StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
It applies when you try to compare someone or something to the Nazis in order to discredit it, which is what you were doing.
When did I ever call Trump a Nazi?
This is some cray cray #strawmanning.
What kind of "Christian values" do Conservatives want?
- Thread starter StoneByStone
- Start date
It applies when you try to compare someone or something to the Nazis in order to discredit it, which is what you were doing.
When did I ever call Trump a Nazi?
This is some cray cray #strawmanning.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Incorrect. Godwin's Law applies only when NAZIs are not the subject of discussion. A comparison of Democrats to NAZIs makes the NAZIs the subject of discussion.
Fascist. You called him a fascist.
Godwin's Extended Law applies whenever you call someone a "fascist" just to discredit.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
"As a debate goes on, unfavorably comparing someone to Adolf Hitler and/or Nazi Germany becomes more likely."
You compared the Democrats to the Nazis.
Well yes, because he actually is a Fascist. Godwin's Law is mainly about the superficial comparisons. Like when Righties say that Liberals are Nazis because they want environmentalist policies and affordable healthcare like the Nazis did. But if someone is literally a Fascist, it's completely fair to call them a Fascist.
And of course, not every Fascist is a Nazi. Godwin's Law is about Nazis because there are no more real Nazis around today. It's to highlight the ridiculousness of calling anyone a Nazi.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The comparison of Democrats to NAZIs was appropriate and is the subject of meme. Godwin's Law does not apply. I'll post the meme for you again just so you can verify that it is the subject of the meme.
Nope. Debunked in my Sig. ... but because you're special I'll give a direct link to the DEBUNK.
Here are a couple of other DEBUNKS that are right up your alley:
Debunked: Fascism is the Opposite of Socialism
Debunked: NAZIs were Far Right
Godwin's Extended Law is about Fascists to highlight the ridiculousness of calling a Conservative a "Fascist."
That is your fault. You flee at the first sign of an opposing idea. You are an intellectual coward; that is no one else's fault. You shouldn't blame others for your cognitive shortcomings.
I seem to have no problems with others who are not intellectual cowards. Yep, the problem is on your end.
Actually it's you who is the "intellectual coward" who flees "at the first sign of an opposing idea". All you ever have is denial and right-wing propaganda. You only have no problems with others who are as braindead as you are.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
The comparison of Democrats to NAZIs was appropriate and is the subject of meme. Godwin's Law does not apply. I'll post the meme for you again just so you can verify that it is the subject of the meme.
But the points in this meme are obviously wrong. So it's not a sincere comparison.
Really, censorship? How many Democrats are trying to use the state to censor media?
This is a bad faith argument. You might as well say Biden is a Nazi because he's white.
All six of these points prove that Trump isn't a dictator, which is no shit. I didn't say he's a dictator, I said he's a Fascist.
The big difference that caused the "Left vs Right" labels goes back to the French Revolution. The Left wanted Democracy, the Right wanted to keep things the way they are. The Nazis were right-wing in that they had a Dictatorship and no Democracy. You can make the argument that they had some liberal ideas, such as environmentalism, animal rights, and affordable healthcare. But saying they were left-wing is completely wrong.
The reason the Right is always so easily swayed by Authoritarianism is because their history and philosophy, all the way up to modern Righties like Jordan Peterson, is based on Authoritarianism and a strict hierarchical structure.
Even when they are being Fascist? I'm pretty sure when Conservatives try to rig elections, we can call them Fascist.
As always, nothing but denial.The comparison of Democrats to NAZIs was appropriate and is the subject of meme. Godwin's Law does not apply. I'll post the meme for you again just so you can verify that it is the subject of the meme.
Nope. Debunked in my Sig. ... but because you're special I'll give a direct link to the DEBUNK.
Here are a couple of other DEBUNKS that are right up your alley:
Debunked: Fascism is the Opposite of Socialism
Debunked: NAZIs were Far Right
Godwin's Extended Law is about Fascists to highlight the ridiculousness of calling a Conservative a "Fascist."
