[Please place off-topic comments in open threads like this one, and not in the main articles]
One of the ironies of the Friday the 13th movies is Jason is supposed to be mentally retarded, and yet he has the most creative kills of any slasher in the genre. Indeed comparing the way Jason kills people to the way any pre-1980s slasher kills people is like comparing humans before and after 50 kya (the date when some scientists think behavioral modernity blossomed).
Before 50 kya, humans generally could only make artifacts out of only stones. After 50 kya they suddenly started making them out of bone, antler, ivory and shell.
Similarly before 1980, U.S. slashers could only kill with knives, saws, and their hands. After 1980, they started killing with axes, pitch forks, machetes, cork-screws. You name it!
Of course the one killing weapon no self-respecting slasher will use is as a gun. Watching Halloween IV with a large group of people, there was one scene where it looked like Michael Myers was about to shoot someone with a rifle. People watching the movie were booing, moaning and hissing. “C’mon man” complained one black guy.
But when the crowd realized Michael had other plans for the gun besides shooting it, the crowd went wild with approval.
The question is why don’t we want our slashers using guns? Here’s my just-so story: Guns have only existed for a short period of time, by contrast primates have been slabbed, slashed and hacked for millions of years, so there’s been far more time to evolve an innate fear towards these methods of violence, and so they better fit the scary atmosphere horror fans seek.
At the 47 minute mark in the below video (hat-tip to commenter Bruno), Richard Dawkins and Stephen Pinker talk about how what we fear has more to do with what was threatening in our prehistoric past than what is threatening to us today, implying these fears are not rational, but hardwired instincts. I think most of us fear even harmless snakes because our ancestors spent millions of years being eaten by snakes in the Africa Savannah:
Pumpkin Person 
unz gets it. maybe rr will too in time.
When a ruling elite has limited connection to the population it controls, benevolent behavior is far less likely to occur, and those problems are magnified when that elite has a long tradition of ruthlessly extractive behavior.
no amount of propaganda can beat the racism out of people. there are two very good reasons for the nation state/ethno state/homogeneous polity which have nothing to do with supremacism.
1. GxE effects mean that individuals are more likely to achieve their potential in a society of people closely related to themselves ceteris paribus, as various features of such a society will have been selected for their congeniality to the genome of the volk.
2. homophily and xenophobia are human traits. and they are not learned.
Are there any ways of verifying statement 2? look at the interbreeding rates in britain between africans and europeans.
More problems for GWAS and similar research programs that use large data sets…
For example, we prove that very large databases have to contain arbitrary correlations. These correlations appear only due to the size, not the nature, of data. They can be found in “randomly” generated, large enough databases, which—as we will prove—implies that most correlations are spurious. Too much information tends to behave like very little information.
“the more data, the more arbitrary, meaningless and useless (for future action) correlations will be found in them”.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297656557_The_Deluge_of_Spurious_Correlations_in_Big_Data [accessed Jul 16 2018].
The bigger the data set, the more spurious correlations will be found. Ouch… Another nail in the coffin for GWAS…
It’s true that the more SNPs you look at, the more likely you are to find correlations by chance, and there was a long period of time where studies did not replicate because all the correlations were spurious. However once they increased the requisite level of statistical significance to correspond with the size of the data set, the problem was essentially solved and now correlations routinely replicate.
The correlations are still highly spurious. So now we have spurious correlations with big data sets and population stratification that cannot be controlled for. Ouch…
The correlations are still highly spurious
No they’re not. Steve Hsu says they routinely replicate now. Try again.
kim and bilgrami are both naturalists so rr is making stuff up.
I think Kim is but I’m not sure about Bilgrami. Kim’s Causal Exclusion Argument. Both arguments establish that the mental is irreducible to the physical while Bilgrami’s argument establishes that the mental cannot be naturalized.
both arguments are FOR naturalism.
wtf is wrong with you?
Kim’s argument refuted the best naturalist theory (anomalous monism) by showing that, on a token-identity theory, the mental is epiphenomenal.
Bilgrami’s shows that there are items, minds, and states of mind, which are real and irreducible which constantly involves the perspective of the first-person.
is software not physical?
heller…
1. my opinion was 100% self-consistent and consistent with original intent.
2. scalia’s opinion was self-in-consistent and in-consistent with original intent.
3. stevens’s opinion was dishonest and inconsistent with original intent.
4. breyer’s opinion was written by a mental patient.
a jew gave a ted talk claiming that bolt is NOT much faster than owens.
he might be right.
but then this would mean armin hary is the fastest man ever.
hary is still regarded by the cognescenti as the fastest to 30m ever.
what’s changed?
1. the track surface.
2. blocks. owens had no blocks.
3. shoes. the spikes owens wore were much heavier.
4. timing…but the jew didn’t say that this generally advantages owens.
is it just talk?
interestingly no.
andre degrasse was much slower than hary on cinders. much. a full second.
I don’t have social anxiety.
I am just shy and embarrassed. timid.
Do not know how to get rid of it.
I am hurt easily and scared. lonely.
(wallflower)(snowflake)
I have a hard time with people.
But it could be I am somewhat emo.
Nothing wrong with my social intelligence.
Sometimes it takes a while to come out of one’s shell.
My gay roommate says stuttering is a sign of creativity, not Aspergers.
here’s the autistic terry tao argument which makes it clear.
suppose persons A1, …, An have voted FOR some legislation AND are on record in floor debates, committee hearings, or wherever AND that their intensions are inconsistent.
this does not mean that the intersection/conjunction of their intensions is empty.
because if it did mean that…
the law they passed would have ZERO meaning.
swank will not respond to this as usual. he will write something totally irrelevant and intentionally misleading…
the law in the US is just another yuge fraud like the ones identified by david graeber.
[redacted by pp, july 16, 2018]
this does not mean that the intersection/conjunction of their intensions is empty.
theoretically and that isn’t what I said, anyway…
the law they passed would have ZERO meaning.
but it would not have a SINGLE, OBJECTIVE UNIFIED MEANING…in REALITY…
swank will not respond to this as usual
What’s to respond to? You’re slowly agreeing with me without even realizing it…
inconsistent legislative intensions are just theoretical. no jew has ever given an actual example.
suppose there is more than one possible ruling which accords with all evidence with evidence of intent being the highest level of evidence. the founders were quite clear what the correct ruling would be. the narrowest.
intent is determined in courts every day, but magically is impossible to determine in the case of legislation despite the perps recording themselves talking about it ad nauseam.
swank should apologize to everyone here and become a full time male prostitute.
with all evidence with evidence of intent being the highest level of evidence
and the highest, most objective evidence is the text of the statute itself, and if the ‘narrowest’ ruling is to be preferred, then the tip top of the ‘intent’ hierarchy would be strict constructionism.
intent is determined in courts every day, but magically is impossible to determine in the case of legislation despite the perps recording themselves talking about it ad nauseam.
confusing model with reality…again.
swank should apologize to everyone here and become a full time male prostitute.
I don’t want to bilk you out of your savings, old sport.
intension: the extension in all possible worlds.
whether or not judges would agree on the original intent is irrelevant. a ruling can be good without being perfect. but swank is a dirty jew so he doesn’t understand this.
original intent excludes ridiculous rulings. and no other principle does.
whether or not judges would agree on the original intent is irrelevant.
I never said it was particularly relevant. Lol.
a ruling can be good without being perfect.
Yup!
original intent excludes ridiculous rulings. and no other principle does.
Dread v. Scott wasn’t ridiculous? It’s certainly thought of as ridiculous.
Dread v. Scott
1. you’re not a lawyer.
2. what else have you lied about?
[redacted by pp, july 17, 2018]
Dred Scott v. Sandford
what was wrong with the decision?
tell me how it followed original intent.
right, thanks for the correction.
i haven’t lied about anything.
“what was wrong with the decision?”
Jurisprudentially the decision had relatively little long-term impact. However its short-term political impact was enormous. It generated hundreds of newspaper editorials and countless speeches by politicians. In 1858 two senatorial candidates in Illinois—the incumbent Stephen A. Douglas and the challenger Abraham Lincoln—vigorously analyzed the case, as well as the issue of extending slavery into the territories, in the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates. In 1860 Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune and the most important Republican journalist, published a pamphlet edition of the majority opinion of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney (1777–1864) and the dissent of Associate Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis. Predominantly antislavery, the Republicans distributed tens of thousands of copies of these two opinions as a campaign document. Republicans hated Taney’s opinion and believed that distributing it would help bring out the vote in the election that year.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/culture-magazines/dred-scott-v-sandford
It brought the government’s legitimacy into question and directly precipitated the civil war.
