snowychap Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Keyblade said: Again, that is very arbitrary. We can't decide if a site is a marketplace of public discussion because an arbitrary large number of people now use it. Well, actually we can, can't we? The number of people using a marketplace has a direct bearing on whether it's actually a marketplace of discussion or simply a venue for a chinwag. Surely, though one obviously can't 'name a number', there is a reasonable point at which a discussion by the public becomes a public discussion. Edit: It's the old how many grains of sand make a heap thing, no? Edited January 13, 2021 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 27 minutes ago, snowychap said: Well, actually we can, can't we? The number of people using a marketplace has a direct bearing on whether it's actually a marketplace of discussion or simply a venue for a chinwag. Surely, though one obviously can't 'name a number', there is a reasonable point at which a discussion by the public becomes a public discussion. Edit: It's the old how many grains of sand make a heap thing, no? Even if we say it reaches this hypothetical threshold, is it actually a marketplace of discussion? Can we assign a purpose to something that isn't the one intended by the owner/creator? Do they relinquish ownership to the public now that it's been reached? This sounds like an argument for nationalizing social media and making it an actual public marketplace of discussion instead of a heavily regulated private one that happens to have a very large userbase. Anyway, what's the endgame here? Do you not agree with moderation in general? Should everybody have a platform on Twitter to say whatever they want with no repercussions? I'm genuinely failing to see the issue here, so it'd be appreciated if you could spell it out to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted January 13, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 13, 2021 4 hours ago, chrisp65 said: We’d have to hope that the U.S. had it’s own Stanislav Petrov Or at the very least... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Keyblade said: Even if we say it reaches this hypothetical threshold, is it actually a marketplace of discussion? Can we assign a purpose to something that isn't the one intended by the owner/creator? Do they relinquish ownership to the public now that it's been reached? This sounds like an argument for nationalizing social media and making it an actual public marketplace of discussion instead of a heavily regulated private one that happens to have a very large userbase. Anyway, what's the endgame here? Do you not agree with moderation in general? Should everybody have a platform on Twitter to say whatever they want with no repercussions? I'm genuinely failing to see the issue here, so it'd be appreciated if you could spell it out to me. You're mixing a whole lot of stuff up from what I can see. Purpose v magnitude and the consequences of thresholds reached. I've suggested there's a difference between small forums such as VT and large platforms such as twitter. Other than the obvious, I think there's a fundamental difference between forums that are overblown sites of a small community (apologies to all on VT) and sites that host a great deal of the virtual world. It's not about agreeing with or disagreeing with moderation. It's about understanding the platform upon which someone is standing/speaking/discussing and its position in the world. And its about understanding the repercussions of what they say. No one should think that what they say (on whatever platform - and the size/worth/&c. has a bearing) is said without repercussions. Edit: I'm very, very drunk. Edited January 13, 2021 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 6 hours ago, fruitvilla said: My word of the day. And Reading’s player of the month. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 6 hours ago, chrisp65 said: It’s legal if its legal is a really scary view of the world. Welcome to every professional armed forces on earth. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 First female in 67 years has been executed in the US. Doctors described her as mentally unstable and should not have been given the death sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, Awol said: Sadly, you are mistaken. Please don’t take my word for it though, Dr Jeffery Lewis, @armscontrolwonk on Twitter, is the authority on the nuclear in a US context. The podcast below removes any illusions about proportionality, people using their better judgement etc. It’s all wishful thinking, unfortunately. https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/arms-control-wonk/id872594726?i=1000504760196 Having served in the UK army in the 70-80's I can safely say that there is much more room for Generals to offer options to a commander than you're pointing out, at least in our armed forces. A general's job, in fact, is to give a president military advise on how to achieve objectives, the same goes with all officers down the chain. It is trained in the academy and a key cornerstone to command. Sure, President Trump could order a nuke, but likely this would have to be ratified by at least several of his cabinet members, generals and other high ranking officials. It's not a "Yes sir, I'll nuke that city straight away" kind of situation. This whole discussion is a typical classroom kind of discussion, and normally one that I don't engage with as it scares people. Yes, on paper the President has the power to nuke, but it's only been used once in a war where America actually was struggling. It's hypothetical and only creates the sort of fear we saw in the cold war amongst people who claim to be 'in the know' about it - typically professors and people in academia who have never been close to knowing the kinks of chain of command. Edited January 13, 2021 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrusr Posted January 13, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 13, 2021 So one of the pepper during the riot had 11 mason jars equivalent to Molotov cocktails that would act like napalm https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Lonnie Coffman Memorandum in Support of Pretrial Detention Exhibit 1.pdf: Quote Thereafter, law enforcement asked COFFMAN a series of questions about possible explosive devices in an effort to further secure public safety. Among other things, law enforcement asked COFFMAN about the contents of the mason jars. COFFMAN stated that the mason jars contained “melted Styrofoam and gasoline.” An explosive enforcement officer with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives has advised that melted Styrofoam and gasoline are an explosive mixture that has the effect of napalm insofar as it causes the flammable liquid to better stick to objects that it hits upon detonation. There are photos and he appears to have a number of guns and a crossbow in his car as well. He looks to be the most serious person charged to date. Also though they have charged someone who appears to have died. Another one has his arrest warrant uploaded which includes a page saying “not for public disclosure” that shows his address... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 7 minutes ago, cyrusr said: So one of the pepper during the riot had 11 mason jars equivalent to Molotov cocktails that would act like napalm https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Lonnie Coffman Memorandum in Support of Pretrial Detention Exhibit 1.pdf: There are photos and he appears to have a number of guns and a crossbow in his car as well. He looks to be the most serious person charged to date. Also though they have charged someone who appears to have died. Another one has his arrest warrant uploaded which includes a page saying “not for public disclosure” that shows his address... This one seems to go beyond the need to destroy, to protest or scare and actually inflict pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted January 13, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 13, 2021 Now up to 5 Republicans who say they will Impeach Trump. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted January 13, 2021 Administrator Share Posted January 13, 2021 7 hours ago, snowychap said: VT can't be compared to twitter. It isn't a universal forum, for all limpid et al. may wish. I'd need to know what that means, but this is a closed community and i wouldn't want it any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted January 13, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 13, 2021 8 hours ago, chrisp65 said: It’s legal if its legal is a really scary view of the world. Going off topic but one of my courses at Uni was 'Law vs Morality' and it was a very interesting study. There are an awful lot of things that are immoral but have purposefully been made legal so that the world works or to try and ensure better outcomes and protect people. Usually not quite as extreme as nukes and 'just following orders' but stuff like adultery, divorce or attempted suicide, all historically immoral but all perfectly legal at present at present. Being overturned from being illegal due to this causing greater harm (i.e. If someone tried to kill themselves it would not help them to then be arrested for it). Also, raises points like being drunk/intoxicated and not having clear thought patterns and capacity to have criminal intent is not a legitimate defense, as you chose to become drunk etc. The flip side is if its moral but illegal it's still illegal. For instance if my family was starving and I stole someone's wallet to buy food for my kids, there's a potential argument that what I did was moral in a greater good sort of way (not a great analogy but best I can think of right now), however it's still illegal (you'd potentially get a more lenient penalty though). It's also defined that you can't retrospectively change the law and punish people for something that is legal yesterday but illegal today as otherwise they'd be no certainty to the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 12 minutes ago, limpid said: I'd need to know what that means, but this is a closed community and i wouldn't want it any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 27 minutes ago, sidcow said: Now up to 5 Republicans who say they will Impeach Trump. How many needed for the 2/3 majority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 38 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Having served in the UK army in the 70-80's I can safely say that there is much more room for Generals to offer options to a commander than you're pointing out, at least in our armed forces. A general's job, in fact, is to give a president military advise on how to achieve objectives, the same goes with all officers down the chain. It is trained in the academy and a key cornerstone to command. Sure, President Trump could order a nuke, but likely this would have to be ratified by at least several of his cabinet members, generals and other high ranking officials. It's not a "Yes sir, I'll nuke that city straight away" kind of situation. This whole discussion is a typical classroom kind of discussion, and normally one that I don't engage with as it scares people. Yes, on paper the President has the power to nuke, but it's only been used once in a war where America actually was struggling. It's hypothetical and only creates the sort of fear we saw in the cold war amongst people who claim to be 'in the know' about it - typically professors and people in academia who have never been close to knowing the kinks of chain of command. A good summary of a scenario in conventional conflict, not US command authority for the release of nuclear weapons - well summarised by Chindie a few pages ago. You’re factually wrong about the detail, but right that the reality terrifies people - though perhaps not as terrifying as the idea of ‘kinks’ in the chain of command when it comes to nuclear weapons. Part of their deterrent effect is the certainty of the process to respond on the other side. Back on thread - that’s what makes Pelosi’s intervention so egregious. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 5 minutes ago, Awol said: A good summary of a scenario in conventional conflict, not US command authority for the release of nuclear weapons - well summarised by Chindie a few pages ago. You’re factually wrong about the detail, but right that the reality terrifies people - though perhaps not as terrifying as the idea of ‘kinks’ in the chain of command when it comes to nuclear weapons. Part of their deterrent effect is the certainty of the process to respond on the other side. Back on thread - that’s what makes Pelosi’s intervention so egregious. There has never been a conflict outside of the perimeters to you are discussing apart from a couple of days in 1945. It's hypothetical and a non-subject to talk about, it won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 12 hours 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. I call your hand, and raise you this. Changed your mind yet? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post KenjiOgiwara Posted January 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) I don't get why people claim he's being censored. He's consisently broken the rules of social media companies for 4-5 years. He got away with it cause he was either a presidential candidate or president. Now he's out thus he doesn't. This isn't spesific to him. Ordinary people breaking the rules are banned every day. I actually think they should have banned him before. I see no reason why there should be different rules based on your job description. Edited January 13, 2021 by KenjiOgiwara 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 24 minutes ago, magnkarl said: There has never been a conflict outside of the perimeters to you are discussing apart from a couple of days in 1945. It's hypothetical and a non-subject to talk about, it won't happen. It’s never happened, except for that time it happened. Cool. Again though, if it’s such a non-subject we might ask why Pelosi floated the idea of mutiny to address it. With Mad Mitch and Liz Cheney now going for him it’ll be very interesting to see if they can get Trump out before the 20th. He’s more than outlived his usefulness to the establishment R party, but this won’t save it. Dem voters hate them for enabling, the MAGA crowd will hate them for folding. What goes around... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts