- Messages
- 1,891
Yes, as you've established several times in this thread, you frequently see things that are not so, and then demand that these things be treated as if they are real.
FREE SPEECH | Should lies be protected as free speech? / Banning protests
- Thread starter superrific
- Start date
- Replies: 217
- Views: 5K
- Politics
I had someone on the previous board threaten to do just that and shoot me, so I'd rather not risk it. Hell, I'd even feel bad if they mistook me for someone else and targeted the wrong person.
It was. He claimed to be a former Army sniper. After he was (temporarily) banned he PM'd me and said he would track me down and that I'd never feel a thing. To be fair, I was a dick, but that shit was a bit too much for me.
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,421
Wow. Is that dude still around?
Haven’t seen him here. He posted on the old ZZLP in the past year though.
- Messages
- 2,686
Ah yes, we once again are doing this idiotic thing where we blame the left for Trump being elected, rather than blaming the people freaking voting for him (and the people working nonstop to manipulate those same people).
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,421
Crazy. Did you report to mods?
ZenMode
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,126
Well....there has to be a reason people vote for a specific candidate, right?
- Messages
- 2,686
lol, just this same false equivalency BS, over and over again.
"Hands up, don't shoot" wasn't a massive lie started and spread by Democratic party leadership. It was based on the immediate reports of Michael Brown's friend who was there and set that was what happened. Prosecutors and a grand jury subsequently decided not to charge Darren Wilson because they found Wilson's account more credible than Brown's friend. But at most, one person lied. Everyone else was basing their slogan on an actual eyewitness report of what had happened. I have no problem with someone criticizing the quick spread of that phrase or how it was deployed - or plenty of things about the BLM movement - but to act like the whole thing was built on a calculated, manufactured lie is absurd.
That is easily contrasted with Trump's "big lie" about the election, among other things, which was a literal attempt to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. It involved the freaking president of the Untied States, many of his inner circle, and numerous elected officials from his party outright making shit up left and right for the purposes of reversing the outcome of the election and putting Trump in power. The lies were constant, numerous, and pervasive. They lied in court, they lied to the media, they lied constantly. Trump and many other Republicans are still lying about it, to this day. And it is laughable to suggest that Republicans "started lying" in 2020. Trump has been an inveterate liar his whole life. From the start, he built his political career on lies, starting with birtherism. The first Trump campaign was built on lies about all sorts of things - especially about the Clintons and made-up scandals like Uranium One. There is no "cycle." There is no "one side does it then it switches and the other side does it." Lying to people has been the foundational principle of the Republican political strategy for the entire Trump era and well before.
Ultimately, even leaving aside the hundreds of other lies Trump is always telling, there is no equivalence whatsoever between (1) incorrectly leaping to judgment based on immediate eyewitness reports that are later determined to be not credible, and (2) making up and spreading malicious falsehoods for the express purposes of exploiting them. Both things are wrong. They absolutely are not equivalent. It is simply laughable to suggest that no one has any basis to criticize Trump's constant shameless lying because Democrats aren't perfect. This is just the same "bosides" cynicism that Trump has built his entire rise on - the idea that everyone is lying so who cares if he does it? Just like everyone is supposedly corrupt, so who cares if Trump does it? The whole strategy is for him and his media allies to shriek about every speck in Democrats' eyes while ignoring the logs in their own. And people like you are who make it successful, by being so easily duped into this idea that both sides are the same. This is exactly the reason that Trump wins such large margins among people who don't follow politics closely and is so far behind among people who actually do follow it.
ZenMode
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,126
What isn't real?
- Messages
- 2,686
Of course. Look at how people voted based on what their sources of news were and you'll have the biggest part of your answer. But directing your supposed anger at Trump being elected at the people who were fighting against him rather than the people who supported and promoted him (like, say, Silicon Valley billionaires and MAGA white nationalists) is so stupid that one almost wonders if you're really being genuine about how you feel.
