|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 10:13:34 GMT -5
I participate on several unmoderated boards. There are quite a number of people that run amok there, or try to. They don't pose a problem because everyone there knows there is no moderation or anyone to complain to. So those people are ignored, or blocked individually and usually go away after a week or so of not getting responses. It is amazing how adults will act like adults when they are treated like adults who can handle their own problems. I used to use that term "acting like adults" as something positive. However I know lots of teenagers that are solid respectful people. Acting like an asshole are some adults just being themselves. I treat people with respect I dont treat them like adults so to speak. I get it stems from how one would engage with children but even most children behave better than an adult who goes off for some dumb reason on football board. Bottom line some people are just assholes and their age has nothing to do with it..... Oh, quite a number of so called adults act like children. Generally because they expect to be protected like children in my experience. I did not mean to imply that acting as an adult had anything to do with chronological age.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 10:22:09 GMT -5
I participate on several unmoderated boards. There are quite a number of people that run amok there, or try to. They don't pose a problem because everyone there knows there is no moderation or anyone to complain to. So those people are ignored, or blocked individually and usually go away after a week or so of not getting responses. It is amazing how adults will act like adults when they are treated like adults who can handle their own problems. Sorry, but if there is one thing I've learned over the last several years. Adults act more like children than children do. Especially when given no filter. I would disagree. I have found that providing and enforcing that filter has caused more people to act in such a manner. A child will continue to act like a child for as long as your treat them like a child. I know quite a number of people of all ages that still have the expectation to be treated like a child and protected as such. They like being in a position where they can point a finger rather than take any responsibility for their actions. Continuing to treat them as such in the "big brother" nature of internet communication just perpetuates the problem. This is why such places like twitter have become a cesspool of scum and villainy. You have commented yourself about how loose the rules are around here and I think that has directly led to the better overall quality of conversation here. Things get out of hand from time to time but I see very little venom tossed around for the sake of it. This is not true of the more heavily moderated versions of boards like this. Just look at how much better it is here than it was at Giants.com, with the same community members.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 10:29:37 GMT -5
Sorry, but if there is one thing I've learned over the last several years. Adults act more like children than children do. Especially when given no filter. I would disagree. I have found that providing and enforcing that filter has caused more people to act in such a manner. A child will continue to act like a child for as long as your treat them like a child. I know quite a number of people of all ages that still have the expectation to be treated like a child and protected as such. They like being in a position where they can point a finger rather than take any responsibility for their actions. Continuing to treat them as such in the "big brother" nature of internet communication just perpetuates the problem. This is why such places like twitter have become a cesspool of scum and villainy. You have commented yourself about how loose the rules are around here and I think that has directly led to the better overall quality of conversation here. Things get out of hand from time to time but I see very little venom tossed around for the sake of it. This is not true of the more heavily moderated versions of boards like this. Just look at how much better it is here than it was at Giants.com, with the same community members. We'll have to just disagree then. It's not as if there are NO filters here. Some filters help cut down on the insanity.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 10:44:32 GMT -5
I would disagree. I have found that providing and enforcing that filter has caused more people to act in such a manner. A child will continue to act like a child for as long as your treat them like a child. I know quite a number of people of all ages that still have the expectation to be treated like a child and protected as such. They like being in a position where they can point a finger rather than take any responsibility for their actions. Continuing to treat them as such in the "big brother" nature of internet communication just perpetuates the problem. This is why such places like twitter have become a cesspool of scum and villainy. You have commented yourself about how loose the rules are around here and I think that has directly led to the better overall quality of conversation here. Things get out of hand from time to time but I see very little venom tossed around for the sake of it. This is not true of the more heavily moderated versions of boards like this. Just look at how much better it is here than it was at Giants.com, with the same community members. We'll have to just disagree then. It's not as if there are NO filters here. Some filters help cut down on the insanity. Fewer filters increase the quality of conversation. No filters increase it more. The downside of no filters is you have to filter yourself and know which comments you should ignore or not respond to. But you will usually get better conversations when there is not an outside entity there that can take actions on something you said which they did not like. The more people feel that they are free to share their ideas, the more open they will be about them. Which allows for conversations in which one can find better ideas than they may already hold. Any type of restriction on speech interferes with this and just leads to people getting more entrenched in their own ideas. Which is what is contributing to the polarization of modern discourse. You are welcome to disagree with me on this, but I don't think you can look at what is going on in the world right now and really say I am wrong. The circle of appropriate speech has been tightened incrementally over the past dozen years and the discourse has become increasingly polarized over the same time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 10:53:04 GMT -5
