Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

160 years ago today Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox court house. Republican president Abraham Lincoln guided the north to victory in the civil war and soon after freed the slaves.
 

Today 34 time felon, convicted rapist, insurrectionist leader, and known fraudster, Donald Trump, single handedly leads America and the world into a recession and tweets the following:

Hope it ends for Trump like it did for Lincoln.

  • Like 8
Posted
12 hours ago, David Dennison said:

 

I'm sure plenty of countries are calling to try and prevent the collapse of the global economy. They're not calling to say "damn, you caught us, sir. We've been ripping the USA off for decades and you're the first to call us on it because you're such a big strong man." They're calling because they think he's a fucking nutjob and can't possibly be doing what he's doing so they think he just doesn't understand and they can explain the stupidity of it to him and change his mind. When they realize he actually is this stupid, they'll make some concession that doesn't mean anything, but allows Trump to save face and brag about how he won. 

Posted
51 minutes ago, 'stache said:

China really holds a big chunk of our national debt, could they call it just to fuck with dotard? Can they not so long Congress appropriates interest payments? If we did default or if they called it how could China ever force payment? Sheriff sale Florida?

The treasury bonds are not callable by the holder, rather the US government must pay interest over the full term (up to 30 years), then pays back the principal at the end. So China (or anybody else) cannot force the US government to pay early. What they CAN do is stop buying more US treasury bonds.

If we did try and default on paying them, that would cause an economic disaster that would make this current one seem like chump change. So we will probably try that next.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, pantone159 said:

If we did try and default on paying them, that would cause an economic disaster that would make this current one seem like chump change. So we will probably try that next.

There is a 100% chance that he will threaten to do that, repeatedly.  There's a 90% chance he does so within the next week.

He is -- quite literally -- a fucking insane madman with a 100 or lower IQ.  He's an insane moron.  And we've given him full and unchecked control of.....the planet.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, 'stache said:

they suppress everything true or false,

If that's what they do, I'm not supporting the suppression of true information. But our hands-off experiment has been a spectacular failure.

  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

If that's what they do, I'm not supporting the suppression of true information. But our hands-off experiment has been a spectacular failure.

That’s the voters’ fault. If the majority of American voters are too stupid to give a shit about objective facts we deserve where that leads us. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

If that's what they do, I'm not supporting the suppression of true information. But our hands-off experiment has been a spectacular failure.

Social media of all types have been the kryptonite of freedom and democracy. It's given the upper hand to authoritarians who suppress information from the populace while free societies become corrupted with conspiracy theories and nuttery. 

The only way I see to make it better without going full authoritarian is to ban all algorithm content suggestions from social media. Make it where the people have to actually work to seek out the nuts and they most likely go back to getting news and info from the main sources. 

Then combine that with a ban on calling false information news. Force the fox News type people to have to put "this is opinion and not news. It may be completely false and wrong" in big font across their screen on anything that isn't fact based news reporting. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

That’s the voters’ fault. If the majority of American voters are too stupid to give a shit about objective facts we deserve where that leads us. 

It's become clear that Americans are too stupid to handle free speech responsibly. They need hand holding to keep from believing the dumbest of things. 

That has to happen if this is ever going to return to any semblance of normalcy ever again. True free speech cannot work in the social media age. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

That’s the voters’ fault. If the majority of American voters are too stupid to give a shit about objective facts we deserve where that leads us. 

People all over the world are equally susceptible to propaganda. It's just a fact of life. Also a fact of life is that there are bad actors with access to money and no shame whatsoever in exploiting the fact that people aren't immune to propaganda. Knowing those two facts of life, it makes sense why there should be laws to protect the masses from the effects of propaganda.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Hermanator said:

It's become clear that Americans are too stupid to handle free speech responsibly. They need hand holding to keep from believing the dumbest of things. 

That has to happen if this is ever going to return to any semblance of normalcy ever again. True free speech cannot work in the social media age. 

This is a completely ridiculous take. 

Technology has far outstripped legislation and in its progress and speed of development. The fact that the US doesn't have strict data protections and mandatory disclaimers for sites that don't verify or certify information is actually insane. Social media isn't to blame, everyone has been lying since the beginning of time, the issue is that the promotion of these lies has become systemic and has no consequence or mechanism to debunk in a way that people are accustomed. 

These are all solvable problems with a functioning government, it's why the EU while not perfect has a significantly better handle on this. You can't just go online and say whatever the fuck you want with no consequences. You can print whatever the hell you want in print 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

It's become clear that Americans are too stupid to handle free speech responsibly. They need hand holding to keep from believing the dumbest of things. 

That has to happen if this is ever going to return to any semblance of normalcy ever again. True free speech cannot work in the social media age. 

Free speech a different issue than information pollution.  