“tell me how it followed original intent.”
Taney tied his historical analysis to an explicit appeal to what legal scholars later identified as original intent, originalism, or the intentions of the framers. He argued that Americans had to follow the intent of those who wrote the Constitution and that
https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/culture-magazines/dred-scott-v-sandford
i know you’ll argue with it, but you’re wrong.
but…obscure grammar rules, numbers n’stuff, correcting case names even…you’re the guy!
It brought the government’s legitimacy into question and directly precipitated the civil war.
LIE!
if he actually followed original intent and didn’t just pretend to as you claim bork did then he made a good decision.
Dred Scott, an enslaved man of “the negro African race”[3] who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott’s request.
mugabe 7 – swank dumb.
Dread v. Scott wasn’t ridiculous? It’s certainly thought of as ridiculous.
EXACTLY!
IF TANEY DID IN FACT TRY TO ASCERTAIN THE ORIGINAL INTENT TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY THEN IT WAS NOT RIDICULOUS.
NOT!
The model must be right because the model is right, who cares what the governed think and the real world impacts…..the muggy jurisprudence.
swank just gave the definition of…
a nation of laws and not of men.
taney’s decision WAS horrible…but NOT horrible…at the same time.
swank doesn’t grok that…
1. if you can’t measure it you can’t change it.
2. all the judicial activism he allows because good allows activism bad.
swank might make an argument that judicial activism is almost always good for reasons other than he happens to agree with it.
what swank did NOT tell all y’all is that the dred scott decision was ACTIVIST. it claimed that congress could not bar slave holding in new states…or something like that…
it seems clear that the dissent followed original intent.
not taney.
is
ought.
taney’s decision WAS horrible…but NOT horrible…at the same time.
swank doesn’t grok that…
There’s nothing to grok.
You are wrong.
Taney used original intent and his result was WRONG.
And you’re here trying to say up is down with the “nu, nu it’s activist” (of course, because judicial activism is just rhetoric for ‘I don’t like it,’ I agree with you in a sense that I’m sure you would think it is activist) nonsense.
it seems clear that the dissent followed original intent.
So both the majority and dissent followed original intent and yet reached opposite results.
Probably because swank is right.
. all the judicial activism he allows because good allows activism bad.
I never said that, nor is it any kind of corollary to anything I’ve said about jurisprudence.
We’ll get there. Maybe in a month. Hopefully by then, because at around that time I’ll get busy again and probably be gone for another year or two.
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/308775/conditional-expectation-of-two-identical-marginal-normal-random-variables
my question was merged into this one. the question the guy asks actually assumes something which is FALSE.
answers give non-linear conditional mean curves for bivariate distributions with normal marginals.
here’re some:
imagine that in another possible universe oj killed nicole but there were 100 people standing around watching.
swank [to witness 100]: witnesses 1 through 99 have testified that OJ yelled, “touchdown!” after he slit nicole’s throat? do you recall that?
wintness 100: no. he did not yell “touchdown!” he yelled “tony danza!” i remember it very well, because i thought it was so odd.
swank: if the witnesses did all hear the same thing you must acquit!
didn’t all hear…
swank’s girlfriend: why do we always have to do the “greek way” swank?
swank: i can’t believe my girlfriend is such a homophobe.
well my darling muggy, you are always whining about the homos…now shhh…
Is the Game Broken? – Designer’s Intent and the Triple Power Rule – Extra Politics – #7
Would it help the High IQ society if lets say the world had a high IQ week? Like a week holiday?
i found a jew swank can make his hero. raoul berger. he was the original original intent-er.
Berger unleashed a firestorm of controversy within the legal academy with his next book, Government by Judiciary. In it, Berger claimed that the Warren Court’s expansive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment alternately distorted and ignored the intentions of the framers of that amendment as disclosed by the historical record. Berger presented arguments that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend it to forbid segregated schooling.[4]
The book is widely credited as the first work of legal scholarship from an originalist perspective, although some originalists disagree with the conclusions Berger draws from the historical record.[5] Berger further posited that the Warren Court expanded the authority of the judiciary without constitutional warrant.[4]
now swank will say bork didn’t mean what he said. he just trying to fool people. again swank will fail to make the is/ought distinction.
i would bet that 90+% of americans who hadn’t gone to law school would agree with bork. he even uses the word i did “legitimate” and goes onto say that this is in fact what most people imagine judges do and that this is their sole source of legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
so the REALITY is swank simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and is just making shit up.
the people are NEVER going to revolt unless original intent is NOT the rule AND they KNOW it.
the REALITY is that even most lawyers have no clue as to how bad the federal appeals courts are.
and I used the words ‘legitimate’ and ‘legitimacy’ first.
you’re just slowly agreeing with what I’ve said at the outset. In another month or two you’ll repeat my position verbatim while insulting me and telling me how stupid I am.
the convention of 1787 also has copious records.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-3vols
original intent in the case of legislation may have little evidence i suppose, especially at the state level perhaps, but it seems the evidence of original intent in the case of the constitution is overwhelming. so overwhelming that if judges actually did follow original intent differences in opinion would be trivial or non-existent.
j p stevens points out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3owPefBacVA that scalia was an EXTREME fraud.
“The Brown decision was a powerful moral statement clad in a weak constitutional analysis; Warren was never a legal scholar on a par with Frankfurter or a great advocate of particular doctrines, as was Black. Instead, he believed that in all branches of government common sense, decency, and elemental justice were decisive, not precedent (stare decisis), tradition or the text of the Constitution. He wanted results. He never felt that doctrine alone should be allowed to deprive people of justice . He felt racial segregation was simply wrong, and Brown, whatever its doctrinal defects, remains a landmark decision primarily because of Warren’s interpretation of the equal protection clause to mean that children should not be shunted to a separate world reserved for minorities.[50]”
I don’t know what the hell was going through Eisenhowers head when he appointed him. When you read about Warrens life its amazing – he was a former VP nominee and Governor and was very active in politics and didnt really have a judicial background. I have no idea why you would make such a political person a surpreme court chief justice. The man was unfit for office. Eisenhower later said he was his biggest mistake as president.
Instead, he believed that in all branches of government common sense, decency, and elemental justice were decisive
in other words a total incompetent. another reason why original intent is not the order of the day is it’s too hard. it requires the judge and his clerks to do a lot of work.
what [redacted by pp, july 17, 2018]swank don’t get is that if advocates of whatever jurisprudence actually practiced it they could never be labeled conservative or liberal or whatever…
except the “living constitution” people are clearly liberal. that’s the only exception.
in general if a judge never makes a decision which he would not make if he were dictator then he’s not a judge.
i admit. being an actual judge is a hard job and requires a high IQ. but bork may’ve been the last actual federal appeals judge.
Judges aren’t there to do ‘justice’ as such. To take an extreme case, if the consitution said, slavery was legal, the judges should follow the constitution, not their religious beliefs or their ‘morals’.
I don’t think Swanky gets this basically, so theres no point in talking to him. Swanky basically wants judges to do whatever Rabbi Tim Wise says, so its ridiculous arguing with a hack like that. Its like arguing with Afro about HBD. Waste of time. Do some gardening instead.
swanky thinks that judges under the common law system are politicians by design. yet judges qua politicians are illegitimate in the eyes of the people.
swank said, “i never said…” as if that meant anything.
no swank. you never said it. but it followed as a necessary consequence of what you have said.
jews are not known for their consistency.
It actually doesn’t follow….I’ve already outlined the check on a judge’s power and the limits of their discretion.
Judges aren’t there to do ‘justice’ as such.
Yeah…the court’s equitable powers don’t exist.
To take an extreme case, if the consitution said, slavery was legal, the judges should follow the constitution, not their religious beliefs or their ‘morals’.
What if the constitution said the courts had equitable powers? Could the judges utilize their notions of ‘fairness,’ then?
Nothing wrong with gardening. I think you guys spend too much time on the Internet, on this blog in particular.
“Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ”
Roe V Wade is supposedly based on this.
Im sure there’s a lot of writing around it. Maybe Ill read it someday. But my first reaction is that the equal process clause of the 14th has nothing to do with the question of whether a state can regulate abortion or ban it.
You could even argue it prohibits abortion. But then you have to see what the constitution defines as a ‘citizen of the united states’. Presumably, if the US affords certain rights to dead peoples estates, it should afford rights to unborn people’s estates. But again, I’m not familiar with stare decisis on those topics. Just using common sense.
If I was to argue for abolishing abortion. i’d ban it on the same grounds of the commerce clause being used to ban drugs. I.e. I’d ban abortion providers, not the act of it per se.
I wonder what the founders thought of sterlisation. They must have written about that.
^^^
Correct way to interperet the constitution.
NOT
“Ask the NAACP and Rabbi Congress of America what we should do”
swank’s non-theory means as a judge he could never make a decision he would not make if he were dictator.
this proves swank is NOT a professional. he’s a hack.
swank’s non-theory means as a judge he could never make a decision he would not make if he were dictator.
It most certainly does not, and I’ve already stated why several times.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/17/donald-trump-putin-russia-summit-how-will-republicans-react
When the guardian started endorsing this russia nonsense it lost all credibility in my eyes. This stuff reminds me a lot of the the lead up to Iraq or the pro refugee propaganda in the media 2 years ago. 100% orchastrated.
I’m not saying everyone in the Guardian is in on it. But key people there are pushing this under direction. You don’t lose your mind like this and push an obviously ridiculous story.
eric weinstein also believes this has been orchestrated, and he’s a jew.
but he admits he has little or no idea who and how.
michael palin once interviewed swank.
Its nice to see some of them aged really well. Cyndi Lauper looks great for a 70 something year old. Literally has the same voice. Amazing.
Sting’s Every Breath You Take sounds like a stalker anthem. But a very good piece of music.
They should have Chris Montez on it. What a legend.
women, like gay men, think youth is everything. it is in terms of wanting to have chillens. because menopause and mongoloidism. but women can be very attractive past child bearing age. it’s just rare.
Blondie was a proper bombshell back in the day. Very Very sexy.
her Call me is the opening song to the oprah show.
Men age a lot better than women. But the black women seem to have aged really well.
That german woman that sang 99 red balloons look decent for her age.
Nat imbruglia…..was a wonder of the world when she was younger.
peepee figures out a mechanical puzzle…
[redacted by pp, july 17, 2018]
ENIGMA Hanayama Cast Metal Brain Teaser Puzzle (Level 6)
everyone needs to read unz’s latest on the chosen people.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-oddities-of-the-jewish-religion/
“For example, according to mainstream Talmudic doctrine, black Africans are traditionally placed somewhere between people and monkeys in their intrinsic nature, and surely all rabbis, even liberal ones, would be aware of this religious doctrine. But Shahak notes that the numerous American rabbis who so eagerly worked with Martin Luther King, Jr. and other black Civil Rights leaders during the 1950s and 1960s strictly concealed their religious beliefs while denouncing American society for its cruel racism, presumably seeking to achieve a political quid pro quo beneficial to Jewish interests from America’s substantial black population.”
I keep saying it. But nobody believes me. They believe in civil rights in the same way I believe in civil rights when Im at work and someone asks me to donate to a refugee charity out loud.
I keep saying it. But nobody believes me.
Who doesn’t believe you? Stop thinking you’ve discovered some original theory. Everything you say Kevin MacDonald and David Duke have been saying for decades.
Stop plagiarizing MacDonald and come up with your own theories. You remind me of Rainman how you constantly talk about the same subject over and over. Such restricted and repetitive narrow behavior.
Out of interest have you ever even read one of McDonalds books? I have. Have you?
I have read culture of critic . I intend to read the first two of the trilogy .
There is nothing original about pill’s theories. In fact there are others like Christopher Bollyn who are far more extreme than pill:
but even i as a gentile know his claims about judaism qua religion are mostly bs.
they DO hate goyim and regard them as slaves at best, but they don’t worship many gods or satan. that’s total bs.
swank: RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!
the dissents ALSO followed original intent as this was until holmes the ONLY jurisprudence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford#Dissents_by_Justice_Curtis_and_Justice_McLean
it has NEVER been the ONLY jurisprudence….
…and, good, you’ve been slowly recognizing the fact that utilizing original intent can lead to contrary results….
