Aanyi said:
Sucks to be them, then.

Even throughout my teen years we had to cut off the net because we couldn't afford it; it was a luxury that we didn't really have enough money for and we ended up fine. Besides, why should I feel like that I have to protect the cesspit that is the internet anyway? To be brutally honest, it has done nothing to academically help me in any useful way except make learning even more ridiculous than it already is. Maybe we'll actually go back to the more tactful days of using horrendously expensive textbooks and being self-reliant instead of going to wikipedia because science is too hard. Maybe we'll actually grow from it and society as a whole will have to adapt to the loss of instant information and have to use their own brains to think critically again, but that's just me.

Every time I go to the library most of the books there on the topics I'm interested in are from the 1970s or earlier. Depending on the subject, you have to take old information with a grain of salt. They're also mixed in with books promoting creationism and homeopathy and assorted other pseudoscience. If you don't already have a basic knowledge of the topic going into it, the library is as poor a tool as just plunking in words in bing, except bing will at least give you information published in the last three years. And if your interests/research topic is even more obscure than mine are, well, hope you have gas money, you're probably going to need to travel.

Here's something that libraries currently have access to though- online academic journal databases. Instant access to peer-reviewed, current, and relevant information. They're excellent resources, but they require the internet to work. There's no way without these online databases that public and school/university libraries could afford enough subscriptions to journals to replace them. There's also the issue of storage, cataloging, and actually being able to find the damn paper you're looking for that help to give online databases an edge.

Sure, this really isn't applicable to most people, but it's still a massive loss of information.


regsmutt said:
Every time I go to the library most of the books there on the topics I'm interested in are from the 1970s or earlier. Depending on the subject, you have to take old information with a grain of salt. They're also mixed in with books promoting creationism and homeopathy and assorted other pseudoscience.

Of especial note is that ANY information is only as good as the author writing it, and in a library, you don't generally know anything about them.

I live in the Deep South. This thing happened here, a long ways back. The Civil War. We all know about that shit.

But what fewer people know about is the "Lost Cause"... Wherein, the heroic struggle of the confederacy is endorsed. Wherein, the role of slavery in the civil war was minimized, and slavery was held as a kind and generous practice. Wherein, the north was demonized compared to the righteous south. WHo tried to steal the south's good and holy way of life in the name of greed.

Let me be blunt: This stuff is revisionism. This stuff is why we, down here, celebrate "Robert E. Lee/Martin Luther King Day" instead of MLK day. (Arizona celebrates MLK/Civil Rights day, for contrast). This stuff is taught in schools, in *textbooks* and explains an awful lot of recent and current events. The libraries, for a time, would deny people access to books with 'pro-north' text.

They controlled what people could get access to.

And this, ultimately comes full circle, doesn't it?

When you let people decide what you can or can't have access to, you let them control what you know. You let them give you facts. You let them create their own truths.


20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
Oh lordy lord, the big orange meanie and pajeet are goins to sentsore my interweb.

Come on guys, just look at who wants to keep Net Neutrality. We have a lot of liberals, liberal news outlets, liberal foundations, Commiefornia based tech firms and Google.

So what do we know about the people at Google?
-They're pro political correctness.
-They're pro censorship.
-They're basically anti first amendment.

Fuck Google

So Google and liberals are suppose to keep the internet from being censored? That's the most retarded thing I ever heard in my life. The only thing that is going to happen, is Obama's EO will be repealed. The EO was passed just to help Commiefornia based tech firms like Facebook, Netflix and Google/Youtube. These companies send a shitload of information and the ISP's can barely keep up. More money needs to be invested in the ISP's infrastructure and the tech companies just don't want to pay for the massive amount of data they send. It's literally all about money.


SnowWolf said:

But what fewer people know about is the "Lost Cause"... Wherein, the heroic struggle of the confederacy is endorsed. Wherein, the role of slavery in the civil war was minimized, and slavery was held as a kind and generous practice. Wherein, the north was demonized compared to the righteous south. WHo tried to steal the south's good and holy way of life in the name of greed.

Both sides demonized each over and romanticized certain aspects of the war.

Let me be blunt: This stuff is revisionism.

So is saying the war was just fought over ending slavery. It was really over state rights. Yes, slavery was one of those rights but it doesn't detract from the fact the southern people felt like they're rights were being abused by the North. This is one of the reasons why alot of American people(not just southerners) still fly the Confederate flag. It's used as a symbol of rebelling against oppression and not letting no god damn yank how to live your life. That and its our heritage.

This stuff is why we, down here, celebrate "Robert E. Lee/Martin Luther King Day" instead of MLK day.

I'm from the west coast and that's how I celebrate it.
>Arizona celebrates MLK/Civil Rights day, for contrast
:(

This stuff is taught in schools, in *textbooks* and explains an awful lot of recent and current events. The libraries, for a time, would deny people access to books with 'pro-north' text.

They controlled what people could get access to.

And this, ultimately comes full circle, doesn't it?

When you let people decide what you can or can't have access to, you let them control what you know. You let them give you facts. You let them create their own truths.

I'm sorry you were brainwashed into feeling guilt over your ancestry/heritage but it doesn't mean you should only want a leftist revision of history taught to brainwash other people.


ThoughtCrime said:
Both sides demonized each over and romanticized certain aspects of the war.

This is truth in any war.

This next quote is from a bit further down in your post, but it's a faster bit to reply to:

I'm from the west coast and that's how I celebrate it.
>Arizona celebrates MLK/Civil Rights day, for contrast
:(

For one.. why is 'civil rights' day a frowny face? Like, I'm trying really hard to think about why celebrating equality is a bad thing. Especially on a day dedicated to a man who tried to bring that equality to reality.

For two...

No you don't. At least, not at a State level. Alabama and Mississippi are the only places that do Lee/King Day. Virginia did Lee-Jackson-King day, until Lee-Jackson day was moved in 2000. Arkansas had King/Lee, until they moved Lee day. Everywhere else does King day, except arizona and New Hampshire, which also celebrates civil rights. (NH actually celebrated Idaho recognizes Human Rights. Everywhere else celebrates King day.

That said, You may, of course, celebrate Robert E. Lee's birthday on your own.

So is saying the war was just fought over ending slavery. It was really over state rights. Yes, slavery was one of those rights but it doesn't detract from the fact the southern people felt like they're rights were being abused by the North. This is one of the reasons why alot of American people(not just southerners) still fly the Confederate flag. It's used as a symbol of rebelling against oppression and not letting no god damn yank how to live your life. That and its our heritage.

I'm sorry you were brainwashed into feeling guilt over your ancestry/heritage but it doesn't mean you should only want a leftist revision of history taught to brainwash other people.

It's not my heritage. I'm not from 'these parts'. I come from rather far away and the closest *my* ancestry comes from is Maryland, and quite bluntly, that half of my family's never cared much about me. I grew up in Hawaii. These are not my people.

But I mean, I guess you know better than I do? I mean, I'm only married to a history major, who has extensively studied the topic and came to the conclusion that what he was taught by his family, favorite teachers, and local society was wrong. *shrug* I don't guess his masters degree means much. I'm sure I just have misunderstood our long, extensive conversations about the matter. The civil war wasn't really emphasized much over in Hawaii, you see. While he was learning about the civil war, I was learning about the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and how we became an American Territory. But, ffft. What do I know?


ThoughtCrime said:
Come on guys, just look at who wants to keep Net Neutrality. We have a lot of liberals, liberal news outlets, liberal foundations, Commiefornia based tech firms and Google.

So what do we know about the people at Google?
-They're pro political correctness.
-They're pro censorship.
-They're basically anti first amendment.

Fuck Google

So Google and liberals are suppose to keep the internet from being censored? That's the most retarded thing I ever heard in my life. The only thing that is going to happen, is Obama's EO will be repealed. The EO was passed just to help Commiefornia based tech firms like Facebook, Netflix and Google/Youtube. These companies send a shitload of information and the ISP's can barely keep up. More money needs to be invested in the ISP's infrastructure and the tech companies just don't want to pay for the massive amount of data they send. It's literally all about money.

Finally! Somebody with actual common sense in this thread! I've feel like i'm the few people in this thread who actually supports this repeal to Net Neutrality, in fact, i'm pretty excited about this move.

I Just like how liberals think that this move will "censor there beliefs" when, in fact Net Neutrality Gave the free pass for the Major Social Media sites to censor conservative belief, causing the internet to go a downward spiral of Mass ecochambers and "don't trigger muh feefees!" and any of that SJW bullshit. Net Neutrality is the MOST anti-free speech policy you can have on the internet.

And i just laugh when these liberals claim they are for internet free speech when we have seen TIME and TIME again that SJWs and feminazis have the WORST track record of internet free speech. But they'll totality allow racism against whites and sexism against males. Nope! That's totally fine for them.

If it wasn't for Net Neutrality, SJWs wouldn't been able to do the shit that they've done, with Gamergate and the likes. Getting ride of Net Neutrality will help bring back REAL internet free speech! Trump seems to be the only person that has a his head screwed on correctly on this issue. I'm so excited that we no longer have to deal with those SJWs and those AntiFa on the internet soon. It's about time!

Maybe Trump can apply this FCC policy on the "mainstream Media" too, that would also be great. Until then, i'll be happy that this Finally happen. I don't care that anybody else says this will be terrible, they're probably just another SJW sympathizers anyways.


404OilDrum said:
Finally! Somebody with actual common sense in this thread!

That's funny, they only make sense if they're a Trump supporter like you. So, you don't support Net Neutrality only because liberals support it? That is the most idiotic and petty reason I've seen yet. What's with you and your party's obsession with liberals? You'd rather let the burn instead of helping it just to spite liberals. Pathetic.


404OilDrum said:
Finally! Somebody with actual common sense in this thread! I've feel like i'm the few people in this thread who actually supports this repeal to Net Neutrality, in fact, i'm pretty excited about this move.

I Just like how liberals think that this move will "censor there beliefs" when, in fact Net Neutrality Gave the free pass for the Major Social Media sites to censor conservative belief, causing the internet to go a downward spiral of Mass ecochambers and "don't trigger muh feefees!" and any of that SJW bullshit. Net Neutrality is the MOST anti-free speech policy you can have on the internet.

And i just laugh when these liberals claim they are for internet free speech when we have seen TIME and TIME again that SJWs and feminazis have the WORST track record of internet free speech. But they'll totality allow racism against whites and sexism against males. Nope! That's totally fine for them.

If it wasn't for Net Neutrality, SJWs wouldn't been able to do the shit that they've done, with Gamergate and the likes. Getting ride of Net Neutrality will help bring back REAL internet free speech! Trump seems to be the only person that has a his head screwed on correctly on this issue. I'm so excited that we no longer have to deal with those SJWs and those AntiFa on the internet soon. It's about time!

First off you do not have to be a liberal to oppose a repeal, people among both sides of the aisle and foreigners are opposing or critizing the rehashed move by republican leadership in repealing NN.

I also find it ironic that you say social media censors thru NN when in fact the freedom allowed thru NN is exsactly what trump benefited from when he campaigned for president, the thru NN unregulated social media you criticize is what got trump his electoral followers and popularity, in a time of polarized liberal and conservative news media...


Waba said:
That's funny, they only make sense if they're a Trump supporter like you. So, you don't support Net Neutrality only because liberals support it? That is the most idiotic and petty reason I've seen yet. What's with you and your party's obsession with liberals? You'd rather let the burn instead of helping it just to spite liberals. Pathetic.

Before you go and start calling conservatives "idiot", "petty", and "pathetic", i want you to answer me these questions:

Who wants to censor free speech in the name of "political correctness"?
Who keeps making the rhetoric that whites are "racist" and that males are "rapist" when they say something they disagree with?
Who Has been basically letting in terrorist in to fight against "islamaphobia"?
Who has been making the rhetoric that one should be punished if they assumed somebodies gender?
Who has been making laws that have discriminate males and whites? and the like?
Who has been demonizing gamers and youtubers as "bigots"?
Who has been accusing people of being "nazis" and "rapist" when they say something they don't agree with?
Who has Been making the rhetoric calling for violence against certain groups of people for being "Bigots"?
Who has been cleansing their history and demonizing their own country?
Who hasn't been paying interest in the working class?
Who has been spreading lies throughout media?
Who has been making the YouTube demonetizations?
Who has demonized christmas?
Who has made a picture of Trumps disembodies head?
Who has called Trumps YOUNGEST son: "a future mass shooter"?
Who has demoralized a person for wearing a shirt?
Who has made a bad reboot movie in the name of "feminism"?
WHO has basically broken the law in the State Department? (you SHOULD know this one)

I know that's a lot of questions, but if your answer isn't "Liberals" then i got bad news for you...

BlueDingo
Privileged
6 months ago
2013 5_fingers abs anthro athletic canine claws collarbone cute dingo front_view fur gloves_(marking) half-length_portrait holding_arm imiak inner_ear_fluff looking_at_viewer male mammal markings navel nipples nude peachez pecs pink_eyes pink_fur pink_nose portrait pose shy solo tan_fur v-cut

Rating: Safe
Score: 36
User: flux_capacitor
Date: March 02, 2013

404OilDrum said:
WHO has basically broken the law in the State Department? (you SHOULD know this one)

This is the only entry in that list I'm not familiar with. Can you provide a link?


404OilDrum said:
If it wasn't for Net Neutrality, SJWs wouldn't been able to do the shit that they've done, with Gamergate and the likes.

So you agree that if it wasn’t for NN then free speech would be squashed.

Thank you for establishing that, lol.

PS. I’m not an SJW, but free speech is free speech no matter whose mouth is making the speech.


Crazyc011 said:
So you agree that if it wasn’t for NN then free speech would be squashed.

Thank you for establishing that, lol.

PS. I’m not an SJW, but free speech is free speech no matter whose mouth is making the speech.

Your not a SJW? Earlier in this thread you called yourself a "poor liberal sap", while victimizing yourself in the process.

You can laugh all you want, but it won't change the FACTS. Facts are facts, regardless if it's "politically incorrect".

