Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

41 - 60 of 84 Posts

·
Custom User Title
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
Ok, this is a question I have trying to get answered in a way I can understand it. If a certified interpreter refuses to interpret what someone has said, because that interpreter feels what was said may "upset" the person they are interpreting to, should that interpreter lose their certification?

The interpreter has a right to not be an interpreter. They can do something else.
What race, gender, age bracket does the interpreter belong to?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,418 Posts
There are two (now-ancient) observations that are relevant here.
1) The internet is remarkably resilient and quickly routes around damage.
2) The internet treats censorship as damage.

This’ll be a fun thread to revisit on May 1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,162 Posts
What do you call the economic system where businesses do the will of the runing class? Last I checked that was called Fascism.
 

·
Custom User Title
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
The left:
"I don't care if bakeries are private companies, they have to serve everyone no matter what".

The right:
"Freedom of religion should allow bakers to refuse to sell their cakes to gay couples".

Libertarians:
"All private businesses should be able to decide who to serve, face the financial consequences and should not be protected by the government."

The right:
"Financial institutions should not be able discriminate against firearms and ammunition enterprises."

The left:
"Banks have all the rights to deny their service to anybody they want."

Libertarians:
"All private businesses should be able to decide who to serve, face the financial consequences and should not be protected by the government."

The right:
"Big Tech should not be allowed cast out the conservative voices."

The left:
"Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, Google, they are all private enterprise and they can set their own rules."

Libertarians:
"All private businesses should be able to decide who to serve, face the financial consequences and should not be protected by the government."

thinking.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,403 Posts
There are two (now-ancient) observations that are relevant here.
1) The internet is remarkably resilient and quickly routes around damage.
2) The internet treats censorship as damage.

This'll be a fun thread to revisit on May 1.
I agree, but this is not just the "internet". It's also banks, credit card payment services, and digital security. Without all of these things, you cannot start up much of anything online.

And they're all involved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,418 Posts
I agree, but this is not just the "internet". It's also banks, credit card payment services, and digital security. Without all of these things, you cannot start up much of anything online.

And they're all involved.
And they're all replaceable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,177 Posts
Twitter lost $5 Billion this week, and the EU is considering deplatforming US social media apps due to censorship concerns.
 

·
Custom User Title
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
"It is not possible for this regulation to be carried out mainly according to rules and procedures set by private actors.""
Right. We should trust instead a government agency with that power. Maybe the sand IRS that was used to target conservatives groups .....
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,510 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,809 Posts
So what tweets did Trump send that caused Twitter to invoke the ban? Well, here they are:
1:
"The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!"

2:
"To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th."

Twitter stated that the statements must be read in the context of what happened at the capitol and are a violation of their "Glorification of Violence" policy. That policy is pretty short and straightforward and I don't see any violation there, but Twitter explained how they reached their conclusion:
  • President Trump's statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, [URL='https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1347103016311259136]2[/URL]) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an "orderly transition" on January 20th.
  • The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a "safe" target, as he will not be attending.
  • The use of the words "American Patriots" to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.
  • The mention of his supporters having a "GIANT VOICE long into the future" and that "They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!" is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an "orderly transition" and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.
  • Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.
So, it appears that, by this logic, pretty much anything could be twisted to be a violation of this policy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,418 Posts

·
Old, Slow, Boring Dude
Joined
·
2,468 Posts
I'll just drop this right here. The first few minutes... Well, you'll see!

 
  • Like
Reactions: StarJack

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,162 Posts
While I strongly prefer no government intervention, sometimes you have to bring out the big hammer. I'm generally against armed conflict, but if you bomb Pearl Harbor...
The Civil Rights laws defined the concept of a "Public Accommodation". The basic principle follows; If you offer standardized goods and services to the general public, you cannot discriminate against who you offer them to. You are not required to create custom works, merely sell normal goods and services to all comers. We should extend this doctrine to Internet Registrars, hosting providers, public forums, etc. To make these rights meaningful, public forums must also have open, transparent and objective processes to challenge bans as well as protection from no-notice service terminations such as AR15.com and Parler just had inflicted.
As for "bake the cake", this still fits. The bakery case attempted to follow this well-established guideline, but the media tried to obfuscate it as much as possible in service of a narrative (which is what they always do). The baker would sell anything out of the display case to anyone. What he would not do is create one of his unique expressive consumable sculptures to celebrate something he believed was wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clark

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,162 Posts
Gab has backed up Donald Trump's complete Twitter account and restored it on their platform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bkite
41 - 60 of 84 Posts
Top