Taney’s own attitudes toward slavery were more complex. He emancipated his own slaves[22] and gave pensions to those who were too old to work.[citation needed] In 1819, he defended a Methodist minister who had been indicted for inciting slave insurrections by denouncing slavery in a camp meeting.[citation needed] In his opening argument in that case, Taney condemned slavery as “a blot on our national character.”[23]
so it seems either:
1. taney really did find that the truth was NOT what he wished it were.
2. he made his decision for political reasons, pragmatic reasons and did not actually follow original intent.
has swank actually read his opinion? those old decisions probably aren’t as long as the new ones.
plus swank. the war of northern aggression was caused by abraham lincoln and no one else.
600,000+ people dead. why? to save the union! wtf? the south was and still is a different country. it should’ve been let go. brazil ended slavery last only 27 years after the american war began.
”600,000+ people dead. why? to save the union! wtf? the south was and still is a different country.”
I wouldnt feel happy that 600,000 people died. But U.S should be one. The world is struggling to handle one U.S, imagine if there were two.
The universe/multiverse always has a plan.
right. in retrospect it might’ve been a good thing. but what actually happened was…
1. a series of states seceded…for mostly douchey reasons.
2. the northern states invaded.
that’s what actually happened.
taney used original intent and he reached a result that most every legal scholar believes is/was ridiculous. your earlier assertion is false.
case dismissed.
like arguments of affirmative action this argument with swank is ridiculous as the deep problem is that the US constitution is too difficult to amend. it might be amended such that parts of it were difficult to amend or overturn and other parts much less difficult. i would guess that the length of a country’s constitution correlates with how easily it is amended. according to http://comparativeconstitutionsproject.org/ccp-rankings/ the US has relatively short constitution.
just to show how utterly JEWISH swank is…
Following the ruling, the Chaffees deeded the Scott family to Taylor Blow, who manumitted them on May 26, 1857.
the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857.
who actually brought the case?
the obsession with slavery is just more diversion by the ruling class.
wage slavery is cool.
swank’s obsession with black people and slavery proves he doesn’t care…
about poverty, wage slavery, discrimination…
swank’s morality is…
whatever gets me an A on my t14 law school exam.
in this he is not unusual in les etats unis merdeux.
swank’s people made america shit.
“MAGA” is replaced by “MAShit” on swank’s snapback.
swank’s morality is…
whatever gets me an A on my t14 law school exam.
Not quite, old sport.
You outlined the constraints on my morality.
It’s not that much different than the constraints on a judge’s decision making ability.
Maybe the problem is too many lawyers on this blog. We need more scientists.
i agree with (((popper)) on government except for what jimmy dore claims was his position on speech.
that is, the best government is the government that can change. absolutism in policy is…KFC (aka oprah).
it is obvious to all non-retards why this is the exception.
if you can’t criticize it, it can’t be changed.
change is the rule.
speech isn’t polonium 210.
as a south asian peepee doesn’t grok that support for pakistan’s claims to kashmir should not be punished.
she doesn’t grok that speech is what humans do. and the solution to bad speech is good speech.
I think ‘speech’ in terms of control of the media should be regulated and foreign actors controlling it to troll people should be banned.
Many countries regulate their national media for ‘national security’ reasons. The fact the US pretends it doesn’t is only because it would prohibit certain ethnic mnorities.
Even in the UK, media ownership is heavily regulated. e.g. Murdoch wasn’t allowed to buy out the other bskyb shareholders.
i don’t wanna have RT banned in the US.
the problem is the concentration of ownership.
which includes concentration of ownership by a small minority ethnic group.
i wouldn’t want all the media owned by murdoch either.
and the first amendment needs to be extended to social media.
facebook and youtube aren’t newspapers.
now i’m thinking pill is a south asian.
sad!
There are well known exceptions to free speech philosophically anyway. E.g. shouting fire in a packed theatre. Or slandering someones reputation by making false accusations (though this is handled in different ways in different places).
When you say free speech shouldn’t be regulated, then why can’t christian schools not teach evolution and teach creationism?
Free speech isn’t absolute.
What you really mean to say is free speech in terms of political activism and being able to organise collectively or to question scientific or political findings and that. I.e the people under rule, should be allowed to question their rulers. Thats not really ‘free speech’. Thats more the right to demonstrate or criticise.
those are NOT exceptions because that was NOT the intent.
by “speech” the framers meant “political speech”.
so the only “speech” which may be prohibited is speech which has no CONCEIVABLE political content.
for example: banning porn is in accord with original intent, unless the porn has a political message. so expression may not be political but may still have an idea. it’s best to ring fence what is protected and include some of what is not. the perfect is the enemy of the good.
What do you think of Putin banning all those foreign (((NGOs))) from organising and publishing stuff in Russia?
The question of whether a ruler should be allowed ban foreign actors from criticising him is a pretty tough one to weigh up. This is where your conservative v liberal credentials really come in.
A core conservative would say theres nothing wrong with what putin did. Even if they think putin is a kleptocrat.
I suppose the reasoning they might give (i don’t speak for them), is that its better to be ruled absolutely by a domestic kleptocrat, than a shadowy conspiracy of foreign actors serving their own goals.
I think ‘speech’ in terms of control of the media should be regulated
Many countries regulate their national media for ‘national security’ reasons
Pussy.
So if you were jewish, which you are, you would lead the Iranian state buy all the media companies in israel?
“lead” = let?
pill’s phonetic spelling gives clues to his nationality.
If you were a pussy, which you are, you would ask this question.
it’s a perfect analogy…
swank: south carolina has WMD!
my dad was a motherfucker to the very end…screaming at people.
waiting for pathologist’s report.
brain will be sent to multiple locations.
i arranged for that!
much sooner than expected.
no one came to see klaus in the hospital. they were afraid.
Well you always wonder what the ultimate IQ test it. And I suppose the one figuring out youre on a plantation is a good one. I wouldn’t have got there without Marx funnily enough. But marx only wrote that because Master was gentile back in the days. I wonder if a modern day Marx would bother publishing knowing he is in the Master class.
Question for swanky. Why does he believe reparations to blacks is moral. But brazilians, arabs, north africans and various latin americans don’t need to pay reparations. Or for that matter, how about the ‘indentured servants’ that were white?
Just wondering where swanky gets his morality from.
genes vs environment…
“mainstream” science is that AIDS is caused by HIV BUT some are immune to the effects of HIV.
would be interesting to know if any who were diagnosed in 1982-3 are still living.
because resistance to HIV has at least two forms…
1. total resistance.
2. partial resistance…symptoms develop but stop progressing.
needless to say, rr will claim that spaghetti cures AIDS.
another problem with mass media is that it is owned by/controlled by anyone.
if the people in control of broadcasting are all billionaires, then…
anti-in-equality, anti-capitalist messages will be few an far between.
one of the two original translators of Sein und Zeit into english said in another work that mass media in supposedly free countries is something earlier dictators only DREAMED of.
…and far between…
i think it was john macquarrie. an anglican priest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Macquarrie
of course i say that from an american POV.
i agree with pill that american media has WAY too much power…especially in small countries.
so luxembourg banning chinese media might be a thing.
so in terms of banning speech the supremes have actually got it right.
speech can only be banned if the ban has NOTHING to do with the CONTENT of the speech.
in this way luxembourg might ban american mass media. “american” is NOT content. is it?
the determination of ‘american’ turns on content….
…so….
it’s fine. some people are pussies.
of course any justice worth his salt would point out that content can be banned indirectly by bans on non-content features of speech.
this is where the high IQ of judges comes into play.
i DO agree that american mass media is disproportionately powerful.
but it’s not america per se…except that american media isn’t really american. it’s (((american))).
in the future indian or chinese media may become too powerful too.
this argument is like saying that because some individuals are disproportionately powerful, that their efforts at spreading whatever message they want to spread should be regulated….
…A GIRLY MAN’S ARGUMENT.
the government has ZERO place regulating ‘free speech.’ zilch.
i AM a criminal.
i NEVER saw my dad when he was dying.
like nomi’s friends i was afraid.
i intended to see him…he died the same day.
my crime isn’t a crime legally…but it’s still a crime.
the fear is the worst. i just wanted to tell him he had nothing to fear.
so i did nothing wrong.
a moment of pain or fear is NOTHING compared to a kalpa.
he was a saint in some ways.
no!
i’m a criminal.
i see it now.