BlueDingo
Privileged
6 months ago
2013 5_fingers abs anthro athletic canine claws collarbone cute dingo front_view fur gloves_(marking) half-length_portrait holding_arm imiak inner_ear_fluff looking_at_viewer male mammal markings navel nipples nude peachez pecs pink_eyes pink_fur pink_nose portrait pose shy solo tan_fur v-cut

Rating: Safe
Score: 36
User: flux_capacitor
Date: March 02, 2013

404OilDrum said:
Your not a SJW? Earlier in this thread you called yourself a "poor liberal sap", while victimizing yourself in the process.

Not all liberals are SJWs.


404OilDrum said:
Finally! Somebody with actual common sense in this thread!

Is that what that nonsense was? Huh, guess I didn't get the memo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I've feel like i'm the few people in this thread who actually supports this repeal to Net Neutrality, in fact, i'm pretty excited about this move.

Yes. Yes you are one of the very few right-ists who are pushing for this political takeover machine of a repeal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I Just like how liberals think that this move will "censor there beliefs" when, in fact Net Neutrality Gave the free pass for the Major Social Media sites to censor conservative belief, causing the internet to go a downward spiral of Mass ecochambers and "don't trigger muh feefees!" and any of that SJW bullshit. Net Neutrality is the MOST anti-free speech policy you can have on the internet.

I don't think you understand what net neutrality truly is... For your records, here it is, directly from the man who coined the term.

Tim Wu, Columbia University media law professor said:
The basic principle behind a network anti-discrimination regime is to give users the right to use non-harmful network attachments or applications, and give innovators the corresponding freedom to supply them... Basic economic theory suggests that operators have a long-term interest coincident with the public: both should want a neutral platform that supports the emergence of the very best applications. However the evidence suggests the operators may have paid less attention to their long-term interests than might be ideal... The argument for network neutrality must be understood as a concrete expression of a system of belief about innovation, one that has gained significant popularity over last two decades.

Oh, and about that gripe about Liberals? ("don't trigger muh feefees!")

First Amendment said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In short, people are allowed to say whatever they want. Oh, and also...

Facebook Community Standards said:
To help balance the needs, safety, and interests of a diverse community, however, we may remove certain kinds of sensitive content or limit the audience that sees it.

Can't have everyone who hates Muslims jumping on Facebook to plot their next attack of a Mosque, and before you say that's an extreme example, people have found worse excuses to commit horrendous acts of terrorism .

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And i just laugh when these liberals claim they are for internet free speech when we have seen TIME and TIME again that SJWs and feminazis have the WORST track record of internet free speech. But they'll totality allow racism against whites and sexism against males. Nope! That's totally fine for them.

And I just laugh when conservatives automatically think that because a liberal attempts to advocate for equal civil rights that they're a far-left feminist who wants to enslave men , or a whiny let's-hold-hands-and-cry-in-the-middle-of-the-freeway SJW . Are there people out there that fit into those categories? Sure. But you should be going after them, not this law that protects the interests of the American public.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

If it wasn't for Net Neutrality, SJWs wouldn't been able to do the shit that they've done, with Gamergate and the likes.

Gamergate controversy said:
Beginning in August 2014, supporters of the Gamergate movement targeted several women in the video game industry, including game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, as well as feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian. After Eron Gjoni, Quinn's former boyfriend, wrote a disparaging blog post about her, #gamergate hashtag users falsely accused Quinn of an unethical relationship with journalist Nathan Grayson. Harassment campaigns against Quinn and others included doxing, threats of rape, and death threats. Gamergate supporters claimed unethical collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics. These concerns have been dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics.

I'm guessing you're falling into that group of people who don't want to believe that anything happened, but let's not get too far into that topic. That topic was very controversial from the word go.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Getting ride of Net Neutrality will help bring back REAL internet free speech! Trump seems to be the only person that has a his head screwed on correctly on this issue. I'm so excited that we no longer have to deal with those SJWs and those AntiFa on the internet soon. It's about time!

Getting ride of Net Neutrality will help bring back REAL internet free speech!

...we no longer have to deal with those SJWs and those AntiFa on the internet soon.

...will help bring back REAL internet free speech!

...we no longer have to deal with...

You see where I'm going with this, right?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe Trump can apply this FCC policy on the "mainstream Media" too, that would also be great.

Censorship in Germany, section Nazi Germany (1933–1945) said:
The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information... Hitler outlined his theory of propaganda and censorship in Mein Kampf.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Until then, i'll be happy that this Finally happen. I don't care that anybody else says this will be terrible, they're probably just another SJW sympathizers anyways.

Yep, I totally didn't present two articles that make both extreme feminists and SJWs look awful. I'm totally a SJW Sympathizer. \s

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Whew... that was a lot of debunking... I need something to drink. brb.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

404OilDrum said:
Before you go and start calling conservatives "idiot", "petty", and "pathetic", i want you to answer me these questions:

With pleasure.

Who wants to censor free speech in the name of "political correctness"?

Extreme feminists and SJWs who contradict themselves on a daily basis, and don't represent the liberal community as a whole.

Who keeps making the rhetoric that whites are "racist" and that males are "rapist" when they say something they disagree with?

Extreme feminists who contradict themselves on a daily basis, and don't represent the liberal community as a whole.

Who Has been basically letting in terrorist in to fight against "islamaphobia"?

Apparently the FAA for not checking every Islamic person's ID to see if they have a "Terrorist" sticker on it. Oh wait. That doesn't exist.

Who has been making the rhetoric that one should be punished if they assumed somebodies gender?

Extreme feminists who contradict themselves on a daily basis, and don't represent the liberal community as a whole.

Who has been making laws that have discriminate males and whites? and the like?

... what? A little context would be appreciated.

Who has been demonizing gamers and youtubers as "bigots"?

Other gamers and YouTubers.

Who has been accusing people of being "nazis" and "rapist" when they say something they don't agree with?

Extreme feminists who contradict themselves on a daily basis, and don't represent the liberal community as a whole.

Who has Been making the rhetoric calling for violence against certain groups of people for being "Bigots"?

Extreme feminists and SJWs who contradict themselves on a daily basis, and don't represent the liberal community as a whole.

Who has been cleansing their history and demonizing their own country?

Cleansing? People who would rather not remember what awful things that our country has done to people. Demonizing? Anyone who aren't wearing their rose-tinted glasses.

Who hasn't been paying interest in the working class?

How long before the white working class realizes Trump was just scamming them? said:
During the campaign, Trump made two kinds of promises to those white working class voters. One was very practical, focused on economics. In coal country, he said he’d bring back all the coal jobs that have been lost to cheap natural gas (even as he promotes more fracking of natural gas; figure that one out). In the industrial Midwest, he said he’d bring back all the labor-intensive factory jobs that were mostly lost to automation, not trade deals. These promises were utterly ludicrous, but most of the target voters seemed not to care.

Not technically an answer, as I don't have one, but more of a rebuttal.

Who has been spreading lies throughout media?

Both sides of the political spectrum.

Who has been making the YouTube demonetizations?

YouTube.com and corporations who don't want their content shown on "non-ad-friendly" (yeah, bullshit) videos.

Who has demonized christmas?

Athiests

Who has made a picture of Trumps disembodies head?

Kathy Griffin, who I want to point out that she no longer sorry for posing with it.

Who has called Trumps YOUNGEST son: "a future mass shooter"?

Katie Mary Rich, a Comedian for Saturday Night Live.

Who has demoralized a person for wearing a shirt?

Extreme SJWs who contradict themselves on a daily basis, and don't represent the liberal community as a whole, and if you're getting demoralized from somebody crying at you for wearing a shirt, then your belief in the talking Cheeto must not be that strong. My belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all his holy appendages is stronger than that.

Who has made a bad reboot movie in the name of "feminism"?

That's subjective, but let's just play along.
Feminists who don't represent the liberal community as a whole.

WHO has basically broken the law in the State Department? (you SHOULD know this one)

You want me to say Senator and Former First Lady Hillary Clinton, right? Okay, I'll give you that.
Hillary Clinton, who has made no open statements about the Net Neutrality repeal motion, and has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the first amendment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I know that's a lot of questions, but if your answer isn't "Liberals" then i got bad news for you...

If your answer isn't "Liberals" for every answer, then I got good news for you: you know how to use the internet to look up facts.

404OilDrum said:
...You can laugh all you want, but it won't change the FACTS. Facts are facts, regardless if it's "politically incorrect".

Huh. You claim that your false truths are "facts", but then choose not to provide any kind of proof. Did someone say fake news?


404OilDrum said:
I know that's a lot of questions, but if your answer isn't "Liberals" then i got bad news for you...

Except answering "liberals" to all of those questions would be incorrect. If you truly believe that all liberals think the same, act the same, and do the same things, then I got bad news for you...


The real question is, why does the current government support this idea?

It's visible within the news networks. Trump supporters own some of them (and buy more media companies recently), while the president demonizes more critical journalism. Now imagine what would happen when the net neutrality isn't given any more. Companies close to Trump could decide which content is available for most people.

Want to get news from fox.com? - It comes with the cheapest package
Want to get CNN news? - Oh, the premium pack contains it, and only costs additional 15$
(I think you get the idea)

For me this looks like an attempt to destabilize the two party dictatorship democratic processes within the USA.

1)Journalists get muted and demonized
2)Media networks are brought on line with the govermental believes
3)The public gets cut from unwanted informations

As german, some sentences come to my mind
-The NSDAP from 1933 called, they want their methods back
-Orwell was wrong, he was 33 years too early with his prediction
-What does the president say to the republican ISPs? "You keep them stupid and I keep them poor"

I know most of this is over the top, but thinking about this for a moment can't hurt either

▼ Answers to previous posts

fox_whisper85 said:
Do you think those in power will listen to us?

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

When the ACTA law got leaked, people in all over Europe went on the streets - and this protest caused the canceling of it.
_______

ThoughtCrime said:
Come on guys, just look at who wants to keep Net Neutrality. We have a lot of liberals, liberal news outlets, liberal foundations, Commiefornia based tech firms and Google.

Then let us ask some questions the other way around - why do republicans want to get rid of it?

So what do we know about the people at Google?
-They're pro political correctness.
-They're pro censorship.
-They're basically anti first amendment.

Fuck Google

So you complain about censorship. Let us assume for a moment that major providers would be all run by Trump close persons in a state without Net Neutrality (or just take a look at Turkey)- basically any other opinion can be pushed aside through connection limits, higher prices, etc.

So Google and liberals are suppose to keep the internet from being censored? That's the most retarded thing I ever heard in my life. The only thing that is going to happen, is Obama's EO will be repealed. The EO was passed just to help Commiefornia based tech firms like Facebook, Netflix and Google/Youtube.

Net Neutrality is kept by the goverment in Washington D.C. through laws.
Also what is this "Commiefornia" thing? Some kind of patriotic phrase? The idea of communism isn't bad at all, the execution of it mostly fails at the evelutionary human hierarchy structure. (More like a wolfpack than an anthill → The Milgram experiment shows this quite good or read "Animal Farm" from George Orwell). It's always good to make an opinion based on as many aspects as posible before prejudging something.

These companies send a shitload of information and the ISP's can barely keep up. More money needs to be invested in the ISP's infrastructure and the tech companies just don't want to pay for the massive amount of data they send. It's literally all about money.

It's an economical cycle between ISPs and the companies - Without conntent (from the companies) there wouldn't be a reason to get into the internet for many people, while without connection (provided by the ISP) the companies couldn't deliver their services.

And sure, building a better network costs money, that's how an economy works. Profit needs always an investment before (maybe also with funds from the goverment). One of the problems the USA stumbles over is the fact that way more money get send to the military rather than civilian infrastructure.
________

404OilDrum said:

I Just like how liberals think that this move will "censor there beliefs" when, in fact Net Neutrality Gave the free pass for the Major Social Media sites to censor conservative belief, causing the internet to go a downward spiral of Mass ecochambers and "don't trigger muh feefees!" and any of that SJW bullshit. Net Neutrality is the MOST anti-free speech policy you can have on the internet.

As previous answers show, I'm not the only one seeing a paradox in this statement.
Saying that "Major Social Media sites censor conservative belief", only to demand a way to shut the mouths of people who use the right that you try to accomplish. (I hope I got that right)

And i just laugh when these liberals claim they are for internet free speech when we have seen TIME and TIME again that SJWs and feminazis have the WORST track record of internet free speech. But they'll totality allow racism against whites and sexism against males. Nope! That's totally fine for them.

And what keeps you from calling this out or share your opinion on the internet? That's what a free internet is for, they can shout out their (mostly stupid) arguments why you could also say your opinion ← actual internet free speech right.

If it wasn't for Net Neutrality, SJWs wouldn't been able to do the shit that they've done, with Gamergate and the likes. Getting ride of Net Neutrality will help bring back REAL internet free speech! Trump seems to be the only person that has a his head screwed on correctly on this issue. I'm so excited that we no longer have to deal with those SJWs and those AntiFa on the internet soon. It's about time!

Maybe Trump can apply this FCC policy on the "mainstream Media" too, that would also be great. Until then, i'll be happy that this Finally happen. I don't care that anybody else says this will be terrible, they're probably just another SJW sympathizers anyways.

So let me line this up:
You are against censorship
You want SJWs and feminists to be censored and support a law that would help Trump to supress unwanted journalism

Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

404OilDrum said:
You can laugh all you want, but it won't change the FACTS. Facts are facts, regardless if it's "politically incorrect".

I didn't see any facts, just a rage post against SWJ and feminists. "Alternative facts" also wouldn't fall under the definition of being facts.


WOW. It's actually sad that so many people are so upset that we're actually bringing back freedom for ONCE. Let me respond to this one by one. Massive TL:DR ahead.

Faux-Pa: "Yes. Yes you are one of the very few right-ists who are pushing for this political takeover machine of a repeal."

Okay, so making sure that social media leaders don't abuse their powers to censor conservative beliefs and giving a free pass for liberals to call for violance and reverse bigotry, as well as the ability to advertise liberal propaganda is a "political takeover machine of a repeal". I'll add that to the "communist manifesto" list then... There's also a point worth noting, you calling me the "few right-ist", i believe the term you're looking for is "Alt-Righter" because as you know, the republican party is mainly being run by Neocons, we call them "Cuckservatives", who are basically SJW enablers, we call it "the establishment". We already have like 5 Rep senators you are revolting against Trump and the people. I got the feeling that those senators will vote against this repeal.

I also know exactly what NN is: it's just one of many SJW policies being introduced over the years that continue to drive our society closer and closer to "1984". I certainly don't want my only beverage be "Victory Gin", and i don't think you do too. Do you?

Faux-Paw: *quotes the first amendment*

You keep quoting it, but i don't think you know what it means, because if you think that literally only congress can't censor speech, i would be surprised that we aren't already in an orwellian society already, because that would mean bodies like the president and the executives branch, the courts, the states and local governments can easily censor speech just fine, as well as the press, the military, entertainment media, groups of people, religons, social media and businesses and corporations, which you claim would be able to censor liberals if NN is repealed. Obviously, the first amendment doesn't just literally mean: "Only congress can't, but everybody else can!"

Faux-Pax: *quotes Facebooks community standards*

Do you seriously think that FaceBooks rules, or any social medias rules for that matter, be constitutional? If the Supreme Court wasn't run by SJWs, they would've overturn those rules on day one.

Faux-Pax: "Can't have everyone who hates Muslims jumping on Facebook to plot their next attack of a Mosque."

Really? Of all the groups to victimize, you chose Muslims? Let me ask you this: Are there whole armies of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of "christian extremist" committing terrorism? And no, "what about the KKK" is not an answer, ISIS and the likes DWARFS anything the KKK and the likes could ever pull out, and i'm not talking about "then", i'm talking about the "NOW". (In case your still not convinced, go and take a look at lower Manhattan: do you still see two towers standing there? Didn't think so.) If you're about to say: "Not all Muslims are terrorists." well then, why don't you take a good read of the Qurun. It doesn't exactly promote "liberal principles" now does it?

Oh, and somebody with mental illness is TOTALLY a great example!

Faux-Paw: "And I just laugh when conservatives automatically think that because a liberal attempts to advocate for equal civil rights that they're a far-left feminist who wants to enslave men , or a whiny let's-hold-hands-and-cry-in-the-middle-of-the-freeway SJW."

Apparently, "civil rights" and "equality" means causing choas, destroying property, punching people and calling for violence in order to achieve said "equality", as well as demonizing the police via race baiting and divding the nation on race and "gender pronouns", and demoralizing those they think are against said "equality", thus giving a free pass for reverse bigotry... Not exactly the "equality" and "civils rights" that people like MLK were thinking of. (Although recently we found out that people like MLK in history are not exactly as they seem.)

Faux-Paw: *quotes GamerGate article*

Seriously??? Do you really believe what those Anti-GG articles have to say? *sigh* Firstly: Quinn, Wu, Anita, were all caught sending fake harassment posts to them self's. Secondly: We know that "Gaming journelism" is biased in favor of Feminazism. Thirdly: We found out via leak that Anita doesn't even like video games. Fourthly: Pro-GamerGaters are the people ACTUALLY receiving harassment from Anti-GamerGaters. Fifthly: Anti-GGs want to destroy the gaming community with political correctness, Pro-GGs want to SAVE the gaming community from Political correctness. It's called FACTS.

Faux-Paw: *accuses me of hypocrisy*

I've just explain that repealing NN will help prevent the people running sociel media and SJWs to censor free speech via the internet. I've also explained that it will help prevent SJWs from spreading reverse bigotry via the internet.

Faux-Paw: *godwins law*

You know, the Mainstream Media doesn't have "protective privilege" from the first amendment, they can be sued or even jailed for libel and the likes. And a democracy don't have news that spreads propaganda. Yes, that Russia story is NOTHING but a conspiracy theory told by the major media, no different than the "grassy knoll shooter" idea or "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" idea and the likes.

Faux-Paw: "... what? A little context would be appreciated."

We've all heard the stories of SJWs proposing and passing laws that censor free speech and laws that discriminate males and whites. Somethings that the media doesn't cover intentionally.

Faux-Paw: "Other gamers and YouTubers."

The Youtuber you linked doesn't seem like a bigot to me, he just posts video pointing out the SJW stupidity going on, you know, more FACTS. I'm also talking about YouTubers who have been wrongfully demonized, like PewDiePie and JonTron, they were also just pointing out FACTS.

Faux-Paw: "Cleansing? People who would rather not remember what awful things that our country has done to people. Demonizing?"

Liberals who want to take down statues of are generals and want to change history to demonize whites and males, even asking whites tp pay for their ancestors. Liberals Who demonize america and american patriotism. It seems like we're not aloud to be proud of are own country anymore. Liberals also do this in Europe too.

Faux-Paw: *Links from the fake news washington post bashing trump*

Also typical. The media doesn't report on the great job Trump has done with the economy. Jobs have been created, unemployment is at a record low point in 20 years, wages are up, our stock markup is at a record high in also 20 years, and our dept is starting to drop. We recently just caught the washington post faking rape allegations against Roy Moore. The very definition of yellow journalism.

Faux-Paw: "Both sides of the political spectrum."

Not at all. Again, we've seen time and time again that liberals have the WORST record on truth. It's as if truth has become partisan.

Faux-Paw: "YouTube.com and corporations who don't want their content shown on "non-ad-friendly" (yeah, bullshit) videos."

So somebody making a "politically incorrect" joke should have money stripped from their job is "perfectly reasonable." *sigh*

Faux-Paw: "Kathy Griffin, Katie Mary Rish."

Those are the only two answers you got correct.

Faux-Paw: "That's subjective, but let's just play along."

Dodging the content of the movie. Very Typical.

Faux-Paw: "You want me to say Senator and Former First Lady Hillary Clinton, right? Okay, I'll give you that.
Hillary Clinton, who has made no open statements about the Net Neutrality repeal motion, and has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the first amendment."

I was making an example when Waba accused conservatives of being "idiot", "petty" and "pathetic". I'm pretty sure conservatives wouldn't abuse their power in the State Department.

Faux-Paw: "Not all liberals are SJWs. I'm not an SJW."
Waba: "Except answering "liberals" to all of those questions would be incorrect. If you truly believe that all liberals think the same, act the same, and do the same things, then I got bad news for you..."

I see all the time that liberals that the term "SJW" as an "overused term", and an "over used argument", when i have yet to see any other liberal condemn any SJW and their activities and policies. CurentYear Oliver used Anita as an example of "cyberbulling" while also saying that "cyberbulling" only affects women. (Pretty much leaving people like furries in the dirt.) Samantha Bee blamed all white people for Trumps victory. It was also liberal politicians who proposed "liberal arts studies" in the first place. A liberal may say there're not an SJW, but the instant somebody says "there are only two genders" they'll immediately get triggered.

Faux-Paw: "Huh. You claim that your false truths are "facts", but then choose not to provide any kind of proof. Did someone say fake news?"
D4rk: "I didn't see any facts, just a rage post against SWJ and feminists. "Alternative facts" also wouldn't fall under the definition of being facts."

It's a sad time when the Mainstream Media, Historians, Hollywood, experts, professors, Wikis, dictionaries, and "intellectuals" have constantly told us lies, telling us the truth are lies, and the lies are the truth. At this point "alternative facts" are the actual facts. The Media telling us that Breitbart and InfoWars are the "fake news", and that their lies are the truth. As their saying goes: "WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Holy hell, i've been writing this for who knows how long their may have been other posts since i've started this, but i wasn't expecting so many people would be upset that we're going to have free speech back on the internet again. It's so sad in fact, as Trump would say.


Yeah, I have a feeling that someone here is ban-evading, but anyway, I find it hilarious the alt right would oppose NN. Your 'movement' isn't as mainstream as you think it is. Nobody wants you around. Even reddit cracked down on your asses. What makes you think that ISPs aren't going to limit access to alt-right bullshit, especially when they're going to be desperate for some good pr? You're getting played like a cheap kazoo, but I have a feeling it's going to take ISPs going "See, repealing NN was GOOD because we can block alt-right websites!" to make you see it.


I see all the time that liberals that the term "SJW" as an "overused term", and an "over used argument", when i have yet to see any other liberal condemn any SJW and their activities and policies.

I could say the same thing for the other side.

But if you want it, here you go:

I think it is horrible how the loudest, most extreme mouths are the ones that are used an an example of how all others of "that" are.

A rabid dog is not an example of all dogs.
A serial killer is not an example of all humans.
Movie Stars and models are not examples of what all people look like.
Far right extremists are not an example of what all conservatives are like.
Far left liberal extremists are not examples of what all liberals are like.
A murderer is not an example of what everyone of his/her race/religion are like.
A terrorist is not an example of what everyone of his/her race/religion are like.
A SJW is not an example of what everyone interested in social justice is like.
A Nazi is not an example of what everyone interested in strong borders is like.

Extremists, however, get news coverage. It's REALLY easy to say "look at what this one guy did!" and hold them up like an example of what everyone else 'over there' is like.

Everyone else says "no, really, that's not what we're like!" and generally... it goes unheard, because it's not "big news".. it's not exciting. It doesn't get people riled up and angry and afraid and hungry for more information.

I'm a liberal. I hate bullying and condemn anyone who bullies another. I condemn those who feel the only way to make everyone 'equal' is to degrade others. I condemn those who want to bring people down instead of lifting them up. I condemn those who say harsh words with the intent to harm another. I condemn those who marginalize other humans. I condemn extremist behaviors, on both sides.

I just want everyone to fucking get along, to care about each other and to help each other out, regardless of what they look like. I want people to judge each other based off of their actions, not the actions of unrelated strangers. Y'know?

Extremists of all sorts don't really like getting along with each other. They want to fight. With actions and words and thoughts. and this is true of ALL extremists. Including SJW, liberal extremists, far right extremists, nazis, and every other grouping of humanity out there.

So there. Good enough? Please don't lump us all in with the worse examples of 'our side'.

I promise, we've been fighting against SJW for ages.


regsmutt said:
Yeah, I have a feeling that someone here is ban-evading, but anyway, I find it hilarious the alt right would oppose NN. Your 'movement' isn't as mainstream as you think it is. Nobody wants you around. Even reddit cracked down on your asses. What makes you think that ISPs aren't going to limit access to alt-right bullshit, especially when they're going to be desperate for some good pr? You're getting played like a cheap kazoo, but I have a feeling it's going to take ISPs going "See, repealing NN was GOOD because we can block alt-right websites!" to make you see it.

If the Alt-Right is as fringe as you make it out to be, then why did the UK leave the EU? Why has populist parties have gained ground in many European countries? Why do the general public trust independent news more then mainstream news? Why do the general public believe that reverse bigotry has become a bigger problem then normal bigotry? Most importantly, why is Donald Trump president of the US right now? The statistics are not in your favor.

We were played a fool of a few weeks ago, when we lost elections, i was pretty beat about that, until this resent NN repeal proposal.

Also, nice Ad Hominem, I don't see what ban evading has anything to do with what we're talking about.


After more than a week of calling, I finally received two responses from my congressman and Senators.

The congressman and at least one senator claim to support net neutrality. The other one outright mirrored Ajit Pai's "it stifles innovation" claim.

Also interesting: One of the supporters is a righty.

BlueDingo
Privileged
6 months ago
2013 5_fingers abs anthro athletic canine claws collarbone cute dingo front_view fur gloves_(marking) half-length_portrait holding_arm imiak inner_ear_fluff looking_at_viewer male mammal markings navel nipples nude peachez pecs pink_eyes pink_fur pink_nose portrait pose shy solo tan_fur v-cut

Rating: Safe
Score: 36
User: flux_capacitor
Date: March 02, 2013

SnowWolf said:
I think it is horrible how the loudest, most extreme mouths are the ones that are used an an example of how all others of "that" are.

A rabid dog is not an example of all dogs.
A serial killer is not an example of all humans.
Movie Stars and models are not examples of what all people look like.
Far right extremists are not an example of what all conservatives are like.
Far left liberal extremists are not examples of what all liberals are like.
A murderer is not an example of what everyone of his/her race/religion are like.
A terrorist is not an example of what everyone of his/her race/religion are like.
A SJW is not an example of what everyone interested in social justice is like.
A Nazi is not an example of what everyone interested in strong borders is like.

Extremists, however, get news coverage. It's REALLY easy to say "look at what this one guy did!" and hold them up like an example of what everyone else 'over there' is like.

Everyone else says "no, really, that's not what we're like!" and generally... it goes unheard, because it's not "big news".. it's not exciting. It doesn't get people riled up and angry and afraid and hungry for more information.

The problem with vocal minorities in a nutshell.


404OilDrum said:
WOW. It's actually sad that so many people are so upset that we're actually bringing back freedom for ONCE. Let me respond to this one by one. Massive TL:DR ahead.

Whatever, here we go.

Faux-Pa: "Yes. Yes you are one of the very few right-ists who are pushing for this political takeover machine of a repeal."

Okay, so making sure that social media leaders don't abuse their powers to censor conservative beliefs and giving a free pass for liberals to call for violance and reverse bigotry, as well as the ability to advertise liberal propaganda is a "political takeover machine of a repeal". I'll add that to the "communist manifesto" list then... There's also a point worth noting, you calling me the "few right-ist", i believe the term you're looking for is "Alt-Righter" because as you know, the republican party is mainly being run by Neocons, we call them "C**kservatives", who are basically SJW enablers, we call it "the establishment". We already have like 5 Rep senators you are revolting against Trump and the people. I got the feeling that those senators will vote against this repeal.

I also know exactly what NN is: it's just one of many SJW policies being introduced over the years that continue to drive our society closer and closer to "1984". I certainly don't want my only beverage be "Victory Gin", and i don't think you do too. Do you?

