The United States has formally entered the social setting of the third world

[myata]

Third world has elections and institutions. Sure, they have parliaments and courts. Formal arrangements are not what makes a mature modern responsible democracy. It's the citizens. The line between the worlds lies via a deficit, or absence of reasonable and responsible citizens. Nothing else, no books and no miracles can make democracies work.

These days the U.S. has crossed the line, formally and de facto. The first election of the !diot could have been, with a big stretch, written off as an aberration, a travesty. Not this time. Everybody knew everything and there could be no mistakes and no confusion. A large part of the population has decided, knowingly and consciously, to stop being citizens and move to the state of pueblo. This, again, was a conscious choice and is mostly a one-way process as assuming the reason, principles and responsibility can be more difficult than letting go of them.

The proof didn't take long to manifest. A month away from the office, the !diot already makes entirely unsubstantiated, stupidest and bizarre territorial claims to a NATO ally. Right at this time, we know when maintaining unity against a rising axis of dictator thugs is paramount to anyone who can think with a single cell in their brain. Beyond ridiculously absurd, this is plain stupidity, as it is, walking and talking and yes, you chose it and there are no explanations or excuses. More to follow, certainly as there can be no amazing miracles in such cases. And no "managing", no trying to shuffle this away and pretending it didn't happen could return you dignity and self-respect, now. I can't fathom in all honesty, how could such a grotesque failure of reason and responsibility be redeemed. The move has happened, and the line, crossed.

Edited December 24, 2024 by myata

[NAME REMOVED]

5 minutes ago, myata said:

Third world has elections and institutions. Sure, they have parliaments and courts. Formal arrangements are not what makes a mature modern responsible democracy. It's the citizens. The line between the worlds lies via a deficit, or absence of reasonable and responsible citizens. Nothing else, no books and no miracles can make democracies work.

These days the U.S. has crossed the line, formally and de facto. The first election of the !diot could have been, with a big stretch, written off as an aberration, a travesty. Not this time. Everybody knew everything and there could be no mistakes and no confusion. A large part of the population has decided, knowingly and consciously, to stop being citizens and move to the state of pueblo. This, again, was a conscious choice and is mostly a one-way process as assuming the reason, principles and responsibility can be more difficult than letting go of them.

The proof didn't take long to manifest. A month away from the office, the !diot already makes entirely unsubstantiated, stupidest and bizarre territorial claims to a NATO ally. Right at this time, we know when maintaining unity against a rising axis of dictator thugs is paramount to anyone who can thing with a single cell in their brain. Beyond ridiculously absurd, this is plain stupidity, as it is, walking and talking and yes, you chose it and there are no explanations or excuses. More to follow, certainly as there can be no amazing miracles in such cases. And no "managing", no trying to shuffle this away and pretending it didn't happen could return you dignity and self-respect, now. I can't fathom in all honesty, how could such a failure of reason and responsibility be redeemed. The move has happened, and the line, crossed.

This would never have happened, if the internet, and other new aspects of technology, had been regulated correctly, like Television and radio.

[User]

Social setting?

You guys on the left have been pushing the 3rd world on us with your open-borders madness.

 

[myata]

4 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

if the internet, and other new aspects of technology, had been regulated correctly, like Television and radio

That was a part of it, almost certainly. But then again, whose responsibility it is, ultimately, to see the changes and respond to them? What if we let go of the steering wheel sit back and wait for someone to fix all and any problems for us? Sure there will be no lack of guru, prophets and other such kind they're always around waiting for an opportunity.

[User]

8 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

This would never have happened, if the internet, and other new aspects of technology, had been regulated correctly, like Television and radio.

It would help if you understood why television and radio are regulated as they are vs the internet. 

Do you need some help figuring that out? Just ask. 

[gatomontes99]

28 minutes ago, myata said:

Third world has elections and institutions. Sure, they have parliaments and courts. Formal arrangements are not what makes a mature modern responsible democracy. It's the citizens. The line between the worlds lies via a deficit, or absence of reasonable and responsible citizens. Nothing else, no books and no miracles can make democracies work.

These days the U.S. has crossed the line, formally and de facto. The first election of the !diot could have been, with a big stretch, written off as an aberration, a travesty. Not this time. Everybody knew everything and there could be no mistakes and no confusion. A large part of the population has decided, knowingly and consciously, to stop being citizens and move to the state of pueblo. This, again, was a conscious choice and is mostly a one-way process as assuming the reason, principles and responsibility can be more difficult than letting go of them.

The proof didn't take long to manifest. A month away from the office, the !diot already makes entirely unsubstantiated, stupidest and bizarre territorial claims to a NATO ally. Right at this time, we know when maintaining unity against a rising axis of dictator thugs is paramount to anyone who can think with a single cell in their brain. Beyond ridiculously absurd, this is plain stupidity, as it is, walking and talking and yes, you chose it and there are no explanations or excuses. More to follow, certainly as there can be no amazing miracles in such cases. And no "managing", no trying to shuffle this away and pretending it didn't happen could return you dignity and self-respect, now. I can't fathom in all honesty, how could such a grotesque failure of reason and responsibility be redeemed. The move has happened, and the line, crossed.

