The “How to Disagree” book?
I believe these companies are social media monopolies and thereby public spaces.
Really only in regards to speech. What a user states is published by the platform making it partly their statement as well. I think they should have a say in what their (the platform’s) statements are. Forcing them to publish everything users write results in them not having control over their own speech.
Published? Like a publisher? That’s all anyone argues: that a company excluding some speech also take responsibility for the speech it allows.
1 Like
That is a fair point. Currently they want it both ways in their favor. Not take responsibility for the stuff they allow, but be allowed to exclude who they choose. Maybe they should be liable to law suits for what they allow if they want to exclude other content?
1 Like
Hmm. What do you mean?
I think I responded before a stealth edit, but I now see what book you were talking about. Or maybe I was just blind and didn’t see it before? either way, I probably should read this book at some point… will have to find time after my studies
1 Like
A better place to start, if you are interested in this subject, are the writings of Édouard Drumont. Then the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
You will then see how, in Mein Kampf, Hitler took the antisemitism which originated in France and Russia, and added elements of Germanic folklore to create his ideology. You will also see how Nazism is its own thing. Be warned, even the germans found Mein Kampf unreadable.
Mussolini at least kept his manifesto to around 20 pages.
1 Like
I think that’s what (most) people want, when they’re talking about unfair laws or whatever.
1 Like
To be honest, your posts seem so far off-track to me that I’m wary to even take book recommendations from you - but I will weigh it out amongst my options.
Whatever your views are of his posts/views (I like/agree with some of them, dislike/disagree with others), @zecarlo appears to be fairly well read on certain historical topics. He’s said things before that I didn’t know and given me a better understanding of things, and gets thumbs ups from other seemingly-historically-aware posters, so I tend to “trust” him.
1 Like
IME, some of his posts are reasonable and others are downright crazy wokeness. History doesn’t back the woke narrative so I’ll air on the side of his posts being either looney BS or reasonably informative.
I seriously doubt you’ve read my posts. I have been consistently anti wokeness. If you ever see me holding up a BLM sign it’s because someone behind me has a gun to my head.
You know who I wish would run for president? Mike Rowe
If the educated clowns can’t do the job, I don’t think the uneducated clowns will do any better.
What do you find clownish about Mike Rowe? He seems like a fairly sincere guy to me, as far as actors go. I think he’s best at what he’s doing now, not running for President, but that’s just me and my silly uneducated opinion.
I only had a semester and a half of college, after all.
1 Like
Honestly, an uneducated clown who does nothing is infinitely better than and educated clown who is able to pass major legislation. More government, more problems.
4 Likes
We should just change the law and have Arnold be president. He can run as either party and I would vote for him, especially considering recent options for POTUS. I think he is independent enough to not get dragged into party line stuff, and I think he is liked by most people (although that could change if he were able to run for POTUS). I don’t think much would change, I’m okay with that, but I think he is one of the better options for bringing the country together.
Arnold’s old, but if we need extra old, I’m going Willie Nelson. At least I’d hopefully get some legal weed out of the deal ha.
Judging by Zelensky, best candidate would be Joe Rogan. And he definitely wins if he goes for it.