Listen now (3 min) | Friends, After Scott Adams, the creator of “Dilbert,” called Black people a “hate group” and said, “I don’t want to have anything to do with them” and that white people should “get the hell away from Black people,” media outlets have dropped his comic strip.
Twitter, Tic Tok, Facebook - all of it should be left in the dust. These destructive social media platforms do much more harm than good. There are much better ways to fill the hours of our lives with good music, films & books, activities such as dance, sports and walks in the park or productive hobbies and outings. I know people like myself who live a rich life without staring at a device all day long checking to see how many strangers “like” my posts or videos. Wake Up, America!
Isn't the real problem weaponized algorithms? And the people determining how they're used? After all any machine can be used for good or bad. Ambulance v. "getaway car". (no need to go military here)
People who make machines know exactly that - and favor transparency for a reason (do any of the "platforms" offer such transparency with respect to their algorithms?); "Soylent Green" v/s onions.
You are correct Rishi, thank you. The moment is here to thoughly investigate Platform statutory non-liability for actual harm to real users, real humans. NOW.
Currently, there is a glitch in our election process that just seems wrong to me. During any given election candidates who desire can run for a position in our political system. The winner is determined by the individual that gains the most votes. That is the way it should be but in actuality, it isn't. There is a catch in the process that states if, in a given race, no candidate obtains at least 50% of the votes a run-off election is to be held to determine the winner. Who thought up this one? In essence, what the run-off is doing is giving the loser a second chance to win an election they just lost. I don't care how many people are in the race it's the steed that crosses the finish line first that should be declared the winner, at least that's how the Kentucky Derby is run. A race is a race, let the candidate that gets the most votes stand as the winner, regardless of that ridiculous 50% of the vote issue. Think of the money and time we would save along with doing away with the uncertainty involved by not knowing the outcome of a given election. The whole thing sounds like a Republican scheme to unseat a given winner.
Run-off election exists in many countries and is not a glitch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system provides the pros and cons. I like run-off elections (and ranked choice voting schemes) because they make it harder for extremist politicians to be elected to office. To get 50% of the vote, politicians need to moderate their views to appeal to a broader group of the electorate.
I provided a reason in my comment. You can disagree with it. I respect that. Sorry, but I feel that comparing a political election to a horse race is silly.
Donald, that's why I like the election structure that lets voters prioritize the candidates they would like in office when there are more than 2 candidates running. That too saves a lot of time and money and saves us from having to hear the massive lies Republicans tell and the inadequate responses of the Democratic candidates for additional weeks and months.
Ruth--Our election system is full of loop howls that provide an avenue through which a loser can become the winner. Look at the electoral college. How many presidents have been given to keys to the executive washroom when it wasn't the voice of the people. There should be only one way to win a presidential election, the candidate that gets the most votes. That's the way we should decide all elections, no matter how obscure they may seem.
Each state gets to choose how they run their elections. They haven't all chosen a 'first past the post' system. Nor have they chosen Primaries to whittle down the contenders. e.g. California has what is called a Jungle primary. Everyone is on the ballot and the voters vote for their first and only choice. If a candidate exceeds 50% they're elected. If not, the top two have a run off.
Maine and Alaska have a ranked choice system where voters can select and rank their candidates. Somewhat similar to elections in Ireland (the Republic of) Too lengthy to explain here but here's a link: https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/
There are many other variations, most of which haven't been tried here. Republicans and Democrats like it fine the way it is.
Bryan, yes, Bush v. Gore was a kind of coup when the SC knew full well that Florida voting districts had cheated and that the election scale had the hand of Bush relatives in the state weighing on the side of Bush, an ignorant fool. The Court should have said because Florida is out of control the presidency should go to the person who won the popular vote. That would have been fair and probably would have caused Florida to clean up its act, an act that is still questionable and won't be cleaned up as long as DeSantis is governor. Florida and Texas whined about and challenge the elections in states that hadn't voted for their Republican candidates while conducting questionable elections in their own states. I guess they hoped directing people's attention to Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, they thought no one would question what happened down in Dixie. They were right.
Concur Ruth. The striking of Voters' names from voting at all 2 years before the Election tilted the result specifically the last name of 'Jackson' which prevented a Florida Election Official from her vote being counted long before you got to 'hanging chads' or the Brooksbrothers' Riot.
Bryan-- I understand the states rights thing but the fact remains that process in flawed. It shouldn't operate that way. If you lose you lose, no second chances.
Definitely a bad decision...... But the court (Scalia) relied on the process and procedure Florida followed once the votes were cast.....not the type of system they chose.
Terry--No matter how you look at it that system gives a loser a second chance at winning. What would horse racing fans think if a new rule was imposed that states any horse that doesn't win by at least 5 full lengths has to run again to see who wins. The election premise is flawded.
Actually you can't say that without thoroughly understanding the different voting systems, particularly the one you're criticizing. To do so makes it intellectually indefensible. e.g Do your homework or at least enough to not be taken lightly.
Terry--voting systems aside, a race is a race. Show me a race where the one that comes in second gets special consideration. There is no need to coddle to the loser.
Spoiler alert: the remainder of this thread may degenerate into an example of binary thinking/ rhetoric and the "my way or the highway" conundrum which plagues us all currently. Congressional stalemate at it best.
Although I have these accounts and I spend little time on them, problematic is what is posted. These forms of digital media have been a boon to visual artists except for the fact they fall into the trap of posting way too frequently because the algorithms are set up as a popularity contest- why it’s free- so trite repetitive and numbing.
I agree Anne. I am 76. When someone asks me what would I do without my phone and act horrified.... I look back at the 74 years I lived without hauling my phone around with me.... gosh I actually drove places, went to college, taught 7-8-9 graders how to think, flew around the world for 36 years, led 8 th graders on tours of their city on school tours to Wash. DC and never once felt a need to ask a telephone anything. I even dated and got married without a cell phone. I bathed and cooked and ate and played the piano and the flute without a cell phone.
And when I saw that a three year old needed some attention I noticed the ones who became grown ups who could function had been given complete attention by an adult who didn’t have their nose in a screen.
Agree, but the ability to FaceTime my family across the country has been a wonderful boon. It does hurt my heart when I see the little ones being ignored by the adults in their lives, and being given the phones to keep them quiet
I totally agree with you. When I meet people and the conversation mentions connecting with others I always tell them. Do you know that one person in America that doesn’t have a cell phone? You’re talking to him. I have a life and I’m proud of that. I have always been a GDI person.
This has contributed to feelings of loneliness and depression felt by the youth of our country, particularly after the disruption due to the pandemic. Not to mention the inaccurate info and lies that abound. No wonder suicide rates are at an all time high. Social media really needs some type of regulation, although I don't pretend to know what that is. I doubt that with the current Congress, the harm of social media and any attempt to regulate it is anything they care about.
I am very content to do without it, as I have never used it to begin with. Substack is the only thing I participate in, if that comes under "social media". I still write letters, and I don't use a cell phone.
'Holier than thou' is not a great position to take, especially with Millenials and Zoomers and lord help you if you deal with an Alpha. They're not having it.
I got a cell phone as a safety measure in the event of an emergency when driving. It also comes in handy when meeting someone somewhere. I kick myself every time I forget and leave it home.
No doubt social media can be and, in my opinion, misused. But please don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. I was very grateful for Facebook when living alone during COVID.
Anne, I am pleased for you that you have so many activities to take up time, but a lot of other folks find communicating with family and friends through the platforms very rewarding. I personally like learning of the things friends I don't see every day are doing and thinking. I just ignore the political stuff on the platform because that is not why I am there. Maybe we could encourage people to also avoid the junk and stop believing the insane things people are saying to blame others for things they can't possibly have done as the MAGAs and others do. That might be the message everyone who cares should post at every opportunity, skip the crap! Share the good stuff with family and friends. Stop buying from advertisers that support the junk that hurts people. We the People could clean up the platforms so they would be safe for the sharing and conversations that are life-affirming while ignoring or ditching and isolating the rest, despite what the child-man owners want. Go out and do the other stuff Anne suggests, but keep the positive connections on the platforms too.
Thank you Ruth. There are good and bad to everything. Technology can be good, technology can be bad. What I find most disturbing is what seems to be the loss of critical thinking, research the topics, weigh the pros and cons (discernment) to come up with a decision you can live with. Our world is much more intertwined than ever, we are dependent on others as others are dependent on us. There is no simple answer, and I certainly don’t have it, but I refuse to lose hope and faith we can overcome the political disturbances of today.
These "platforms" do present us with a real conundrum. It has truly good benefits when used properly and risks danger when it is used to stimulate turmoil and or violence. Sorry for stating the obvious, but do we digress when we beleaguer some topics for too long?
I control what I see on Facebook. I originally joined so I could connect with family. Occasionally something pops up that I don’t care for and I block it. I get poetry, mysticism, beautiful scenes, flowers, birds. Interesting and informative articles and most of all, contact with friends and family. It is also howI came to follow Robert Reich. You certainly have a full life and don’t need facebook. But it is possibly to use Facebook in a positive way. I live a life of isolation and it is a lifeline for me. Your life sounds wonderful. It is not my life. PS. I don’t spend my day looking to see if people like my posts. I have a very small amount of “friends.” You should be grateful for your rich life. Please don’t lump a whole group of people you don’t even know into a one-size-fits-all label.
Mainstream media should stop reporting the drivel oozing from the three year old emotions of musk and trump. They NEED attention, and have been throwing the same uncontrolled temper tantrums since they were three years old. My 3 year olds had consequences for temper tantrums (not spanking or beating) Apparently neither musk nor trump parents believed in controlling 3 year olds and those men never advanced beyond that age. Why do you think the Brits made those baby donnie balloons?
Fay, love it! Thanks so much for reminding everyone that Trump and Musk and so many other Republicans and conservatives in power are children. They never matured emotionally past age 3. They remind me of my nephew when he was 3. When he was angry or wanted to hurt his little brother, or was just cranky, everyone reminded him that is not acceptable behavior and explained why. Then his parents and the other adults in his life put him to bed to rest, or in some other way distracted him until he could talk about what he was feeling as best a toddler can. He is now going on 5 and rarely throws tantrums, is kinder with his little brother and other little kids, knows better when he is upset and finds ways to deal with it including talking about it with his family. I am guessing Trump, Musk, et al never even examined one of their emotional outbursts and just assumed people would always do exactly what they wanted those people to do. We need to stop allowing toddler-men to have power of any kind. Maybe if there is no place in power for them, parents would do more to help those child-men to grow up without the need to hurt other people.
We can not ignore social media, as has been suggested by some commentators. And we cannot ignore the powerful people with big soapboxes, even though we would never let them in the back door if they came to our homes.
Stephanie, such laws as Germany has against hate and Holocaust denial could help us here, but alas, currently, our court system is mostly owned by corporations and MAGAs and in their extreme activism and anti-Americanism, they would chuck out those laws because they would cut down on the harmful speech and actions that are hurting people who are not rich, white, "straight" and pseudo-Christian men. They just can't have that. Republicans even recruited a Black man and a woman for the SC to go along with their BS. That shows there is a pretty significant network of democracy underminers who are hard at work, tapping into our youth to get life-long haters, blamers, and coup supporters, as long as the coup puts someone friendly to themselves in power. They knew they had Trump and Kump on their side, so when possible, they will stand against the indictment of and release of information that would condemn the Trumpers and Trumpettes who orchestrated the January 6th insurrection. It is the courts Biden needs to overhaul with nominees who actually care about this nation, our laws that are fair and equally applied, and actually represent the diversity of this nation, not just the white men who have ruled everywhere until a few chinks were opened in the past 50 years or so for others.
Where do you draw lines in keeping with our 1st Amendment? Which the German Constitution doesn't contain? Not to mention the Bill of Rights? Just asking....not that I don't agree with you at least to some degree.
Correction. The way I wrote this is somewhat confusing. Germans do have similar rights as Americans are guaranteed in our Constitution. They just go at it a bit differently. After WW2 the Federal Republic of Germany effectively established these rights in their Constitution just not as a Bill of Rights. Their Article 5 guarantees Free Speech etc, but not to the same degree the US does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany particularly with regard to Nazism.
Freedom of Assembly, Religion etc. are guaranteed but in not in the same manner as our Constitution.
There are categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech per se that does not fall into one of these categories is constitutionally protected as free speech.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court overturned the conviction of Clarence Brandenburg, a member of the Ku Klux Klan who had made inflammatory statements, by insisting that it would only punish advocacy that “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Still, one might expect that, much as it did when it applied the gravity of the evil test, the Court would distinguish between the kinds of illegal actions advocated — that is, an incitement to walk on the grass would hardly seem to merit the same kind of attention as calls for bombings or assassinations. In Hess v. Indiana (1973), the Court applied Brandenburg and said that before an individual’s speech could fall under the unprotected category of incitement to imminent lawless action, the speech must lead to “imminent disorder.”
How about advocating insurrection? 18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
It seems there are a number of members of Congress that need to be prosecuted for their participation in the Jan 6, 2021 insurrection attempt, as well as fake electors and right-wing provocateurs in the states.
I have been arguing in that the House rules on seating members put the burden of proof on those who admit it shouldn't be seated as members. At one point a spoke to a couple of Dem members, who agree, but apparently they do not have the guts to call out their brethren and sisteren. .
Yes Daniel, what do you think that Democratic reluctance comes from? Is it lack of courage? Is it something about the decorum of the House and Senate (which is questionable these days in any case)? They should be calling out "The Freedom Caucus" every day or two related to their appalling investigation intentions and other ridiculous things they are proposing. Greene, for example continues to spew her insurrectionist crap. Maybe they think she is just so stupid no jury would think her speech is that incendiary. I hear there are some signs of Dems speaking up more frequently. I'll be watching to see if and who.
Daniel Solomon : Isn't there a rule that such action of using the 14th amendment section C to prevent seditionists from running for office requires 2/3rds of Congress members to get it done?
Daniel, thanks so much as always for the legal support for the argument that the courts and our DOJ have the right and need to prosecute those who planned for and orchestrated the January 6th Insurrection. It is shameful that it has taken this long for anyone to do anything about those at the top of the insurrection chain, and still little to nothing has been done to them. Scott Perry is still in court trying to make his communications about the insurrection unopenable. We already know Perry was involved in trying to send illegal electors' votes in place of the representatives of the actual Pennsylvania vote, so that should be sufficient evidence for any court to demand his communications to be opened, congressman or not. He has already proven he would betray the people of the United States as he tried to betray the people of Pennsylvania.
Terry, thanks for the comment. Didn't know the German Constitution doesn't have a freedom of speech clause. I'm not sure if I'm surprised or not.
Since I'm not versed in all of the legal ins and outs and interpretations of our Constitution, I wrote what I did based on the concept of language being able to evoke such strong emotions as hatred, and that hatred can become so intense that it incites more of the same. I don't think our founders considered the difference between anger and hatred. I'm not sure if this addresses your concerns.
John Adams, one of the founders, jailed his political enemies for exercising free speech rights. Since then, we do not permit censoring speech under the "prior restraint" doctrine. During WWI, Schenck v. United States, Charles Schenck was charged under the Espionage Act for mailing printed circulars critical of the military draft. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to express freedom of speech against the draft during World War I.
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld Schenck's conviction and ruled that the Espionage Act did not conflict with the First Amendment. Although Holmes said “You can't yell fire in a crowded theater” he voted to send Schenk to jail.
Thanks for pointing out the shortcomings in my answer. I've gone back and corrected it....I hope sufficiently. Word of caution though. Never trust what someone says on here completely and above all don't rely on it without doing your homework.
I agree that what Adams and Musk have said are clearly racist, but one of the most frustrating things about all of the coverage Musk and his ilk get for things like this is that they likely don't believe any of it. Billionaires, GOP members, and all who support them simply spew out whatever will earn them more or keep them in power. Government is bad, except when it's not. The media is terrible, except when it serves them. Schools are bad, except when they're jamming free market fantasies down everyone's throat. Their words are obviously still harmful and must be addressed, but the fact that they may not really believe any of this makes it even worse. It's just another example of how these villains will hurt others, poison society and burn the world if it will push their stock up.
Ian, you are right about what the addicted rich guys will do to protect their wealth and keep their addiction fed. The truth is that We the People permit it when we elect people to office because of the letter behind their name on the ballot, folks who will permit those rich child-men to lie, cheat, whine, blame, and hurt as many people as they choose for their own benefit, knowing there will always be people out here who will go along with whatever those child-men want them to do. They also have the courts under their belts now too. It is up to We the People to demand that it stop. Constituents need to tell their representatives that their childish behavior on behalf of those who are trying to undermine our nation is unacceptable. The problem is that so many of the constituents of those underminers are struggling, kept down by those very people they elected even while they are blaming Democrats for their situation. It is appalling, but they in their suffering just go along with it, building up their anger, hatred, and resentment, directed to people who are not the cause of their struggles. That works just fine for the Trumps, Musks, McCarthys, DeSantises, and their ilk.
Hi Terry. Anyone can throw out words. And yes, the action here of tweeting in support of an obvious racists does matter. But do I believe that Musk truly holds racists beliefs on par with people like Proud Boys or Trump because of this Tweet? No, I don't. Sadly, the last few years in particular have demonstrated such genuine, deep in the blood, horrifying racism. They have also showed us the shamelessness with which those in power will simply throw out statements, regardless of the harm, the complete lack of morality, or the blatant hypocrisy. They'll even reverse course weeks later with no ramifications, with no media attention to how they recently claimed the exact opposite.
In short, definitely, actions matter and matter most. But that's why I think we need to make sure we highlight cases where, whether the issue is race , national security, or democracy, there is no credibility behind the words, only ruthless self-interest.
How much of a racist does one need to be to be a certified racist? Musk has demonstrated by his words that he is. Just not the degree. As the owner of a forum open to the public he is held or should be held to a higher standard than the racist next door. He is not.
Defending such behavior....yes speech broadcast from the Twitter pulpit is behavior......is not becoming .....unless possibly you're pro bono from the ACLU?
Your previous comment was about how actions speak to what they're saying, and that's my main point. Should we condemn Musk for this statement in support of a racist? Yes! Is supporting a racist's viewpoints also racist? Absolutely. All I am doing is raising the issue that, for people with power and massive microphones like Musk, we must condemn such statements while also keeping an eye out for and condemning instances where they make these or any other statements with intentions even more abhorrent than originally assumed. To support a racist and their views is abhorrent, which he is. We must also see if he, like so many others these days, is simply saying whatever serves his interests at that time, and we must make sure to highlight this horrific aspect of his character if that is the case.
Alllll good, as it would be even if we were not in agreement. Sometimes when I feel like the whole nation is irrevocably divided, another good 'ol arrogant, loudmouthed billionaire spouts their craziness and reveals just how united so much of the country is, even if it's just in our disdain for these wannabe Bond villains.
Simple solution: Get off twitter. I left the day Musk walked in carrying his sink. I will never buy a Tesla, and I make every effort to avoid products advertised on Fox. https://dropfox.com/advertisers/
I'm one of them too! Have to admit that I do read Twitter comments at times just for laughs & give myself a pat on the back that I don't need clicks & likes to stoke my ego.
Musk is the poster child for being driven mad by power. He’s going to be spending the rest of his days trying to cover his ass for the things he says. He doesn’t understand the world that the rest of us live in. We understand him all too well.
Musk is very intelligent....in some areas.....mostly mechanical....how things work. But very stupid in people things.....particularly social relationships, etc. This fits perfectly with Law #2 of Cipolla’s five basic laws of human stupidity https://qz.com/967554/the-five-universal-laws-of-human-stupidity
Complete agreement. The Citizens United problem and unfettered flow of $$ bribes to legislators and the revolving door with regulators will likely preclude that from happening any time soon.
Time for a Con Amendment to: 1) repeal the CU holding; and 2) confirm that corporations and all the other alphabet soup entities (LLC, PLLP, etc.) are not persons and do not enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights or the 14th A.
Complete agreement, as well. SNAG: The sitting SCOTUS, the >true< loss of the '16 election. Everything else is just so much noise. That's why I have little to say about what we need to do about anything. It's all pretty obvious, to me, and it doesn't stand a chance of happening in >my< lifetime, anyway.
I picked everyone should leave Twitter because all we can do to protest the rising fascism, Nazism, and racism is to vote AND boycott those who support anti-democracy movements. I don't go to Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby etc because of what those corporations believe in. I know democratic-minded people who have been with Twitter for years are reluctant to leave. They want to stay and fight. But perhaps it's better to try and hit Twitter in the pocketbook if tweeters and advertisers left.
