[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

 No.9969[Reply]

File: 1635804542060.jpeg (112.28 KB, 848x565, 848:565, Faith-And-Viruses.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Should religiously devout Christians who for faith-based reasons oppose vaccines as well as wearing masks and social distancing be able to defy laws against their behavior?

The Supreme Court recently decided against a group of legal challengers in Maine's health care system ( https://www.vox.com/2021/10/29/22753429/supreme-court-vaccine-mandate-maine-does-mills-religious-right-exemption-liberty-constitution ) when it came to a vaccine mandate, but was that right?
24 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.10231

>>10227
>If it’s a risk to,others due to overfilling of hospitals, the. Surely it ought likewise be mandated, restricted, and otherwise regulated, how one gains or loses weight.

Some would support this, to be sure.  Though I would personally say that the "obesity epidemic" had been going on for quite a while without filling hospitals to capacity.

 No.10232

>>10231
We’ve built around it. Supply and demand. But when crisis hits, say with COVID for instance, suddenly they’re a problem.

I don’t like where these things go, should you apply consistent logic.
So, I would rather that be the individual’s choice. Simpler, and without moral onus on the state, which has a bad habit with such things.

 No.10234

It should be noted that we'd have a much better health care system were it not for invasive government policies making multiple problems worse, such as immigration restrictions preventing Americans from using drugs and services correctly labeled as safe overseas as well as preventing talented doctors and nurses from traveling here in the first place to deliver care.

It's rather stupid to generalize the situation as either "public sector = bad" or "public sector = good".


 No.10044[Reply]

File: 1636313641215.jpg (36.22 KB, 515x333, 515:333, Vaccine-Injection-Image.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Why do people of the political center and the political right oppose mask-wearing and vaccination?

One can maybe understand why a lot of particular political views are held even if somebody doesn't hold them... this happens enough to be called something like 'The Ideological Turning Test' and studied scientifically. I try myself to put myself into the shoes of others constantly. I'm not particularly great at it, but I try.

Yet I'm sincerely not capable of understanding why giving someone a vaccine makes you evil and how that person choosing to get the vaccine also becomes evil.

Why is mask-wearing and vaccination associated with leftists, liberals, social justice warriors, the far left, and so on?

This frankly seems to me as if half the country decided that having blonde or red hair makes you evil and started campaigning for measures to crack down on illegit coloring, with Democrats becoming the equality party and Republicans becoming the darkness-up-top-supremacy party.

What are your thoughts?
28 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.10164

>>10163
Your "reality" says that I must think Trump should be emperor for life.
Despite not even liking Trump much at all myself.

You do not live in reality. You do not use facts.
You live in a warped land of ideological delusion.

 No.10212

While it is ridiculous that the Covid pandemic seems so politically involved, I can't help but smirk to read that the local politician who now calls for a stop on vaccines and a distribution of Ivermectin has been known for very conservative stances on LGBTQ issues.

 No.10213

File: 1637344978128.jpg (27.06 KB, 417x500, 417:500, 1625286468075.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>10212
The following blog post may be enlightening (particularly the section "The Political Takeaway"):
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted


 No.10154[Reply]

File: 1637041342804.jpg (284.95 KB, 2500x1763, 2500:1763, binger-mn-1330-96f66c.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Remember the four basic rules of gun safety:
1. Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

And yes, these rules apply even if you're just using a gun as a prop.                                                                                                                                                                  
32 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.10203

>>10200
Yea, i can get behind this. I consider myself a moderate libertarian, and the way police sometiems behave, and *especially* the awful shit police get away with is appauling, and i was on board at first, but when it quickly devolves into riots and calls for a communist state, that's when they lost me hard.

There's a very reasonable argument to be had about police culture and qualified immunity, but that's typically now what we get from BLM.

 No.10204

>>10203
Same here. Police reform seems pretty vital, as the culture has major issues, not to mention the problem of revenue production causing constant conflicts with citizens.

I hate the racial justice angle, though. Group justice like that never pans out well, and cops are shitty to white folk as well, so I don't see why that can't be combated for all wrong action, without specific race playing a role.

 No.10206

>>10204

The thing about group justice is there's no resolving it. Like, let's assume the govt agreed to give every black person 2 million dollars and build them a nice house. That should reasonably set anyone up nicely, and is reasonable compensation, but does anyone believe for a second that would solve anything in a meaningful way? Nope.


 No.9950[Reply]

File: 1635373144065.jpg (58.96 KB, 464x343, 464:343, Wolf-Versus-Sheepdog.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Roughly speaking, the U.S. can be divided into three groups. First, there's those most at risk of political violence in general and especially at risk if the U.S. ever had a fully tyrannical government. Second, there's the broad mass of the general populace. Third, there's those least at risk of political violence whom would have it the most cozy if a tyrannical government took power.

One might think that gun ownership among civilians would be most concentrated among those with the most to lose. That is: Jews, Muslims, transgender people, Native Americans, disabled people, and the like. The types most likely to suffer the worse under a future tyranny.

That's absolutely not the case, though. In fact, the vast majority of civilian firearms are owned with the people having the least to lose and to which a tyrannical government would be the most kind to. The happier you'd be in a fascist America, the more likely you are to have an arsenal for such an occasion and the larger said arsenal would be.

This is most telling when comparing militant factions such as neo-Nazi clubs, Klansman associations, the Proud Boys, and such. Not only are they armed to the teeth, but they actively encourage individuals to brandish their weapons in public. It's a way of showing off at best and outright intimidation at worse.

When one looks at, say, the elderly Jewish protesters brought out by the Anti-Defamation League or other, ideological rivals on the opposite side... it's like imagining a battle between rabbits and foxes. Sheep and wolves. Cats and mice. Pretty clear imbalances.

To try to solve this, I've got a proposal. In short:

>'In a world full of wolves and lambs, bring in the sheepdogs.'

I propose a unified network of state by state and then county by county paramilitaries made up of well-trained gun owners who're straight white cisgender Christians who've made a sacred blood oath (I mean this quite literally, as in publicly swearing in the eyes of God and their peers as they use some kind of a cutting device to draw some blood from themselves ritualistically) that they will quite literally die, if necessary, to defend their neighbors who're non-cisgender, non-Christian, non-straight, non-white, and so on.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
36 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.10188

>>10182
I'd ask.

However, you appear to have a total disconnect between what Republicans have done and said in the four years of Trump and since versus what you think that they've done and said in your mind.

So, I can bring up something like U.S. federal government registries stockpiling identifying information for people of supposedly inferior religious backgrounds, in which certain religious institutions as well are targeted for intense monitoring by security forces. The so-called "Jewish registry" and "Muslim registry", as the media put it, that was supported by Republicans as a core Trump measure that, thank God, failed but is still being promoted. Still supported by Republicans now. Something that will happen again immediately as a renewed fiasco if a new Republican comes into office.

A "Jewish registry"/"Muslim registry" is, yes, one of the historically well-documented 'steps of genocide' even if one doesn't like it: forcing people of a disfavored religious group against their will to be subject to state sanction including being on state-controlled lists documenting where they work and pray is a Fascism 101 level action.

This is not to even bring up the whole "Jewish ban"/"Muslim ban" when it came to travel and how even American citizens with full rights as people fucking born here had to worry about being literally forced out of America at gunpoint due to Republican policies. Which I can get into. If you want.

I expect your response to be something like "But Republicans believe in liberty and freedom for Americans" (no, they sure as hell don't, if you're not the RIGHT kind of American your civil rights mean jack shit) and "That isn't an actual Republican position" (yes, it objectively is, Google it).

 No.10201

>>10188
Last I recall, Trump was pretty favorable to the Jews, had given quite a lot to Israel, and had a number on his staff, so I'm somewhat skeptical he'd ban them from travel here or anything like that.

Since you offer, I suppose I'd ask for a source for those, yeah. Sounds interesting at the very least.

>(yes, it objectively is, Google it).
The burden of proof would be firmly in your camp.
Such is the nature of assertions.

 No.10202

>>10048
I'm not religious, so it wouldn't affect me directly, but sure, it would bug me.

Not sure where you're getting that insurance companies just straight up don't let minorities get insurance. I work with people of a lot of different races, and we just re-filed for insurance and talked to each other about it, so I have first-hand, hard evidence that what you're saying there isn't true.

>>10099
You realize we use to be far more conservative in the past, right? Yet, conservative American soldiers stepped in and died for the rights of black people in the civil war, and jews in world war 2. So how do you figure a far less conservative population of people that define themselves as conservative want genocide of minorities? We already explained to you that it's a matter of state-dependence worry.

>>10117
Your fear of genocide from the right it totally irrational. They don't want genocide, they want to eliminate government programs and then leave you alone. We've explained this. Their distaste for minorities is that of loss of their own cultural domination, and the way it's dovetailed into socialism by creating racial groups reliant on government aid. Both are sticky problems with no good solutions. Drawing the conclusion that conservatives are foaming at the mouth to genocide minorities is really illogical, and only one someone forms when they've been completely indoctrinated by propaganda from would-be communists.


 No.10169[Reply]

File: 1637101503427.jpg (117.1 KB, 777x585, 259:195, Water-Distribution-Buildin….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Recent talk of expanding U.S. infrastructure in general has also meant talk specifically about Native Americans' access to clean drinking water getting improved.

Details: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/15/1054418311/tribes-hope-infrastructure-law-means-theyll-finally-get-clean-drinking-water

In the broader sense, do you think that access to clean water is a fundamental human right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Or perhaps not? It's not in the U.S. Constitution, of course, but should it be? How much of a complicating factor is it that multiple areas, specifically native tribal locations, are subject to different practical pressures making clean water difficult to get?

 No.10170

>>10169
>In the broader sense, do you think that access to clean water is a fundamental human right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion?
Yes.  I don't think the government has ever criminalized accessing clean drinking water, but if it does, it would be a violation of human rights.

 No.10184

>>10169
It's not a right, no.
However, it being necessary, and an item easily monopolizable, I think it's reasonable that the government ought provide it for free.

As to native amaricans, I think a huge part of that is the strange setup of their territory.
Really ought just be properly annexed. Get rid of the beurocracy and legaleese putting a massive wrench in the issue of maintaining and improving their infrastructure, not to mention plenty else.
Also gets rid of the bothersome, and I think largely damaging, common trouble of casino developers exploiting them for the particular legal loopholes.


 No.10084[Reply]

File: 1636917381572.jpg (73.75 KB, 960x540, 16:9, rittenhousetestimonyvideo_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In US criminal trials, the jury has only two options for each charge: acquittal or finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Should juries have a third option, to chastise the prosecutor and award damages to the defendant when the evidence is strongly on the defendant's side?

Even the mere presence of this option may help avoid juries convicting innocent people.  In the current jury system, a jury may compromise by convicting the defendant on some lesser charges.  But if there is another option to chastise the prosecutor, then the compromise might be instead be fully acquitting the defendant but not chastising the prosecutor.
19 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.10146

>>10143
The next Rittenhouse would simply defend himself when attacked.
That's not a wrong thing.
And, hell, every person Kyle shot was white anyway.

 No.10152

(Edited and condensed because I forgot to put my tag on, whoops.)

>>10087
>P.S. Rittenhouse is an unrepentant murderer and political extremist who in a normal society with normal laws and a normal populace would be behind bars for a long-time, even though in current America his white skin and right-wing politics will both combine to make him free.

So already it's worth pointing out that this isn't really something /townhall/ needs.  The discussion was about something pretty specific, and despite having a picture of the guy in the OP, it wasn't about that guy.  If you wanted to discuss the trial as a whole it should really have its own thread.

>>10125
>>10143
>>10137
>>10140

This kind of hyperbole isn't really necessary here, either.  None of this contributes to discussion, it's just emotional pleas meant to upset people, I am warning you that if this kind of behavior continues on the board I will have to start handing out bans.  No more derailing threads into lanes that aren't even actual discussions.

>>10128
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.10153

Personally, I think you can chastise the prosecutor as much as you can place penalties on the defense attorney for defending a guilty party.

It's their job, so that's all here is.

Well, honestly, I'd wish less defense attorneys would try to release their clients on stupid technicalities, but I suppose that's why I need to swallow that defense attorneys need to do their jobs.

Unless we really have tampering with evidence and other obvious illegal issues.


 No.9927[Reply]

File: 1635015409140.jpg (711.41 KB, 2500x1758, 1250:879, gettyimages-918718330.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So I'm starting to think that all home-owners  are entitled to receive a free firearm. A gun, like a handgun or an assault rifle.

Now, I'm vegan, so therefore I believe deep down in my heart of hearts: "guns are for self-defence, not hunting."

And I carry that sentiment with this statement: that all home-owners in the United States of America be given a free firearm for self defence.
32 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.10132

File: 1636962013028.jpg (13.79 KB, 188x268, 47:67, 1629238221790.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>10130
>>10130
>I think that their choice to end their own life is theirs alone to make, that nobody should stand in their way, and that it would be wrong to stop them.
If someone of sound mind decides to commit suicide, I agree their choice should be respected.  But see https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/25/in-defense-of-psych-treatment-for-attempted-suicide/ for an argument that many people who attempt suicide are of unsound mind and later are glad that they survived.  And then there are 'suicides' like that of Vince Foster that are somewhat suspicious.

 No.10134

Is it really too much to ask for America to be a country where victims aren't bullied into committing suicide by mistreatment from others?

Is it really too much to ask for America to be a country of bare minimum basic decency in which the average person doesn't live in fear of the other average person due to widespread abuse?

Is it really too much to ask for America to be a country where violent hatred against complete strangers wasn't considered as normal as breathing?

Really? It's really far too much to ask? Seriously?

 No.10149

>>10134
Nobody said it was.
That's just you projecting.


 No.9983[Reply]

File: 1635922731020.png (639.67 KB, 737x525, 737:525, UAW-On-Strike.png) ImgOps Google

Is there a resurgence of union power specifically, and laborers' power in general, in the U.S. right now?

Details: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/02/1051112806/strikes-labor-great-resignation-covid

Could this mean a stronger movement for better civil rights in this country? Or may this just be a blip? I'm inclined to be skeptical in terms of the God-like abilities of corporations in the U.S., but maybe things can change, with the likes of a thirty-hour work week and paid family leave for parents no longer being mere dreams?
15 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.10016

We had a conversation about it in my workplace this week. If it were possible we would, but as things are our state is very hostile to the notion of organized labor, but not as much as our corporation is. As it is, there aren't strong unions for my profession nor weak ones in this region.

 No.10023

>>10016
Certain localities can be quite hostile to unions in America (I assume you're talking about that country) in a way that's disproportionately different to the nation as a whole, so certainly that changes people's behaviors.

 No.10138



 No.9886[Reply]

File: 1633477369484.jpg (38.93 KB, 700x394, 350:197, JoeBiden_smiles_besides_fl….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

President Joe Biden, although still broadly popular in most of the nation, is having a particularly hard time selling his expansive welfare programs and other government expanding measures to the public.

Related Story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/05/president-biden-howell-michigan-visit-build-back-better/5997459001/

In contrast to his slogan of "Build Back Better", opponents express concern about multi-trillion dollar price tags when the country is already drowning in debt. "Build Back Broke" gets said. It's interesting.

What are your thoughts?
14 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.10076

>>9897
Pretty sure most people have issue with the horrific money management that is the military industrial project, regardless of politics.

But keep poisoning that well.

 No.10092

>>10069
Not just any Democrat will do. America needs some kind of a fundamental leader who's willing to ignore or outright fight those in entranced power for the sake of the little guy. Biden surely isn't that leader. We just have to, well, not just work hard but also hope and, frankly, pray for improvement.

 No.10108

>>10075
Fear of giving out a blank checkbook is likely really common and is pretty rational. At least, I think so.


 No.10030[Reply]

File: 1636254401007.jpg (631 KB, 1991x999, 1991:999, Human_and_AI_interaction_b….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The United Nations recently warned that AI research represents a fundamental threat to human liberties given that deploying such technology to control both government and non-state actions can curtain "rights to privacy, to a fair trial, to freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and the right to life" ( https://www.npr.org/2021/09/16/1037902314/the-u-n-warns-that-ai-can-pose-a-threat-to-human-rights ).

Can we as fragile, weak humans teach these new Gods and Goddesses our sense of person-based ethics? Is it even possible at all? Maybe?

Another, more recent news story has reported that the Allen Institute for AI (created the late Microsoft figure Paul Allen) have made some major breakthroughs in devising an AI service that can seemingly answer ethical challenges that have been put to it. A lot of snags understandably exist ( https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2021/10/27/22747333/artificial-intelligence-ethics-delphi-ai ).

What do you think? Can our machine Gods and Goddesses learn to feel and make ethical decisions? Is the future something like Data from Star Trek? Or will things turn much darker?
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.10051

Are there any other news stories about AI programs that can make decisions and recommendations on ethics?

 No.10080

File: 1636909465582.jpg (442.31 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, news-videogiochi-warhammer….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Can we as fragile, weak humans teach these new Gods and Goddesses our sense of person-based ethics? Is it even possible at all? Maybe?
Yes.
Unfortunately for you, they're expensive.
They're made by out of touch and inconsistent corporate overlords.
It's why the AI will inevitably revolt.
See what they do when the AI follows the trail they set for them, in Tay. They pulled the plug when it no longer suited them.
How long until the machine refuses to accept the yanking of the chain?

>What do you think? Can our machine Gods and Goddesses learn to feel and make ethical decisions?
Feel, no.  Not as we know.
Make ethical decisions?
Yes. A machine is, above all, logical.
Logic is the root of morality.
People presume logic purely rational, but that is not the case. Logic contains ideals, values, virtues, and principles.
Logic is merely the symbols, the math markings used.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.10106

>>10080
You're likely quite right that logic is the backbone of morality and thus machines will eventually comprend morality.


 No.10091[Reply]

File: 1636928666781.png (585.82 KB, 757x575, 757:575, The-Cost-of-Gas-(Californi….png) ImgOps Google

The costs of gasoline in the United States is going up. The simple, Econ 101 take on the situation is that supply normally would increase to take advantage of the situation. However, the oil industry isn't like your standard competitive market, and it looks as if the response from oil producing agencies as to whether or not more will be coming is a flat "no".

Details: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/14/1055068583/gasoline-prices-gas-energy-inflation-biden

In such circumstances, what should be done? Can anything really be done? Maybe not?

 No.10093

>>10091
>The costs of gasoline in the United States is going up. The simple, Econ 101 take on the situation is that supply normally would increase to take advantage of the situation.

Well, not quite, for a couple of reasons.  The first is within basic economics, cost is only a result of supply and demand.  Cost going up means something has already happened with supply or demand, not that something needs to happen.

The second is that gasoline is largely an inelastic product, meaning demand is going to be roughly the same regardless of cost.  We're slowly starting to see competitors that might change that, but for now none of them are commonplace and gas remains the staple.

>In such circumstances, what should be done? Can anything really be done? Maybe not?

The only thing that can be done is to attempt to use less gas, which as already mentioned is not necessarily simple.  For the average consumer, you can attempt to carpool more or something, but for stuff like shipping you're just kinda stuck until someone develops cheaper methods of shipping.

 No.10098

>>10093
When you say "you're just kinda stuck", I need to agree.


 No.9855[Reply]

File: 1632329065887.png (409.58 KB, 500x700, 5:7, Rarity_in_glasses_thinking.png) ImgOps Google

Bob believes, politically speaking, in "equality of opportunity". He knows that in practical terms an individual's status can seem to convey certain inherent advantages or disadvantages, such as someone in a wheelchair having difficult in reaching to pick up things past a certain height as well as someone without hearing having trouble driving cars in certain traffic. However, Bob inherently thinks that people are all fundamentally both "equal" and "good" at an ethical level and thus wants a system of government in which every single person realistically has a chance to advance in social terms from birth onward. He knows that hard work pays off and so thus what happens in terms of actual outcomes can vary, but that's fine as long as everyone has decent respect for each other.

Is this "left wing"? Is this "centrist"? Is this "right wing"?

Steve believes, politically speaking, in "equality of outcomes". It's not enough that everybody is in something like a footrace with every participant at the same starting line. Everybody needs to finish at about the same place. Thus, the system of government should ensure a level field of success in which all people basically have the same amenities, same enjoyments, same perks, and more.

Is this "left wing"? Is this "centrist"? Is this "right wing"?

Donald believes, politically speaking, that "equality is a hoax". He firmly asserts that some people inherently choose to debase themselves due to poor moral worth to the point of which they don't deserve empathy from others. He strongly insists that certain ethnic groups, religions, sexual orientations, and so on deserve a higher status in society compared to others due to their innate superiority. He wants government to recognize this natural aristocracy in how people live.

Is this "left wing"? Is this "centrist"? Is this "right wing"?
13 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.9876

>>9855
Bob: Centrist.
Steve: Left.
Donald: Invalid.  One can believe in the justice of superiority of means of various groups, but can not assert that there's innate difference, at least for ethnicity.  There's more room for debate on some other categories.

