HOME | DD
kpp228 — This is what Silicon Valley is doing
Published: 2018-08-07 00:40:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 1296; Favourites: 27; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
First they came for Alex. What makes you think they won’t come for you or me next? All because we might have posted a single picture of a cartoon frog. There’s something more sinister going on in Silicon Valley, and it’s been going on for awhile. It must come to an end.Related content
Comments: 77
Sadly, there are many ways that many people absolutely can be this stupid. We live in a world where many people think that the systems they blindly believe in are protected from evil by unicorns using pixie dust and magic force fields, making any evidence to the contrary deemed as "a delusional conspiracy theory" or "exaggeration" at the very least -- as they sniff red, white and blue fumes of smug arrogance. There is no greater a slave, than the slave who thinks they are free.
Or as Harriet Tubman once said (paraphrased) in regard to the underground rail road, she mentioned that getting slaves moved to the north was not the biggest challenge and elaborated by saying that getting the slaves to understand that they were slaves in the first place, was the biggest challenge.
GreatKingRat88 is one of many examples of Harriet Tubman's predicament.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yet none of this even remotely warrants comparison to the actual holocaust. I completely stand by my point. How dare you put this on the same level as the wholesale slaughter of millions?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not, I'm saying that censorship by any entity, like what tyrannical governments like communist and fascist regimes have done in the last century, or what Google and other big tech and social media companies are doing to people who're speaking freely, that happen to not be part of the internationalist and SJW orthodoxy is generally bad.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I mean, you literally do exactly just that in your deviation. You invoke the overt authoritarianism of soviet russia and in your artist's comments you pull "first they came for...".
No. A platform is not something you are entitled to. You have the freedom to use it, but if you're using somebody else's pulpit and its owners decide they don't want you there, they can boot you off. It really is as simple as that. This isn't even close to the kind of authoritarian oppression you'd see in a fascist regime, and it's delusional to suggest it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It does not matter if it is a company or a country, it starts somewhere the public accepts it occuring and with a topic or group the public accepts it occuring to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Private entities like corporations have a right to do whatever they want with their property. You don't own it. You use it, on their terms, and they can boot you off at any time for any reason, especially if you break their terms of service.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am talking about your "first they come for . . ." comment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well okay then.
In that case you're just objectively wrong. Neither in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia did it start with the public accepting anything. It started with absolute dictators taking full control over their citizen's lives. This is not even remotely what's happened here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure it did. In Germany, it started with the Jews, gays, and other "undesirables," which the public accepted. The same was largely true in the Soviet Union. Please learn some history.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It didn't start with the public in either case, you're still wrong. It started with a small group of authoritarian, tyrannical people getting in charge and churning out propaganda which then became the ruling opinion. It's a bit hilarious to be told to "learn some history" when you obviously haven't yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lolz
As a well-studied student of WWII, in which tyranny was present in every belligerent nation, I know more about the rise of dictatorships than you ever could. It starts with the public - dictators do not attain power on their own. Hitler did not become chancellor, then convince the people that Jews were bad. No, he convinced people Jews were bad and then used that rhetoric to attain the chancellery. And it did not take much of a push, either. Anti-semitism was on the rise in both Europe and the Americas, as a result of the Great Depression. Hitler simply rode that wave of discontent. Once he and his lackeys were ensconced, he put his plans into motion, and at each stage, the people accepted it, because they were not the ones affected - it was always someone else, it was always the undesirables. Yoy do need to learn some history, so you can truly understand how these things happen. This could easily happen in America.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In the case of Germany, you're talking about literal centuries of anti-semitism ingrained into their society, stoked by the catholic church as official dogma. How is this in any way comparable to this instance?
I will admit that I hadn't considered that, so I'll concede that point. Even so, I think you're incorrect.
There is one analogus point with the US, though- otherization and alienation of a minority, blaming them for society's problems? That's a conservative strategy if there ever was one. Trump's doing it now, to stoke fear into the public to make sure he has popular support. Hitler did the same thing, although to a much greater degree and to much greater success.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First, it was not ingrained in German society any more than it was in the U.S., England, or any other Christian nation. Many Jews served with distinction in the German military, and some German aristocratic families were Jewish. Second, Trump and the Repiblicans have NOT worked to alienate minorities. Trump has always been an outspoken advocate for minority rights. Not once has he pushed any policy or agenda directed at restricting the rights or liberties of minorities. Please back up your claim with unbiased, verifiable, evidence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're right when you say it wasn't more ingrained in Germany than anywhere else- because it was ingrained into society everywhere in the west. Antisemitism was quite normal at that time. It was the norm. Jews may have served with distinction or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that society was highly antisemitic in those times. It only became stamped as a bad thing after the full atrocities of the holocaust became known to the world.
