mdk

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Sure me too. Alot of them had their legs blown off in the desert in a pointless war. I like to think they believed they were making the world a better place or that they were protecting their loved ones rather than for some half assed abstract love of Country.

@Penny

Well it wasn't half-assed when I started. Now it's like... three-quarter assed, or maybe more like 7/9, I'm not really good at calculating the percentages of my own ass.

So he wasn't arrested for being proud of Britain.

Naw the guy wasn't even british. But we've been over all that.

Lets conduct and experiment:
"I think Britain is pretty great"
Send that to the police and I'll inform you when the constabulary arrive.

I'm sooooooooooooo reporting this to Scotland Yard. You're DONE. Game over man, game over.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk Do you mind linking the video in question? I tried looking one up, but the only one I found had terrible audio quality.

@catchamber

That's probably the one I was watching. Looked like a potato?

here's one

Is anyone stopping them from 'being proud' of being from Britain?

@Penny

Well the speech linked above was mailed in because they guy was arrested and deported for trying to give the speech so.... yeah, kinda?

If they want to get together and masturbate to the Union Jack that's fine (I guess?) but it is when they turn their particular notion of what Britain is into action against others that it starts getting problematic.

Depends. Like I don't think speech constitutes 'action against others.' Enacting new policies can constitute 'action against others,' but I don't necessarily find that 'problematic.' I don't wanna give carte-blanche to start rolling over people's rights because hypothetically eventually someone might possibly do something bad.

Personally I've always found Patriotism (and nationalism) to be silly. Im with Sammy J on this one, it really is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

I know some other one-legged veterans who might take issue with that.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>

No bet ;)

@Penny

I mean, I want people from Mexico to be proud of their Mexican heritage, I want people from Brooklyn to be proud of their Brooklyn upbringing, I want people from Canada to die in a glacier, I want people from Germany to serve me beer. I have no issue whatsoever with British people being proud of Britain. I don't even have a problem with talking about what is, objectively, a migrant crisis in Europe. The situation is not normal, if you say "we want to have a conversation about this," I'm like okay, let's talk. But if the conversation includes "and we need to talk about whether or not Islam is allowed to exist," my eyebrow goes up. I'll talk it out, because you beat bad ideas with good ideas, not bullying, but.... in that situation, I'm thinking you're probably an asshole.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@The Harbinger of Ferocity How are they acting outside of modern politics?

@catchamber

You can tell because of the way it is.

*shrug*

Regarding Generation Identity (@ whoever I'm not keeping track)...frankly I hope they're not assholes. I was paying zero attention to them and then folks in here started screeching about 'em, and then a video popped up of Tommy Robinson reading a speech by that one guy from Generation Identity and I was like "Eh, I've literally never payed attention to any of these people but I guess the politics thread really wants me to be aware, I'll check it out." Then I watched it and most of it made me feel feelings. It was last weekend's rally at Speaker's Corner, if anyone feels like googling (and if you can find one that YT hasn't taken down yet). I was like "Huh. This guy is saying a lot of pretty awesome things and also there's a reserved (but telling) undercurrent of islamophobia in there, but MOST of this is awesome."

I bet they're assholes, as that reserved-but-telling undercurrent was pretty hard to ignore, and if I was them, I'd avoid all the controversial shit in this situation. They mostly avoided controversial stuff, this time, but if you're insisting that they're assholes elsewhere I guess I believe you. But I wish they weren't, because 95% of what was said in the video was fantastic and I don't want the last 5% to spoil it. Anyway. Wouldn't have watched if it wasn't for all you fine folks in here, so 90-95% thanks!

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>
As far as I know, "YouTube's HQ is in California, so California laws apply across the platform" isn't a valid excuse, because the California law regarding secretly recording people doesn't explicitly mention transmitting the recording.

@catchamber

Neat, and sensical. Still, if I were unwittingly made to be the transmitter, I too might balk (though to be fair, if I were the transmitter I'd also be a lot more concerned about the appearance of censoring political views than YouTube apparently is, and that might affect where I draw a line).

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk@SleepingSilence If he was part of the conversation that he secretly recorded, he didn't violate US federal or Texas state law. After looking at Twitter and Youtube's policies, I haven't found anything that relates to the specific video you described.

@catchamber

The article I mentioned was regarding California law (they're a two-party state), and YouTube is a California company, and I dunno if that matters legally (can California entities sue YouTube over independent content on their platform? I tried to google an answer but the lawsuit alleging censorship is dominating search results). What I'm driving at is, I sorta just applied my daily encounters as the logic for YouTube's decision to pull the video and it made perfect reasonable sense -- even if it's just a "We dunno if this is legal or not, let's take it down while we talk about it."

Plenty of other explanations (including SINISTEREVIL ones) would also make sense; my explanation felt pretty even-handed though.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

As for Brittany Pettibone...meh I don't have anything really to say as frankly she was barely even on my radar and was only reminded of her existence during this recent travel ban.

@IceHeart

It's almost like in the grand scale of things they (the people actually ON the alt-right) are a minority of people who the left likes to shine a spotlight on to the paint the entire right as racist.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>
Do you know which videos he posted? I'd like to see if either platform acted according to their terms of services.

@catchamber

They trolled an LGBT meeting at SXSW. The joke was, they've got a guy on the show who "is a computer," so they sent him in to the meeting and he self-identified as a computer, and just, sorta, had him self-identify as a computer. Which sounds harmless enough, but it got as cringey as you probably expect after a few decent chortles.

My guess is, the same day as the video came out (which didn't, to my recollection, violate anything other than common taste, but that's the joke I guess), Gawker types were simultaneously doing a big push on recording laws, re Veritas. The pattern I picked out was "Here's a news-ish outlet talking about hidden camera legality, here's Crowder doing a hidden camera, OH LOOK, banned." Dunno that they're related IRL but that's the connection I made at the time. Charitably, there certainly COULD be a connection to Crowder being conservative and Veritas being conservative and WOOOOOA REPRESSION but I think that's probably off in this case. He's got a much better case with demonetization, I think, but I'm not really paying attention.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Here's some for context. But the discussion is on automation and if it has negative impacts on the economy or more specifically working in trade jobs. Ben sort of misrepresented Tucker's argument, like it was about Trade/Tariff's. When it wasn't.

@SleepingSilence

Well it's just my read, but it seems like Ben's going after Tucker's core assumptions (jobs correlate to family strength, therefore the government should enact policy that protects jobs), then carrying that straight into the (somewhat) related topic of Trump's tariffs.

For my part, I think both sides have great points, both on the thing that Tucker was talking about (yes technology advancements can damage the family; no, that's not necessarily bad; yes, in the case of trucking that could spell big problems; no I don't think we should STOP it or regulate it to death, but let's talk anyway, conversation worth having on a problem worth avoiding); and also on the thing that Ben actually wants to talk about (Free trade is good; Trump has a point that it's only as free as it is fair; tariffs may wind up doing more harm than good; NOT having reciprocal tariffs has worked best for everybody else, and if we're really trying to do what's best for us, maybe there's some value in putting away the carrot and taking out the stick, if only as a negotiating tactic that ultimately brings everyone closer to free AND fair).

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>

@POOHEAD189