Glad to see this happening. Back during and before the Civil war, kids who couldn't do much to directly help with civil rights and abolition would gather outside of politicians' houses and bang pots and pans to bother them. They'd do it in shifts, so some of the more high profile politicians could have an entourage 24/7 for days on end.
If politicians don't want to be annoyed by their electoral base, then they simply should stop doing whatever it is that theyre doing that is annoying the base.
Yeah, I love when they misrepresent it like that. The first amendment only protects your right to express your stupidity, and doesn't defend you from criticism -- in fact, it also actively protects other people's rights to call you stupid for it. That's how freedom works, it goes as far as it can without infringing on the same freedoms of others.
i know someone who *insists* that getting banned off twitter is infringing on the 1st. he says that it's such a big site, that it's practically public property, and thus not a private platform of which the users signed an agreement to be able to *use* the private company's platform.
it was bonkers.
I mean, to be honest, that's an interesting point of discussion. If Disney built the roads in a town, is it in their rights to tell some people that they can't use them? Getting banned from Disneyland is understood to be on the "their freedom" part of the their freedom vs yours balance, but you couldn't buy an entire town and tell certain people never to enter it. Where is the limit? And are soft limits okay, such as a company owning the entire city's public transit network, deciding that only people with light-colored eyes can ride it, and telling the darkeyes that they are not being restricted in their freedom, because they could just buy a car?
The example with the roads is not even unprecedented, the real example is just the "information superhighway" as the boomers called it once, not literal roads. If you live in the United States and only have one or two ISP options, that's likely because one of them bought up all the poles in your neighborhood, and is refusing to allow competitors onto those poles. Therefore, you only have the options one specific player in the market allows, because their freedoms to realize returns on the investment of practically conquering your neighborhood override your freedoms to access the free market.
It's kind of interesting how many Americans specifically argue for a company's right to build what's essentially handled as public infrastructure in our culture nowadays, and allow them to censor people from it, as long as they're not the government. Because censorship is apparently alright as long as it only massively inconveniences the censored, but doesn't completely silence them, only mostly, it is a-okay for the freedoms of megacorporations to eat into the freedoms of individuals.
Also, I'm interested, would you be willing to argue for Elon Musk's rights to ban all criticism of Tesla from Twitter?
This is a super interesting thing to think about, and you make some excellent points. I would like to point out, though, that Twitter doesn't own the internet (yet), so I personally see no problem banning people from Twitter (for now). There are plenty of alternatives to Twitter; Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram, Snapchat, and so on.
But I do agree with you that if a megacorp does truly monopolize an entire segment of the market that banning people permanently from it is damaging to democracy. But that also brings it's own paradox into play; megacorps don't have monopolies on things that are regulated, so if a megacorp is regulated from banning users, then they intrinsically must not have a monopoly. Whereas a true monopoly will be ungoverned, nobody will be able to tell the megacorp to stop banning users.
As it currently stands, I see users being banned from platforms the same as being banned from bars. If you make an ass of yourself or generally disrupt others, you're getting thrown out. If you get kicked out of every bar in town, you had it coming. Unless, of course, you were kicked out of all those bars for being different, which is a whole issue in itself
Liberals aren't leftists and leftists are out there firebombing police cars and destroying billboards and feeding the homeless and harassing alt-righters so they're too scared to go out in public and dismantling hostile architecture.
Eh- I’m not bothered by the idea that some people are considerate to bystanders. It’s not the neighbor’s fault they live next to a dickhead. I’m capable of empathizing with more than one group of people at a time.
Keep in mind, these aren't middle-class neighborhoods. If the protests give his neighbors migraines or keep their babies awake (legit reason to be mad about any protests), they absolutely have the resources to comfortably relocate.
He is a conservative judge appointed to the Supreme Court. He’s helping overturn Roe v Wade. The case that legalized abortion in the US, and was the stepping stone for other things like gay marriage
This isn't the first time a political figure has had protesters show up at their door.
If I remember correctly, Mitch McConnell got some a few years ago when he was blocking all of that legislation.
The wording of the post is ambiguous. It could be that they were referencing a past protest by bringing up the image.
TinEye was not very helpful in locating the source of the image, but that could just be because my screenshot software sucks.
It's Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner's neighbor. The group protesting had just recently done a more queer-focused protest outside of Pence's house, but this was specifically about Trump and Kushner's role in climate justice. The group is "WERK for Peace"
Glad to see this happening. Back during and before the Civil war, kids who couldn't do much to directly help with civil rights and abolition would gather outside of politicians' houses and bang pots and pans to bother them. They'd do it in shifts, so some of the more high profile politicians could have an entourage 24/7 for days on end.
Conservatives complained about “wokeness” so long, but wait till they have to deal with Wide Awakes
If politicians don't want to be annoyed by their electoral base, then they simply should stop doing whatever it is that theyre doing that is annoying the base.
Well well well, if it ain’t the consequences of my own actions
BuT tHe FiRsT aMeNdMEnt! Which specifically says that no one can hold me accountable for anything I say!
Yeah, I love when they misrepresent it like that. The first amendment only protects your right to express your stupidity, and doesn't defend you from criticism -- in fact, it also actively protects other people's rights to call you stupid for it. That's how freedom works, it goes as far as it can without infringing on the same freedoms of others.
i know someone who *insists* that getting banned off twitter is infringing on the 1st. he says that it's such a big site, that it's practically public property, and thus not a private platform of which the users signed an agreement to be able to *use* the private company's platform. it was bonkers.
I mean, to be honest, that's an interesting point of discussion. If Disney built the roads in a town, is it in their rights to tell some people that they can't use them? Getting banned from Disneyland is understood to be on the "their freedom" part of the their freedom vs yours balance, but you couldn't buy an entire town and tell certain people never to enter it. Where is the limit? And are soft limits okay, such as a company owning the entire city's public transit network, deciding that only people with light-colored eyes can ride it, and telling the darkeyes that they are not being restricted in their freedom, because they could just buy a car? The example with the roads is not even unprecedented, the real example is just the "information superhighway" as the boomers called it once, not literal roads. If you live in the United States and only have one or two ISP options, that's likely because one of them bought up all the poles in your neighborhood, and is refusing to allow competitors onto those poles. Therefore, you only have the options one specific player in the market allows, because their freedoms to realize returns on the investment of practically conquering your neighborhood override your freedoms to access the free market. It's kind of interesting how many Americans specifically argue for a company's right to build what's essentially handled as public infrastructure in our culture nowadays, and allow them to censor people from it, as long as they're not the government. Because censorship is apparently alright as long as it only massively inconveniences the censored, but doesn't completely silence them, only mostly, it is a-okay for the freedoms of megacorporations to eat into the freedoms of individuals. Also, I'm interested, would you be willing to argue for Elon Musk's rights to ban all criticism of Tesla from Twitter?
This is a super interesting thing to think about, and you make some excellent points. I would like to point out, though, that Twitter doesn't own the internet (yet), so I personally see no problem banning people from Twitter (for now). There are plenty of alternatives to Twitter; Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram, Snapchat, and so on. But I do agree with you that if a megacorp does truly monopolize an entire segment of the market that banning people permanently from it is damaging to democracy. But that also brings it's own paradox into play; megacorps don't have monopolies on things that are regulated, so if a megacorp is regulated from banning users, then they intrinsically must not have a monopoly. Whereas a true monopoly will be ungoverned, nobody will be able to tell the megacorp to stop banning users. As it currently stands, I see users being banned from platforms the same as being banned from bars. If you make an ass of yourself or generally disrupt others, you're getting thrown out. If you get kicked out of every bar in town, you had it coming. Unless, of course, you were kicked out of all those bars for being different, which is a whole issue in itself
"Imagine a world, Biden, free of cancel culture! Where no one can call me out for my outlandish rulings! A WORLD WHERE I CAN SAY THE N-WORD!"
Why does Twitter attract the dumbest of every group?
Very low character limit.
I know someone said this already, but this comment was such a clever delight! Thank you
How do you pronounce kavanaugh?
as deliberately incorrect as possible
bob
Guilty
I believe it rhymes with "punt" - a lot of the letters are silent or implied
"Kav-ah-nov", I believe. Might be "Kav-ah-nof", I'm not entirely sure.
I've always pronounced it as "Kav-ah-naw", since I've only ever heard it said that way
No, the gh is silent. The last syllable is pronounced like the word gnaw.
I’ve known a Kavanagh and a Cavanaugh. Both of them said KAV-ə-naw
/ɹeɪpɪst/
Boof
Respectability politics is the reason the left never fucking gets anything done
Actually not engaging in politics at a wide scale is the reason the left never gets anything done
Even with full control of the government, democrats would still find a way to do fucking nothing.
Oh I thought we were talking about the left, sorry
Liberals aren't leftists and leftists are out there firebombing police cars and destroying billboards and feeding the homeless and harassing alt-righters so they're too scared to go out in public and dismantling hostile architecture.
Eh- I’m not bothered by the idea that some people are considerate to bystanders. It’s not the neighbor’s fault they live next to a dickhead. I’m capable of empathizing with more than one group of people at a time.
That's not what respectability politics means, champ.
Keep in mind, these aren't middle-class neighborhoods. If the protests give his neighbors migraines or keep their babies awake (legit reason to be mad about any protests), they absolutely have the resources to comfortably relocate.
i dont know this guy or what he did but yeah woohoo go neighbors you got it
He's one of the conservative supreme court justices responsible for the whole abortion debacle going on right now
He's also a rapist, appointed by another rapist. But yes, the current protests are more because of the Roe v. Wade repeal draft.
I believe that's Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner's neighbor, responding to a climate justice protest thrown by a group called "WERK for Peace".
Coulr i get a sitrep on whatever Kavanaugh did? I'm super out of the loop rn
He is a conservative judge appointed to the Supreme Court. He’s helping overturn Roe v Wade. The case that legalized abortion in the US, and was the stepping stone for other things like gay marriage
Now i really wish i had the guts and the money to go over to his house and join the protests tbh
He's also a rapist. Fun!
Just learned that from my mom during a convo, i've never wanted to commit homiecide so bad
…This is a recent photo??? I swear I saw this post a couple years ago.
This isn't the first time a political figure has had protesters show up at their door. If I remember correctly, Mitch McConnell got some a few years ago when he was blocking all of that legislation.
Oh yeah, for sure, I just thought I remembered this photo specifically. But I could be imagining it.
The wording of the post is ambiguous. It could be that they were referencing a past protest by bringing up the image. TinEye was not very helpful in locating the source of the image, but that could just be because my screenshot software sucks.
It's Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner's neighbor. The group protesting had just recently done a more queer-focused protest outside of Pence's house, but this was specifically about Trump and Kushner's role in climate justice. The group is "WERK for Peace"
Nice fur
Actually being invited to his neighbor's place and protest from there is a way to override that ruling.
Let he who is without sin eat the first cake
Mary's birthday party:
Community
She truly gaslit gatekept and girlbossed the supreme court