Demonizing immigrants, particularly mexicans? That's absolutely the same kind of right wing strategy. Us vs them; there's an external threat that endangers you and you need me to fix that for you. Society's problems? They're their fault. This is Trump to a T, and he is not the first nor will he be the last conservative to use it. The fact that you can't cite direct legislation aimed at them- well, aside from the muslim ban, undoing DACA, kids in concentration camps, that sort of thing- doesn't mean he isn't demonizing them as a deliberate strategy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lolz.
You're argument is completely idiotic. First, Trump has not demonized Mexicans, nor any other minority group. Nor has he portrayed any minority group as being a threat to our nation. What he has done is push stricter immigration enforcement to curtail ILLEGAL immigration. Additionally, there are no children in concentration camps, DACA is unconstitutional, and Trump's travel ban did not target Muslims, but COUNTRIES, and was virtually identical to Obama's travel ban. The fact that you are unable to cite any credible instances of an explicit or implied agenda, and can only construct strawmen from deliberate misinterpretation of facts, is proof of your ignorance of both the issues facing America and the policies being put forth by President Trump.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He literally referred to mexicans as rapists in one of his infamous campaign speeches, and it hasn't gotten any better since. The idea that you can't stoke fear and demonize, otherize without signing actual laws to discriminate is incredibly childish, black-and-white thinking. Not that he hasn't; he removed legal protections for LGBT people and just recently, he barred trans people from military service. The travel ban was most certainly targeted at muslims- and it somehow evaded saudi arabia, the country which has supplied some of the worst terrorists including the 9/11 bombers. But Trump has business interests there...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lolz
No, he did not. He referred to SOME illegals as rapists. Nor has he hasn't removed ANY LGBT protections. Furthermore, his ban on transgenders in the military was decided after consulting with generals and analysts, and was a smart move, as transgenders could pose a substantial threat to our strategic readiness - it also didn't affect transgenders currently in service. What's more, literally none of the people complaining had any intention of joining the military, they were just being professional victims, the only thing the left seems to be good at creating. The travel ban targeted nations work known terrorist connections, and there were numerous majority Muslim nations that were left off the ban, including Morocco and Turkey. Perhaps if radical Muslim fundamentalists weren't intent on bringing violence and destruction to our shores, such bans would not be necessary. Additionally, Saudi Arabia has proven to be something of an ally in the fight against terrorism - while they are hardly innocent, they are not "supplying" terrorists. I will also point out that, until recently, the entire country had a business intetest in Saudi Arabia - oil. Literally all of your points are either non-sequitors or can be explained by putting them in their proper context.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"They're not sending their best. They're sending rapists, drug dealers etc"
^In reference to mexican immigrants as a whole. So no, you don't whitewash this one away.
Bullshit it was. There are already regulations against keeping people unfit for duty in the military, and trans people have already been serving for ages. He's just decided to exclude anyone trans, regardless of whether they're fit for duty or not, to appease the bigotry of his evangelical base. Any trans person currently in the military will now be excluded even if they're good at their job. This is flat out discrimination, no matter how you try to paint it.
Terrorist connections... except, y'know, saudi arabia, the biggest terrorist funder in the middle east. Yeah, right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lolz
No, he did NOT say that about Mexicans, he said that about illegal immigrants, which IS accurate, as a disproportionate number of them commit various crimes every year, including rape and murder. You are also wrong about trans people in the military. They are ABSOLUTELY a threat to readiness if they requirespecific medications or other treatments, which most do, particularly after transitioning. It has nothing to do with bigotry or intolerance, especially since the now-former Secretary of Defense, General Mattis, was really only interested in maintaining a combat effective military. As I said, Trump consulted with his military advisors BEFORE making the decision. Lastly, there is no hard evidence that Saudi Arabia actually backs terrorist organizations hostile to American interests - or we would have acted on said information. The Saudi king as even executed members of his own family for having ties to terrorist organizations. In any case, are not so dependent on Saudi Arabia that we cannot cut ties with them. You need stop parroting leftist talking points and start looking at context. Use critical thinking, not hasty generalization and logical fallacy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He literally did say that with regard to mexican immigrants. At best he's horrible at conveying what he really means; at worst he's either deliberately appealing to the worst kind of people or genuinely views mexicans that way.
