Honestly, dude... there are dumb people on all areas of the Political Spectrum...
Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Period. Enough said.
The idiots shouldn't define the party (or the Politics) [(Are you reading this, Kevin McCarthy? Reference all the Senate Republicans denouncing this moronic woman's rantings...)]
@raphjd said in Cornell vaccine mandate only applies to white students:
https://www.thecollegefix.com/cornell-vaccine-mandate-only-applies-to-white-students/
Typical liberals.
I agree, but not for the same reasons as you have (or, to be fair, that I think you have)....
This is another case of "Political Correctness" gone amok.
Their logic goes like this:
The problem there, is that they STOPPED THINKING THERE!
The NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS is to realize that THIS IS NO DIFFERENT than the Trumpites who want to refuse to wear masks!
NEWS FLASH This is a PANDEMIC!
Students can, and should be required to get the COVID-19 vaccine. And students who want an exception should have to appear before a board and make their case. In person and provide valid rationalization for their request.
Alternatively, they should drop the mandate, as it is "racially insensitive" (DOH!)
But they can't have it both ways!
Of COURSE not - it's about "Rage against the machine"!!
On a serious note, we held the Trump Administration to a high standard, and the Biden Administration shouldn't be given a pass either. I have no desire for there to be a double standard
That said, calling Sen Graham "Lady G" is actually common in LGBTQ circles in DC. If anyone deserves an apology, it's Sen Graham (not the LGBTQ community - who openly embrace this usage!). True, it is intended to be derogatory, but not to LGBTQ people, it's a "dis" to Sen Graham.
What this tweet tells me is that Jen Psaki has LGBTQ community ties 
That said, since the Trump Administration virtually never apologized for his slights to other officials - slights that were grossly more offensive than this one - then I don't think we should expect an apology from the Biden Administration. Equal is equal.
Should she be called out for it? sure
Should we expect an apology? Girl? No!
@raphjd said in Liberals are too dumb to see the irony in this.:
They are saying that all acronyms are racist, so they just changed the acronym.
Absurd. And a true example of "Political Correctness run amok!
Have you seen the absurd level of backlash against Morgan Wallen?
ICYMI: Morgan Wallen is a rising star (like #1 album rising star) in US Country music. A video surfaced recently where he's a little too casual, and makes a comment that includes the work "ni**er".
He responded - publicly - that he was sorry and embarrassed by his own behavior (let's face it, he's embarrassed he got caught)...
The backlash though has been OVER THE TOP! LA Times story here
What do they want from this guy? His dick in a meat grinder?
Would even that be enough for them?
I get it - he should be punished and the use of the term should not be taken lightly. But this shit gone crazy! Pull his songs for a few days, maybe fine him... but all this? Can you say: "OVERBOARD!"
SIDE NOTE: I am not a US Country Music fan - until I saw this story, I had no idea who this bloke was!
NO ONE...
NOT EVEN TWITTER!
Thinks this was OK, or that they "Got it right". Their employee was WRONG.
AGAIN: EVEN TWITTER ADMITS THEY WERE INITIALLY WRONG.!
But mistakes are NOT changes in policy!
The only wrong thing here is your hyperbole!
Have you ever peed and, at least for a fraction of a second, missed the bowl? (You know you have! That's why there are urine droplets around the bowl!)....
THAT DOES NOT MEAN that you don't believe in urinating into the toilet! It just means you made a mistake.
Now look at a public toilet... more people, more mistakes!
Let's move on...
Other than a few, particularly puritan jurisdictions, it's been my experience in the US that the anti-prostitution laws are almost exclusively aimed at "street hookers" - e.g. those most in need of help, not harassment! (To be clear: I mean in enforcement, not in the laws themselves.)
I'm all for legalizing and "licensing" prostitution. But key is keeping the "rough trade" out of it... if someone's doing it because they want to... fine. If they're being forced or coerced, that's another matter.
@walker1234
I certainly grant you that China has dealt with COVID-19 more efficiently than most of the rest of the world. Authoritarian regimes can do that. Given.
I also agree that the US response to COVID-19 would be laughable if it weren't for the awful, human tragedy - and you are equally right that our former President, Donald Trump, is a leading cause for the absurdly awful position we find ourselves in today.
But I still maintain that having our freedoms are generally worth the cost. It's been a particularly high cost with the anti-maskers, and the anti-vaxers, but all good things have a cost.
You can believe that China's system is superior. That is your right. I neither claim, nor require others agree with me. We don't learn by being the same, we learn by being DIFFERENT and through the free exchange of ideas and experiences.
More than anything else, even at 57 years of age, I am a student - still hungry for new knowledge and new experiences.
Sad to say, though I've traveled a lot of this crazy world, the closest I've come to China is Hong Kong (before 1999, when it was still a UK territory). I am hoping to travel more when I retire - and China (what many call "mainland China") is on my "bucket list" 
From all I've read and seen, it is an amazingly beautiful country.
