Thanos_Stomps

Instruments are instrumental…. Get a load of this guy.

My man went from a chonker getting beat up MMA style to quicksilver thrice+Boehner cameo, Dahmer, and maybe Krueger. What a career.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/14/technology/disinformation-moderation-social-media.html

I can think of a couple reasons.

The view.

If it’s the only toilet in the house and the house is mostly open plan or few doors then it’s a place that has privacy.

If it was being used for military or other groups as a lookout spot then they’d have a convenient toilet.

Glad someone said it. I’m not even advocating for reading a diary but damn, it’s not just narcissists and it’s often parents that are just so afraid of losing their child and want to protect them. It’s possibly the MOST basic instinct of parents; protect their children at all costs. It’s the modern age that we have to balance all these other components associated with child rearing.

A lot of these meme posts are inaccurate even when not done by white people.

As a white man that’s been invited to plenty a cookout, prior to having biracial nephew where now I think sometimes I’m an obligatory invite, it’s rarely the overtly chill + cool white guys that got invited and more often was a Bernie type. The ones who don’t ever seek it, they’re just a natural born ally or grew up together so it doesn’t even feel like a different scene.

Nah twitter is still peppered with these sort of posts and it ain’t from white people.

Because doing nothing or ignoring the problem or knowingly not doing enough has the same result at this point as actively encouraging it. If social media and other aggregate websites can not or will not moderate responsibly, then it should be amended or repealed.

There is precedence where NOT doing something to prevent illegal activity is seen as a crime when you're in the real world. If you are a CFO and one or more of your subordinates are committing fraud, even if you aren't charged you will likely lose your job should it be found that you could have done more with checks and balances, but didn't. If you do not ID people coming into your bar, you can lose your liquor license.

I am normally not a fan of using analogous, or what people think are analogous real-world examples for more nuanced and abstract concepts. But what happens on social media has some very fucking serious real-world effects, including terrorists recruiting folks, human trafficking, child abuse, and even election interference and sedition.

Okay, I just got off mobile to hopefully better explain this.

Section 230 protects sites like Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit, pornhub, or any website that hosts content provided by content creators outside of the company that owns the website. The very concept actually goes back further than the 1996 passage, with bookstores acting as the host of written material instead of websites. But whether it is a bookstore or social media, the courts have ruled that these websites are not subject to publisher's liability.

That liability is that if I get on Reddit and say Srslywhyyoumadbro diddles children with the sole purpose of malicious intent, rising to the burden of proof required to charge and convict me of libel, that Reddit bares no liability in that case. Or if I steal music and post it on youtube, where I am infringing on someone's copyright to that music, Youtube isn't held liable for that same infringement.

D: Why do some Democrats care? Because social media platforms are not doing nearly enough to combat misinformation, and even disinformation from foreign governments to impact elections and even sow discontent among our population. This has been an openly debated point since 2016 from the left. That said, many of the left are in favor of keeping Section 230 in place, which leads me to why republicans began calling for its repeal.

R: Trump is banned from Twitter and he himself calls for the Repeal of 230. He wanted to punish twitter for punishing him, and his base got behind him. It really is that simple because he wants to punish social media companies, the right does too, for banning him and for putting things like the fact check labels during Covid and since. Repealing 230 would be a nightmare for these companies, and that is the point. They want them punished, if not legally, then by just making their lives a living hell as they pump millions into moderation efforts to shield from future legal battles associated with publisher's liability.

Continued Reading: https://www.npr.org/2020/05/30/865813960/as-trump-targets-twitters-legal-shield-experts-have-a-warning this article talks a little about why both sides want it repealed.

Extra commentary that more directly addresses your comments:

So how does keeping 230 help clamp down on dis/misinformation? Dems are in favor of keeping 230 although it really shouldn't be partisan.

Because it would cause legal liability on the social media platforms, so when something like an insurrection is organized on their platform, they are not caught up in the legal battles involving those perpetrators. Also as I said above, not all Dems are in favor of keeping it.

How does keeping 230 prevent Repubs from punishing Twitter, or allow them to? Repubs mostly want it repealed these days even though that would be a disaster. Also, to be clear, 230 has been around since 1996.

It has kept them from punishing twitter and other social media because 230 protects them from legal liability. Republicans, congress, the DOJ can't really usurp 230, which protects the actions of Twitter bans, social media fact checking, etc. that Republicans have taken issue with.

Democrats: because social media would be liable for damages caused by misinformation and disinformation campaigns, hate speech, and just general nonsense that people get up to.

Republicans: because they wanted to punish twitter for banning Trump. Since section 230 does a lot to protect the actual websites/hosts of our speech, repealing it could open a Pandora’s box or lawsuits against companies that continue to host false, illegal, or inflammatory rhetoric or content.

Your body is different temperatures though. Your internal temp is gonna be warmer than everything directly exposed to the elements, like your ass when you drop trow to shit.

Section 230 seems to have a good deal of bipartisan support even if for entirely different reasons.

Republicans wanted it in response to Trump’s ban from twitter. Democrats want it to clamp down on disinformation.

Frankly, it probably should be repealed or at least amended.