Your assumptions of facts was wrong so your thesis is inaccurate.

[Fluffypants]

26 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

This would never have happened, if the internet, and other new aspects of technology, had been regulated correctly, like Television and radio.

How would regulate them? Oh i know censor anything that isn't YOUR side. Give me a break, you all didn't want to regulate social media until it got away from YOU. Twitter is now the most balanced in view point and you all hate it.

Face it the liberal media has been exposed for what they really are, Democrat propaganda, and they are "regulated" by the government. They are like robots "heres the new talking point to attack Trump on and every single media outlet happily repeats the same BS" now its that Elon is the Co-President. It so sad they don't even try to hide that they are propaganda, one comes up with a line of attack and they all follow suit like sheep.

 

 

Edited December 24, 2024 by Fluffypants

[Michael Hardner]

Today I learned that conservatism didn't exist before the internet...

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Third world has elections and institutions. Sure, they have parliaments and courts. Formal arrangements are not what makes a mature modern responsible democracy. It's the citizens. The line between the worlds lies via a deficit, or absence of reasonable and responsible citizens. Nothing else, no books and no miracles can make democracies work.

These days the U.S. has crossed the line, formally and de facto. The first election of the !diot could have been, with a big stretch, written off as an aberration, a travesty. Not this time. Everybody knew everything and there could be no mistakes and no confusion. A large part of the population has decided, knowingly and consciously, to stop being citizens and move to the state of pueblo. This, again, was a conscious choice and is mostly a one-way process as assuming the reason, principles and responsibility can be more difficult than letting go of them.

The proof didn't take long to manifest. A month away from the office, the !diot already makes entirely unsubstantiated, stupidest and bizarre territorial claims to a NATO ally. Right at this time, we know when maintaining unity against a rising axis of dictator thugs is paramount to anyone who can think with a single cell in their brain. Beyond ridiculously absurd, this is plain stupidity, as it is, walking and talking and yes, you chose it and there are no explanations or excuses. More to follow, certainly as there can be no amazing miracles in such cases. And no "managing", no trying to shuffle this away and pretending it didn't happen could return you dignity and self-respect, now. I can't fathom in all honesty, how could such a grotesque failure of reason and responsibility be redeemed. The move has happened, and the line, crossed.

Yup, it's those lying democrats and their red carpet agenda, but that will be rectified once the true President enters the WH.  

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, User said:

It would help if you understood why television and radio are regulated as they are vs the internet.

Licencing in a word.

Governments have been regulating radio in Canada starting with the Radiotelegraph Act of 1913. The US Radio Act of 1927 declared radio waves to be public property, and that radio stations must be licensed by the government.

These have gone through various changes over time but the underlying theme was that regulation and licencing was always a requirement.

Most early licencing had to do with regulating ths spectrum of available broadcasting frequencies, power and range etc. As for regulating content, in the US that started with the FCC in the 1930's with regard to regulating and preventing material that was offensive, vulgar or exploitive. Given the times they probably weren't to keen on allowing seditious or unpatriotic content either. You can bet there would have been concerns about ideologically questionable or provocative content as well.

The Broadcasting Act (1991) here in Canada has the stated goal of maintaining Canada's cultural fabric. Something you routinely hear people complaining is disappearing these days.

As for the internet...it's like it was invented with public attitudes from the wild west days of the 1800's at center of mind.

WTF did we think would happen?

Speech has always only been free up to a point. A point we seem to have forgotten or abandoned.

2 hours ago, User said:

Do you need some help figuring that out? Just ask.

You're welcome.

Edited December 24, 2024 by eyeball

[User]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Speech has always only been free up to a point. A point we seem to have forgotten or abandoned.

Ah yes... here comes your leftist authoritarianism, rearing its ugly head yet again. 

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're welcome.

You didn't even come close to explaining it. 

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, User said:

You didn't even come close to explaining it. 

What's your explanation?

I'm sure you've heard of the Fairness Doctrine.

[User]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What's your explanation?

I'm sure you've heard of the Fairness Doctrine.

I am aware of the Fairness Doctrine. You keep talking about how they are differently regulated, not why. 

What is it that makes radio and television different? 

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, User said:

You keep talking about how they are differently regulated, not why.

At best because no one gave a shit, at worst because the influence of certain interests that barely wanted it regulated, if at all, prevailed while the internet emerged.

That it developed so quickly compared to radio and television is also a big factor that very few if any government could have kept up with, assuming they gave a shit.

[User]

Just now, eyeball said:

At best because no one gave a shit, at worst because the influence of certain interests that barely wanted it regulated, if at all, prevailed while the internet emerged.

That it developed so quickly compared to radio and television is also a big factor that very few if any government could have kept up with, assuming they gave a shit.

