One would think they'd at least wait until the planned concentration camps are built.
Rottcodd
joined 2 years ago
Brought to you by the party of Liberty™ and Small Government™.
A convicted felon gleefully plans to utterly destroy everything of any value in the US and not a single peep out of the press.
Then a mostly ineffectual lame duck president toys with the idea of doing something to hopefully head off ar least some of the convicted felon's most egregious planned abuses and the alarm sounds. "Oh my god! He might change presidential power!"
Fucking apologist pieces of shit.
It's not even just a "wildly unrealistic" promise - his proposed tariffs make it a literally impossible one.
Even with the depth of my cynicism, it astonishes me that so many people believe he can drive down prices in light of the fact that he's also proposing a thing whose specific purpose is to prop up prices.
A spokesperson for Automattic told 404 Media: "... “We look forward to prevailing at trial as we continue to protect the open source ecosystem..."
If nothing else, this whole uproar is setting a new standard for apparently unintentional irony.
This isn't analysis - it's craven blame-shifting.
Trump already has a blank check to issue pardons and already intends to abuse the power in ways never before seen, and it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference what Biden or anyone else does or doesn't do.
And just like that, the opening theme is playing in my head.
Oh look - cringing sycophancy from the NYT. Who'da guessed?
Whats the paradox of tolerance?
It's a fucking paradox.
It honestly amazes me that damned near everyone seems to miss that part, even though it's in the fucking name.
There a huge difference between what one thinks is misinformation, and what is proven to be misinformation though.
Epistemologically, yes. But for all practical purposes, at this point in time, there really isn't, since anyone can find sources that purportedly "prove" that whatever they want to believe is true and/or that whatever they don't want to believe is "misinformation." It makes absolutely no difference what the claim in question is - somebody somewhere online has "proven" that it's true, and somebody else somewhere online has "proven" that it's not.
So what that means is that to avoid the trap of endlessly dueling contradictory claims, somebody is going to have to simply decree what is or is not to be considered to be true - which sources and purported proofs are legitimate and which are not - and that's where it inevitably goes wrong.
And in fact, to go all the way back to the start of this thread, that's exactly how hexbear and ml work. They maintain their bubbles by essentially arbitrarily decreeing that [this] is true and [that] is misinformation. And if you press them on it, they're more than willing to post links to the "proof."
While I agree with your assessment, I'd note that pretty much everyone at this point declares that whatever views they disagree with are "misinformation," so proactively banning things solely because someone has declared that they're "misinformation" isn't a sound strategy.
And again, I agree with that assessment in this case. But that's really beside the point.
We're really speedrunning this whole autocracy thing, aren't we?
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater." - Frank Zappa