chrisp65 Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, villakram said: Is that the rubric. Not much of a legal system that. I for one do submit to your rule, and you can't kill me because... na, na, na, na, na, na. Shortest empire ever. It’s not the rubric or the metric or the be all and end all. But its a better legal system than Trump trying to rule by rule of Trump. Plenty of other Presidents have had far more people killed, and not always their own people. No, it was just to underline that there was a consequence to his idiocy that cannot go unnoticed by ‘the market’. Trump killing people by trying to flirt around the edges of a cult of personality coup is probably not the right cause to worry over regarding censorship and freedom of speech. There will be a better Rosa Parks figure to build a case around than that idiot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Keyblade Posted January 12, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 12, 2021 7 minutes ago, villakram said: He is being censored. If one is going to argue in support of this, try justify it from some grounds of moral or ethical superiority instead of denying objective reality (this has pot vs kettle issues, to start). One could also try the tactical and strategic angle too if feeling particularly brave. There's no morality in question here. It's a website enforcing its TOS which include, rather reasonably I'd personally say, not inciting violence on its platform. A violation of which typically results in a ban. What is the moral objection here? I'm failing to see one. Beyond that, was his ban unfair based on the TOS that he agreed to when signing up for that platform? For example would you be censored if @limpid hit you with a hot ban for calling me a word removed? Or would you just be breaking the rules of the site and are being punished for doing so? What's the problem here? 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Brumerican Posted January 12, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, villakram said: Is that the rubric. Not much of a legal system that. I for one do submit to your rule, and you can't kill me because... na, na, na, na, na, na. Shortest empire ever. If somebody started a thread on VT about putting a bounty on another posters head I would expect it to be heavily censored by the mods. Maybe even deleted. They'd probably ban them and call the police knowing these snowflake lib cucks. We can't even put other people's lives in danger these days without the radical left and their twisted morality chiming in. Edited January 12, 2021 by Brumerican 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 This is unusual to say the least. I'd guess it's performative and letting anyone thinking of getting all revolutionary know that the military will be firing at them, not in support of them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 Just now, Awol said: This is unusual to say the least. I'd guess it's performative and letting anyone thinking of getting all revolutionary know that the military will be firing at them, not in support of them. Only thing is their Commander in Chief believes HE is the Constitution and the Dems have stolen the election via extremism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, Brumerican said: If somebody started a thread on VT about putting a bounty on another posters head I would expect it to be heavily censored by the mods. Maybe even deleted. They'd probably ban them and call the police knowing these snowflake lib cuks. We can't even put other people's lives in danger these days without the radical left and their twisted morality. I’m still in a legal battle over 2 points I got in 2014 for getting my jubs out in rogue’s gallery. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 Just now, chrisp65 said: I’m still in a legal battle over 2 points I got in 2014 for getting my jubs out in rogue’s gallery. You savour them points and you choke on them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 Just now, chrisp65 said: I’m still in a legal battle over 2 points I got in 2014 for getting my jubs out in rogue’s gallery. DVLA don't mess about do they. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 When you're more upset that some GOP senators lost some Twitter followers than seeing a cop beat to death with an American flag on the Capitol steps it's probably time to retire. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 3 minutes ago, Brumerican said: Only thing is their Commander in Chief believes HE is the Constitution and the Dems have stolen the election via extremism. Sure he believes that, and many of his supporters do too. Serving soldiers at least know the part about him being the constitution isn't true (maybe a few National Guardsman in Alabama might be on the fence but that's not going to swing it for Q). One thing that has gone under the radar so far was Pelosi's attempt to subvert his authority as CiC by going to the CJCS and asking for guarantees the military would refuse lawful orders from Trump to say, bomb Iran or nuke Mexico. It doesn't matter what you think of the man, the Leader of the House was asking the US military to mutiny against its CiC. When the dust settles and that sinks in, it's probably going to cost Pelosi her career. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 Just now, Awol said: Sure he believes that, and many of his supporters do too. Serving soldiers at least know the part about him being the constitution isn't true (maybe a few National Guardsman in Alabama might be on the fence but that's not going to swing it for Q). One thing that has gone under the radar so far was Pelosi's attempt to subvert his authority as CiC by going to the CJCS and asking for guarantees the military would refuse lawful orders from Trump to say, bomb Iran or nuke Mexico. It doesn't matter what you think of the man, the Leader of the House was asking the US military to mutiny against its CiC. When the dust settles and that sinks in, it's probably going to cost Pelosi her career. Major blackouts in Iran right now apparently . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 3 minutes ago, Awol said: Leader of the House was asking the US military to mutiny Is there a record of the conversation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 12, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, Awol said: Sure he believes that, and many of his supporters do too. Serving soldiers at least know the part about him being the constitution isn't true (maybe a few National Guardsman in Alabama might be on the fence but that's not going to swing it for Q). One thing that has gone under the radar so far was Pelosi's attempt to subvert his authority as CiC by going to the CJCS and asking for guarantees the military would refuse lawful orders from Trump to say, bomb Iran or nuke Mexico. It doesn't matter what you think of the man, the Leader of the House was asking the US military to mutiny against its CiC. When the dust settles and that sinks in, it's probably going to cost Pelosi her career. Well, constitutionally, you're right, but hell, I can understand her concern. It wasn't so much "Break your oath" as "Look, you know and I know what he's capable of - just think VERY carefully before you do something catastrophic". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 3 minutes ago, fruitvilla said: Is there a record of the conversation? Invitation to mutiny. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 3 minutes ago, mjmooney said: Well, constitutionally, you're right, but hell, I can understand her concern. It wasn't so much "Break your oath" as "Look, you know and I know what he's capable of - just think VERY carefully before you do something catastrophic". I can rationalise it Mike, of course. But as a current student of civil-military relations it had my jaw on the floor. In a democracy civ-mil is like ghostbusters, you don’t cross the streams. Or you become an ex-democracy in short order. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 12, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 12, 2021 There's an argument to be had I think about public and private space and how one often assumes the form of the other until tested, and there's an argument about the state versus the corporate in terms of control of narrative and social control, but those debates are actually made much harder when they're about Trump, because he's such a poor example that he becomes an opportunity to push the debate further away from the more sensible areas where it probably should be. If you can bring Donald Trump into your argument about the right of a corporation to act in defiance of the state, you can get popular support for really unpopular action. We're left with an imperfect compromise: First they came for the imbecilic, racist orange buffoons and I did not speak out - because....well, actually because it's about time someone came for the imbecilic, racist orange buffoons, that doesn't mean I can't speak out when they come for pretty much anyone else. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 7 minutes ago, Awol said: Invitation to mutiny. So the answer is no ... from the military times However, Col. Dave Butler, spokesman for Army Gen. Mark Milley, said only of the call between the two leaders that “he answered her questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 10 minutes ago, Awol said: When the dust settles and that sinks in, it's probably going to cost Pelosi her career. Or even used as justification of Dem extremism before the inauguration. That announcement from the military seems like a message to the public rather than the troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXD Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 55 minutes ago, villakram said: He is being censored. If one is going to argue in support of this, try justify it from some grounds of moral or ethical superiority instead of denying objective reality (this has pot vs kettle issues, to start). One could also try the tactical and strategic angle too if feeling particularly brave. Could one give ones arguments for stating ‘he is being censored’? (Rather than saying others can not disagree from perspective A nor B). It would help reasonable discussion if one gives its full perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 3 minutes ago, fruitvilla said: So the answer is no ... from the military times However, Col. Dave Butler, spokesman for Army Gen. Mark Milley, said only of the call between the two leaders that “he answered her questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority.” First point, that’s BS. There are no safeguards. The military cannot disobey a lawful order from the Commander in Chief, period. Second, these are her own words: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts