https://imgur.com/a/1zNas9PChips wrote: ↑Fri, 12. Jul 19, 12:39Worth noting some present more geographical results - and I don't necessarily mean by proximity to, but also grouped by popularity of terms used in a region.
There's a really long blog post about Google search, auto complete, and things that influence/determine what you see. It therefore also explains why some names + term will not return results, while others will.
So no "Donald Trump Grab" - despite searching on that term you get the very obvious and expected first result. "Grab em by the pussy". That's the US president alright - what a guy. Someone to look up to and admire - because sexual assault is always something to brag about and admire.
Conspiracy in its omission MasterB? Or are you going to accept that perhaps there is not a conspiracy for Clinton in this instance? Interested in seeing if your opinion changes when presented with clear and irrefutable evidence as above. After all, I remember this is one Mrs Clinton's detractors (I think yourself included) have repeated many times over the last few years. Are you finally going to alter your opinion and stop peddling that one? (lets be clear one thing, I'm not supporting either Clinton nor Trump, their policies or personalities. I'm merely pointing out that claims Google are political by censoring search results for one person/party they allegedly support are demonstrably false by presenting clear evidence that exists to prove Trump is treated the exact same. Personal feelings for Clinton/Trump are irrelevant to this point and it's highly unlikely Google's search results are anything to do with Trump or Clinton per se, more to do with "insert well known politician name" type searches).
Nope. You guys have your Russia conspiracy theory. This one will be mine. Something is off. I know google to be more than a little liberal leaning. There are freely available accounts from former google employees like James Damore about that corporate culture and I see censorship going hand in hand with that brand of leftist extremism in the flavor of political correctness. Reddit has it's shadowbans and algorithm games. Twitter arbitrarily bans content. Youtube demonetizes channels and outright deletes content that never broke the rules but criticized sacred cows like abortion. I see google tipping in a direction toward being more overt about directing you to fake news media aligned with it's agenda and away from things that would lead you to something critical of it's pet causes.
Wait one year. When the 2020 election is happening everyone providing media is going to pick a side again. We saw it happen with the news in 2016 and we all know which side CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are aligned with now. It's going to become clearer with social media then. No one is going to make the mistake again of discounting the political discourse of the cheeto stained fingers of regular people punching keys on their phones. The companies I have mentioned are liberal from the top down and they do not want Trump to win again. If I'm totally wrong and there is no bias this is good for everyone. I kind of want to be wrong. I'm still in the position where I've witnessed that the farther left a person or organization goes the more intolerant to dissent they become. If I'm being hypervigilant and jumping at shadows then fine. I have a reason to do it.
Extremist drivel. Who is threatening antifa members life and liberty? This is a crowd of young millennials throwing a tantrum. They are so radicalized that they can't see they embody the thing they claim to fight against. Brown shirts would suit them more than black masks. It is only by the grace of antifa member's skinny arms and physical weakness that no one has died. Walk yourself back from this ledge. If you want to run with this crowd then do your part to moderate their extremism before their actions mandate others do it for them. The tolerance for masked thugs beating people is not universal.Bishop149 wrote: ↑Mon, 8. Jul 19, 17:12
Cool. so we have two arguments along the same lines.
Because war is legal and punching political extremists in the street is not.
We could all probably come up with very reasonable sounding arguments about why the punching is illegal, but I'd imagine we might find it somewhat harder to apply those same moral and legal principles to make the case for war being legal, eh?
The core of the matter is that both are based upon the same thing: State control
The law serves two functions:
- To protect the State.
- To protect the citizenry.
In a perfect world these two things should not be distinct from each other but of course the world is not perfect and so they are, with the latter tending to come a long way second to the former.
In specific regard to violence, violence is aggressive and direct application of power for the assertion of control.
The State wants to ensure that that power remains ONLY within itself, that the only people "allowed" to commit violence are agents of itself, police, soldiers etc.
The academic term for this if anyone want further reading is "The Monopoly on Violence*"
This results in the following moral inconsistency:
Two people can do the exact same thing, to the exact same end, but the one with state authority is a "hero" and rewarded with a medal, the one without it is a "criminal" and rewarded with punishment.
This is an over-simplification, there are of course very valid reasons for the centralisation of authority, but you're a fool if you think it acts entirely (or even mostly) in the interest of the public.
This is why Antifa exists, they do not thinks the State, it's laws (in particular the 1st amendment), or those charged with enforcing them are sufficient to protect them from a clear and present threat to their lives and liberty.
So they are taking matters into their own hands, both inside and (very occasionally) outside the law. It's vigilantism pure and simple.
Whats my personal opinion on all this?
Well I tend to agree with the argument that the threat of violence or even small scale outbreak of limited violence is conducive to or even necessary for social progression and change.
I write this in Pride month, a movement that has result in some significant societal change . . . . . that started with a riot.
Here are two papers (by the same author) that outline the argument much better than I could:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10 ... 6901300203
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services ... ge-div.pdf
How much violence is acceptable to this end? Where should the line be drawn?
Well, the academic answer is usually, when the counter movement becomes more deadly than that it is protesting.
To put it less equivocally, killing . . . . death on any substantial scale. Which is why, even if it was ONLY relevant to this argument which it clearly is not, the second amendment is a stupid idea.
*Somewhat paradoxically, this is something that people who like to bang on about the 2nd amendment also like to talk about, the populace being armed breaks the monopoly on violence reducing the likelihood of tyranny..
.