If this article is real, as in not omitting stuff or quoting him out of context, he’s fucking crazy.
Are we jumping to conclusions that he supports doing sex change surgery on children? Not sure if that is what you’re are saying he is crazy about? I guess that I don’t necessarily think it is wrong to allow a child to think what they want, but allowing a non-reversible surgery to occur would be unacceptable as children are demonstrably unfit at making decisions of this scope (I don’t think it would be consistent to say they can’t consent to sex, but can to a sex change).
1 Like
I’m thinking maybe he means the child accepts transgenders as normal people who shouldn’t be ostraciszed, like “I wanna be Batman” or something. It’s why I’m interested in knowing the full context since it’s pretty poorly worded.
But if he thinks the child who really believes he’s transgender should be taken seriously and nurtured in line with his belief, he’s still fucking crazy.
2 Likes
I was more interested in the reaction to Barrett’s use of “preference” vs Biden’s use of “decide.”
Although I do believe we’ve now jumped the shark that this is now a question to a Presidential nominee. But, I don’t want to turn this into a “sloth’s stodgy moralizing” again thread.
Yeah, the differing reactions
I think this would boil down to whether one believes sexual orientation is a choice or not. I, personally, lean towards the latter but others can have their own POV. Don’t really care much about this issue anyway.
I think it can be both. I think for a majority it is not a choice. I think some do choose it though (see The Tiger King). I am guessing you agree with this.
IMO, being upset with Biden saying “decide” or Barrett using “preference” is ridiculous. This is news to me and I think almost everyone else. I don’t think hardly anyone was aware of this before the last couple days.
1 Like
No they didn’t. There were other oil companies.
That’s not the argument. Facebook dominates the space in which they operate and they buy up any competition that arises.
How about you check this out. And notice that democrats support this measure even more so than republicans. Given your slant, you should be all for breaking up these monopolies.
"The report says plainly that “Amazon is the dominant online marketplace” and that evidence “demonstrates that Amazon functions as a gatekeeper for ecommerce.” "
“The report says Apple exerts “monopoly power” in the mobile app store market by favoring its own apps and disadvantaging rivals.”
"The report quotes Facebook’s own chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, and other top management describing the company’s strategy of buying its rivals. In one internal communication, Zuckerberg said Facebook “can likely always just buy any competitive startups.”
“The report says Google enjoys a monopoly in search and search advertising, and its dominance is protected by its own data and deals it has struck around the world to be the default search engine in many browsers and devices. “No alternative search engine serves as a substitute,” investigators said.”
Your line of argument makes no sense. You compared Facebook to Standard Oil to make an assertion that Facebook is a monopoly, but then posted an article that makes a case that Standard Oil wasn’t a monopoly. I don’t understand 
Sure that doesn’t make them a monopoly.
I think for myself.
You could argue that they break publisher laws and such. The argument that they should be broken up because they are a monopoly doesn’t work unless we change the definition of monopoly.
1 Like
Precisely what I am pointing out. According to your argument, Standard Oil wasn’t a monopoly. They did have competition, but they had 90% of the market, not 100%. Oil wasn’t the only energy provider in town. But they were a super-majority that didn’t allow a competitive market place. According to the government, they were monopolistic enough to be anti-trusted.
Monopolies don’t have to control 100% of the space in which they operate, they have to be big and powerful enough to be virtually, though not completely without competition. And competitors who do pop-up are quickly squashed, that’s what defines a monopoly under the law.
So you agree with republicans?! Though many have changed their tune because it’s affecting them now.
You didn’t read the article, huh? It lays out the case for each company listed. And proposed action is coming. You don’t recognize a monopoly after it’s been anti-trusted. The government, doing something right for a change, is pursuing anti-trust on these companies, though it’s not clear how they intend to move forward. Miriam-Webster is not the arbiter of the law.
As a matter of fact, they seem to change definitions on a whim, like they did with the term “sexual-preference”.
I don’t think this is the legal definition.
Post up the legal definition. They aren’t a monopoly under the standard dictionary definition, but I may agree with you if they meet an official legal definition that I was previously unaware of.
No, it didn’t seem relevant.
Perhaps a socialist policy could be good? I am not convinced on this specific example yet.
Agree, post the US legal definition. I am interested in talking about that. So far we just have me arguing based on the dictionary definition and then other’s opinions. I am open to a different definition if it is shown to be relevant (and a legal definition sure would be).
Senate hearing happening. Republicans in the pocket of these asshats will let them sit there with contempt for us all just like they have for every other time but small steps.
The biggest thing we should all be concerned with is that they were so brazen about it all.
1 Like
I’m not altogether sure I care if they are monopolies or not, as long as the service they are offering is fair. That’s the whole publisher/not a publisher. If they want to edit, delete or ban certain users, and control what news stories are posted, then they should be subject to the same libel laws that news organizations are. Otherwise they are an open forum where any and all opinions are allowed, and they are protected by section 230.
I used to be of the opinion that they are a private company therefore they can do whatever they want. But in this modern society they have become one of the foremost means of communication. That changes things in my opinion.
The phone company isn’t responsible for what you say on a phone call, but the phone company doesn’t interfere with your ability to communicate via telephone.
Just my 2 cents.
2 Likes
Probably. I don’t really put much thought into this subject tbh, i.e., to put it bluntly, I don’t give a flying fuck lol. If medical professionals specializing in the relevant field mostly agree, and adults without real diagnosed mental issues affecting their decisions want to live their lives in a certain way I just go with it.
EDIT:
Obviously, if my kid were to have this “problem” I would be thinking differently so I’m not unempathetic towards people who are raising young children.
But, as I said in another thread, my decision making process involving matters like this is fairly consistent, which means I would follow current medical science even at the expense of being caused lots of grief knowing the kind of shit he/she/they would face in society and I’d probably put lots of effort into getting confirmation like spending money on 3rd and 4th opinions from medical specialists and stuff.
It’s why I also think we should support transgenders and homos and not ostracize them.
I gave my opinion before that I think all this craziness happening regarding this issue is a temporary overcorrection resulting from a culmination of real or perceived oppression in the past.
The closest analogy I can think of to give to people on the “other side” would be the fact that even people who didn’t like Trump voted for him as a middle finger to the establishment and the developing PC culture at the time. (Not saying this is equivalent. Just trying to explain my thought process in the easiest and most relatable way possible.)
I did read about the dictionary changing their guidelines for the term before this but I just found it amusing. Probably would have just forgotten about it in a couple of days.
Wanna break up the banks?
#feelthebern
Man you got stop worrying about the finer details on whether they fit a particular definition. You can go argue with a law professor on that one.
The debate to have is that we don’t know what an information monopoly looks like but they exhibit all the outcomes of a monopoly. Not that you would know it because 3/4 of the people who make decisions on the legalities of it all do not even understand social media but they know they are getting nice donations to stay ignorant.
Now what we do know is these people have a fuckload of society addicted, they make us more miserable, more isolated, more angry, more violent, more intolerant, more tribal, they can target enemies, they can promote allies and they hold an inordinate amount of power which was on display.
They mistimed when to flex their muscle but they absolutely know how to slowly creep into your life because they have been doing it for a decade and have become very good at it. Without intervention they will be back.
Nobody can compete with them, nobody can take away their business, nobody can shift the market. Mark Zuckerberg is immoral at best and potentially pure evil.
The solution is simple, break up the bit that collect user information and targetted distribution of information with AI and keep the low level social connections so people can make a choice. Facebook could do this with about 60s of revenue.
Well you have a lot of people who defend everything big bank/Wall Street now attacking Twitter as if they are the lone place on the internet to type.
Which should all remind us that people only give a shit about some of these things if it effects them or their team. Most of the people up in arms about this could give two shits less if it was happening to a Dem. Its not like they are complaining about the fact that the right has a monopoly on talk radio or anything despite the fact they have for years.
Hell we’ve had that discussion on here before and it’s been “not the rights fault people don’t like left wing radio.”
It’s whatever I mean I think strong arguments can exist but I think it’s overplayed how strong something like Twitter is. Plenty of other outlets out there. Maybe if the right wants Twitter to be less strong they should have Trump use a different platform? But that would take away the everyone’s against me and picking on me I don’t do that it’s not fair whine away.
Far from the only place that has rules either. People have been banned off this place. Are websites really obligated to promote stuff they view as hate? Why when you can do that at tons of different places? Are we saying when a website reaches a certain size it isn’t fair if they don’t post hate?
I feel like some of this is screwed either way. People got mad that foreign entities so easily out misinformation on these places to sway influence. Then they try to make sure things are verified or accurate and people are mad for that.
1 Like
I slipped that in as a joke actually since I’ve not bothered to look into this subject enough to give an informed opinion.
But I roughly agree with you on what you’ve just wrote pending further research which I may or may not do.
Crap. Twitter folded.
Boring…
1 Like
Stop protecting and celebrating big (mega) business
1 Like
You find it. I already posted the evidence that anti-trust litigation is forth coming. You cannot bring anti-trust against someone who is not a suspected monopoly.