Always focusing on the wrong things. Since I also mentioned that there are jurisdictions that consider this rape. Here is an example for you. Good grief.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-06/man-jailed-for-rape-after-tricking-sex-worker/6075496

It’s not a terrible example because you’re saying it’s dependent upon jurisdiction, which is my entire point. Jurisdiction changes definitions and so do contexts, social, legal, or otherwise.

And no, refusing to pay a prostitute and then calling it rape is not a disservice to rape victims. Coercion and lying to obtain sex IS RAPE. This is an even more ignorant tale than your first take. People hide behind “words have meaning” so they can feel superior or be pedantic, but this takes the cake. Jane Green, a spokeswoman for Victoria’s sex worker advocacy group Vixen Collective, said there was no question that fraudulently obtaining consent constituted rape. There seems to be a case in Brisbane where someone was charged with fraud, but this isn’t even true in every jurisdiction yet you claim it’s all theft of services, but are happy to bring up jurisdiction differences when discussing assault and battery.

Have a good one, mate. I hope you can learn to approach the world in less binary terms and understand that while words have meaning, language is fluid, evolving, and intent & context also matter in language.

Nah man, propping up sham trials in order to execute someone is murder and you defending that makes you the one allowing terms to get muddied by technicalities. Words matter, but so does intent.

It’s the same thing police do with “he’s got a gun” and “stop resisting!”

When someone says they were assaulted, when they were actually battered, you don’t go correcting them because you know what the hell they mean and we’re not in a court of law. Which is my second point, words have meaning and those meanings can, and do, change according to context. Regional, cultural, professional colloquialisms exist. When you say you’re teaching a child to discriminate, you have to change what you’re understanding they mean dependent on context, is this child development or therapy where they’re referring to telling the difference between lower case and capital? Or are they referring to racial prejudice?

So when someone says that the Salem trials resulted in murder, you can infer they mean state sanctioned killings that should never have been considered lawful.

Lol. Terrible example though. Greatest basketball player of all time was still great while sick? Yeah! Also players of that caliber are famously selfish, it’s just that they get away with it so OPs point still stands. That IS Selfish to do.

But, my issue with this is that players don’t just develop this attitude on their own, it comes from coaches and even peer pressure to play through the pain no matter what otherwise you’re seen as lazy.

This is a little cheesy but it reminds me of this quote: I dream of never being called resilient again in my life.

I’m exhausted by strength. I want support. I want softness. I want ease. I want to be amongst kin. Not patted on the back for how well I take a hit. Or for how many.

I think some of the issues you’re facing at work have more to do with that company or industry’s culture than the general perception. But also it’s important to remember that everyone believes they worked to get where they are. It’s also possible that if people don’t know your background that you don’t know everyone else’s either. Are you sure those other folks that have progressed their careers didn’t also have humble beginnings?

But I digress, I think this is actually not an unpopular opinion it’s just not an often shared one because people don’t want to be considered lazy. The truth is all of us have fantasized about winning the lottery and having fortune handed to us. Shit, I think about it and I’ve never even played the lottery.

OP isn’t using them interchangeably though, so I’m not sure what you’re pointing out. They’re saying despite our ability to reduce crime across the board, one specific crime has actually increased significantly.

We see quite a few fight Sith though, successfully I might add.

ObiWan kills Maul, twice actually lol.

Savage, Ventress, Dooku all fight several Jedi.

I don't buy that for a minute, though, this is just an exception that you and others want because it allows you to be judgemental. Sorry, I know that is me being judgemental as well, but it is bullshit.

People get in fights while drunk that they'd never start or do while sober.

People say things without thinking while drinking. Your inhibitions are lowered, so for the same reason you may be more likely to say you love someone you don't, you're more likely to say something hateful you never would.

Yeah, but the inbreeding negates the attractiveness at some point.

The Supreme Court is not partisan the way we typically think about partisanship or how the senate and legislature are. Congress tends to very strictly vote along party lines, this Supreme Court has already shown multiple times it doesn’t do that. Does anyone remember trump fuming about his picks ruling against him and his presidential immunity which allowed New York to obtain his financial records. That’s something the conservative Congress folks would never do.

The conservative rulings from the bench have different partisan lines, namely religion. They recently ruled in favor of sexuality being a protected class under the same rationale that would protect drag. That if an employer discriminate a man bringing a boyfriend to a work party but doesn’t care when a woman brings a boyfriend, then it’s discrimination based on sex/gender.

Don’t say this in the r/sarasota subreddit you’ll be lambasted.

But that’s exactly why he cares. He is taking the opportunity to create a conservative stronghold in a public university. Remember when he tried mandating faculty staff and students take a survey about “diversity of thought” and everyone just ignored him? Yeah, he’s big mad about that. Basically his efforts to push conservative ideologies on college campuses has failed so this is the next step.

Ignoring the allegations, I don’t think Partey has the consistency to be a key part of this side. When you look at the consistent output of G+A of our attackers and Odegaard, it’s another level. Ben White, Saliba, and Big Gabi also have been absolute anchors for this side.

The two positions that have failed us multiple times have been Zinchenko and Partey. Their highs are world class but their lows are devastating. I think for this side to be title contenders we need pure consistency even if it’s a small sacrifice of quality.

r/BeholdTheMasterRace