I'm a switch hitter! Jerking off with the "non-primary" hand (in my case, as a right-handed person, that would mean my left is non-primary) almost feels like someone else is doing it - which is preferable!
I like to switch tho... jerk right for a bit, then switch...
HOWEVER, I almost always CUM holding it in my RIGHT hand!
I have known 3 men who were circumcised as adults.
ALL THREE regret having the procedure.
Here in the US, it used to be nearly unheard of for male children to not be circumcised shortly after birth... I WAS!
Today (2021), in this country, it's about 50/50 - the times, they are a changing! Still, most parents who choose TO circumcise say they want their child to "be like their father" or "be like the other children"... to which I say HOGWASH
For one, as the father of 4 boys I can attest that as babies they're not equating that tiny little pee-pee with my much larger, hairy penis... and then, as pre-teens, teens, and certainly as adults, I'm not wagging my dick in front of my children! I honestly don't think any of my children has any idea that I am circumcised! (NONE of them are!)
As for young boys comparing penises, little Johnny is far more likely to care about whether his growing manhood is BIGGER or SMALLER than the others than he is about what the TIP looks like!
There are FEW legitimate medical reasons for circumcision, and some religious ones... but barring one of those, leave your pleasure palace the way God crated it! He did it right the first time, he doesn't need a touch-up!
Finally - the point about the 3 friends (well, 1 friend and 2 ex's): all three reported that sex (especially masturbation) felt VERY DIFFERENT after they were "cut"... not better, not worse, just DIFFERENT. (Again, all 3 regretted their decision to get circumcised as adults.)
YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY but remember this: once you're circumcised, there's no going back!
@raphjd
... and you moved this conversation here because?????
So I followed the link, and yeah! Twitter totally fucked this up! Not just in the policy enforcement, but also in the public relations part! I would assume they'll have their asses handed to them in court, and they'll start re-training some of their content evaluators....
If Twitter was a single person, this would be OUTRAGEOUS!!!
But Twitter is a rather large corporation... so this ain't that...
If Twitter went to court to allow this shit, it would be OUTRAGEOUS!!!
But Twitter didn't - once "higher ups" in Twitter were alerted, the shit got cleaned up... pronto! ... so this ain't that, either...
Corporations are made up of people. People (all people - even you and me) make mistakes. We (sometimes corporations, but always individual people) have to pay for their mistakes. Not fair that corporations often get "let off the hook", but hey: life ain't fair (Did ya catch the hyperbole in there? did ya? really? it's in there!)
The issue in the other forum, @raphjd, is that you EXTENDED Twitter's mistake to assert that their Terms of Service did not outlaw what you termed kiddie porn. And Twitter's own statements - in the article you linked us to - makes it clear that this is a false assertion.
A) It seems this was an error made by an employee, and not (at any time) someone in any leadership position in the company, and
B) You cannot claim that selective enforcement invalidates the entire ToS (or even that little part of the ToS)! Even if they chose to only enforce the "kiddie porn" rules on female victims, it wouldn't invalidate the ToS! Neither would it stop them from re-evaluating those "enforcement" decisions.
Honestly, I think the idiot who reviewed the case initially had a gender bias and didn't think guys could be victims in "kiddie porn"... I'd venture to say, if they still have that job at Twitter, they're better informed now!
That is, admittedly, my own pure and unadulterated conjecture!
@raphjd said in Liberals are too dumb to see the irony in this.:
SanFransico Unified School District Art Department changed its name from VAPA (Visual and Performing Arts) to SFUSD Art Department because acronyms are "white supremacy".
OK, you've got me fooled on this one.
I'm supposed to be a liberal (your label for me, not mine! I think I'm a Conservative who just doesn't agree with (or like) Donald Trump or QAnon!)...
... and yet, I have no idea what this is talking about!
So, all acronyms are white supremacist? or VAPA was?
I did a Google search on VAPA - no sign of White Supremacy, save for the article you referenced yourself... Lots of cases of "Visual and Performing Arts" in lots of other districts though!
...and folks in CA wonder why we call Northern California the "Land of fruits and nuts"!!
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
Twitter told the family that they would not remove the kiddie porn because it did not violate their TOS. Twitter only removed it because Homeland Security got involved.
I am admittedly not familiar with this specific case, but in general, Twitter's finding that an instance that you (and, presumably others) found offensive and labeled kiddie porn did not violate their ToS does not follow that they therefore allow kiddie porn.
When the officer sitting on the side of the road lets 100 cars go by - all of whom are speeding - and he then chooses to pull YOU over for speeding, the fact that he chose to ignore the other speeders does not mean the speeding was legal. Nor is he required to ticket every speeder to validate your speeding ticket.
Selective enforcement does not invalidate the law (or, in this case, the ToS of Twitter).
If that doesn't sound FAIR, let me tell you the same thing I taught my children as they were growing up:
Life isn't fair - and anyone who tells you it is, should be, or could be, is flat-out lying to you!
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
Twitter requires that your posts follow liberal ideological rules or face banning.
hyperbole, anyone?