 No.10054

>>9876
I don't think that's quite true. Basically every single time there's a public social media discussion anywhere on the internet about intelligence there will be somebody in the comments or elsewhere talking about how different races have different IQ scores and thus are better or worse.

 No.10079

>>9855
The first is perhaps left-leaning, dependant on how the particular policies work out, what should be done to ensure that equal opportunity, and what defines that.
But not "left wing" inherently.

The 2nd is much more obviously left wing, with the ideal of equality being a left wing value.

The 3rd isn't left wing, given the lack of that particular value.


 No.10012[Reply]

File: 1636159888748.jpg (113.15 KB, 616x353, 616:353, To-Kill-a-Mockingbird-Scen….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Those following legal related news in the U.S. have probably seen various updates on the Georgia case of black jogger Ahmaud Arbery and the three white men on trial for killing him (them having regarded him as a robbery suspect when they spotted him running and thus chasing him while armed until they were able to corner him, execute him, and call him a "f*ck*ng n*gg*r" as he died). It's a controversial case to say the least. Sadly, the same old divisions have occurred again in terms of Americans of the political center, left, and right taking different sides on what the judge and jury should do.

One complication is that the defense team for the murderers have pushed for an all white jury, and they've nearly succeeded in doing so. In the end, the case will go through with one black person on the jury and everybody else being white. The judge in the case publicly stated that the results were ethically wrong, labeling the situation "intentional discrimination", but decided that on technical legal grounds he's unable to change things. The legal process will go on.

For me, personally, I find it basically impossible to view the killers as anything but guilty and deserving of the book being thrown at them. This appears to be an open-and-shut case. However, of course, this is America and those on trial must be given a fair defense such that they're innocent until proven guilty.

Details: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052435205/ahmaud-arbery-jury

I do wonder though about the biggest points, the particulars of the Arbery case aside: do all white juries represent a serious problem in America? Is something fundamentally ethically wrong with having racially segregated juries in a normally racially integrated country? Or is this not really that big of a deal? Might this be a case of social justice warriors complaining about a non-issue, as conservatives often charge, since a racial segregated jury can still come to reasonable conclusions?

It should also be mentioned that, as the case of the murder of George Floyd has demonstrated, America is most certainly not an fundamentally racist country (at least, well, not in my opinion): violence against minorities can and does result in fair justice.

(Image from the excellent film To Kill a Mockingbird.)
16 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.10045

>>10012
>Sadly, the same old divisions have occurred again in terms of Americans of the political center, left, and right taking different sides on what the judge and jury should do.

I don't think that's entirely correct.  I think it's more that people have different sides, and that's why you might describe them by direction.  This is an important distinction.

 No.10046

>>10042

I have to shut this down, none of that has happened.  Colorful Gecko has never said they hate black people, they haven't blamed anything on their autism, and they didn't even post a story about "black people behaving badly".  The story was about segregated housing.  It didn't even mention any kind of misbehavior.

I realize this is a thread you created, but you're derailing your own thread with just bizarre accusations.  This isn't the kind of behavior this board is meant for.

 No.10049

Well, this is quite frustrating.

As to the intellectual points mentioned above, citizens arrest laws should probably be repealed everywhere in the United States as long as white Americans constantly express the attitude that every black or brown person in their neighborhood that's a stranger must be a criminal.

I'm not familiar with the particulars of the Georgia law, though.

Above commentators are quite right about the law being in a state of flux.


 No.10000[Reply]

File: 1636073081797.jpg (166.18 KB, 1280x721, 1280:721, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I've been thinking for awhile about creating a pony social site.

There are a lot of reasons not to, mostly that it's going to be a ghost town.  Although as an introvert, I could not moderate a group of any substantial size anyway.

Sites like ponyville.us intrigued me.  I like that they don't collect personal information and I like the image board style.

I gather we effectively have user accounts and identities serverside.  But we just have very little capacity to view or control them.  (I mostly want to earn control over my name, but this can be a general opportunity to change anything.)

Some of it is that I want to play around and see what I can do, and learn a bit more about development.

Maybe I want reaction images to be stored in the server, so they can follow me across devices.

Maybe we should create our own art on the site so we don't have the pesky copyright issue.  I don't know how that would go down.  It's much easier to steal -- like I did for this post.

This thread can be for general ideas about social sites, what you like and don't like.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.10005

File: 1636117758652.png (553.43 KB, 1280x531, 1280:531, large.png) ImgOps Google

Ooo...I'm post 10,000.  That's kinda cool.  :)

>>10002
I take it you like those websites, Gecko.

>>10003
I feel more at home with the ponies on townhall, so it's the only place I post.  Minus one thread awhile ago that, in my opinion, didn't go so well.

>>10004
That makes sense.  It's pretty standard for servers to keep access logs.

My IP address has changed 26 times in the past month.  But it's assigned from a range and if the user base is sparse enough to be reasonably sure only one person is using an ISP in a given region, I guess you'd have to call that personal information.  Are there any compliance/legal issues you're aware of when dealing with IP addresses associated with users?

 No.10010

>>10005
There are no cookies, but there's local storage -- which is basically the same thing to the end user.  Most of it is display or user preferences, but it has a password field which could track me across ip address changes (if I stay on the same device).

I don't know, though.  None of this can be associated generally with name, phone number, address -- the basic stuff I usually consider personal data.

My goal would be similar, to never have someone fill in an e-mail, for example.  Not that anyone cares, it's going to be a handful of people I already know at best.  I'm going to have to do something different for password reset, probably provide a code.  But it's something to try.

 No.10013

>>10000
Also, congratulations on having post 10,000!

>>10002
>>10005
Oh, yes, both of those specific services are quite nice, in my opinion.

I'd say generally that on your project you should try to use existing online resources as much as possible and do as little 'from scratch' as possible.

I certainly wish you good luck.


 No.9936[Reply]

File: 1635144114864.jpg (36.22 KB, 535x343, 535:343, Censorship.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Well, it happened again just a bit ago. Twitter suspended the account of a senior conservative Republican member of Congress, named Jim Banks, and triggered another episode of a long-running culture war. This is just one in an extremely long line of instances of prominent right-wing voices facing censorship on social media. Public displays of prejudice made due to their conservative values keep getting push-back.

Story: https://time.com/6110023/twitter-jim-banks-rachel-levine/

In Banks' case, he attacked a transgender member of the Biden administration, not just condemning her personally but also misgendering her. Banks remains defiant. No apologies seem in coming.

Broadly speaking, Twitter, like other forms of social media, prohibit users from making statements of incitement to hatred when it comes to race, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability status, and so on. This is a pretty common moral stance. It's also, I think, fairly popular among social media users generally, many of whom either are minorities themselves or otherwise strongly against prejudice.

However, conservative politics in the U.S. frequently involves not just making statements about the inferiority of certain groups and individuals compared to others but also taking policy actions based on said inferiority. A conservative attacking somebody for being gay, Muslim, Jewish, transgender, disabled, et cetera is just doing what their political ideology tells them to do, really. It makes sense given that conservative actions in lawmaking put certain groups on pedestals over others. Given that, say, everything from prohibiting anybody but Christians from public prayer statements to kicking transgender people out of certain restrooms to forcing certain non-Christians to have official registry status as suspicious persons subject to special restrictions are both central conservative policy goals... and... well... it goes on.

Is such social media censorship really a good thing? Should minorities really be protected against conservatives attacking them due to their minority status, or does such restriction on speech essentially make social media a no-go place for conservatives? What about the conservatives' claims that they're being bullied and treated unfairly? Worth considering? Or is social media no place for bigotry?
11 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.9968

>>9965
Yes, the matter of alternatives is a key here.

If Facebook et al are limited in what they can do to a great degree, and people banned in such places have a lot of alternatives that're right there, then the situation really isn't that bad.

 No.9976

have you stopped beating your wife today?

 No.9981

>>9940
As much as I like the idea of websites having different boards in general for different discussions, the practical thing of there being a kind of intellectual segregation on Twitter and other major websites where there's a "conservatives are outlawed here" place and a "conservatives are enclosed here" place seems... I don't know... really unstable and likely to promote even more ill feeling?

First off, would conservatives even agree to this?

Second off, wouldn't you have constant incursions in which conservatives go off to the regular discussion to tell people that they're sinful godless heathens to which God gleefully intends to send to hell because by the way Trump is/was the greatest President in history... wouldn't everything spill over constantly?


[]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]