Not quite there yet. Want to keep trying? I mean, you are kind of around the edges of one of the reasons. 

 

 

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, User said:

What is it that makes radio and television different?

We got an early jump on them which allowed for things like the Fairness Doctrine. Something conservatives hated and Republicans did away with.

4 minutes ago, User said:

Not quite there yet. Want to keep trying? I mean, you are kind of around the edges of one of the reasons. 

No, I think that covers it.

So where's your explanation?

[gatomontes99]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We got an early jump on them which allowed for things like the Fairness Doctrine. Something conservatives hated and Republicans did away with.

No, I think that covers it.

So where's your explanation?

Do you know why conservatives hated it?

[User]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

So where's your explanation?

Radio and Television were on "public" airwaves. They consumed a spectrum, which is a limited resource and something being broadcast out over the airwaves to all of "public"

From their very inception, they are entirely different from the internet in their function. 

 

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

Do you know why conservatives hated it?

He is a leftist authoritarian. Doesn't care. Just wants to control speech. 

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Do you know why conservatives hated it?

The one's who owned most of the broadcasting capacity wanted the doctrine gone so they could dominate public discourse on a range of issues with their views and goals in mind - usually to accumulate more power, wealth and influence.

[gatomontes99]

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The one's who owned most of the broadcasting capacity wanted the doctrine gone so they could dominate public discourse on a range of issues with their views and goals in mind - usually to accumulate more power, wealth and influence.

No. The fairness doctrine only pertained to conservative voices. It was effectively a tool for silencing dissent of the left. They accomplished this by labeling conservative opinions as opinions but liberal opinions as facts. That allowed them to force conservatives to allow liberals time while at the same not forcing stations with liberal opinions to allow conservatives on.

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, User said:

Radio and Television were on "public" airwaves. They consumed a spectrum, which is a limited resource and something being broadcast out over the airwaves to all of "public"
 

Do you realize how woke this must sound to someone in pursuit of their self interest and who simply doesn't care because they have virtually unlimited wherewithal? Imagine if TV and radio been around during the wild west when might made right.

19 minutes ago, User said:

From their very inception, they are entirely different from the internet in their function. 

The internet is just a different way of communicating and exchanging information. And as you say like a radio spectrum it's a public place. You figure public places should be wild untamed places where anything goes?

40 minutes ago, User said:

He is a leftist authoritarian. Doesn't care. Just wants to control speech. 

Of course I care, I'm a social democrat who's particularly interested in seeing authoritarianism disappear. This isn't about controlling speech, which never pans out in the end, this is about maintaining some semblance of order in the public's domain.

Much of the internet and traditional media too has become a theater full of arsonists and firebugs where yelling firetruck prompts them to lock the doors and throw away the keys.

[User]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Do you realize how woke this must sound to someone in pursuit of their self interest and who simply doesn't care because they have virtually unlimited wherewithal? Imagine if TV and radio been around during the wild west when might made right.

Care to rephrase this in something better?

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The internet is just a different way of communicating and exchanging information. And as you say like a radio spectrum it's a public place. You figure public places should be wild untamed places where anything goes?

Well, I did not say "public space" and the way internet functions is more like the town square. 

You, like many others on the left, love to play this all or nothing game, where it must either be anarchist libertarianism or extreme leftist authoritarianism. 

Freedom != anarchy. 

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Of course I care, I'm a social democrat who's particularly interested in seeing authoritarianism disappear. This isn't about controlling speech, which never pans out in the end, this is about maintaining some semblance of order in the public's domain.

There is regulation and order to the internet already. It is not anarchy. 

What you want is to control speech. Just like you cheered on Canada doing with Jordan Peterson. 

 

[eyeball]

25 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

The fairness doctrine only pertained to conservative voices

It actually said that in FCC documents?

Bullshit. Stop making things up.

1 minute ago, User said:

Care to rephrase this in something better?

Nope, care to go through it word by word so we can try to clear up your comprehension issues?

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Well, I did not say "public space" and the way internet functions is more like the town square. 

Which is not a private space.

4 minutes ago, User said:

You, like many others on the left, love to play this all or nothing game, where it must either be anarchist libertarianism or extreme leftist authoritarianism. 

Not me, I figure the town square is in the middle of these.

7 minutes ago, User said:

Freedom != anarchy.

I think the former is only possible through a social contract. The latter is what you get without it.

8 minutes ago, User said:

There is regulation and order to the internet already. It is not anarchy. 

Your sentiment is still well within the bounds of debate, it's not even close to being settled, probably never will be and nor should it be.

10 minutes ago, User said:

What you want is to control speech. Just like you cheered on Canada doing with Jordan Peterson. 

What cheering? You're just making up crap.

 

[Aristides]

5 hours ago, User said:

Social setting?

You guys on the left have been pushing the 3rd world on us with your open-borders madness.

 

Hey man, the world is just listening to what comes out of Trump's mouth. Apparently you aren't.