Beuler?
That isn't the purpose/intent of 230.
No, the purpose of Section 230 is to shield the owners of "public forums" and other kinds of social media from being sued or harassed - as the owner of the forum - for the postings (actions) of its subscribers.
For what its worth, Section 230 has absolutely nothing to do with censorship!
I do love that you are, in your own eye at least, more of an expert in Section 230 than lawyers, politicians, and others.
Again, no - just (apparently) more than you
@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:
Are you saying I would be totally within my right to ban you and the rest of the swamp monster?
YES! This is a "private" server! You actually DO ban people on this site - regularly! For violating your terms of service (e.g.: not having multiple accounts). If you want to ban me (or delete my posts), you are within your rights to do so! (If I understand the ownership of this site, @joker is the actual owner, although you are an administrator. If you are not a paid employee of the site owner (person or corporation), you may not be protected -- I'd want to look that up! LOL)
Twitter has set rules for what is allowed and what is not allowed, as a publisher would do.
No, publishers EDIT and CHOOSE content BEFORE it is published.
That was my example earlier:
Ironically enough, Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS, but saying "but they aren't women, though" does violate their TOS.
I honestly don't know anything about Twitter's TOS - I'm not a subscriber.
What does it say about you that you are defending them.
It says I understand the protections of Section 230 better than you do? LOL
@raphjd
Sorry - removing some posts (and protection against suits because of that) is covered under Section 230
You are not guaranteed unfettered free speech - ANYWHERE!!
Even the Government can limit speech in certain circumstances - but Twitter isn't the Government - and neither are they a monopoly (or even a regulated provider, like your local TV Station! Twitter is not broadcast over public airwaves)...
Your (falsely) perceived 1st Amendment right to post your political views on their (privately owned) platform is running head first into their actual right to do whatever they want with their property!
NOTE: IF Twitter were to require their editorial approval BEFORE allowing content on their site, THEN they would be a publisher....
This ain't that!
@raphjd
There is no "choice" under Section 230...
If you publish a libelous post about someone, you are responsible! No Section 230 protection!
If you provide a platform, and a 3rd party posts libelous content on that platform, you can sue the person who authored the post, but you cannot sue the platform!
If you provide a platform, and you post content that is libelous, you have no protection under Section 230 - because you're not a 3rd party!
@andergarcia
I love JAZZ - especially the old-time stuff.
Right now, I'm listening to Riverwalk Jazz featuring the Jim Cullum Jazz Band.
What's playing is a rendition of the Tiger Rag
I should point out: Jim Cullum, Jr passed away in 2019 (age 77)
@bc22
I live in near the Strawberry Capitol of the World (not sure that's true, but they claim it) here in Florida (Plant City)... so that's STRAWBERRY for sure!
Peanut Butter: Crunchy or Smooth?
@raphjd
Agreed that the National Government changes slowly... but it certainly does change, and the pace of that change has been getting faster and faster. Especially with each ensuing administration since Nixon seemingly expanding the powers of the Presidency (and Congress all too often complicit in the usurpation of powers not provided for in the Constitution!).
But I question whether you actually understand what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 really does!
At its core, Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content. For God's Sake man, this is a torrenting site! Take away Section 230, and the content producers will shut this baby down faster than you can say howdy!
It's BECAUSE of Section 230 that content owners have to send the site a request to remove copyrighted content, and cannot sue the site owners over the fact that the lion's share of content shared here is copyrighted somewhere else.
(For those who care, a modification to Section 230 that was made in 2018 is the cause for the demise of the Craigslist personals - once a treasure-trove of prostitution, sex trafficking, and a ton of horny guys just looking to get off! -- in other words: a "den of iniquity with some good and some bad actors).
Anyway, without Section 230, the Internet would not even closely resemble what we know it as. Facebook couldn't exist. Nor Twitter (too much risk someone would publish "illegal" content, for which the ISP & website owner could be held legally and civilly liable!) OOOMMMPPPHHHH!
The issue some people have arising from Section 230 is the misguided (well, I think it's misguided) belief that large Internet content providers (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) are filtering Conservative viewpoints. They want to tie "free speech" rights to private companies (no-go there, the 1st Amendment only applies to the Government!). Conspiracy theorists and their followers believe there is a concerted effort on the part of these Internet companies to squelch Conservative voices on their platforms. The companies, naturally deny any bias.
Aside: As a Conservative (a non-conspiracy-theory-believing one), I don't see evidence of bias. But I do see extremists on both ends of the spectrum getting better and better at organizing and leveraging social media; and I see these tech companies trying (albeit imperfectly) to avoid being the tool by which these groups cause real harm.
As Parler & IONOS have shown, there is little-to-no barrier to entry for creating competitive platforms to Facebook, Twitter, etc... and there is already large-scale competition in the Google marketplace.
Thus, and in no small part because I like to download porn, I stand strongly in favor of keeping Section 230, if not re-strengthening it!
(That out to light a fire under @raphjd's pants!) 