The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :froth: :loopy: :| :mrgreen: :demonic: 0:) 0;) :argue: :wry:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Bronshtein » Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:37 am

Guest wrote:False analogy on your part. If I didn't like beans and stood in the foyer of Tesco and Sainsburys, shouting out and waving placards and being abusive to other shoppers who bought beans then...well, I may still be pissed off if they banned me, but I could hardly blame them.

They were banned for not liking beans, not making a nuisance to other users/shoppers.
However before we torture the analogy further, lets move onto...
Bronshtein wrote:Yeah, sure, and everyone can grow up to the Queen.


Another false analogy. Starting your own website is not like dreaming of becoming Queen. You could have it done in 5 minutes if you wanted. It truly is open to everyone. And it really is as simple as that.

Well, that wasn't an analogy, that was a piss take.

And it really isn't that simple. A website is not a the search engine that drives c70% of the net, or a social media platform that dominates the news awareness of a significant portion of the world. I can build a website which no-one would find with a few quid for the domain name. Building a system that would give me a chance of competing with Facebook, possibly a little more and I would be blocked, or bought out if I became even a moderate threat.

Bronshtein wrote:Okay maybe you can let the US Govt know not to bother with its antitrust suit against Google.


More totalitarian governments than the US have tried stopping the internet and information exchange. No one seems to have managed it yet.

I'm glad you think no-one suppresses access to information or preferences one side of an argument on the internet.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Guest » Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:39 am

Bronshtein wrote:Perhaps but if I ran Tesco and Sainsburys and I refused to serve you food because you didn't like beans, you'd be a tad pissed off. Especially is the nearest Lidl was forty miles away.


False analogy on your part. If I didn't like beans and stood in the foyer of Tesco and Sainsburys, shouting out and waving placards and being abusive to other shoppers who bought beans then...well, I may still be pissed off if they banned me, but I could hardly blame them. And, in the case of having to shop elsewhere, starting my own website with my own views is not the same as having to drive 40 miles to Lidl. Which brings me to...

Bronshtein wrote:Yeah, sure, and everyone can grow up to the Queen.


Another false analogy. Starting your own website is not like dreaming of becoming Queen. You could have it done in 5 minutes if you wanted. It truly is open to everyone. And it really is as simple as that.

Bronshtein wrote:Okay maybe you can let the US Govt know not to bother with its antitrust suit against Google.


More totalitarian governments than the US have tried stopping the internet and information exchange. No one seems to have managed it yet.

Bronshtein wrote:My dear chap, if only it were, we could exchange letters in The Times over this.


Strangely, I'd rather like that. Whatever happened to the *person of no specific gender* of letters?

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Macunaima » Sun Oct 25, 2020 1:51 am

McKinstry wrote:
I mean, what the hell is wrong with these people?


If all the psychologists, psychiatrists, and social scientists currently residing on the the planet were given a millennium to ponder that question, I still suspect the consensus would be "Some folks always were and always will be, assholes."


Probably. Or “we’re all assholes some of the time”. But the level of teh stoopid in this is amazing.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Bronshtein » Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:48 pm

Guest wrote:I think you're wrong on this.

Good for you, I approve of independent thought

You used an important word: PRIVATE.
News for you - this is the 21st century, not 19th. One word: internet.
News and information is more democratic than it ever has been.


I know other words :Monopoly and Cartel for example.

I don't see why a PRIVATE company should allow people who break its rules. If you owned a shop and someone kept coming in and nicking stuff you'd soon tell them to fuck off.
Perhaps but if I ran Tesco and Sainsburys and I refused to serve you food because you didn't like beans, you'd be a tad pissed off. Especially is the nearest Lidl was forty miles away.

If a private company doesn't want someone coming along and saying X, Y, or Z then that person is NOT being silenced. They can go off and start their own website and make whatever claims they want
Yeah, sure, and everyone can grow up to the Queen.
No one is controlling access to world news or censoring alternative opinions.
Okay maybe you can let the US Govt know not to bother with its antitrust suit against Google.
You need to remind yourself that you are not George Orwell and this is not the 1940s any more, because you seem to think it is
My dear chap, if only it were, we could exchange letters in The Times over this.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by kyotebue2 » Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:19 pm

Hey, John the OFM will you get any gaming in now that you have some free time???

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Hew Johns » Sat Oct 24, 2020 6:40 pm

It might be an objectionable personal attack to question Scott Atlas's intelligence, but it's only "political" if he is a political appointee. Of course, he is a political hack, but we are all supposed to pretend otherwise. Who knew hypocrisy was so complicated?

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by McKinstry » Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:15 pm

I believe it genuinely takes the power of a government to truly try (and still mostly fail) to corral the internet. The Great Firewall of China leaks fairly badly and every dipshit that gets kicked off Facebook or Instagram ends up on 4Chan and then 8Chan and then Telegram and whatever comes next. I certainly think limiting the aggregating power of Big Tech to where a Google purchase of YouTube gets little scrutiny or of Trump to force a divestiture of Tik Tok to his fan at Oracle is probably not in the public interest and may violate certain monopoly and trust aspects. Truly censoring the internet is a lot like nailing pudding to the wall, pretty much everything slides around.

Scott Atlas may or may not be a full on moron but anyone who leans on a radiologist as his key advisor for an epidemiological crisis is.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Guest » Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:09 pm

Bronshtein wrote:This hurts me beyond the telling to say, but USAFwilly has a point.

When we meekly allow four or five private companies who control access to world news to censor alternative opinions, we are in big fucking trouble.


I think you're wrong on this.
You used an important word: PRIVATE.
News for you - this is the 21st century, not 19th. One word: internet.
News and information is more democratic than it ever has been.

I don't see why a PRIVATE company should allow people who break its rules. If you owned a shop and someone kept coming in and nicking stuff you'd soon tell them to fuck off.

If a private company doesn't want someone coming along and saying X, Y, or Z then that person is NOT being silenced. They can go off and start their own website and make whatever claims they want.
No one is controlling access to world news or censoring alternative opinions. That's hyperbole on your part.
Have a look on the internet - there's a wealth of bullshit and opinions on it where anyone can opine to their heart's content.
And they do.
You need to remind yourself that you are not George Orwell and this is not the 1940s any more, because you seem to think it is.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Hew Johns » Sat Oct 24, 2020 2:17 pm

Well, John got doghoused for: "By the way, Scott Atlas is a moron."
Hardly seems political to me, particularly given the rest of the discussion (eyeroll).

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Post by Hew Johns » Sat Oct 24, 2020 2:10 pm

I agree. There is a problem with a few companies monopolizing what is after all a public space. It needs to be taxed and regulated far more than it is.
That said it's a slippery slope argument to equate "can't shout COVID in a crowded theater" to wholesale censorship.

Top