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
IBDaMann
Well-known member
So you think it just goes away if you pull the sheets over your eyes.
That's actually what you're doing. Posting a diversion and hoping that it will all just go away. Democrats were the subject of discussion. You brought in Nazis purely to attack Democrats. Thus Godwin's Law applies. Thus you tried to divert.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
IBDaMann
Well-known member
... only if you first explain how it is wrong. The word "obviously" does not suffice for an explanation.
The meme quite accuratly lists those things the Democrats have in common with the former NAZIs. The comparison is valid. I suspect many people will be going to the polls to express their immense displeasure with the DNC's platform choices.
Absolutely. It's nobody else's fault if you have willfully ignored the push for Net Neutrality (which would allow the government to regulate and censor an ISP's content). Now Democrats oppose Trump's executive order enforcing the prohibition of censorship on internet information platforms.
We have discovered the root of the problem. You simply don't understand that a fascist is an autocrat (or autocratic oligarchy), i.e. a dictator. There are no non-dictator fascists.
I'm glad we were able to straighten that out.
Debunked in my Sig. For you, the direct link: Debunked: The NAZIs Were Far Right
The NAZIs checked off six of the ten boxes listed in the Communist Manisfesto.
Nope. The right rejects authoritarianism and borrows Libertarian ideas.
The Right naturally evolves into authoritarianism, e.g. NAZI Germany, Venezuela, Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, Mao's China, etc...
Not that one person being in error makes a case, but you are delusional with Jordan Peterson. Show me an example of him espousing authoritarianism.
The Democrats, not the Republicans, are trying to rig the election.
---------------------------------------------------------
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY
Issued on: May 28, 2020
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
If you hadn't played hooky in highschool you would have learned in English Composition that you can, in fact, compare and contrast anything.
The NAZI-Democrat comparison is not only valid, it is accurate ... and it won't just go away.
Maybe you just need another look at it:
Trump spreads a ton more disinformation than the Chinese do. Such as "the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax". Denial is not proof, and denial is all that was used to 'disprove' collusion. Trump lies, especially on Twitter. Flagging his lies was just a public service.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
If you hadn't played hooky in highschool you would have learned in English Composition that you can, in fact, compare and contrast anything.
The NAZI-Democrat comparison is not only valid, it is accurate ... and it won't just go away.
Maybe you just need another look at it:
It's garbage. Godwin's Law definitely applies. Your first paragraph is just your usual irrelevant diversion.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Actually, it's kind of the opposite. Net Neutrality keeps corporations from censoring material. And if you don't believe me, keep in mind that we used to have Net Neutrality, some states still do, and we haven't had the government censoring content.
A Fascist is someone who believes in Fascism.
I don't care to argue #semantics, so if you refuse to accept the definition, let's just agree that Trump wants Fascism.
That's nice, but they were still on the Right because they were Authoritarians.
There are some Righties who have liberal ideas, which includes the Nazis, but that doesn't make them left-wing.
That's not what I said. I said that right-wing philosophy is based on Authoritarianism. And that includes modern right-wing figures, like Peterson. He doesn't (openly) expose Authoritarianism, but his philosophy is based on the strict hierarchy concept of Authoritarianism.
I actually do think Peterson's concept of "enforced monogamy" is authoritarian, but he purposely keeps this vague and sometimes he claims that he just means it should be "culturally enforced." Like most Fascists, he walks back his statements when someone challenges them. He also uses the Cultural Marxism theory, which was invented by Neo-Nazis and largely serves as a dog whistle.
#whataboutism
It's no surprise that IBDaWoMann doesn't actually know anything. He constantly demonstrates exactly that.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
It seems like he gets all of his political stances from Facebook memes.
Cancel 2020.2
Canceled
Facebook SUCKS. I have an account on there ONLY to be able to check posts from a friend who lives in Arizona. He posts on there a LOT. But he DOES post interesting stuff about things that are happening in the Phoenix, Arizona area, where he lives, and where I lived for over 33 years. Anyway, I hope you're doing well, Stoney. I'm doing well, myself, although I'm adjusting to a MAJOR sleep habit change I've been going through the last month or so. I believe it probably has something to do with me having diabetes, which I've had for about six months now. I was a MAJOR night owl for several decades before the last month or so. I have a hard time staying up after 11 PM, and I also have a hard time sleeping past 6 AM now. It's been such a WEIRD change for me, but I'm starting to get used to it. Also, up until about a month or so ago, I needed 8 hours of sleep to feel refreshed and revitalized, now I'm good to go on about 6 hours of sleep. Just some REALLY strange shit. I'm seeing my family doctor 2 weeks from tomorrow for a check-up, I'll tell her about this weird sleeping stuff that's been going on with me. I don't spend much time on this site anymore, most of my time is spent on US Message Boards (USMB) and I'm having a lot of fun on there. Again, I hope you and your pets are doing well. Our two kitties are doing fine, by the way. I'm falling more and more in love with them each day and each week. They ARE a blessing.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
This is a stupid thing to say. It's the government that we don't want having the power to censor and to control the otherwise free expression of speech. We don't refer to the government's censorship of your speech as "the government preventing you from censoring what you express."
Of course we do. FCC censorship has full power of law. Why do you think Howard Stern moved from radio to satellite radio?
What do you think THIS is?
Does someone need a refresher course in circular definitions?
... then don't post online. This is an internet forum. Words and semantics are all you have. There is nothing other than semantics. I realize that you were taught to quip "you're just arguing semantics" as a way to blame others for your own inability to say what you mean and to mean what you say, or when you are corrected for having spoken on a topic about which you know nothing ... but that doesn't work with me. You have to either say "I don't know how to express this point" or "I really don't know what I'm talking about."
No. Let's just agree that Trump wants to make our republic great again and then to keep our republic great. Easy. Simple. Gets the job done.
Authoritarians are on the Left. I gave you three links to full debunks. You need to read up on Giovanni Gentile, the father and creator of fascism, who refined socialism to be the Utopian step. Mussolini and Hitler actually put the ideology into practice. The NAZIs were a socialist party and Mussolini had to split from Italy's National Socialist Party in order to go implement Gentile's form of socialism.
The NAZIs had leftist ideas. They were socialists, in particular fascist socialists per Gentile's refinement of Marx's socialism.
Examples, please.
This is because that is what he means. Society benefits from monogamy so society should be pressuring married men and women to remain monogamous. He does not mean the government should enforce monogamy laws. Perhaps the word "enforced" is inaccurate and the word "socially pressured" would be better.
.
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
That's beside the point. Net Neutrality is about keeping corporations from censoring. Is has nothing to do with letting or stopping the government from censoring anything.
Nope. The FCC can censor broadcasts on TV and radio. They can't censor things on the internet. They can't even really censor film or music outside of the broadcast itself.
One of the best things about America is that the FCC doesn't have the full power to censor anything they want.
Ok, Boomer.
The links you provided ignored the origins of the Left vs Right divide. They're basically trying to redefine the divide as being entirely about "Socialism" while ignoring other forms of Authoritarianism and the history of the Right.
Utopian Socialists didn't believe in anything related to changing the government. They were basically just hippies who believed in living on communes, which millions of people choose to do in the West today. If that's Authoritarianism, then anything is.
His entire concept of being "top lobster" is about hierarchy. Ayn Rand was the same way. Conservative philosophy is always about trying to justify the hierarchy, which the original Righties fought to keep in place. This is why the Right is against the redistribution of wealth and power.
As I said before, Peterson tries to keep this vague and only claims he means social pressure when people press him on it.
To be fair, I don't really think Peterson believes in anything. I think he just dog whistles to the Alt-Right for attention. But either way, he is talking about Authoritarianism, he just doesn't have the balls to say it. He uses the word "enforced" when he's talking about the government forcing monogamy, then switches when people press him.