That's cute. You're trying to demerit my post without any proof that what you're saying is even true. You keep saying that you know what Net Neutrality is, but you actually have no clue. Even as I give you an exact definition of what Net Neutrality is and why it's so important, you plug you ears and sing "Amazing Grace" at the top of your lungs. You then proceed to hide behind the fact that you're part of the political minority, essentially saying that I "hurt your fee-fees", and that "c**kservatives" are "SJW enablers". That's such a strong argument. \s

Also, I'm more of a tequila guy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faux-Paw: *quotes the first amendment*

You keep quoting it, but i don't think you know what it means, because if you think that literally only congress can't censor speech, i would be surprised that we aren't already in an orwellian society already, because that would mean bodies like the president and the executives branch, the courts, the states and local governments can easily censor speech just fine, as well as the press, the military, entertainment media, groups of people, religons, social media and businesses and corporations, which you claim would be able to censor liberals if NN is repealed. Obviously, the first amendment doesn't just literally mean: "Only congress can't, but everybody else can!"

I would draw you a flow chart to show you how ISPs would be able to take bribes from the "Alt-Right" to strategically mute any opposition online, but then I'd need scissors and crayons to make it have pop-ups and pictures.

Plus, even if Facebook were censoring conservatives like you claim they are, they are a private company. They are at no liberty to allow you to trapeze all over their website while making outrageous claims. That same logic would also apply here. E621 administration could totally remove this entire thread if they wanted and ban both of us (or reban, in your case).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faux-Pax: *quotes Facebooks community standards*

Do you seriously think that FaceBooks rules, or any social medias rules for that matter, be constitutional? If the Supreme Court wasn't run by SJWs, they would've overturn those rules on day one.

Like I just said, they are a private company. They are at no liberty to protect your rights. If that weren't the case, I would be able to sue Burger King because they fired me for no reason (which is a law here in Nevada; they don't have to give you a reason).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faux-Pax: "Can't have everyone who hates Muslims jumping on Facebook to plot their next attack of a Mosque."

Really? Of all the groups to victimize, you chose Muslims? Let me ask you this: Are there whole armies of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of "chris-

No, I'm not getting into that here. I'm not getting banned because you want to be a bigot.

Oh, and somebody with mental illness is TOTALLY a great example!

It is a great example! Thanks for agreeing! Anyone who's willing to go out and kill hundreds of people just for doing or believing something has a mental illness, but that doesn't excuse them from being commented on.

Faux-Paw: "And I just laugh when conservatives automatically think that because a liberal attempts to advocate for equal civil rights that they're a far-left feminist who wants to enslave men , or a whiny let's-hold-hands-and-cry-in-the-middle-of-the-freeway SJW."

Apparently, "civil rights" and "equality" means causing choas, destroying property, punching people and calling for violence in order to achieve said "equality", as well as demonizing the police via race baiting and divding the nation on race and "gender pronouns", and demoralizing those they think are against said "equality", thus giving a free pass for reverse bigotry... Not exactly the "equality" and "civils rights" that people like MLK were thinking of. (Although recently we found out that people like MLK in history are not exactly as they seem.)

And I guess being a member of the Alt-Right means being thieves and ex-patriots , vigilantes (video) , and racists . Again, \s if you couldn't tell

Like I said multiple times in my previous statement, the "femnazis" (as you call them) and the SJWs don't represent the Liberal party as a whole. Do you honestly think I would go out and destroy my town because the federal courts ruled against something I supported? Do you honestly think that I "hate" the police that protect me from getting attacked by tweakers at the city bus station? No, I don't, so stop generalizing us.

Faux-Paw: *quotes GamerGate article*

Seriously??? Do you really believe what those Anti-GG articles have to say? *sigh* Firstly: Quinn, Wu, Ani-

Blah blah fucking blah. You're attempting to roam away from the original argument for/against Net Neutrality. I'm not even going to spend the time of day debunking that spew of nonsense.

Faux-Paw: *accuses me of hypocrisy*

I've just explain that repealing NN will help prevent the people running sociel media and SJWs to censor free speech via the internet. I've also explained that it will help prevent SJWs from spreading reverse bigotry via the internet.

Nowhere in the repeal motion for Net Neutrality does it mention squashing the opinions and rights of anyone. It also doesn't detail any plan to "stop Facebook from censoring free speech"... even though they haven't been doing such a thing.

Faux-Paw: *godwins law*

You know, the Mainstream Media doesn't have "protective privilege" from the first amendment, they can be sued or even jailed for libel and the likes. And a democracy don't have news that spreads propaganda. Yes, that Russia story is NOTHING but a conspiracy theory told by th-

I had to cut you off after the Russia collusion part because you were attempting to go off topic again. For the third time now, they are a private company. They are at no liberty to protect your rights. I don't know how many times I have to say it.

Faux-Paw: "... what? A little context would be appreciated."

We've all heard the stories of SJWs proposing and passing laws that censor free speech and laws that discriminate males and whites. Somethings that the media doesn't cover intentionally.

I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence supporting your statement. That's what I meant by a little more context.

Faux-Paw: "Other gamers and YouTubers."

The Youtuber you linked doesn't seem like a bigot to me, he just posts video pointing out the SJW stupidity going on, you know, more FACTS. I'm also talking about YouTubers who have been wrongfully demonized, like PewDiePie and JonTron, they were also just pointing out FACTS.

Nobody gives a flying fuck about PewDiePie and JonTron. That's old news. They don't seem to be affected by that anymore, do they?
And I linked Raggs because of the stories he covers, and how moronic the people in those videos sound/are. I never implied that he was a bigot. Long-winded, more like it.

Faux-Paw: "Cleansing? People who would rather not remember what awful things that our country has done to people. Demonizing?"

Liberals who want to take down statues of are generals and want to change history to demonize whites and males, even asking whites tp pay for their ancestors. Liberals Who demonize america and american patriotism. It seems like we're not aloud to be proud of are own country anymore. Liberals also do this in Europe too.

rrrrrrr.... I don't know how many times I have to say this, but- you know what? I won't. It seems as if everything I'm saying is falling on either deaf or stubborn ears. Every time your generalize us or roam away from the original argument, I'll just post a random picture from what.

post #1376872

Faux-Paw: *Links from the fake news washington post bashing trump*

Also typical. The media doesn't report on the great job Trump has done with the economy. Jobs have been created, unemployment is at a record low point in 20 years, wages are up, our stock markup is at a record high in also 20 years, and our dept is starting to drop. We recently just caught the washington post faking rape allegations against Roy Moore. The very definition of yellow journalism.

post #1376872

Faux-Paw: "Both sides of the political spectrum."

Not at all. Again, we've seen time and time again that liberals have the WORST record on truth. It's as if truth has become partisan.

post #1344549

Faux-Paw: "YouTube.com and corporations who don't want their content shown on "non-ad-friendly" (yeah, bullshit) videos."

So somebody making a "politically incorrect" joke should have money stripped from their job is "perfectly reasonable." *sigh*

What? I never said that. I agree that YouTube is doing their users a disservice by putting this corporate censorship rule into effect. I think that one of very few things that we actually agree on.

Faux-Paw: "Kathy Griffin, Katie Mary Rish."

Those are the only two answers you got correct.

Oh, shut up. I said "Kathy Griffin, who I want to point out that she no longer sorry for posing with it.". Stop trying to mangle my words for your own amusement.

Faux-Paw: "That's subjective, but let's just play along."

Dodging the content of the movie. Very Typical.

post #1350312

Faux-Paw: "You want me to say Senator and Former First Lady Hillary Clinton, right? Okay, I'll give you that.
Hillary Clinton, who has made no open statements about the Net Neutrality repeal motion, and has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the first amendment."

I was making an example when Waba accused conservatives of being "idiot", "petty" and "pathetic". I'm pretty sure conservatives wouldn't abuse their power in the State Department.

Firstly, https://www.aclu.org/other/top-ten-abuses-power-911
Secondly, post #1315086

Faux-Paw: "Not all liberals are SJWs. I'm not an SJW."
Waba: "Except answering "liberals" to all of those questions would be incorrect. If you truly believe that all liberals think the same, act the same, and do the same things, then I got bad news for you..."

I see all the time that liberals that the term "SJW" as an "overused term", and an "over used argument", when i have yet to see any other liberal condemn any SJW and their activities and policies. CurentYear Oliver used Anita as an example of "cyberbulling" while also saying that "cyberbulling" only affects women. (Pretty much leaving people like furries in the dirt.) Samantha Bee blamed all white people for Trumps victory. It was also liberal politicians who proposed "liberal arts studies" in the first place. A liberal may say there're not an SJW, but the instant somebody says "there are only two genders" they'll immediately get triggered.

post #1283585

Faux-Paw: "Huh. You claim that your false truths are "facts", but then choose not to provide any kind of proof. Did someone say fake news?"
D4rk: "I didn't see any facts, just a rage post against SWJ and feminists. "Alternative facts" also wouldn't fall under the definition of being facts."

It's a sad time when the Mainstream Media, Historians, Hollywood, experts, professors, Wikis, dictionaries, and "intellectuals" have constantly told us lies, telling us the truth are lies, and the lies are the truth. At this point "alternative facts" are the actual facts. The Media telling us that Breitbart and InfoWars are the "fake news", and that their lies are the truth. As their saying goes: "WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Wow, that's a lot of alternative facts .
Also, post #1230294

Holy hell, i've been writing this for who knows how long their may have been other posts since i've started this, but i wasn't expecting so many people would be upset that we're going to have free speech back on the internet again. It's so sad in fact, as Trump would say.

Yeah, I've spent a lot of time on this as well. I'm pooped. I've been giving the most evidence to back up what I'm saying, and you've been going off on tangents about Muslims, GamerGate, SJWs and Feminists. This is going nowhere anytime soon, so can we just stop? If you have nothing worthwhile to provide to the argument, then please refrain. If you feel like starting a thread against Net Neutrality, then feel free.


BlueDingo said:
The problem with vocal minorities in a nutshell.

Err... There's nothing wrong with vocal minorities. There's something wrong with the vocal minorities that go about spreading their message in all the wrong ways, and the people on the other side of the argument who use them as an example to generalize the other side.

BlueDingo
Privileged
6 months ago
2013 5_fingers abs anthro athletic canine claws collarbone cute dingo front_view fur gloves_(marking) half-length_portrait holding_arm imiak inner_ear_fluff looking_at_viewer male mammal markings navel nipples nude peachez pecs pink_eyes pink_fur pink_nose portrait pose shy solo tan_fur v-cut

Rating: Safe
Score: 36
User: flux_capacitor
Date: March 02, 2013

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
Err... There's nothing wrong with vocal minorities. There's something wrong with the vocal minorities that go about spreading their message in all the wrong ways, and the people on the other side of the argument who use them as an example to generalize the other side.

That's kinda what I meant. It's the loud ones who get all the attention, and influence how the quiet ones are perceived. Most inaccurate stereotypes are a direct result of this.


D4rk said:
The real question is, why does the current government support this idea?

It's visible within the news networks. Trump supporters own some of them (and buy more media companies recently), while the president demonizes more critical journalism. Now imagine what would happen when the net neutrality isn't given any more. Companies close to Trump could decide which content is available for most people.

Just because Donny Two Scoops bashes on journalist for crappy reporting doesn't mean he's going to start having them censored. I think it's all over hyped bs to get the proles worked up. Like I mentioned before you have to look at the main groups that are talking about censorship. Then add Facebook and Google to the mix and you a bunch of groups that are pro-censorship claiming to be fighting against censorship. Not only is it hypocritical but it makes the claim seem insincere. Idk if people realize how ironic the whole situation is.

>Want to get news from fox.com? - It comes with the cheapest package.
That's still too much.
>Want to get CNN news? - Oh, the premium pack contains it, and only costs additional 15$
You gone too far Donny Two Scoops!!!!!!

For me this looks like an attempt to destabilize the two party dictatorship democratic processes within the USA.

1)Journalists get muted and demonized
2)Media networks are brought on line with the govermental believes
3)The public gets cut from unwanted informations

Donny Two Scoops is literally Orange Hitler, I guess that means CNN was right and we should stop calling them fake news.

I know most of this is over the top, but thinking about this for a moment can't hurt either
I'm usually a bit over the top and satirical myself.

>why do republicans want to get rid of it?
I wouldn't be surprised at to find that there some that have stock in the companies but like pajeet purposed it seems to bring in investors. It would be funny to see facebook and google take a hit. Also the liberal salt mining will be fantastic.

Verizon 5g will be coming out and stock is going up to.. If lowering taxes and repealing NN encourages people to invest in companies that are developing 5g technology(like Verizon), then I don't really see a problem with any of it. Atm, Verizon is the only company that can provide any real competition against AT&T and Comcast. Not only will it force those companies to develop 5g to stay competitive but it will help keep their prices in check too.

>Also what is this "Commiefornia" thing? Some kind of patriotic phrase?
Just making fun of California. All the stuff going on with antifa, feminazis and sjw's the whole "calling lefties commies meme" has became popular again.

It's an economical cycle between ISPs and the companies - Without conntent (from the companies) there wouldn't be a reason to get into the internet for many people, while without connection (provided by the ISP) the companies couldn't deliver their services.

You are right, they will have to come to a fair deal. I really doubt they will raise the price to much if at all(for consumers) people pay already pay alot and don't like the companies.

And sure, building a better network costs money, that's how an economy works. Profit needs always an investment before (maybe also with funds from the goverment). One of the problems the USA stumbles over is the fact that way more money get send to the military rather than civilian infrastructure.

Not only does the US invest a lot in the military but we way over pay for every thing too, its BS.


404OilDrum was convicted of thoughtcrimes.

F


404OilDrum was convicted of thoughtcrimes.

Esc > Load


I dunno what else I could add to this discussion, so the prosecution rests. The defense may call their next witness.


ThoughtCrime said:

404OilDrum was convicted of thoughtcrimes.

F

Is it really a thoughtcrime if the act of posting is bad, not the thinking?