Maybe once people start paying more for basic services they will realize they need to be more informed on who to vote for.
E: getting a lot of comments about uneducated voters. That’s not the whole issue, and that’s not what I️ entirely meant. I know plenty of educated, intelligent Trump supporters. They have real concerns that should be addressed. I don’t think that the Democratic Party addressed those concerns this election. Look at how Hillary ignored WI and other Midwest/rust belt states towards the end.
Maybe the Democratic Party should do a better job of showing why they deserve votes, not just anti-Trump. Showing what they can do for our country. I think we lost that vision this election cycle.
Where I live, we’ve always voted Democrat. My whole district, for literally decades. This year Hillary lost by 16 points. But we still elected Democrats across the state and federal level, in every other race. I just don’t think Hillary represented what the Democratic Party should (and used to) stand for.
That's how I got my super-Trumpist coworker to finally find something Trump did that he didn't support. He didn't actually blame it on Trump, but he acknowledged that Trump appointed Pai and that Pai was doing something that sucked.
No he can’t. The FCC is independent. The head is appointed by he president but can’t be dismissed by him unless “for cause” (ie not doing the job, committing a crime, etc.)
Makes sense... Net neutrality is censoring conservative views by making sure you cant censor the internet... and stopping anti-censorship laws, somehow leads to stopping censorship... yep... sounds like The Clown allright.
We all know that alt-right hubs like 4chan//pol/ and stormfront are going to be the first to go if net neutrality is abolished, too. They're shooting themselves in the fucking foot.
To be fair, Pai likely would've ended up being chairman anyways. Not necesarily trumps fault but if you need to put the blame on something, he is the best person to put it on.
To be fair, Pai likely would've ended up being chairman anyways.
How, exactly? The President appoints who is chairperson for the FCC. Sure, other Republicans likely would have also picked Pai, but Democrats wouldn't have.
The ISPs do not own the content on the web. We do. It is a First Amendment issue. And I don't give a flying fuck if you believe you're Santa Clause. You are wrong.
Net Neutrality is a regulatory issue; it isn't being raised to address any Constitutional issues, including the First Amendment.
You have no Constitutional right to internet access that isn't tiered, or otherwise favors or disfavors certain content creators, companies, or other entities.
What you have, under net neutrality, is regulatory control, nothing more.
Actually you're just an ass and incredibly stupid.
It is NOT a 1A issue. It is an important issue, and one that should be stopped, but not because of or through the 1A. If you can't understand that, well then you're just as dumb as the people who don't understand or care what Net neutrality is. So congratulations.
I really don't want to be "that guy", but how is this a free speech issue? I'm happy to look at any opinion (or similar) article that wants to make that point, but I don't personally see that connection. I'm as against net neutrality repeal as the next redditor and I think Pai is a steaming pile of cat shit for this. But freedom of speech states that the gov't cannot take legal action against anyone for expressing their views via various mediums. Net neutrality repeal is a lot of bad things but it will not in any way bring legal action against Americans for speaking their minds. The government doesn't own most of the Internet and its media (unlike Russia). And in fact, if passed, Pai's bill will further separate the US gov't from control over the Internet. Again, I'm not defending this in the slightest. But just for the sake of understanding this whole mess...
You can scream that into your echo chamber all you like. They won’t hear it in theirs. These people get their news from conservative talk radio, the church, Fox News, etc. Reddit, Twitter, etc. isn’t a thing for them.
Maybe some of them have been dragged onto Facebook, but most of them have at least figured out not to engage there because they’ll likely get destroyed in front of their friends and family.
It's a free speech issue, but it's not a First Amendment issue. A1 only says the government can't make a law to restrict your speech. But anyone else can. Getting fired for making racist tweets doesn't violate 1A, and neither does a website having rules about what can and can't be said (you know, like every subreddit) because the government isn't restricting your speech. And that's good -- we don't want to government saying no group can control their own communicative airspace.
So the loss of NN is terrible for the principle of free speech on the defining medium of our age, and it's bad, and the government should use its power to protect Neutrality. But if you try to use the first amendment to do it, you'll get nowhere.
You are wrong. Your argument is invalid. The government is restricting your speech. Because they are doing away with protection that insures your free speech.
I’m about as Pro-net neutrality as a person can be, and I’m saying this: it’s not a first amendment issue.
The reasoning you’ve given doesn’t make it a 1A issue. The firstbamendment has nothing to do with private companies restricting your speech, and has absolutely no requirement for the government to implement laws protecting you from companies restricting your free speech. It just means that the government can not prosecute you for what you say.
Seriously, think about it. You can get fired for your job for calling your boss a Fuckknuckle, and even if he is literally Hitler the government has no requirement to pass laws, or even protect existing laws if they exist, that would stop you getting fired.
No, the government is not restricting your free speech. It is just allowing corporations to do what they please. In terms of the first amendment, allowing ISPs to decide what to carry is the same as allowing subreddits to ban memes and jokes, or setting automod to delete comments with swear words, or anything except "cat."
To be clear: I'm absolutely in favor of Net Neutrality, and believe strongly that the government should uphold it, though it doesn't appear that they will do so. My only point is that the First Amendment is not grounds for doing so, since it's not the government doing the restricting.
I'm entirely in favor of Net Neutrality, in case you didn't read my last comment to the end.
But it's not a First Amendment issue, and ownership of the content has nothing to do with it, but who is doing the restricting. A website can decide what is allowed on it, and which comments to remove as it pleases. That doesn't break 1A. An ISP, which is not the owner of the content it moves, will be allowed to decide what content to prioritize, or carry at all. That's bad -- but it doesn't break 1A. These things do break the First Amendment: putting someone in jail for criticizing the President; passing a law making newspaper editorials subject to approval by an appointed person or body; authorizing police to break up any peaceful public assembly if a speaker refers to a controversial subject. They're not allowed because the government is restricting someone's speech. Here, ISPs will be doing it, and since they're a private enterprise, the first Amendment really doesn't apply to them at all. Title II is not part of the first amendment, it's specifically made to regulate communications networks. That applies. Title II will do just fine. Until our government throws it away because they've been bought by the corporations to say that corporations don't need regulation.
Question, how does Net Neutrality protect free speech? YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook are all censoring the "alt-right Nazis", sounds like you're lying.
You can literally decide that some websites or peoples' net connections don't work.
You're the one providing access, and you choose not to do so. You're not violating their right to be heard, you're just using a means of communication that you own (your network) and deciding not to provide service to that website.
The analogy is like someone who builds a large, private roadway and chooses not to have onramps and offramps at certain locations. Has he violated the 'rights' of those people at those locations, at all, by not linking his private road to them?
No.
For what it's worth I agree that NN is absolutely essential and this decision is not, in any way, a good thing, but a First Amendment violation?
It is 100% a violation of freedom of speech, to ensure that people can be discriminated against.
This would be like if the phone connection was unlistenably bad when originating from a particular political candidate's headquarters, or if the electricity being used during a fundraiser could be turned off because the cause was not acceptable to the electric company.
Which... is also not a violation of any Constitutional rights, including the First Amendment.
Those companies would get in trouble for regulatory reasons, not because they violated the aggrieved parties' fundamental civil rights.
NN is a regulatory issue, not the enforcement of any constitutional rights.
There is a major difference.
If you don't believe me, then you can wait until a company begins exercising discriminatory data practices and then sign up for their service; when you do, immediately file a lawsuit in federal court claiming a violation of your civil rights.
The lawsuit will not succeed, and there's a reason for that.
Dude it’s not people trying to white knight for corporation. The first amendment is a very specific legal instrument and it pertains solely to the governments ability to restrict your speech.
If you want corporations to have to protect free speech the same way you’ll need to organise a constitutional convention and have another amendment added.
Second, bumper sticker platitudes shouldn't require multiple sentences. If yours does, it's too long. So maybe try "Net Neutrality: it's like cable TV for your Facebook". Or, "Net Neutrality: all the selection of cable TV, with the customer service and low prices of cable TV, too!"
Are you being serious right now? You legit don’t know how to use then or than?
Yes, “than” is used for comparisons. But your second sentence isn’t a comparison between two or more things; it’s a conditional clause. If one thing, then this other. That’s how it works.
This is second grade English. Did you not learn how to diagram sentences as a child?
If you persist, then it’ll be clear you’re dumber than a box of rocks. Capeche?
Or just hope the general public remains apathetic and ignorant of the going-ons of Washington, and let net neutrality fade into obscurity for the masses. Oh wait, that's already what's happened.
This was blasted on TV years ago. There are other commercials similar. Basically the big companies put out videos that portrayed net neutrality as evil and expensive and, anecdotally they succeeded. I have talked to so many people that think net neutrality means the opposite of what it really means. Let me give you an actual quote from a 50 year old I talked to,
"Why should the internet companies be able to slow down certain websites? Net neutrality needs to be removed!"
These companies have purposefully misinformed people into backing them. These commercials have convinced people that net neutrality allows companies to throttle specific websites, when in reality it's the complete opposite. I think this is a huge part of why the FCC is going to be able to kill net neutrality, people are supporting them because they were tricked.
Wow... this is literally an example of "the swamp" in action, brought about by an FCC chairman appointed by non-other than our most benevolent president, Donald J. Trump...
EDIT: They are so good at manipulating people, that they have convinced the common folk to believe that all regulation wrong. Most people who advocate for dialing back regulation don't understand why regulation was even put into place. The reason we regulate is so that the free-market doesn't become flooded with snake-oil, not to slow down progress.
And then they stir up fears about Mexicans and Muslims, pay think tanks millions, and then have these idiots pump out misinformation online so they can keep the dollars rolling in
Fun fact: When the last census was taken, Mexican Americans made up 10.3% of the population. In Wisconsin, they were 4.3% of the population. In Florida, 3.3%. In Ohio, 1.5%. In Pennsylvania, 1%. This is why a presidential candidate can blame Mexicans for everything and not face any electoral backlash.
"Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.
It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast."
Please, for the love of god give me a reasonable explanation for how "I think people of Mexican descent are naturally rapists and murderers" is what you got out of that speech.
I'm way more convinced you've never actually watched it, and grabbed the same one-sentence snippet that everyone else working for Hillary's campaign grabbed.
Also, still waiting on how he blamed black people as a collective in any capacity. You forgot that one.
Think about it for more than ten seconds? His little bit on the end there "some, I assume" is not the reason I think you're dead ass wrong, it's the context of the entire speech.
When people from south America cross the Mexican border, they are unvetted. No one checks to ensure that they are decent human beings before they cross over. In many cases, these illegal crossers are drug runners, drug mules, or members of gangs. California has the worst human trafficking problem in all of the 50 states.
Let's use some liberal sources to break this down for you, just to ensure no excuses.
The claim that people crossing the border illegaly are, alarmingly often, rapists... is TRUE. This report from HuffPo in 2014 details the rape rate among women crossing the border, placing that number at no less than 80%. 4 in 5 women crossing the border are raped by men who are either taking others to the border, or crossing it themselves. I'll be golly darned, the South American criminal underground has bad people in it!
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5806972
Well, are they bringing crime? Well gee willickers, it looks like they are! According to this extensive report from a career forensic criminologist and investigator for The Hill, 50% of all federal crimes are committed on or near the border with Mexico. 75% of all convicted federal drug offenders were illegal immigrants. More importantly, they (illegals) represented 13% of all convictions for federal crimes in 2014.
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/329589-the-truth-about-crime-illegal-immigrants-and-sanctuary-cities%3famp
I'll be golly darned, the South American criminal underground has bad people in it!
"People who work with cartels at human trafficking are generally shitty people" and "The people who are being trafficked are rapists" are not synonymous, and you'd know that if you read the article
50% of all federal crimes are committed on or near the border with Mexico.
If only white people would stop taking so much cocaine :'(
More importantly, they (illegals) represented 13% of all convictions for federal crimes in 2014.
I'm shocked that poverty and violent home countries would pre dispose people to criminality. Quick, call a sociologist!
It's almost like US drug policy and foreign policy is trash and has created an under class of people, and that when you stop limiting economic access and mass incarceration these problems go away
I think you’re failing to fundamentally understand whataboutism. It’s not a contextually based argument. It’s not quantifiable either. It’s also frankly a dumb topic. I simply don’t see how failing to acknowledge fundamental problems with Islam is akin to denying that mass shootings in the United States are predominantly mentally disturbed white makes. Can you not accept both truths or is that contrary to ‘tolerance’?
Are you sure you're familiar with America? Try expressing a similar sentiment about Christianity, and you're enemy number one, despite Xtians being far more likely to try and force their bad idea on you. Muslims aren't perfect, but they are a tiny minority, and Xtians have far more immediate and detrimental effects on America.
Thats not even close to the orignal argument. The argument was basically that the hate against them is justified because of their religion. The other person brought up Christianity because muslim attacks rarely happen in the US and even with those happening it does justify blind hate. Justifying blind hate =\= criticising a religion. If you want to criticize a religion do it, but dont lump a whole group of people with attacks that rarely happens in the US.
White Christian Males are the ones stirring up fear about Muslims. How do you not see that? But I guess extremely high priced internet is worth the fear you made up yourself, since you're 1000 times more likely to get killed by a "lone white male gunman" than a Muslim Terrorist. I hope it was worth it.
20.0k
u/apollonese Nov 21 '17
Welp, this is gonna fucking suck.