- Messages
- 1,891
That you can't figure that out on your own is a huge part of the problem.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,753
Michael Brown was shot in 2014. There was unrest in Ferguson at that point. Michael Brown's shooting or subsequent discussion in the media did not create riots anywhere in NC between 2016-2020. You were not in the middle of non-existent riots, and you didn't have a family member caught in the middle of another (that is implausible on its face even if the riots weren't imagined).
It takes some chutzpah to lie your ass off in a post complaining about other people who lie.
There was no rise in crime traceable to Black Lives Matters or any other effect. You're probably referring to the now-debunked Ferguson effect. In any event, that's not what this thread is about. Go start a BLM thread if you want.
ZenMode
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,126
Multiple things can be true at once. There can be lies that people believed and people can vote against real events they view as an issue.
ZenMode
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,126
Or maybe you just don't know or don't want to believe something that is true.
Last edited:
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,753
Back to the topic at hand.
1. We have two posters who like to bullshit endlessly who also think that the government should have no role in controlling misinformation -- not a regulatory agency, not an increased role for the courts, nothing.
By my count, there are three posters other than myself who believe that misinformation is a rampant problem that should have regulatory attention. For the most part, though, they did not opine on the question of whether there is a public interest sufficient to justify state action.
Personally, I don't know exactly what should be done, but I strongly believe we can do more and better, without compromising our commitment to free speech in any meaningful way. That is to say, our current system is inefficient, and we could get the same benefits of free speech with fewer negative effects from reforms.
2. I actually don't mind some of the ideas, generally speaking, in the Texas and Florida anti-social media laws. I do mind the motivation, which is based on silly nonsense persecution complexes. I do mind when states try to unilaterally affect the regulatory framework nationwide, which was a major problem with the Texas and Florida laws. But overall, the idea that social media platforms should be regulated is good, if done correctly (and don't ask me how because I don't know, having almost no experience with social media). That doesn't remotely solve the disinformation problem in the country, but it is interesting that I've identified a bit of common ground with MAGA.
3. It just troubles me when a vice-presidential candidate goes on TV, admits that he made up the story about eating pets that got broadcast nationally and repeated during the debate, and suffered no consequences from it. It bothers me that a presidential candidate can say that armed brown-skinned gangs are taking over towns and cities in the US and face no consequences. We do not have to accept these lies.
4. We do not have to accept the system that we have. Even if you fear the prospect of government-decreed truth (and I fear it too, and have expressed as much many times), surely we have a very far way to go before we are in any danger. We have so much low-hanging fruit. We should not tolerate political candidates who say or even hint that vaccines cause autism. We should not tolerate lies about how J6 was peaceful, when it so very clearly was not. We don't have to live in a society where politicians scapegoat anyone who lives here for problems they had nothing to do with. And we can do all of these things while preserving a buffer zone to prevent chilling speech that is not quite as obviously false.
If you think that Kamala lied when retweeting something about Michael Brown, why would you think that acceptable? I would not say that's sufficiently false to be criminally or civilly chargeable -- again, to preserve a margin of error -- in the same way that many of Trump's lies are not. If it's reported that Trump called soldiers suckers and losers, and Trump lies when denying it? Eh. It's not important. It would be hard to clearly prove. It's not the sort of thing that threatens democracy. Claiming election fraud that doesn't exist does threaten the republic, taken to an extreme. Lies about minority groups inspire violence, and that should be unacceptable when they are so obviously lies. We wouldn't want to go after anyone who just forwards a tweet or something like that, unless they are in a position of responsibility or a position where knowledge of falsity can be imputed.
1. We have two posters who like to bullshit endlessly who also think that the government should have no role in controlling misinformation -- not a regulatory agency, not an increased role for the courts, nothing.
By my count, there are three posters other than myself who believe that misinformation is a rampant problem that should have regulatory attention. For the most part, though, they did not opine on the question of whether there is a public interest sufficient to justify state action.
Personally, I don't know exactly what should be done, but I strongly believe we can do more and better, without compromising our commitment to free speech in any meaningful way. That is to say, our current system is inefficient, and we could get the same benefits of free speech with fewer negative effects from reforms.