Posted
1 hour ago, Michael Knight said:

prepare for alot of dead boomers

This combined with breaking the SSA will absolutely result in people dying. We’ve been telling them they were in a death cult and now they get to live it out. Probably like those who were surprised to die of covid, by the time they have any regrets it will be too late 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This combined with breaking the SSA will absolutely result in people dying. We’ve been telling them they were in a death cult and now they get to live it out. Probably like those who were surprised to die of covid, by the time they have any regrets it will be too late 

Donald Glover Reaction GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

I'm all for pointing and laughing, but there are millions of elderly parents out there who aren't on board the Trump train. Then it's not so funny.

They should have prepared better.  Barring that, bootstraps or something or other.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I'm all for pointing and laughing, but there are millions of elderly parents out there who aren't on board the Trump train. Then it's not so funny.

I may just be really Mexican, but it's actually crazy how broken the "American" family is especially with the elderly. Some of it is entitlement, but some of it is just cultural nonsense. I don't really think it's feasible or even economically advantageous to have elderly people living on their own, not in a shared family situation. The whole sell your house to go into a nursing home vs live in your house with one of your kids and then they take it over has always been so fucking bizarre to me. 

I guess that's all to say that SSA enables this whole "independent elderly parent" thing and maybe that going away is going to put a burden on the family, but one that could possibly be shouldered by divesting or consolidating assets that already exist for the purpose of independence. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Captainant said:

The only way to get """business leaders""" to change their minds is to have a multi-million dollar consulting contract tell you what you should think. So fuckin many of the executives I work with don't know their ass from their elbow and are just cravenly cashing checks and blindly co-signing whatever dumb shit OW or Deloitte are pushing this year. Nevermind that it's just a turn around from the previous direction, which was a turn around from the one prior.

They don't know their business, they just know how to dance for the stock market so they'll get their quarterly bonus before they jump ship to the next host for their parasitic existence

Some CEOs are quick to publicly complain about previous administrations when it allowed them to blame bad results on the policies implemented by the WH or Congress. "It's not our fault that sales dropped 20%, it's the fault of Biden and inflation."

Now they know that if they complain about Trump and it attracts his attention, he will at least tweet about that CEO's incompetence and irrelevance, or at worst punish that company if they have federal contracts. This is what happens when you have a President who has his thumb on the scales and does not believe in the rule of law. This is structurally worse to the US business environment than tariffs but it doesn't attract attention.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
  • Like 4
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 6th Street said:

Love the farmers and oilfield workers getting fucked by Don

I really just don't understand farmers. They got completely screwed by Trump last time and then voted for him again by giant margins all while he promised to screw them over more. They seem like a business community determined to put themselves out of business.

Though I guess they got a big bailout last time and are going to get one again it seems. So...um...do you actually want to sell crops and have a market or just get bailouts?

Edited by Valmy77
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, immamac said:

This is a completely ridiculous take. 

Technology has far outstripped legislation and in its progress and speed of development. The fact that the US doesn't have strict data protections and mandatory disclaimers for sites that don't verify or certify information is actually insane. Social media isn't to blame, everyone has been lying since the beginning of time, the issue is that the promotion of these lies has become systemic and has no consequence or mechanism to debunk in a way that people are accustomed. 

These are all solvable problems with a functioning government, it's why the EU while not perfect has a significantly better handle on this. You can't just go online and say whatever the fuck you want with no consequences. You can print whatever the hell you want in print 

You called it ridiculous then agreed with almost everything I was saying. 

What you described is not true free speech in the American sense. So limiting what people can say online would be setting up a system of limiting speech. Which is exactly what I said needs to happen. 

And unregulated social media is absolutely the problem. The algorithm based recommendations system just creates echo chambers where people are sent rage bait propaganda over and over and become radicalized. That absolutely has to change before things can improve. Whether it's by removing the algorithm recommendations all together or by highly regulating the content they recommend. I believe removing them is the best option and you apparently believe regulating them is the best option. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

You called it ridiculous then agreed with almost everything I was saying. 

What you described is not true free speech in the American sense. So limiting what people can say online would be setting up a system of limiting speech. Which is exactly what I said needs to happen. 

And unregulated social media is absolutely the problem. The algorithm based recommendations system just creates echo chambers where people are sent rage bait propaganda over and over and become radicalized. That absolutely has to change before things can improve. Whether it's by removing the algorithm recommendations all together or by highly regulating the content they recommend. I believe removing them is the best option and you apparently believe regulating them is the best option. 

That's not at all what I was saying, I didn't say remove posts or restrict posts at all, also free speech very clearly does not apply to private companies and platforms. X and Facebook and Instagram and Tik Tok and Youtube are not in fact the public square, they are internet properties run by companies who have a responsibility to their users and their shareholders. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, immamac said:

That's not at all what I was saying, I didn't say remove posts or restrict posts at all, also free speech very clearly does not apply to private companies and platforms. X and Facebook and Instagram and Tik Tok and Youtube are not in fact the public square, they are internet properties run by companies who have a responsibility to their users and their shareholders. 

Yet the free market system has not sufficiently punished them for running a system that radicalizes their users with propaganda that is spoon fed to the user by the platform itself. 

Therefore, there must be governmental regulation banning this practice (or highly regulating it) with consequences sufficient enough to be a deterrence. 

The population must be de-radicalized, and removing the methods used for radicalization in the first place is the most efficient and IMO best solution. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, immamac said:

I may just be really Mexican, but it's actually crazy how broken the "American" family is especially with the elderly. Some of it is entitlement, but some of it is just cultural nonsense. I don't really think it's feasible or even economically advantageous to have elderly people living on their own, not in a shared family situation. The whole sell your house to go into a nursing home vs live in your house with one of your kids and then they take it over has always been so fucking bizarre to me. 

I guess that's all to say that SSA enables this whole "independent elderly parent" thing and maybe that going away is going to put a burden on the family, but one that could possibly be shouldered by divesting or consolidating assets that already exist for the purpose of independence. 

I don't necessarily disagree, but these are folks who have been fed a steady diet of rugged individualism and home ownership their entire lives. Moreover, there is a cultural stigma in this country when it comes to multi-generational households that veer from the traditional nuclear family consisting of parents and minor children. I think a lot of elderly Americans probably view moving in with family as a personal failure. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, South Austin said:

Hope it ends for Trump like it did for Lincoln.

Not enough. I want him to be disgraced, broke, in prison like the Colonel at the end of Boogie Nights or rotting away in Russia's worst nursing home.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
27 minutes ago, immamac said:

That's not at all what I was saying, I didn't say remove posts or restrict posts at all, also free speech very clearly does not apply to private companies and platforms. X and Facebook and Instagram and Tik Tok and Youtube are not in fact the public square, they are internet properties run by companies who have a responsibility to their users and their shareholders. 

 

For better or worse they function now as the public square.  Because of that the owners not only have a responsibility to their traditional stakeholders but also to the public.

 

21 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Yet the free market system has not sufficiently punished them for running a system that radicalizes their users with propaganda that is spoon fed to the user by the platform itself. 

Therefore, there must be governmental regulation banning this practice (or highly regulating it) with consequences sufficient enough to be a deterrence. 

The population must be de-radicalized, and removing the methods used for radicalization in the first place is the most efficient and IMO best solution. 

yes

  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Yet the free market system has not sufficiently punished them for running a system that radicalizes their users with propaganda that is spoon fed to the user by the platform itself. 

Therefore, there must be governmental regulation banning this practice (or highly regulating it) with consequences sufficient enough to be a deterrence. 

The population must be de-radicalized, and removing the methods used for radicalization in the first place is the most efficient and IMO best solution. 

I wholly agree with your point regarding the use of algorithms that manipulate and radicalize people by putting them on a particular ideological path along which people follow a trail fo crumbs leading them down a rabbit hole of radicalization. As @G650's excellent article points out, social media sites benefit tremendously from steering people toward inflammatory and often false information (clickbait lies).

That same article raises an interesting question: What is the purpose of free speech? Is it to lead us to the truth, or is it to enrich the media moguls and truth be damned? Is free speech all about expressing opinions, no matter how ludicrous? Is there a place for fact-checking and accountability, as we see in academia and traditional newspapers where publications have to go through a vetting process? Are we all completely satisfied with the current environment in which cable news, radio, and social media mix reporting with opinion, leading to a befuddled audience that makes poor decisions because they rely on infotainment?

Anyway, I do recommend going back and reading the FT piece that G650 posted above. I know it's an off-topic discussion, but it's a big part of how we found ourselves in a fucking multifront trade war with the world.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Michael Knight said:

prepare for alot of dead boomers

Yeah, I guess we don’t produce any of our own pharmaceuticals since he doesn’t really consider Puerto Rico part of the U.S.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Valmy77 said:

I really just don't understand farmers. They got completely screwed by Trump last time and then voted for him again by giant margins all while he promised to screw them over more. They seem like a business community determined to put themselves out of business.

Though I guess they got a big bailout last time and are going to get one again it seems. So...um...do you actually want to sell crops and have a market or just get bailouts?

They like free money.  The dotard gives them shit piles of free money.  Why wouldn't they vote for him?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pancho said:

So the bitch authorizes a 90 day pause on some tariffs and the markets shoot up

In guess Main Street stopped being important to them rather quickly. 
 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Pancho said:

So the bitch authorizes a 90 day pause on some tariffs and the markets shoot up

100% guarantee there is insider trading going on with all this back and forth.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
1 hour ago, immamac said:

I may just be really Mexican, but it's actually crazy how broken the "American" family is especially with the elderly. Some of it is entitlement, but some of it is just cultural nonsense. I don't really think it's feasible or even economically advantageous to have elderly people living on their own, not in a shared family situation. The whole sell your house to go into a nursing home vs live in your house with one of your kids and then they take it over has always been so fucking bizarre to me. 

 

I may be misreading, but what is your solution to the elderly nursing home v. live in their own house issue?

(I think the hunter gatherers had the cleanest solution.  The dude who was around 30 who just followed everyone around and if someone couldn't keep up, they hit them over the head.)



×
×
  • Create New...