First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Trump n' Clinton: "Let's ban the internet!"
8524 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / M
Offline
Posted 12/10/15
Atleast the UK is less fucked up
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 12/10/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:



I'm sorry, I just wanted to sound cool.


I'm old and don't understand you kids with your hippin' and hoppin'



https://youtu.be/y7tI1E6kp0o



Posted 12/10/15

BlazingRagnarok wrote:


PhantomGundam wrote:

If either of them become president, there's no doubt the next Lee Harvey Oswald will be celebrated as a hero.


That's a little extreme. I know you hate them, but calling for assassination isn't even funny as a joke.


He no calling for assassination. He just saying. If somebody kill them. He wouldn't be surprise about it or sad about it. I think.

Me. You can think I am horrible human being. But if any of those 2 become president. I hope a bullet hit them. Sorry but I no crying over assholes, explicitly this kind of assholes. We don't need another Bush.
Posted 12/10/15

VZ68 wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:



I'm sorry, I just wanted to sound cool.


I'm old and don't understand you kids with your hippin' and hoppin'



https://youtu.be/y7tI1E6kp0o




I just don't think guns would do a lot if the populace is uneducated. If' we're not fit to vote, how on Earth are we going to govern ourselves in case we need to rebuild the Government?
37164 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/10/15
Disturbing coming from Clinton.

Expected from Trump.
Posted 12/10/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


VZ68 wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:



I'm sorry, I just wanted to sound cool.


I'm old and don't understand you kids with your hippin' and hoppin'



https://youtu.be/y7tI1E6kp0o




I just don't think guns would do a lot if the populace is uneducated. If' we're not fit to vote, how on Earth are we going to govern ourselves in case we need to rebuild the Government?


Fit to vote? So you are suggesting only the wise and intellectuals may partake of suffrage, then? The only problem I see with that is that such a change could be used to take rights away from individuals in any demographic, say, by class, or ethnicity(like muslims), creed, anything. Its might set a dangerous precedent i.e. its a slippery slope. We should just go back to a feudal system of the noble aristocracy calling all the shots for the peasantry and anyone we deem not fit to partake in the direction a nation should go.

Having said that, I think everyone should go to college thats able, but I wouldn't take rights away, thats just regressive and, well, counterproductive.
1150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M
Offline
Posted 12/10/15 , edited 12/10/15

ILuvCats11 wrote:

Atleast the UK is less fucked up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjYrxzSe3DU
NOPE.
8524 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / M
Offline
Posted 12/10/15


Its still fucked up.... just not as much as america..
20695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Kansas
Offline
Posted 12/10/15
I'm old enough to remember, way back when Bill Clinton was in office... there was something I believe it was called the "communications decency act", which basically censored the crap out of the internet. It was pushed by VP Gore, and signed by Bill Clinton. For months, webpages all over the net were given black backgrounds as a protest, until the supreme court finally overruled that nonsense bill.
So Hillary's been close to this sort of mentality for forever. And while that particular evidence may seem circumstantial, I remember her talking about censoring video games a few years back. Censorship is in her blood. This is unsurprising.
Didn't know much about Trump, but it is rather disappointing that someone who has built their entire campaign on saying offensive things doesn't have more appreciation for the 1st amendment.

Related, I think it was yesterday I read something about one of the Google/Alphabet guys working on a "hate speech spell checker"? Brave new world, these days.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 12/10/15 , edited 12/10/15
To the best of my knowledge what Hillary wants to do is ban sites that promote terrorism like ISIS newsletters and such. That will still skirting the line is not protected under free speech. One of the few limits to our freedom of speech is that its restricted if it is meant to cause imminent or potential violence which one can make a case for with the propaganda sites ISIS puts out.
1150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M
Offline
Posted 12/10/15 , edited 12/10/15

cleruninja wrote:

I'm old enough to remember, way back when Bill Clinton was in office... there was something I believe it was called the "communications decency act", which basically censored the crap out of the internet. It was pushed by VP Gore, and signed by Bill Clinton. For months, webpages all over the net were given black backgrounds as a protest, until the supreme court finally overruled that nonsense bill.
So Hillary's been close to this sort of mentality for forever. And while that particular evidence may seem circumstantial, I remember her talking about censoring video games a few years back. Censorship is in her blood. This is unsurprising.
Didn't know much about Trump, but it is rather disappointing that someone who has built their entire campaign on saying offensive things doesn't have more appreciation for the 1st amendment.

