Putin signs controversial internet law

[Enoch07]

What are you going on about?

The same could be asked of you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Don't you think that the days of popular uprisings leading to a successful revolution against large governments capable of cutting off your water and power, freezing your assets, running tanks through your neighborhood, and launching a bomb up your dog's pitoot from low earth orbit, are over?

Only for cowards

Already? That didn't take you long.

Those days are gone for everybody, even for a macho patriot like you with lots of guns. You'd be a fool to fight that hopeless fight.

And you wouldn't be fighting for the America of old, which was something to respect, to be proud of, and to defend, but a different nation today.

For me, family comes before country, which really isn't any more significant than county or continent. Would you be willing to die defending North America?

If you want to do right by your family, take them to a safer place if possible rather than subjecting them to war.

I'm free and happy

Yeah, I see the smile. Did you know that there's already a bullet in your forehead?
​

Incorrect. You are already a slave,

He's a slave in part to the myth of patriotism, which will cause him to risk his life in a fight that he can't win to defend a government that doesn't care about him, to defend venerable traditions many of which have already been discarded, and to defend a divided population half of which feel no connection to the other half, that is, don't see them as fellow anythings, just ideologically flawed zombies littering their country.

 

[Enoch07]

Those days are gone for everybody, even for a macho patriot like you with lots of guns. You'd be a fool to fight that hopeless fight.

I chose to live as a free man or not at all.

It's mentality like yours that allows for slavery and oppression to remain in this world. Taking a principled stand is the only way to combat these things.

 

[dianaiad]

Huh. I haven't really noticed much of that. What I have noticed a lot of, however, is conservatives referring to anyone and anything they don't like as "socialist", even centrists and other conservatives if they dare to question anything Trump does or says.

Actually, this may well be a case of the 'everybody owns Volkswagens' effect. (I forget the Latin title for this fallacy: brain fade). You know the one: when you are looking to buy a new car, or have just bought one, and settle on a new Volkswagon, and suddenly you see that almost every third car on the freeway is a Volkswagen? It's not that there are suddenly more Volkswagens...just that you now notice them and ignore the non-Volkswagens.

I have seen conservatives label anybody to the left of Reagan as 'socialists,' too, but not all of them. Not even most. Personally, I reserve that word for those who actually claim to be socialist. There are, however, considerably more of those than the Democrats are comfortable with, even though they all seem to be rushing to identify with those under the mistaken notion that their voters LIKE OCwhatsername. You know, the idiot who wants to ban planes and cows?

Accurate and objective journalism is very important. What are some things that the media has actually lied about? And no, not liking what's being exposed doesn't make it "fake".

It IS important. I wish there were any.

Here's an interesting thing: Wikipedia (which I do use, but not as a primary source) has an article on 'fake news' that uses ONLY examples from the 'right,' that is, examples that are supposed to be both inaccurate and supportive of Trump. I went all over the various pages, because I got really curious about this...and every single example mentioned was something done by right wingers out to support Trump, and the only example used by someone who published deliberately 'fake news,' and was NOT a Trump supporter was by someone whose stories supported Trump--and who absolutely did not want Trump to win. His stated purpose was to make Trump supporters "look silly for sharing" those stories. He was really unhappy that anybody took his efforts seriously.

I read that article very carefully; it did not give even ONE example of 'fake news" (i.e., 'yellow journalism,' or 'false') that vilified 'red' politics vs. 'blue' politics in the USA. It was so obviously politically biased, though the language was reasonable and the usual ranting vocabulary did not exist. I was intrigued.

Then, on that site, I saw this paragraph, buried quietly about half way down:

Kim LaCapria of the fact checking website Snopes.com has stated that, in America, fake news is a bipartisan phenomenon, saying that "[t]here has always been a sincerely held yet erroneous belief misinformation is more red than blue in America, and that has never been true." Jeff Green of Trade Desk agrees the phenomenon affects both sides. Green's company found that affluent and well-educated persons in their 40s and 50s are the primary consumers of fake news. He told Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes that this audience tends to live in an "echo chamber" and that these are the people who vote.

I left the links in so you can check.

I did the usual google search....but you and I both know that google itself is biased left. Amazing.

The term 'fake news' has come to mean---to those who are being accused of publishing it by conservatives, anyway--as 'anything Trump disagrees with, true or not'.

They are starting to view 'fake news' as 'fighting words,' the way wearing a MAGA hat is. They feel that they have the right to retaliate pretty much any way they want to if someone accuses them of spreading 'fake news,' and that the accusation itself is pretty much proof that what they are writing is true. Whether it's true or not.

The thing is...could that Wikipedia article, which is so obviously biased, be termed 'fake news' in and of itself, since even though it DID include that little disclaimer, is so very obviously politically slanted? The sources they used are 'real,' certainly, and the examples they gave are also 'real,' ....the 'fake' part lies in what they do NOT include, not in what they do. I suppose that this little disclaimer (quoted above) makes them feel 'not-fake,' but, really? The more I read, the more amused I got.

I know this is a really, really old example, but do you remember the art piece "P*ss Christ"?

You are quite right. That IS an old example. I wouldn't say 'really, really old," since by the time that happened, all five of my kids were born and I was about to celebrate my 13th wedding anniversary. Most of us on this forum, I think, are old enough to actually remember, and even participate in, the controversy over the **** Christ.