Not what those *corporations* believe in (as corporations - despite what some political parties would have you believe - are not people & cannot profess belief in anything aside from $) but rather what the *people* who speak for those corporations, e.g. as founders/investors/majority owners, etc. profess (which, given the type of idiot legal imbroglios they all too frequently make headlines for being a part of, is something other than enterprise risk management!)...
Just thinking here about the parallels between Twitter and Tesla—the guardrails have come off. Congress has the power to erect some, but I'm not sure they will, and the Supremes have a bias against restriction, if, of course, they like you.
Progwoman, I think you are right here, but I suspect the SC conservatives already have decided how they will rule on all the cases they agree to take. They have an agenda and hearing the cases is just a formality. They know the other justices, you know the ones who actually think through an issue have no power to stop whatever Baby Johnny Roberts and his crew choose to do and lately, none of it has been designed to help anyone but the rich white men and corporations and their MAGA pseudo-Christian friends. I don't know how we stop this insanity except start ignoring it. Women, for example should be able to have an abortion if that is their medical choice. No men of any color should have a say in it, especially when they will never be pregnant and have no clue what women experience. And, those conservative justices are about to end affirmative action despite Thomas having taken advantage of it. He often cites his experience of paying back student loans in his 40s (I don't know if that is true because truth is not one of his strengths), but I suspect he will vote against Biden's plan to relieve some student debt from struggling Americans. He believes the fantasy that he "did it all by himself." He got rich because he is just so brilliant. He isn't but has been on the court a long time, has a wife who will do pretty much anything for her crazy ult-right-wing causes, even take questionable donations and mess in SC business. I would like to see all women rise up and say "no more!" Then, I would love to see all doctors and nurses in anti-abortion states go on strike and only respond to emergencies until the white mostly male legislators overturn the threats to doctors for providing healthcare to women. It's time we the people stand up for ourselves and for those who provide care for everyone. No one should be at the mercy of hateful legislatures and courts in a democracy.
I do agree, but living part time near a Native reservation, I would hate to see medical personnel go on strike anywhere. We really need to take back our hospitals from these "nonprofit" outfits. Without access to medical abortions, there are all kinds of emergencies. I read enough about Justice Thomas after Anita Hill's testimony to know he feels deeply resentful and entitled all at once
Progwoman, you are right that not all medical personnel could "strike," but enough could to make people stop and pay attention. Another option I have considered before would be that the medical personnel who treat the legislators who vote to take away people's medical rights and their families could refuse to treat them except in an emergency. If no one in their state will treat them, they might have to go to another state for care, where they are not known, and see what it is like for women who can't get the treatment they need. I know it won't work, but it feels good to think of it, doctors and nurses putting a stop to the appalling treatment they have received even while they were working an outrageous number of hours trying to save people's lives. They are threatened, have to watch patients suffer for fear of prosecution, and more. We need a way to protect them and show them the respect and acknowledgement of their knowledge and training that they deserve. It's time!
Repeal Section 230 and let the platforms be sued as if they were newspapers or media outlets publishing the same garbage. Enabling racist hate speach on his platform is the same as speaking it. All of that for the tired old goal of keeping everyone at each others throats while the rich keep robbing 99% of the income. Elon's superbowl meeting with Rupert Murdoch indicates that he is educating himself as to what he needs to do to keep purpetuating his vile garbage on the sly. Just like fox let Syndney powel and Jiuliani run rampant so will Elon let the Neo nazis and the white supremest speak the lies for him.
I'm on twitter. For myself I simply blocked Musk's account. I get no tweets from Musk. If everyone would do that, simply block him, he could rave in a cyberspace vaccuum. Years ago I blocked Trump's twitter account, and I managed (after some difficulty) to block what Trump has on face-book. So unless other people I follow or have friended sent those along I never see them. I ask close friends repeatedly never to reprint Trump's picture. Whenever I see it from wherever I immediately block that tweet. I'd do that here if Trump's picture were to show up. When I (as I sometimes do) circulate Heather Cox Richardson's newsletter and she has an image of him attached then I click a cross on it and put a picture of a rabbit up instead.
With Elon Musk running twitter no doubt - twitter will become a totally corrupted posting - I hope everyone leaves it and leaves Musk with a failed enterprise - If I were a investor in Tesla - I would pull out of that too.
I saw the handwriting on the wall many years ago with Facebook and got off and cancelled and have never regretted it. For all the possible good it can do connecting people, it does more as a time waster. And I don't know about you, but I have so many fun, productive, interesting things to do with my time and don't invite negativity into my life. There is enough of that already out there working its way in and 'it' does not need any more help. I choose otherwise.
Apartheid supporter from South Africa? I would have checked all of the above if possible. Start a campaign on Twitter to revoke his US citizenship and 'send him back to Africa!!'
Twitter, Tic Tok, Facebook - all of it should be left in the dust. These destructive social media platforms do much more harm than good. There are much better ways to fill the hours of our lives with good music, films & books, activities such as dance, sports and walks in the park or productive hobbies and outings. I know people like myself who live a rich life without staring at a device all day long checking to see how many strangers “like” my posts or videos. Wake Up, America!
🌻
Isn't the real problem weaponized algorithms? And the people determining how they're used? After all any machine can be used for good or bad. Ambulance v. "getaway car". (no need to go military here)
People who make machines know exactly that - and favor transparency for a reason (do any of the "platforms" offer such transparency with respect to their algorithms?); "Soylent Green" v/s onions.
You are correct Rishi, thank you. The moment is here to thoughly investigate Platform statutory non-liability for actual harm to real users, real humans. NOW.
Election woes.
Donald Hodgins <silencenotbad@gmail.com>
7:25 AM (0 minutes ago)
to
Currently, there is a glitch in our election process that just seems wrong to me. During any given election candidates who desire can run for a position in our political system. The winner is determined by the individual that gains the most votes. That is the way it should be but in actuality, it isn't. There is a catch in the process that states if, in a given race, no candidate obtains at least 50% of the votes a run-off election is to be held to determine the winner. Who thought up this one? In essence, what the run-off is doing is giving the loser a second chance to win an election they just lost. I don't care how many people are in the race it's the steed that crosses the finish line first that should be declared the winner, at least that's how the Kentucky Derby is run. A race is a race, let the candidate that gets the most votes stand as the winner, regardless of that ridiculous 50% of the vote issue. Think of the money and time we would save along with doing away with the uncertainty involved by not knowing the outcome of a given election. The whole thing sounds like a Republican scheme to unseat a given winner.
Run-off election exists in many countries and is not a glitch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system provides the pros and cons. I like run-off elections (and ranked choice voting schemes) because they make it harder for extremist politicians to be elected to office. To get 50% of the vote, politicians need to moderate their views to appeal to a broader group of the electorate.
I agree. Extremists get pushed to the edges where they belong.
Terry-- Jesus would have been seen as an extremes in his time, what would have you done with him?
Tim-- it is a glitch, why have a run off election if you already have a winner?
I provided a reason in my comment. You can disagree with it. I respect that. Sorry, but I feel that comparing a political election to a horse race is silly.
The horse-race meme is the creation of a lazy, sensationalist media.
Pedantics will get you nowhere.
Terry-- How far will basic intelligence get me?
