulebook. In their eyes he's just the perfect example of the "rugged individual" who "made it big" in the US - despite already being quite wealthy when he got there - and who can usurp and assume traditional government functions such as space exploration. Musk is the closest they've got to an affirmation of Reagan and Ayn Rand. He's John Galt. 3) The Beholden. And here we have the poor schmucks who have significant portions of their life savings invested in TSLA and SpaceX. They may or may not believe Musk knows what he's doing but if their voice can keep their TSLA stock from shrinking further these people will be screaming louder than anyone other than Musk's own cultists. Given how much money is riding there I wouldn't be too surprised if some genuine paid-for astroturfing was part of this platform. 4) Nazis, Bigots, Fascists and Racists. Musk has let them all out of Twitter jail. The misogynistic braggart who enjoys teaching like-minded men how to coerce "consent" and the sheethead deliriously happy to once again be able to raise his voice in a hearty "Gawd dam ALL those N_____rs and their jew masters!". The neo-nazi eager to convince young minds of the "Great Replacement Theory" and his fascist compatriot convinced democrats of any stripe drink the blood of babies. Musk is the Great White Hope of all of these people now and his background, seen by them as being a refugee from a fallen apartheid regime, certainly doesn't hurt. Broadly speaking those four types of muskovites exist. All in all a bunch of very fine people, lunatics and marks conned by the latest shady witch doctor to cross their path with a miraculous cure for all ills.
As good a summary of the libertarian mindset as any. I have yet to see any actual libertarians happy about the rare cases where their dreams have turned true and they discover it wasn't the utopian ideal they thought it'd be.
"So you approve of all the nazis, racists and bigots posting their shit among all the CSAM and Crypto-scams that is the current state of Twitter “discourse”?" Most of "Bennet"'s discourse does, in fact, suggest that he'd be heartily on favor of nazis, racists, bigots and crypto-scammer and gives exactly zero fucks about child abuse. It's really not a good look for Musk when the most avid defenders he has are people with long records of being alt-right activists. Something he should have thought about before he decided to be their great white hope and let them all out of twitter jail.
Another plausible explanation is that there are people so invested in Musk succeeding, by having their life savings in TSLA and SpaceX stock, their pensions literally depend on Musk never being revealed as a dunning-krugered edgelord whose marketing genius can't save his reputation, credit rating or stock evaluation at this point.
I'm all on board with people believing in the sky wizard. I'm less OK with people who believe that they have the right and obligation to tell other people how to live their lives because of what some galilean sheepherder wrote two thousand years ago.