And yes, conservatives and Republicans didn't like it. Religious folks called it 'blasphemy,' both left and right wings. It wasn't, actually. At least, I didn't think so. I thought it was a statement of what we are doing TO Christ, in our lives and in the way we treat both Him and the things He taught. Still do think that...

And so, evidently, did the artist who took the photograph in the first place.

The biggest objection to it, though....from my own experience, was from those who said that it violated the separation of church and state, and wanted to cut the budget of the NEA. yeah, there were conservatives in that effort, too, but MOST of those were left wingers, especially the anti theist liberal types who took advantage of the religious outrage. The first controversy was religious...it was only later that it became political.

And yeah, conservatives were a part of that.

I think a better example would be...."Huckleberry Finn." Good grief. Trust me on this one, I have a VERY good idea of who MOSTLY wanted to get that book banned. Yes, there were some conservatives who wanted it gone because of the "N' word, but MOST of the objection to the book was from left wingers who also objected to that word, and wanted it legally banned from schools and libraries for being 'racist.'

There isn't a book on the planet that is LESS racist than "Huckleberry Finn." it is one of the most powerful anti-slavery books in existence.

Either way, that's a 'freedom of speech' thing. MAGA hats....'fake news" t-shirts...the constant changing of vocabulary used in public areas...almost every one of these things has been legally prohibited, or at least people have attempted to get them legally prohibited.

Most liberals I know, including myself, support the 1st amendment and don't believe in criminalizing "hate speech". I can't really think of any serious politicians who do, either.

I would like to think so, but then...what is a 'serious' politician? Are we pulling a 'no true Scott' thing here? That is, no politician who wants to criminalize 'hate speech' is a 'serious' politician?

I think that 'serious politician' is an oxymoron. The only thing a politician is serious about is getting elected.

 

[dianaiad]

There's a parallel concerning control of the internet in the US. The right wants internet providers to be able to control their content in the sake of business. The left wants freedom of the information.

How does your comments support that specifically about the internet?

That's a problem, and the 'right' is not happy about the internet bias, actually. Facebook and Google and other very popular social media sites are very much biased left. The problem is that they ARE private companies and have the right to be biased. That's the whole point of the 1st amendment. Whether it's 'for business' (which for some reason seems to be a swear word to liberals) or for any other reason, it is their right to be biased.

The left does NOT want 'freedom of information." The left wants to criminalize anything they term 'hate speech,' and they term anything they disagree with as 'hate speech.'

We CAN"T criminalize 'hate speech,' and still be free. We can, I think, criminalize deliberate incitement to riot, such as (for instance) "rise up at midnight and burn all the cop cars!"

But we can't criminalize "cop cars should be burned." (I tried to find an example that wouldn't get me banned... )

"Jews and their Lies" must not be banned.
"Kill the Jews on Sunday morning!" should be.

"Mormonism Unvailed" must not be banned.
"We're going to gather at the jail tomorrow and shoot Joe Smith, paint your face black and join us" should be.

The problem with the left that *I* see is that they think the 1st Amendment protects their right to say what they like, and to see to it that everybody else agrees with them, when in reality it was written to protect the rights of those we do NOT agree with.

Because politics is a see saw. One day the left is up, the next the right is...and anything one side gets away with now, the other side will try when they are up. If we do not protect the rights of those with whom we disagree now, then when they are in power, they WILL try to suppress us. No matter who the 'us' is.

 

[dianaiad]

Incorrect. You have chosen to remain subservient.

So have you. The only difference is the 'master' you have chosen.

One of the most complete 'truths' I have learned in my seven decades is this: those who claim to be 'free' or 'rebels' or who claim to 'think for themselves' or 'buck authority' do anything but. They are possibly THE most hide bound and circumscribed group there is, from fashion choices to attitudes to vocabulary; they identify so completely with one another that they honestly don't see that they all look, think and behave alike.

those who truly 'think for themselves' find (or make) the beliefs they honestly have considered, and go with those.

I don't see that being contrary just to be contrary is freedom. It's 'anti-freedom.' One is just as dependent upon the 'powers that be,' or 'what is done' as anybody else; more so, actually.

Thinking for oneself isn't about going against what everybody else does. It's about choosing the path you want, no matter what anybody else thinks. Even if people you don't like approve of that path, and people you admire disapprove.

 

[Woberts]

I don't see that being contrary just to be contrary is freedom. It's 'anti-freedom.' One is just as dependent upon the 'powers that be,' or 'what is done' as anybody else; more so, actually.

That's not what's happening here at all. I feel like you've misread the conversation.

 

[dianaiad]

That's not what's happening here at all. I feel like you've misread the conversation.

Quite possible. I have been known to do that.

 

[Milton Platt]

‘President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday signed into law a "sovereign internet" bill which will allow Russian authorities to isolate the country's internet, a move decried by rights groups. ’

‘Thousands of people recently rallied in Russia against this and other bills that critics say aim to restrict information and communication online.

People attend an opposition rally in Moscow, Russia on 10 March 2019.
EPA


Separately, Putin in March signed controversial laws that allow courts to fine and briefly jail people for showing disrespect towards authorities, and block media for publishing "fake news".

The laws are part of an ongoing Kremlin clampdown on media and internet freedoms that has seen people jailed for sharing humorous memes.’

Read more here: Putin signs controversial internet law

The Russians definitely have a different world view than western nations. They put him in office, and I think he still has a sizable following.