Donald, that's why I like the election structure that lets voters prioritize the candidates they would like in office when there are more than 2 candidates running. That too saves a lot of time and money and saves us from having to hear the massive lies Republicans tell and the inadequate responses of the Democratic candidates for additional weeks and months.
Ruth-- That election process almost opened the door to the floor of our Senate to Mr. Walker. That thought give credit to some rethinking.
Ruth--Our election system is full of loop howls that provide an avenue through which a loser can become the winner. Look at the electoral college. How many presidents have been given to keys to the executive washroom when it wasn't the voice of the people. There should be only one way to win a presidential election, the candidate that gets the most votes. That's the way we should decide all elections, no matter how obscure they may seem.
Each state gets to choose how they run their elections. They haven't all chosen a 'first past the post' system. Nor have they chosen Primaries to whittle down the contenders. e.g. California has what is called a Jungle primary. Everyone is on the ballot and the voters vote for their first and only choice. If a candidate exceeds 50% they're elected. If not, the top two have a run off.
Maine and Alaska have a ranked choice system where voters can select and rank their candidates. Somewhat similar to elections in Ireland (the Republic of) Too lengthy to explain here but here's a link: https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/
There are many other variations, most of which haven't been tried here. Republicans and Democrats like it fine the way it is.
" .... each state gets to chose ... " EXCEPT Gore v. Bush. PS : SCOTUS said attorneys can never cite their published decision. 'Stare decisis'? Nope.
Bryan, yes, Bush v. Gore was a kind of coup when the SC knew full well that Florida voting districts had cheated and that the election scale had the hand of Bush relatives in the state weighing on the side of Bush, an ignorant fool. The Court should have said because Florida is out of control the presidency should go to the person who won the popular vote. That would have been fair and probably would have caused Florida to clean up its act, an act that is still questionable and won't be cleaned up as long as DeSantis is governor. Florida and Texas whined about and challenge the elections in states that hadn't voted for their Republican candidates while conducting questionable elections in their own states. I guess they hoped directing people's attention to Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, they thought no one would question what happened down in Dixie. They were right.
Concur Ruth. The striking of Voters' names from voting at all 2 years before the Election tilted the result specifically the last name of 'Jackson' which prevented a Florida Election Official from her vote being counted long before you got to 'hanging chads' or the Brooksbrothers' Riot.
Bryan-- I understand the states rights thing but the fact remains that process in flawed. It shouldn't operate that way. If you lose you lose, no second chances.
Yup, as I commented above the Stewards have posted 'Inquiry Sign'. "Hold all Tickets".
Definitely a bad decision...... But the court (Scalia) relied on the process and procedure Florida followed once the votes were cast.....not the type of system they chose.
Terry--Give me one good reason why you feel a run should be considered. If not to give the loser a second chance to win a race they just lost.
Terry--No matter how you look at it that system gives a loser a second chance at winning. What would horse racing fans think if a new rule was imposed that states any horse that doesn't win by at least 5 full lengths has to run again to see who wins. The election premise is flawded.
Actually you can't say that without thoroughly understanding the different voting systems, particularly the one you're criticizing. To do so makes it intellectually indefensible. e.g Do your homework or at least enough to not be taken lightly.
Terry--voting systems aside, a race is a race. Show me a race where the one that comes in second gets special consideration. There is no need to coddle to the loser.
Yup. The inqiry sign on the tote board is blinking.🏇.....🏇.
Bryan-- LOL, I'm going back to bed, my can of worms has spilled all over the floor.
Would ranked-choice voting eliminate any issues?
Yes. Here's one. https://youtu.be/gq7N2hmX9FI
"The medium is the message", Marshall McLuhan was correct. It is not just the algorithms, they are a function of the medium itself.
Do you mean that all social media algorithms are weaponized or will be, against the customer?
Spoiler alert: the remainder of this thread may degenerate into an example of binary thinking/ rhetoric and the "my way or the highway" conundrum which plagues us all currently. Congressional stalemate at it best.
I don't have Tic Tok, Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter accounts. I never saw the use for them in my life.
Right on, DLM.
Although I have these accounts and I spend little time on them, problematic is what is posted. These forms of digital media have been a boon to visual artists except for the fact they fall into the trap of posting way too frequently because the algorithms are set up as a popularity contest- why it’s free- so trite repetitive and numbing.
I agree Anne. I am 76. When someone asks me what would I do without my phone and act horrified.... I look back at the 74 years I lived without hauling my phone around with me.... gosh I actually drove places, went to college, taught 7-8-9 graders how to think, flew around the world for 36 years, led 8 th graders on tours of their city on school tours to Wash. DC and never once felt a need to ask a telephone anything. I even dated and got married without a cell phone. I bathed and cooked and ate and played the piano and the flute without a cell phone.
And when I saw that a three year old needed some attention I noticed the ones who became grown ups who could function had been given complete attention by an adult who didn’t have their nose in a screen.
Agree, but the ability to FaceTime my family across the country has been a wonderful boon. It does hurt my heart when I see the little ones being ignored by the adults in their lives, and being given the phones to keep them quiet
Best babysitter? Bwahahaha that’s hilarious- no way. Not if you actually care about your kids growth and development…
Wow!! What a wonderful reminder of what is and requires to be a Parent. Kudos for your post.
Spot on Anne! (We wouldn't intellectualize cigarettes the way we do social media.)
Touché, Rishi 🌻
I totally agree with you. When I meet people and the conversation mentions connecting with others I always tell them. Do you know that one person in America that doesn’t have a cell phone? You’re talking to him. I have a life and I’m proud of that. I have always been a GDI person.
I'm #2. Life is better without one.
I know a few folks who don’t have cell phones. They (and you) are freer than most! I use mine to call a few people and for work - that’s about it. 🌻
This has contributed to feelings of loneliness and depression felt by the youth of our country, particularly after the disruption due to the pandemic. Not to mention the inaccurate info and lies that abound. No wonder suicide rates are at an all time high. Social media really needs some type of regulation, although I don't pretend to know what that is. I doubt that with the current Congress, the harm of social media and any attempt to regulate it is anything they care about.
I am very content to do without it, as I have never used it to begin with. Substack is the only thing I participate in, if that comes under "social media". I still write letters, and I don't use a cell phone.
'Holier than thou' is not a great position to take, especially with Millenials and Zoomers and lord help you if you deal with an Alpha. They're not having it.
I got a cell phone as a safety measure in the event of an emergency when driving. It also comes in handy when meeting someone somewhere. I kick myself every time I forget and leave it home.
No doubt social media can be and, in my opinion, misused. But please don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. I was very grateful for Facebook when living alone during COVID.
Anne ; I agree that it a thing is more destructive than instructive, or even uplifting, or educating/informing ; it isn't worth bothering with.
Hear Hear!!
Happy March, my Friend 😊 ☘️🌻
Anne ; YES!
Ibid!!
Exactly! THIS is "what needs to be done."
Anne, I am pleased for you that you have so many activities to take up time, but a lot of other folks find communicating with family and friends through the platforms very rewarding. I personally like learning of the things friends I don't see every day are doing and thinking. I just ignore the political stuff on the platform because that is not why I am there. Maybe we could encourage people to also avoid the junk and stop believing the insane things people are saying to blame others for things they can't possibly have done as the MAGAs and others do. That might be the message everyone who cares should post at every opportunity, skip the crap! Share the good stuff with family and friends. Stop buying from advertisers that support the junk that hurts people. We the People could clean up the platforms so they would be safe for the sharing and conversations that are life-affirming while ignoring or ditching and isolating the rest, despite what the child-man owners want. Go out and do the other stuff Anne suggests, but keep the positive connections on the platforms too.
Thank you Ruth. There are good and bad to everything. Technology can be good, technology can be bad. What I find most disturbing is what seems to be the loss of critical thinking, research the topics, weigh the pros and cons (discernment) to come up with a decision you can live with. Our world is much more intertwined than ever, we are dependent on others as others are dependent on us. There is no simple answer, and I certainly don’t have it, but I refuse to lose hope and faith we can overcome the political disturbances of today.
These "platforms" do present us with a real conundrum. It has truly good benefits when used properly and risks danger when it is used to stimulate turmoil and or violence. Sorry for stating the obvious, but do we digress when we beleaguer some topics for too long?
I agree wholeheartedly with you. thank you for telling it the way it should be.
🙏🌻
TY, Anne!
♥️
Alas, we can't all be perfect.
Indeed.
difny ; Only when perfectly dead!
Yes!
As that is never going to happen, what else might be considered?
I control what I see on Facebook. I originally joined so I could connect with family. Occasionally something pops up that I don’t care for and I block it. I get poetry, mysticism, beautiful scenes, flowers, birds. Interesting and informative articles and most of all, contact with friends and family. It is also howI came to follow Robert Reich. You certainly have a full life and don’t need facebook. But it is possibly to use Facebook in a positive way. I live a life of isolation and it is a lifeline for me. Your life sounds wonderful. It is not my life. PS. I don’t spend my day looking to see if people like my posts. I have a very small amount of “friends.” You should be grateful for your rich life. Please don’t lump a whole group of people you don’t even know into a one-size-fits-all label.
I agree. They all become cesspools.
Mainstream media should stop reporting the drivel oozing from the three year old emotions of musk and trump. They NEED attention, and have been throwing the same uncontrolled temper tantrums since they were three years old. My 3 year olds had consequences for temper tantrums (not spanking or beating) Apparently neither musk nor trump parents believed in controlling 3 year olds and those men never advanced beyond that age. Why do you think the Brits made those baby donnie balloons?
I was trying to put together a comment about infantile man-babies but your post says it better, Faye!
Fay, love it! Thanks so much for reminding everyone that Trump and Musk and so many other Republicans and conservatives in power are children. They never matured emotionally past age 3. They remind me of my nephew when he was 3. When he was angry or wanted to hurt his little brother, or was just cranky, everyone reminded him that is not acceptable behavior and explained why. Then his parents and the other adults in his life put him to bed to rest, or in some other way distracted him until he could talk about what he was feeling as best a toddler can. He is now going on 5 and rarely throws tantrums, is kinder with his little brother and other little kids, knows better when he is upset and finds ways to deal with it including talking about it with his family. I am guessing Trump, Musk, et al never even examined one of their emotional outbursts and just assumed people would always do exactly what they wanted those people to do. We need to stop allowing toddler-men to have power of any kind. Maybe if there is no place in power for them, parents would do more to help those child-men to grow up without the need to hurt other people.
Hear Hear!
So ignoring the disease makes it go away?
Today's posts would seem to speak otherwise, don't you think?
We can not ignore social media, as has been suggested by some commentators. And we cannot ignore the powerful people with big soapboxes, even though we would never let them in the back door if they came to our homes.
Fay--those Brits are so clever--the baby Donnie balloons were the best! Loved the tiny hands holding a cell phone too.
We need the kind of laws that Germany has. To whit:
Laws against the incitement of hatred against any national, religious, or racial group, or any group defined by its ethnic origin.
Laws against assaulting the human dignity, by maliciously maligning any of the above groups or segments of the population. (Includes LGBT etc.)
Punishment is incarceration for three months to five years.
They also have a law against Holocaust denial.
The above is a VERY ROUGH paraphrasing of what I have read.
At this time, and after what our our democracy has suffered, I don't think our founders would object too strenuously.
Stephanie, such laws as Germany has against hate and Holocaust denial could help us here, but alas, currently, our court system is mostly owned by corporations and MAGAs and in their extreme activism and anti-Americanism, they would chuck out those laws because they would cut down on the harmful speech and actions that are hurting people who are not rich, white, "straight" and pseudo-Christian men. They just can't have that. Republicans even recruited a Black man and a woman for the SC to go along with their BS. That shows there is a pretty significant network of democracy underminers who are hard at work, tapping into our youth to get life-long haters, blamers, and coup supporters, as long as the coup puts someone friendly to themselves in power. They knew they had Trump and Kump on their side, so when possible, they will stand against the indictment of and release of information that would condemn the Trumpers and Trumpettes who orchestrated the January 6th insurrection. It is the courts Biden needs to overhaul with nominees who actually care about this nation, our laws that are fair and equally applied, and actually represent the diversity of this nation, not just the white men who have ruled everywhere until a few chinks were opened in the past 50 years or so for others.
Where do you draw lines in keeping with our 1st Amendment? Which the German Constitution doesn't contain? Not to mention the Bill of Rights? Just asking....not that I don't agree with you at least to some degree.
Correction. The way I wrote this is somewhat confusing. Germans do have similar rights as Americans are guaranteed in our Constitution. They just go at it a bit differently. After WW2 the Federal Republic of Germany effectively established these rights in their Constitution just not as a Bill of Rights. Their Article 5 guarantees Free Speech etc, but not to the same degree the US does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany particularly with regard to Nazism.
Freedom of Assembly, Religion etc. are guaranteed but in not in the same manner as our Constitution.
There are categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech per se that does not fall into one of these categories is constitutionally protected as free speech.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court overturned the conviction of Clarence Brandenburg, a member of the Ku Klux Klan who had made inflammatory statements, by insisting that it would only punish advocacy that “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Still, one might expect that, much as it did when it applied the gravity of the evil test, the Court would distinguish between the kinds of illegal actions advocated — that is, an incitement to walk on the grass would hardly seem to merit the same kind of attention as calls for bombings or assassinations. In Hess v. Indiana (1973), the Court applied Brandenburg and said that before an individual’s speech could fall under the unprotected category of incitement to imminent lawless action, the speech must lead to “imminent disorder.”
How about advocating insurrection? 18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
It seems there are a number of members of Congress that need to be prosecuted for their participation in the Jan 6, 2021 insurrection attempt, as well as fake electors and right-wing provocateurs in the states.
IMHO a number of them ADMIT it. GLORY in it.
I have been arguing in that the House rules on seating members put the burden of proof on those who admit it shouldn't be seated as members. At one point a spoke to a couple of Dem members, who agree, but apparently they do not have the guts to call out their brethren and sisteren. .
Yes Daniel, what do you think that Democratic reluctance comes from? Is it lack of courage? Is it something about the decorum of the House and Senate (which is questionable these days in any case)? They should be calling out "The Freedom Caucus" every day or two related to their appalling investigation intentions and other ridiculous things they are proposing. Greene, for example continues to spew her insurrectionist crap. Maybe they think she is just so stupid no jury would think her speech is that incendiary. I hear there are some signs of Dems speaking up more frequently. I'll be watching to see if and who.
In other words, cowards.
Daniel Solomon : Isn't there a rule that such action of using the 14th amendment section C to prevent seditionists from running for office requires 2/3rds of Congress members to get it done?
Yes but 14th Amendment requires a trial.
House rules apply to ADMITTED secessionists.Burden of proof is on them.
As many of us have pointed out over and over and over.
Did you say prosecuted or was it may be persecuted. Just a passing thought to placate my befuddled mind from time to time.
Daniel, thanks so much as always for the legal support for the argument that the courts and our DOJ have the right and need to prosecute those who planned for and orchestrated the January 6th Insurrection. It is shameful that it has taken this long for anyone to do anything about those at the top of the insurrection chain, and still little to nothing has been done to them. Scott Perry is still in court trying to make his communications about the insurrection unopenable. We already know Perry was involved in trying to send illegal electors' votes in place of the representatives of the actual Pennsylvania vote, so that should be sufficient evidence for any court to demand his communications to be opened, congressman or not. He has already proven he would betray the people of the United States as he tried to betray the people of Pennsylvania.
Yep.
Which gets us back to the Supreme Court. . .
So good to hear from you Dan. Al always you bring many viewpoints into focus for our benefit. Thanks as always for your contribution.
Terry, thanks for the comment. Didn't know the German Constitution doesn't have a freedom of speech clause. I'm not sure if I'm surprised or not.
Since I'm not versed in all of the legal ins and outs and interpretations of our Constitution, I wrote what I did based on the concept of language being able to evoke such strong emotions as hatred, and that hatred can become so intense that it incites more of the same. I don't think our founders considered the difference between anger and hatred. I'm not sure if this addresses your concerns.
I guess you missed my comment above.
John Adams, one of the founders, jailed his political enemies for exercising free speech rights. Since then, we do not permit censoring speech under the "prior restraint" doctrine. During WWI, Schenck v. United States, Charles Schenck was charged under the Espionage Act for mailing printed circulars critical of the military draft. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to express freedom of speech against the draft during World War I.
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld Schenck's conviction and ruled that the Espionage Act did not conflict with the First Amendment. Although Holmes said “You can't yell fire in a crowded theater” he voted to send Schenk to jail.
I guess it depends on who is in the theater, or who is being sent into the theater of war.
Thanks for pointing out the shortcomings in my answer. I've gone back and corrected it....I hope sufficiently. Word of caution though. Never trust what someone says on here completely and above all don't rely on it without doing your homework.
Excellent advice, Terry.
Even then, after doing your homework, Just because you are paranoid, does not mean you are not being followed.
I agree that what Adams and Musk have said are clearly racist, but one of the most frustrating things about all of the coverage Musk and his ilk get for things like this is that they likely don't believe any of it. Billionaires, GOP members, and all who support them simply spew out whatever will earn them more or keep them in power. Government is bad, except when it's not. The media is terrible, except when it serves them. Schools are bad, except when they're jamming free market fantasies down everyone's throat. Their words are obviously still harmful and must be addressed, but the fact that they may not really believe any of this makes it even worse. It's just another example of how these villains will hurt others, poison society and burn the world if it will push their stock up.
Ian, you are right about what the addicted rich guys will do to protect their wealth and keep their addiction fed. The truth is that We the People permit it when we elect people to office because of the letter behind their name on the ballot, folks who will permit those rich child-men to lie, cheat, whine, blame, and hurt as many people as they choose for their own benefit, knowing there will always be people out here who will go along with whatever those child-men want them to do. They also have the courts under their belts now too. It is up to We the People to demand that it stop. Constituents need to tell their representatives that their childish behavior on behalf of those who are trying to undermine our nation is unacceptable. The problem is that so many of the constituents of those underminers are struggling, kept down by those very people they elected even while they are blaming Democrats for their situation. It is appalling, but they in their suffering just go along with it, building up their anger, hatred, and resentment, directed to people who are not the cause of their struggles. That works just fine for the Trumps, Musks, McCarthys, DeSantises, and their ilk.
It's called "actual malice" intentional wrong doin'.
Why do you say they don't believe what they're saying? Don't their actions speak to what they're saying?
Hi Terry. Anyone can throw out words. And yes, the action here of tweeting in support of an obvious racists does matter. But do I believe that Musk truly holds racists beliefs on par with people like Proud Boys or Trump because of this Tweet? No, I don't. Sadly, the last few years in particular have demonstrated such genuine, deep in the blood, horrifying racism. They have also showed us the shamelessness with which those in power will simply throw out statements, regardless of the harm, the complete lack of morality, or the blatant hypocrisy. They'll even reverse course weeks later with no ramifications, with no media attention to how they recently claimed the exact opposite.
In short, definitely, actions matter and matter most. But that's why I think we need to make sure we highlight cases where, whether the issue is race , national security, or democracy, there is no credibility behind the words, only ruthless self-interest.
How much of a racist does one need to be to be a certified racist? Musk has demonstrated by his words that he is. Just not the degree. As the owner of a forum open to the public he is held or should be held to a higher standard than the racist next door. He is not.
Defending such behavior....yes speech broadcast from the Twitter pulpit is behavior......is not becoming .....unless possibly you're pro bono from the ACLU?
Your previous comment was about how actions speak to what they're saying, and that's my main point. Should we condemn Musk for this statement in support of a racist? Yes! Is supporting a racist's viewpoints also racist? Absolutely. All I am doing is raising the issue that, for people with power and massive microphones like Musk, we must condemn such statements while also keeping an eye out for and condemning instances where they make these or any other statements with intentions even more abhorrent than originally assumed. To support a racist and their views is abhorrent, which he is. We must also see if he, like so many others these days, is simply saying whatever serves his interests at that time, and we must make sure to highlight this horrific aspect of his character if that is the case.
Yes, looks like we both agree. Sorry about the pro bono comment.
Alllll good, as it would be even if we were not in agreement. Sometimes when I feel like the whole nation is irrevocably divided, another good 'ol arrogant, loudmouthed billionaire spouts their craziness and reveals just how united so much of the country is, even if it's just in our disdain for these wannabe Bond villains.
I believe Musk is truly a racist.
Simple solution: Get off twitter. I left the day Musk walked in carrying his sink. I will never buy a Tesla, and I make every effort to avoid products advertised on Fox. https://dropfox.com/advertisers/
Better yet, some of us never got on.
I'm one of them too! Have to admit that I do read Twitter comments at times just for laughs & give myself a pat on the back that I don't need clicks & likes to stoke my ego.
Musk is the poster child for being driven mad by power. He’s going to be spending the rest of his days trying to cover his ass for the things he says. He doesn’t understand the world that the rest of us live in. We understand him all too well.
Musk is very intelligent....in some areas.....mostly mechanical....how things work. But very stupid in people things.....particularly social relationships, etc. This fits perfectly with Law #2 of Cipolla’s five basic laws of human stupidity https://qz.com/967554/the-five-universal-laws-of-human-stupidity
Simple: get off the platform.
I never got on.
Another poster child for FCC regulation of social media.
The Internet itself is a broadcast medium; the whole Internet should fall under FCC jurisdiction.
Complete agreement. The Citizens United problem and unfettered flow of $$ bribes to legislators and the revolving door with regulators will likely preclude that from happening any time soon.
Time for a Con Amendment to: 1) repeal the CU holding; and 2) confirm that corporations and all the other alphabet soup entities (LLC, PLLP, etc.) are not persons and do not enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights or the 14th A.
Complete agreement, as well. SNAG: The sitting SCOTUS, the >true< loss of the '16 election. Everything else is just so much noise. That's why I have little to say about what we need to do about anything. It's all pretty obvious, to me, and it doesn't stand a chance of happening in >my< lifetime, anyway.
Wasn’t Musk born and raised in South Africa during the apartheid era in that country?
Enough said!
And Murdoch in Australia. Two immigrants are controlling 100% of the US political debate. Ironic, don't you think?
I picked everyone should leave Twitter because all we can do to protest the rising fascism, Nazism, and racism is to vote AND boycott those who support anti-democracy movements. I don't go to Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby etc because of what those corporations believe in. I know democratic-minded people who have been with Twitter for years are reluctant to leave. They want to stay and fight. But perhaps it's better to try and hit Twitter in the pocketbook if tweeters and advertisers left.
At what point does "stay and fight" become 'enabling'? I think some Republicans found this out the hard way.
Not what those *corporations* believe in (as corporations - despite what some political parties would have you believe - are not people & cannot profess belief in anything aside from $) but rather what the *people* who speak for those corporations, e.g. as founders/investors/majority owners, etc. profess (which, given the type of idiot legal imbroglios they all too frequently make headlines for being a part of, is something other than enterprise risk management!)...
Just thinking here about the parallels between Twitter and Tesla—the guardrails have come off. Congress has the power to erect some, but I'm not sure they will, and the Supremes have a bias against restriction, if, of course, they like you.
Progwoman, I think you are right here, but I suspect the SC conservatives already have decided how they will rule on all the cases they agree to take. They have an agenda and hearing the cases is just a formality. They know the other justices, you know the ones who actually think through an issue have no power to stop whatever Baby Johnny Roberts and his crew choose to do and lately, none of it has been designed to help anyone but the rich white men and corporations and their MAGA pseudo-Christian friends. I don't know how we stop this insanity except start ignoring it. Women, for example should be able to have an abortion if that is their medical choice. No men of any color should have a say in it, especially when they will never be pregnant and have no clue what women experience. And, those conservative justices are about to end affirmative action despite Thomas having taken advantage of it. He often cites his experience of paying back student loans in his 40s (I don't know if that is true because truth is not one of his strengths), but I suspect he will vote against Biden's plan to relieve some student debt from struggling Americans. He believes the fantasy that he "did it all by himself." He got rich because he is just so brilliant. He isn't but has been on the court a long time, has a wife who will do pretty much anything for her crazy ult-right-wing causes, even take questionable donations and mess in SC business. I would like to see all women rise up and say "no more!" Then, I would love to see all doctors and nurses in anti-abortion states go on strike and only respond to emergencies until the white mostly male legislators overturn the threats to doctors for providing healthcare to women. It's time we the people stand up for ourselves and for those who provide care for everyone. No one should be at the mercy of hateful legislatures and courts in a democracy.
I do agree, but living part time near a Native reservation, I would hate to see medical personnel go on strike anywhere. We really need to take back our hospitals from these "nonprofit" outfits. Without access to medical abortions, there are all kinds of emergencies. I read enough about Justice Thomas after Anita Hill's testimony to know he feels deeply resentful and entitled all at once
Progwoman, you are right that not all medical personnel could "strike," but enough could to make people stop and pay attention. Another option I have considered before would be that the medical personnel who treat the legislators who vote to take away people's medical rights and their families could refuse to treat them except in an emergency. If no one in their state will treat them, they might have to go to another state for care, where they are not known, and see what it is like for women who can't get the treatment they need. I know it won't work, but it feels good to think of it, doctors and nurses putting a stop to the appalling treatment they have received even while they were working an outrageous number of hours trying to save people's lives. They are threatened, have to watch patients suffer for fear of prosecution, and more. We need a way to protect them and show them the respect and acknowledgement of their knowledge and training that they deserve. It's time!
Thank youall, ladies for one of the most relevant threads today. Keep the faith and carry on to the bensfit of all seekers here.
Repeal Section 230 and let the platforms be sued as if they were newspapers or media outlets publishing the same garbage. Enabling racist hate speach on his platform is the same as speaking it. All of that for the tired old goal of keeping everyone at each others throats while the rich keep robbing 99% of the income. Elon's superbowl meeting with Rupert Murdoch indicates that he is educating himself as to what he needs to do to keep purpetuating his vile garbage on the sly. Just like fox let Syndney powel and Jiuliani run rampant so will Elon let the Neo nazis and the white supremest speak the lies for him.
Musk's promotion and enabling of racist posters on Twitter is an integral part of MAGA's concerted effort to normalize racism in America.
I'm on twitter. For myself I simply blocked Musk's account. I get no tweets from Musk. If everyone would do that, simply block him, he could rave in a cyberspace vaccuum. Years ago I blocked Trump's twitter account, and I managed (after some difficulty) to block what Trump has on face-book. So unless other people I follow or have friended sent those along I never see them. I ask close friends repeatedly never to reprint Trump's picture. Whenever I see it from wherever I immediately block that tweet. I'd do that here if Trump's picture were to show up. When I (as I sometimes do) circulate Heather Cox Richardson's newsletter and she has an image of him attached then I click a cross on it and put a picture of a rabbit up instead.
With Elon Musk running twitter no doubt - twitter will become a totally corrupted posting - I hope everyone leaves it and leaves Musk with a failed enterprise - If I were a investor in Tesla - I would pull out of that too.
In The Borowitz Report tradition: "Musk hired Dilbert to engineer a "force Abuser multiplier".
I saw the handwriting on the wall many years ago with Facebook and got off and cancelled and have never regretted it. For all the possible good it can do connecting people, it does more as a time waster. And I don't know about you, but I have so many fun, productive, interesting things to do with my time and don't invite negativity into my life. There is enough of that already out there working its way in and 'it' does not need any more help. I choose otherwise.
Apartheid supporter from South Africa? I would have checked all of the above if possible. Start a campaign on Twitter to revoke his US citizenship and 'send him back to Africa!!'
I read that an investigation I'd underway, but who knows if that's true.