2. I actually don't mind some of the ideas, generally speaking, in the Texas and Florida anti-social media laws. I do mind the motivation, which is based on silly nonsense persecution complexes. I do mind when states try to unilaterally affect the regulatory framework nationwide, which was a major problem with the Texas and Florida laws. But overall, the idea that social media platforms should be regulated is good, if done correctly (and don't ask me how because I don't know, having almost no experience with social media). That doesn't remotely solve the disinformation problem in the country, but it is interesting that I've identified a bit of common ground with MAGA.
3. It just troubles me when a vice-presidential candidate goes on TV, admits that he made up the story about eating pets that got broadcast nationally and repeated during the debate, and suffered no consequences from it. It bothers me that a presidential candidate can say that armed brown-skinned gangs are taking over towns and cities in the US and face no consequences. We do not have to accept these lies.
4. We do not have to accept the system that we have. Even if you fear the prospect of government-decreed truth (and I fear it too, and have expressed as much many times), surely we have a very far way to go before we are in any danger. We have so much low-hanging fruit. We should not tolerate political candidates who say or even hint that vaccines cause autism. We should not tolerate lies about how J6 was peaceful, when it so very clearly was not. We don't have to live in a society where politicians scapegoat anyone who lives here for problems they had nothing to do with. And we can do all of these things while preserving a buffer zone to prevent chilling speech that is not quite as obviously false.
If you think that Kamala lied when retweeting something about Michael Brown, why would you think that acceptable? I would not say that's sufficiently false to be criminally or civilly chargeable -- again, to preserve a margin of error -- in the same way that many of Trump's lies are not. If it's reported that Trump called soldiers suckers and losers, and Trump lies when denying it? Eh. It's not important. It would be hard to clearly prove. It's not the sort of thing that threatens democracy. Claiming election fraud that doesn't exist does threaten the republic, taken to an extreme. Lies about minority groups inspire violence, and that should be unacceptable when they are so obviously lies. We wouldn't want to go after anyone who just forwards a tweet or something like that, unless they are in a position of responsibility or a position where knowledge of falsity can be imputed.
If you are going to lie about my own life experiences, I’ll simply ignore you. The riots in NC were very well documented. I’m sorry that you refuse to believe that they happened. That’s a you problem, not a me one. The fact that you are so eager to pretend that events that were captured on video, included in insurance claims and reported on extensively in the news simply didn't happen only reinforces my point further. You are OK with lies that make you feel better about your own positions. You are a hypocrite, which is exactly what my post was about. I understand being called out may make you upset, as it should. Just take a deep breath and leave your walls alone this time.
Last edited:
The problem is that once the lie was exposed people continued to repeat it. Hence Kamala Harris publicly calling Darren Wilson a murderer on her Twitter in 2020. That was a lie. Large portions of the Democratic party still believe that lie. And that lie gave rise to a movement that pushed many more lies in order to retain its credibility. Polls have shown that a large percentage of the Democratic party believes that thousands of unarmed Black people are killed by the police each year. The real number is about a dozen. Across the country, riots were fueled by similar lies that the left either helped propagate or did not push back on.
I agree that Trump and the right's lies are worse and have had a much larger impact on the country. But how can one side get upset about dishonesty when that side has shown how quickly it embraces dishonesty when advancing its own causes?
Centerpiece
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,711
But you can’t play the Bo-sides game on this topic. Regardless of one little tweet by Madam VP. The preponderance of evidence goes decidedly in one direction. Especially since 2008 in the realm of American politics and discourse in America between libs and cons. Nobody will take you seriously.
ZenMode
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,126
The reason that libel, slander and defamation laws work is because there is a mechanism to determine whether a claim was factual. That mechanism is the justice system where the two sides are given the opportunity to present evidence and a ruling is eventually made based on the evidence.
Outside of the process established in the justice system, what entity is going to be the determiner of what is true? Snopes? The media and which media?The government?
Last edited: