Swamp Yankee
-
Posts
151 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Swamp Yankee
-
-
8 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:
Forgot the (sts). Let's change the subject. I should have just wrote it out: British Broadcasting Corporation.
Funny story: there's a restaurant chain in New England called British Beer Company. Great place for a first date, "I'll take you to BBC"
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:
Facebook has a subtle bias that in someways is more dangerous. The content they have elected to remove or suppress is often not reported. Go look at political donation totals by Facebook and their leadership to political parties.
Foxnews certainly expresses the opinions of the RNC and lately Newsmax has jumped on the same bandwagon, but that absolutely pales in comparison to the major networks while ALL parrot the DNC. Aside from hiring all the former DNC operatives they have openly called for Foxnews to be shut down...CNN in particular has completely jumped the shark and become unwatchable. I sued to rotate between Fox, BBC, and CNN...MSNBC being a complete farce. These days I watch a little Fox but mostly BBC.
Fox and MSNBC are just mirror images of each other. Same level of partisan BS except one is an acid and the other a base (dim recollection of HS chem) Although I find it interesting that when Fox momentarily pointed out a lack of evidence for election fraud they were immediately branded as unworthy "fake news!" by Trump and many of his supporters.
Network news is becoming irrelevant.
I also browse BBC frequently.
In terms of #consumers, Fox+Newsmax+OAN+talk radio = CNN+MSNBC+networks. The difference is demographics. Conservative viewers tend to be older, liberal younger.
My biggest pet peeve is that the mainstream outlets like Fox and MSNBC reduce everything to 30 sec soundbites. They're taking us for ADHD simpletons.
The wildcard is the podcast world, which is becoming more and more popular. Decent mix of left and right viewpoints.
-
26 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:
And they do thus at the expense of the U.S. Tax payer. In 2018 Amazon posted profit of $18 billion (I own a bunch, great for my portfolio), but they paid ZERO in taxes...actually it is worse than that....thanks to tax credits they got a refund of $139 Million. While being subsidized they are flexing political muscle (no hidden secret the Bezos and Trump hate each other), and they ban a predominately conservative company from their servers under completely contrived rationale. Amazon should be the first target of the government....but they won't be.
Ah yes, tax advantages for big companies. Who supports those?
-
12 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:
Let's be real, the mainstream media, Facebook and Twitter have become extensions of the DNC. It is one thing to openly advocate, it is another to use the power of your monopoly to control and suppress information in order to impact the outcome of an election. Because of their monopoly status, the protections of 230 and change in society, they have become an extension of one political party.
While I agree with you on the car company examples I think there is a huge difference between buying a car and being the main supplier of information to the electorate. Society has changed and recent surveys have shown 67% of Facebook users also use Facebook as their primary source of news. When combined with 230 you now have a recipe for disaster. Again...Facebook and Twitter actively suppressed negative stories about Biden and Openly championed negative stories about Trump. The answer is not government regulation, it is to break up these monopolies and make sure there is fair access to news and information.
I agree Twitter has bias. Facebook much less so. Regardless....
The mainstream media includes Fox, Newsmax, OAN, talk radio, Wash Times, among others. Plenty of exposure for both the left and right. Don't pretend it's 1992 with the NY Times and networks controlling the news. You can make a stronger case for Fox being an extension of the RNC. You can also post on Fox news comments all day - no one is stopping you - except when Fox decides to pause occasionally due to super hot and heavy openly racist comments. Or go to 4chan if you want.
If someone decides Facebook is their primary news source, that's on them. No one is forcing them to read "articles" about Bernie or QAnon while posting cat pics no one cares about. Plenty of other outlets. Try BBC (sts) for example.
-
14 minutes ago, jazzdude said:
Exactly (and it's a problem for large companies that have a person or entity as a majority shareholder). Or force you to sell out to a big company so they can cash out on the takeover, potentially including your intellectual property.
In our capitalist society/economy, it's not what we say we value that sets what is important, it's where we spend our money. Money is a reflection of what is really valued (and a proxy for time and resources expended) and speaks much louder than words.Reminds me of Ricky Gervais comments during the Golden Globes where he lambasted Tim Cook @ Apple and the other electronic media folk. Something to the effect of 'you say you're woke, but if ISIS started a streaming service you'd call your agent.'
-
1 minute ago, jazzdude said:
Tesla's an interesting case. Yes, they are to newer to market, and had to compete against the legacy car manufacturers. But they also had a lot of capital injected into their business by a wealthy person (Elon Musk) who took interest in their business and their vision, that actually allowed them to compete.
So yeah, the small guy can succeed, but only if they can get the right investors.
The problem with taking investors is you lose control. Money buys influence, piss off your investors and they pull their money.True. Amazing how a board member at a small company can send you on a wild goose chase due to some pet project.
-
2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
Yes, there was a lot of coverage about those events and organizations, thanks for pointing that out...and they all still have active social media accounts...even the leader of Iran has an active Twitter account which he uses to call for the destruction of Israel and the United States...how is that possible using the logic employed against Trump?
The "go start your own company" argument is trash, the monopolies given by 230 serve to block any real competition and when a company (Parler), does try to offer an alternative the tech monopolies immediately shut them down (Amazon and Apple), using the they don't police content argument...a double standard that says we get 230 protections but they don't.
Interesting you bring up Fox and Newsmax...the cancel culture is so strong that other outlets like CNN are ACTIVELY calling for both of these networks to be shutdown.
So what body enforces what tech companies are allowed to do with their own platforms? The federal government? No thanks. But let's just say it is the government. As a result, companies will lose some of their ability to manage their businesses and thus financial outcomes. Does the government now need to subsidize them as a result? That doesn't sounds great either. What's the penalty if the company refuses to comply?
Social media has monopolies for sure, just like any industry. In automobiles, didn't stop Elon Musk re: Tesla. Granted, most of us aren't incredible genius polymaths willing to work 100 hrs/wk (and get thousands of others to do so as well). Didn't stop Uber, etc. I guess I'm enough of an optimistic, perhaps naive, capitalist to think that innovation and persistence eventually breaks through all monopolies.
-
9 hours ago, ViperMan said:
The only reason any of us know Bret Weinstein's name is because he had the temerity to call a spade a spade when he stood up to the extreme, racist, left wing mob that attempted to enact a "day without white people" on his campus. He (rightfully) took a stand against that effort and has been in the limelight ever since. Probably because he's not woke enough. So most of his exposure on the internet is derivative of that one-off event, hence why 95% of it is complaining about democrats...since it was a reaction to democrats.
It's the same fundamental story behind Jordan Petersen. These are "normal" guys (professors, scientists, etc.) who wake up one morning and go "WTF is going on around here?" and they call it out. Call me crazy, but we need more of that. For goodness sakes, he's an evolutionary biologist at Evergreen State College...none of that suggests secret conservative mastermind.
And the only reason we hear about him via Joe Rogan (left, right, centerish) and Sam Harris (leftish) is because no one on the true "left" wants to engage in an honest way with what he's saying. That says way more about the left than it does about Bret Weinstein and it certainly doesn't implicate him as a (gasp) conservative.
I agree with most of what you said. The initial incident that brought Weinstein to awareness was a classic example of liberal college ridiculousness. Overall, I enjoy listening to folks like Rogan, Harris, Weinsteins, and Peterson. The long-form discussion on the IDW has transformed media and shows that the average citizen is capable of in-depth, nuanced thought. The simpleminded Fox News and MSNBC 30-sec soundbites are frankly insulting to all of us. However, I do think that once some of the supposed moderates and liberals get a taste of IDW attention, they maintain their iconoclast image by railing against the left and NEVER criticizing the right. The IDW audience skews right and hey, there are books to sell and podcasts listenerships to grow. However, you'd think they'd have at least something to criticize.... The left is not always wrong and the right is not always right.
I disagree that the left doesn't want to engage in terms of considering the other side's arguments. For example, Sam Harris is much more willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint. Ben Shapiro just goes on the attack in order to win the argument. There's a difference between defending your position at all costs vs. listening to understand and arrive at the best possible solution. The former is for war and court cases. The latter helps shape the best mutual results in a shared society.
On a separate note, I now have a child at one of those "elite northeast liberal colleges". While that initially made me groan and gave me agita, I've seen that most of the kids just play at being liberals for a few years. Once they graduate, 75% head off to Wall Street, med school, or law school. It's funny.
-
1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:
Maybe the internet as we know it should be destroyed. As it stands there are a few tech conglomerates that control EVERYTHING and they have shown they are willing to silence free speech. Many are troubled by them banning Trump (complete overkill as they respond to the mob), but i am more concerned about the double standard because they are picking sides. The did nothing when Madonna said "I want to burn down the White House, the did nothing when Kathy Girffin stood there with the severed head of Trump, they did nothing when BLM rolled out their "Fry police like bacon" chat, they did nothing when BLM and other extreme groups burned cities and attacked Government property this summer....all of these acts inciting violence but it happened on the other side of the political aisle. MOST concerning is they silenced the NY Post when they published the story about Hunter Biden's laptop...calling it fake news when in fact it is true and there is an active federal investigation. If these few companies that control our access to information can choose sides and determine what we are allowed to see then our system is done. I am stunned that more people on here are not shocked...you took and oath to the Constitution, not a political party...you should be appalled that we have abdicated control of the free press to Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook.
I seem to remember a great deal of social media and news coverage regarding complaints about BLM, Kathy Griffin, and Hunter Biden. Lots of coverage of the details and the reaction from the right. Not sure what media you consume.
Even if social media exerts bias on what does and doesn't get posted on their platforms, there are many other currently-available avenues to communicate via the internet. Also, I mentioned in another post that if you have the financial means, technical acumen, and business savvy you can start your own social media platform. You're not beholden to anyone. Go for it!
You are absolutely right! My oath was to defend the constitution, not a flag, political party or specific person. It is a really complicated situation. You've got the issue of a private company having the ability to control its destiny. You've got public accommodation laws to prevent things like minorities not being able to get mortgages. Then you've got the issue of very partisan people like a Hawley, Schumer, McConnell, or Pelosi having a direct say in what a private company can or can't discuss. If I had the answers, I wouldn't be doing this.
On a related topic: Fox, Newsmax, talk radio and other right leaning news outlets ARE part of mainstream media. They have global reach and huge, growing viewer/readership. The tired old "liberal mainstream media" whining is obsolete.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Pooter said:
The free market is amazing (for businesses I personally agree with.) For example: I fully support businesses' constitutional right to not bake gay wedding cakes or refuse service to certain minorities.
But the idea a business could deny internet service to a seditious mob actively inciting violence is simply a bridge too far.
Well stated. That's the rub that it seems like no one can get past. 'Free speech only applies to things I agree with'. Many of those complaining about Twitter's decision with Trump likely supported removal of artwork considered offensive to Christianity. In fact, I know two people with this perspective, who can't (or aren't willing) to note the inconsistency. And there are equal examples from the opposite political perspective.
You also bring up a good point. For years, and maybe still now, minorities were refused mortgages to keep them out of the suburbs. All those nice moms didn't want their little darlings sharing classrooms with brown people. So the reality is free speech has its limits, particularly where it impedes someone else's liberty.
-
Coming in late to this topic. My experience is that persistence and persuasiveness can sometimes result in waivers that others tell you are impossible.
30+ years ago I got my color vision waivered for an AFROTC pilot slot. It took some doing, especially pre-interwebs. I discovered that the Navy was evaluating the then-new Farnsworth Lantern (aka FALANT) as a screening tool better tied to the real world than color plates. I called up the lab, asked alot of questions, and explained my situation. After a couple of calls, I was able to set up a visit. I took the test and "passed" according to the criteria at the time. I got to know the lead Navy researcher and it turned out that he had a colleague at Wright-Patt who was pushing for FALANT on the USAF side. I met and asked him to write a letter to Brooks. I also made sure I volunteered for every ROTC activity to get on the Detachment Commander's good side. He also wrote a letter of support. It took several months after graduation to get it sorted out. Anyways, I got the waiver, went to UPT @ Laughlin and never looked back. It was a great lesson for life in general.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, FLEA said:
You and I are probably really similar. On the left right spectrum I'm -2 and on the authoritarian / libertarian spectrum I'm -1 (slightly more libertarian).
Yet I generally vote Republican. One reason is, is because like you, I'm very strong on the 2A and the democratic party is literally willing to do nothing to defend it or even recognize it's purposes.
But as you know, both parties carry a moving goal post. And everytime they move it the 50 yard line changes. That is going to cause some people to have a hard time deciding.
Good point. To some extent, I think the right uses the 2nd Amendment and the left uses abortion as scare tactics. For example, the left used the newly right-leaning SCOTUS to scare their base that the Roe v Wade will be overturned. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were nominated more for their pro-large business support than morality perspectives. Abortion is probably #19 on Gorsuch's priorities, after "lunch at Occidental". On the 2A, any democrat outside a big northeast or west coast city knows that it is a reality. In fact, I was even able to get a carry permit in (the people's republic of) Boston. I did have to interview with a city detective, shoot at the police range, and then wait four weeks. The latter was a PITA but the interview and shooting didn't bother me too much. In fact, the police were pretty cool about it - let me try a Glock and AR.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, FLEA said:
There's a lot of moderates like myself that find the democratic party running away from them.
Understood. However, since Weinsteins' content is consistently 95%+ complaining about democrats and agreeing with conservative positions then perhaps they aren't democrats as they claim. My cynical side thinks that Brett and Eric, as well as Tulsi and Rogan are not liberal (classical or otherwise). They may say so to help maximize their audience, but then why are they always sympathetic to the right? They should just state that they are conservatives and own it.
Out of curiosity, as a moderate, what DO you support on the democratic side? How about the republican side? I hate that there are "sides" but it's just a reality under the current political structure.
I consider myself a left-leaning moderate, working in tech for the past 20 yrs after transitioning to the Guard. By Massachusetts standards, I'm a conservative. By USAF standards, I'm a raging liberal. Individual liberty (including 2nd Amendment), strong military/diplomacy ("...provide for the common defense..."), broad individual liberty, limited-use safety net ("...promote the general welfare..."). As a developed country, we should be able to provide healthcare not tied to employment. Investment in public education as it is a key means to beat China with whom we are at economic war.
-
On 1/17/2021 at 12:11 PM, nsplayr said:
I actual have a personal jihad against self checkout at stores, especially grocery stores when I always seem to have a ton of items in the cart. I do not work at the grocery store, nor do I want to!
Self checkout in grocery stores is more convenient for the store, not for me. FFS, I do not want to self checkout at a tiny kiosk when I have a week's worth of family groceries, but usually all but 1 of the "normal" lanes will be closed. I want to see the Grocery Store Clerks Full Employment Act (GSCFEA) of 2021 passed post-haste!
I agree. In concept I like self-checkout. However, it's always a PITA at Home Depot with large items like lumber and the scanning gun not working. Then you've got to wait for the single employee trying to reset all the other self-checkout stations with problems. Room for technological improvement.
-
23 minutes ago, jazzdude said:
If far right conservatives want to have a social media outlet, maybe they should try harder and not just whine. Especially if they don't want government limiting their speech. And if there's demand for that service, it shouldn't be hard to get a business started around providing that service.
I mean, if Pirate Bay (or any number of other questionable at best websites) can figure out a way to stay online when being actually persecuted by governments...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-thinks-parlers-inability-to-stay-online-is-embarrassingThat is very true. Anyone can develop a social media platform. If you have the financial means, technical acumen, and business savvy to build a great platform, you'll succeed. If not, well, thems the breaks in the free-market innovation economy.
-
On 1/14/2021 at 6:07 AM, brabus said:
I’ve seen social media/news splattered with “getting kicked off for violating a TOS isn’t suppressing free speech, get over it cry babies!” What these people haven’t grasped is the majority are pissed about the double standard. Kick Trump off, that’s fine, but you better be kicking everyone else off too who violates TOS, regardless of political leaning, party affiliation, group affiliation, etc. If you don’t and are choosing to punt people off your platform you disagree with politically while looking the other way for people you do agree with, well that’s suppression. The double standard is what people are pissed about - to the point the ACLU is concerned about it, and the Twitter CEO admitted they need to work on being more uniform across the board because not doing so is dangerous. I’m sure Jack only said that to save face after the recent backlash.
Rogan had a great discussion with Ira Glasser, former Exec Director of the ACLU, on this very topic. My synopsis of Glasser's commentary:
- Double standards are of course problematic.
- However, there are existing legitimate restrictions on free speech (the proverbial yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, or openly inciting violence). Upon request, the government adjudicates these via the legal system. FWIW, Glasser's thinks Trump did incite the Jan 6th events, but that would need to be decided via the impeachment process.
- The key point: Other restrictions resulting from less cut-and-dried issues (e.g. political rhetoric) are probably best handled by private companies. Not perfect, but way better than the government, who has a poor record in that regard. Do you really want people like Trump, Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell having legal means to compel who can say what on private platforms? If so, is the government (particularly conservatives) willing to subsidize these private companies since they are restricting their ability to manage their businesses?
- Specifically regarding Trump: Unlike most of us, he can step up to a podium and immediately say whatever he wants to the world. So to claim that no Twitter access affects his ability to communicate is disingenuous.
Interested in learning other perspectives from those who listened to the podcast.
-
1
-
-
On 1/16/2021 at 7:11 AM, Kiloalpha said:
So, I'm not usually a fan of Glenn Beck. I'm also not huge on Eric Weinstein. But holy shit was this an awesome conversation between folks on opposite sides.
I think it actually centers the issues and points out the path forward. Well worth the time.
Also, this says it won't go live until today at 3pm, but the audio form of the podcast is available via Apple Podcasts or other providers.
I listened to this podcast. I don't agree that Eric W and Glenn B are on opposite sides. Weinstein is one of several IDW folks who claim to be liberal yet spend nearly all of their time railing against the left as well as being very sympathetic to the right. Of course, it is perfectly fine (and often intellectually honest/rigorous) to critique one's own side. However, virtually ALL of the Weinstein bros content is critique of the left and tacit support of the right. They rarely mention or defend their supposedly liberal positions. Similar, in a way, to Tulsi Gabbard. Something's just not right with that. Their liberal/left-leaning claims just don't ring true. Again, I think it's great to question all perspectives; however, I very rarely see that from the right except in very brief passing (i.e. 'Trump's a little controversial, BUT, the left is really bad, blah, blah, blah).
-
1 hour ago, brabus said:
I didn’t imply any legal action by the ACLU (you inferred that, incorrectly), and the ACLU has taken notice and does not support what’s going on with the tech giants.
ACLU: ”it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions...It is our hope that these companies will apply their rules transparently to everyone.”
Glad to hear you support the baker from a legal standpoint.
Public accommodation laws are a fine line. I'm guessing many of us would disagree with redlining practices in which black people were denied mortgages and real estate in order to keep them out of certain areas. On the other hand, convicts with violent records or those with severe mental illness probably shouldn't have firearms.
In general, products (virtual and physical) should be available to as many as possible without restriction. Where there are restrictions, they need to be applied consistently. As much as I dislike Trump as a person and many of his policies, banning him on Twitter seems inconsistent.
-
On 1/14/2021 at 1:54 AM, pcola said:
Actually just a few days before you posted this. He did just that. Did you miss it because it wasn’t covered by any leftist news outlets?
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile appThat's not a press conference in which the President himself needs to directly respond to questions. It is a scripted speech. As we've seen, it is nearly impossible for Trump to answer questions logically. He instead tends to hurl pejoratives and non-sequiturs. That's the point being made by some folks on this thread.
The above was shown on CNN, MSNBC, as well as Fox and Newsmax.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Pooter said:
One of the dumbest side effects of this ordeal is that the California covid shitstorm currently happening is going to be completely swept under the rug.
It would be nice if blue states with insane lockdown rules had to answer the mail when they spike just as bad or worse than the evil Floridas of the world. But I guess trump and the far right taking a steaming dump in the halls of the capitol kind of overshadows that.
The media and I guess much of the populace has the attention span of a fruit fly.
-
1
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Prosuper said:
Be nice to see the states get together and impose term limits and start using the 17th amendment by state legislators pick the two Senators from their state. That way they are answerable to their state house not their donors.
3 hours ago, slackline said:Listening to the impeachment debates going on right now. Absolutely disgusted by 2 things: the Trump apology tour by republicans, and the zero responsibility accepted by anyone on either side of the aisle. Everything is the fault of the other guy, none of anyone's actions, vitriol and rhetoric caused any of the current problems. It was all caused by the other guys... Time for every single one of them to be voted out. Zero incumbents should be voted back in for the next few elections!
Agreed on the impeachment debates. Ultimately a waste of time. No way will it get 2/3 of the Senate. Trump will go back to Mar-a-Lago saying, 'See? They tried again! Tremendous hoax! I'm the best President in history and did nothing wrong!' That would be a gross mischaracterization on Trump's part, but he won't care. Same thing as the Russian investigation. Somehow Trump was able to spin it as a 'hoax'. Which was also a mischaracterization given that there were 34 indictments, 7 guilty pleas, and 5 prison terms. Regardless, his base bought it just as they will in this second impeachment.
-
34 minutes ago, FLEA said:
Mhmm, because we've never attacked targets accidentally with incomplete intel. Come on man, are you new at this? Do you really trust our intel apparatus that much? They are awful!
My point isn't about evidence that will prove a court case or allow military action. It's about Tulsi's honest or willful ignorance of a broad agreement that Assad is a bad guy. Her statements ignore that agreement as well as suggest that there is no evidence and that the claims of Assad's war crimes are fabricated. She should acknowledge that at a minimum, there are legitimate suspicions about his culpability. That's why she clearly comes off as an apologist.
And yeah, I've had to deal with bad/incomplete intel.
Anyways, I might be splitting hairs. The horse is so dead at this point it's glue.
-
2 hours ago, FLEA said:
Trump went to Twitter because he was able to remove layers of filters from what his actual message was. He was a step ahead as a politician in that regard. The media of course derided his decision to use Twitter because it of course gave the media less importance.
A press conference is unfiltered. Yes, the media poses the questions, but that's never stopped a President from ignoring those questions and saying what they want. The media's subsequent positive or negative interpretation of a press conference, Twitter post or pre-recorded statement is what's filtered/biased/etc.
-
48 minutes ago, FLEA said:
Well, in a move absolutely noone could have predicted... Angela Merkel sides with Trump regarding Twitter ban.
Too bad Trump missed a chance to rub Angela's shoulders like W did. Then again, she is way above the Jeffrey Epstein-approved age range.
The Next President is...
in Squadron Bar
Posted
"Nepotism/favoritism is required in an authoritative government, because it reduces the risk of a coup by filling key positions with those who are loyal to those in power. Helped lead to the downfall of the USSR (party loyalty over talent). Of course, none of that would ever happen in the US, right?"
Hmmm, I seem to recall some names....Ivanka, Eric, Jr, Cuck-shner.... Oh wait, maybe they were selected based on their policy experience.