A threat to combat readiness, how exactly? If you ban an entire group of people from service when they may or may not be fit for duty individually, it's discrimination no matter how you may rationalize.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sp…
WHOOPS.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are retarded. First, g never explicitly mentioned Mexicans. You are merely building a strawman. Furthermore, it is NOT discrimination to bar ANYONE from military service for medical or mental issues. Autism, ADHD, OCD, Sickle Cell Anemia, hernias, flat feet, and even hemroids can disqualify a person from military service before they even arrive at boot camp. And in most of these cases, the people who DO make it boot camp are discharged upon arrival. Here are the various ways in which transgenders affect readiness. First, transgenders wishing to transition require hormone treatments, which are custom tailored to the individual. This presents both readiness and strategic issues, as these custom treatments will need to be kept in supply for each soldier being deployed, as will any other meds they may need. If the supply is held up or somehow unavailable, a transgendered soldier may find themselves out of action due to a hormone imbalance. This is an unacceptable risk, as each soldier needs to be able to rely on their comrades when shit hits the fan. Additional problems arise during training, and even prior to training. Let us suppose that you are a man who identifies as a woman, and you walk into a Navy recruiting station. What box do you check when it asks for sex? The Navy trains in integrated divisions, but segregated billets by sex. If you checked female, do you think the females in your division wil be comfortable with a male using their showers, standing watch, and being present when changing? Keep in mind that you would be showering, sleeping, and changing in groups, not individually. What about uniform issue? If you mark female on your application, you would receive a female uniform at first issue, upon arrival at RTC Great Lakes. You would then have to be reissued a male uniform, resulting in delays and increasing costs. If you marked female, there would also be problems during your medical examination, as males and females are screened in different ways, due to differences in medical risks. When you get into the fleet, there are additional problems, mainly with supply. If you are transitioning, you may not have access to the various medications you require. This brings us back to reliability. Furthermore, the military life revolves around conformity, not individuality. The military cares very little for personal needs or preferences, of which transgenders have a great many. If it can't be standardized, the military is not interested. Ultimately, the U.S. military is a unique employer, with unique requirements for entry. You do not have the right to employment in the civilian world, nor do you have a right to enlist in the military. And the military absolutely has the right to deny employment for ANY reason, so long as it is not based on race, religion, or sex.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"You are retarded"
Ah, the ad hominem- always a sign of a strong, well made argument!
Yes, he did. He explicitly said that referencing mexican immigration. Those are literally his words, and only a delusional trumpista could ever spin it as anything else.
To bar a whole class of people from the military regardless of whether they're fit for duty or not, without evaluating them on an individual level, is discrimination. You can shake your head and go "nuh uh!" all day long, but that's never going to change.
You don't know the first thing about trans people at all, do you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That was not an ad hominem, as I gave evidence to support my claim. In an argument ad hominem,, the ad hominem itself is used as evidence, i.e. "you are wrong because you are stupid, which ward NOT my argument. As to what Trump said, SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. Prove he was talking SPECIFICALLY about Mexicans. Otherwise, you are wrong and being an overly-emotional, globalist. Furthermore, it is not discrimination to bar ANYONE from serving, as the military can reject ANYONE for ANY reason not related to sex, race, or religion. Even blacks can be rejected, if they have sickle cell anemia. However, this condition is fairly uncommon, so individual evaluation is viable. Many trans people, however, want or require special treatment due to their condition (state of being). These considerations would only complicate things in the military. The military is about fitting a mold, not standing out. Add to this the claim regarding trans suicides, and you have a recipe for disaster. Boot camp is effectively legalized torture. It is physically and mentally taxing. It is the instructors' jobs to make it as stressful as possible, and will do just about anything to get under a recruit's skin, particularly things that get an emotional reaction out of their recruits. You have also failed to provide answers or solutions to my hypothetical situation, nor address the feasibility of those solutions. Additionally, it is claimed that trans people suffer from PTSD just from existing, aged you want to through them into combat? And I understand trans people perfectly. Most just want to live their life on their terms - unfortunately, that is completely anathema to how the military operates. If a trans person wants to join the military, then they will have to sacrifice their identity, same as everyone else who serves. As I have said, no-one has a right to serve, and anyone can be denied.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, "you're retarded" is always an ad hominem. If you had said "you are factually wrong and here's why" it would have worked, but you didn't- it was a flat out insult. Which I can handle, but I felt like pointing out that your reasoning is extremely weak since you rely on insults, not evidence.
...I quoted trump, verbatim, with what he said specifically regarding mexican immigrants. That's clear as day. How delusional do you have to be?
"Many trans people"
If it's many trans people then it would make sense to screen them before approving them for enlistment, as the military already does with everyone... but they're being categorically excluded regardless of whether they're capable or not. Which is, per definition, discrimination. You can't argue yourself out of this one. If you are able and willing, you should be able to serve if you so choose.
Every time you respond, you show how little you actually understand about the topic, how little you know and how disproportionately strong your opinion of it is. You're as intellectually rigid as a jellyfish.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME AS THE HOLOCAUST THOUGH!!" Does that mean it makes it okay for private companies like Google and Facebook restricting our natural rights to freedom of speech online?
"Hi honey, I just killed and raped 5 babies today."
"OH MY GOD, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU!?"
"Well it's not the same as killing and raping 10."
You're a fucking retard. The internet as a whole has gotten past the point of being just a utility, it's a necessity, and it's necessary to create new legislation and enforce new regulations on social media and big tech companies, so that people's privacy and freedoms are protected from private and public entities online.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Completely beside the point. Which is that it's really fucking tasteless to invoke freaking genocide to some nutjob asshole being booted off a platform.
Nope, still not working. It's not even in the same ballpark.
Ah, splendid rebuttal- "you're a retard". Why bother with actual arguments when you can just ad-hom away?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |