stormthebeaches wrote: ↑
You should have stated that you don't think they should censor Tiananmen when TRR first brought it up to avoid confusion. And I don't think anyone complaining about Russian meddling is calling for a ban on Facebook (in this thread at least).
It came up as the logical consequence if Facebook cannot be regulated by countries which aren't America, before that discussion petered out. Did you read the thread? Oh wait.
I was objecting to your claim that "the left" is in favour of America intervening in other countries and using Rachel Maddow is an example. Do you have any hard evidence that more members of "the left" are in favour of foreign intervention than opposed? Some polls perhaps?
Firstly, the original post was referring to Leftist who were complaining about Russiagate eg Maddow as one. So I am talking about Leftists who subscribe to Russiagate and who either favour intervention or turn a blind eye when its done to someone else would be hypocritical. As I said, if you're on the left and don't subscribe to Russiagate, you won't be hypocritical or if you don't believe in doing the same intervention, then you won't.
Are they objecting to countries that censor Facebook, or countries that ban it. And are all the people who complain about Russian interference calling for censorship/a ban on Facebook? Or are they calling for Facebook to flag certain content (while still letting people read it).
So you want me to list views of every Leftist on Facebook, when you don't want to talk about Facebook censorship (which you say later). Ok. Wouldn't I just be wasting my time?
The problem with this argument is that many people in "the left" would argue that "the left" is does hold power in the American government and that most democrats are centrists rather than members of "the left". You seem to confuse holding power in "the left" with holding power in the government. So let me ask you again, what does in it mean to hold power in "the left", as opposed to holding power in government?
That's kind of irrelevant to what I have said already.
My point is that your original question was silly. No sensible person, left or right, would call for "no interference whatsoever" (your words) because it is 100% impossible in today's globalized world.
When most people say they are against interference they mean that they are against interference to reasonable means. I was simply pointing out that it is impossible for their to be "no interference whatsoever" in today's globalized world. What you should have said was "no interference to a reasonable degree". Now please answer my original questions: Do you have any evidence that interventionist members of "the left" outnumber isolationist members of "the left"? And are we just referring to "the left" in America or "the left" internationally. What do you mean when you say "the left"?
See this is why you're a pretty disingenuous moron. Words mean different things when its convenient for you. You're arguing by changing definitions, rather than by logical consequences. Most people say against interference they mean they are against interference to reasonable means, but then you magically assume when I use the word, I meant in the broad definition which you laid out, the definition which I remind you includes simply trading, EVEN THOUGH MY OWN POSTING HISTORY SHOWS I AM A PROPONENT FOR TRADE. This is so you can say hah hah, look saying "no interference whatsoever" is silly because I am using another definition of the word. Then when I turn your broad definition (not mine, yours) against you, you then change the definition to a more narrow one. Sorry, you chose to use such a broad definition, it killed your other premise about Leftist being against intervention. Thanks for playing.
And in the context of "no interference whatsoever", the whole quote was - "How many of these say no interference whatsoever, as opposed to interference via military means." This was to point out your counter example, was flawed because it only focussed on people who didn't favour military intervention, but does not preclude them using other forms. So your counter example was stupid. We could have debated what forms those interference took, but you seem more interested to change the debate to the definition of what interference means.
The problem with your argument is that you have no evidence that the majority of the people complaining about Russian interference think that censorship/banning Facebook is the appropriate way to deal with the problem, as opposed to the cure being worse than the disease.
That doesn't actually affect my position per se. For one thing, my position was it could be done only if regulation fails. I have stated that like how many times already now?
And I won't ask a mode to split because I have no desire to engage in a debate about the merits Facebook censorship, rather I wished to call out your behaviour.
So what you been doing if not engaging in a debate about Facebook censoring.
But here is the thing. You're too fucking stupid to tell that discussing possible solutions to a problem raised by the OP, with examples of countries (plural there, got to watch out for the plural) who have tried implementing it, is not a derail. If you think there is a derail, the usual thing is to ask a mod to split so the original thread isn't cluttered up. But I think we both know the reason you won't, and its not just that you're a coward.
Although I am curious, why aren't you calling out others like say Railin or Aerius for derail using the same broad standards? I am serious. Did I accidentally smack you down in some other thread that you're still butthurt over it? I can't recall you see.
Lots of countries engage of Facebook censorship but China is the most well know, and is the best at, internet censorship. Combine this with your history of defending China in this board and it is reasonable for one to assume that you are talking about China.
So you're wrong, you didn't follow links, you couldn't tell the difference between use of singular and plural, but you're still trying to make yourself come off reasonable. Here is a tip. Own up and just admit you misread what I wrote. But we know that won't happen.
You are the one who started with the talk about "the left" and Rachel Maddow, that is why I called it rambling. I was merely responding to points you made, which is why it was not rambling.
Says the man who set up a side argument to define interference so broadly that he includes people who engage in trade as interfering and then changes it when convenient.
You suffer from a serious lack of self awareness. The funny thing is, what you did fits the definition of rambling, ie changing from subject to subject. Sometimes the comedy just writes itself.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to.
Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.