Related, I think it was yesterday I read something about one of the Google/Alphabet guys working on a "hate speech spell checker"? Brave new world, these days.

This reminds of me of the slow death of github from SJW's. Repositories getting outright deleted for the word "retard", backwards compatibility issues made because someone had an issue with the word "suicide", and people getting whole organizations deleted due to one silly repo.
Things like https://github.com/wooorm/alex remind us that the internet is not safe for free speech anymore(try going a few sentences without it saying what your putting is offensive).

10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 12/10/15 , edited 12/10/15

cleruninja wrote:

I'm old enough to remember, way back when Bill Clinton was in office... there was something I believe it was called the "communications decency act", which basically censored the crap out of the internet. It was pushed by VP Gore, and signed by Bill Clinton. For months, webpages all over the net were given black backgrounds as a protest, until the supreme court finally overruled that nonsense bill.
So Hillary's been close to this sort of mentality for forever. And while that particular evidence may seem circumstantial, I remember her talking about censoring video games a few years back. Censorship is in her blood. This is unsurprising.
Didn't know much about Trump, but it is rather disappointing that someone who has built their entire campaign on saying offensive things doesn't have more appreciation for the 1st amendment.

Related, I think it was yesterday I read something about one of the Google/Alphabet guys working on a "hate speech spell checker"? Brave new world, these days.


Let's not forget PMRC founded by Bill Clinton's running mate's wife, Tipper Gore.

https://youtu.be/VgSjjD6rRu4

Takes a lot to piss off John Denver.



Posted 12/10/15 , edited 12/10/15

thegreywitch wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


VZ68 wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:



I'm sorry, I just wanted to sound cool.


I'm old and don't understand you kids with your hippin' and hoppin'



https://youtu.be/y7tI1E6kp0o




I just don't think guns would do a lot if the populace is uneducated. If' we're not fit to vote, how on Earth are we going to govern ourselves in case we need to rebuild the Government?


Fit to vote? So you are suggesting only the wise and intellectuals may partake of suffrage, then? The only problem I see with that is that such a change could be used to take rights away from individuals in any demographic, say, by class, or ethnicity(like muslims), creed, anything. Its might set a dangerous precedent i.e. its a slippery slope. We should just go back to a feudal system of the noble aristocracy calling all the shots for the peasantry and anyone we deem not fit to partake in the direction a nation should go.

Having said that, I think everyone should go to college thats able, but I wouldn't take rights away, thats just regressive and, well, counterproductive.

I feel this is a strawman, and don't know how to reply. I never said that or meant that. Just because I think certain people aren't fit to vote doesn't mean I want a law banning such a thing, as the implementation of such would be disastrous and counter intuitive to society. It's the debate between legality and morality. Just because one person believes it is immoral or unwise doesn't necessarily mean they want laws to cover such. But yes, I do think those with a certain degree of knowledge should vote, and that education is the best implement, not restricting it merely on a knowledge test or an IQ score. You're merely making out my argument to be what it is not. As Bill Nye said, we need Scientifically literate voters, and in my opinion, we need politically literate voters as well. Bill Nye doesn't believe we should have a law restricting what a parent teaches their child, that would merely be the Government overstepping their boundaries.
Posted 12/10/15

megahobbit wrote:

To the best of my knowledge what Hillary wants to do is ban sites that promote terrorism like ISIS newsletters and such. That will still skirting the line is not protected under free speech. One of the few limits to our freedom of speech is that its restricted if it is meant to cause imminent or potential violence which one can make a case for with the propaganda sites ISIS puts out.


Is it? I was trying to ascertain such a thing. One could say it is a form of "political speech" to say "Yay, ISIL" or something similar.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 12/10/15 , edited 12/10/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


megahobbit wrote:

To the best of my knowledge what Hillary wants to do is ban sites that promote terrorism like ISIS newsletters and such. That will still skirting the line is not protected under free speech. One of the few limits to our freedom of speech is that its restricted if it is meant to cause imminent or potential violence which one can make a case for with the propaganda sites ISIS puts out.


Is it? I was trying to ascertain such a thing. One could say it is a form of "political speech" to say "Yay, ISIL" or something similar.


Its a grey territory. Alot of this has to do with what they will define "meant to cause imminent or potential violence"

IE: If the site literally says "go shoot people" it would not be protected under free speech. "Yay, ISIL" is a bit more grey territory.

Either way issue in Hillarys case is a bit more complex in my opinion than the stupid shit Trump said.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.