We'll have to just disagree then. It's not as if there are NO filters here. Some filters help cut down on the insanity. Fewer filters increase the quality of conversation. No filters increase it more. The downside of no filters is you have to filter yourself and know which comments you should ignore or not respond to. But you will usually get better conversations when there is not an outside entity there that can take actions on something you said which they did not like. The more people feel that they are free to share their ideas, the more open they will be about them. Which allows for conversations in which one can find better ideas than they may already hold. Any type of restriction on speech interferes with this and just leads to people getting more entrenched in their own ideas. Which is what is contributing to the polarization of modern discourse. You are welcome to disagree with me on this, but I don't think you can look at what is going on in the world right now and really say I am wrong. The circle of appropriate speech has been tightened incrementally over the past dozen years and the discourse has become increasingly polarized over the same time. Completely disagree. The detriment of social discourse in the country was directly affected by the emergence and openess of social media. Now, every idiot has a voice and a place to spew nonsense and attract others of the same mindset. Being able to voice false information, flat out lies and propaganda with no checks and balances has blurred the line between reality and fantasy. My God, Flat Earthers have a voice now and are growing in numbers. More stupid people is not a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 11:02:54 GMT -5
Fewer filters increase the quality of conversation. No filters increase it more. The downside of no filters is you have to filter yourself and know which comments you should ignore or not respond to. But you will usually get better conversations when there is not an outside entity there that can take actions on something you said which they did not like. The more people feel that they are free to share their ideas, the more open they will be about them. Which allows for conversations in which one can find better ideas than they may already hold. Any type of restriction on speech interferes with this and just leads to people getting more entrenched in their own ideas. Which is what is contributing to the polarization of modern discourse. You are welcome to disagree with me on this, but I don't think you can look at what is going on in the world right now and really say I am wrong. The circle of appropriate speech has been tightened incrementally over the past dozen years and the discourse has become increasingly polarized over the same time. Completely disagree. The detriment of social discourse in the country was directly affected by the emergence and openess of social media. Now, every idiot has a voice and a place to spew nonsense and attract others of the same mindset. Being able to voice false information, flat out lies and propaganda with no checks and balances has blurred the line between reality and fantasy. My God, Flat Earthers have a voice now and are growing in numbers. More stupid people is not a good thing. Social media is the farthest thing from open. More stupid people being allowed to express their opinions is better since they are now afforded the opportunity to improve those opinions, until those better ideas are silenced and then get more entrenched in their bad ideas. Particularly when those bad ideas are the ones being propped up by the social media platforms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 11:05:41 GMT -5
Completely disagree. The detriment of social discourse in the country was directly affected by the emergence and openess of social media. Now, every idiot has a voice and a place to spew nonsense and attract others of the same mindset. Being able to voice false information, flat out lies and propaganda with no checks and balances has blurred the line between reality and fantasy. My God, Flat Earthers have a voice now and are growing in numbers. More stupid people is not a good thing. Social media is the farthest thing from open. More stupid people being allowed to express their opinions is better since they are now afforded the opportunity to improve those opinions, until those better ideas are silenced and then get more entrenched in their bad ideas. Particularly when those bad ideas are the ones being propped up by the social media platforms. Lol....but they don't improve. They find people who only agree with their point of view and retreat to a place where they are not challenged. I'm sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 11:27:43 GMT -5
Social media is the farthest thing from open. More stupid people being allowed to express their opinions is better since they are now afforded the opportunity to improve those opinions, until those better ideas are silenced and then get more entrenched in their bad ideas. Particularly when those bad ideas are the ones being propped up by the social media platforms. Lol....but they don't improve. They find people who only agree with their point of view and retreat to a place where they are not challenged. I'm sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Exactly, the restriction of open discourse. If you are standing with someone, you cannot shut of their voice and neither can some unseen third party. The filtering of information by yourself or others that control what you can hear is the issue I am talking about. Seems to me that you agree with me, we just aren't communicating it well. Our solutions are just different, I feel less restriction will be harder for people to deal with but better overall in the long run. You've heard the saying that violence is the language of the unheard. This is unfortunately a very true statement. Do you really think in the end it will be a good thing that those with what is viewed as bad ideas are silenced by some tech overseer? I don't, I think it will end badly for everyone. If it isn't stopped, I know it will end badly for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 11:29:39 GMT -5
I think I took a left turn on the thread topic. Sorry guys, I'll stop now. Thank you for the discussion though FBomb, I thoroughly enjoyed it. On topic, I quite liked the results of the draft.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 12:27:41 GMT -5
Lol....but they don't improve. They find people who only agree with their point of view and retreat to a place where they are not challenged. I'm sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Exactly, the restriction of open discourse. If you are standing with someone, you cannot shut of their voice and neither can some unseen third party. The filtering of information by yourself or others that control what you can hear is the issue I am talking about. Seems to me that you agree with me, we just aren't communicating it well. Our solutions are just different, I feel less restriction will be harder for people to deal with but better overall in the long run. You've heard the saying that violence is the language of the unheard. This is unfortunately a very true statement. Do you really think in the end it will be a good thing that those with what is viewed as bad ideas are silenced by some tech overseer? I don't, I think it will end badly for everyone. If it isn't stopped, I know it will end badly for everyone. The first amendment protects you from your government. There is no protection offered from private companies and individuals. You are still subject to the conseqences of what you say. Never had been. Never will be. That's why people get fired for publicly saying things that are against the rules or can be damaging to thier public profile and business model. That's why people have the right to protest and boycott things they percieve to be offensive or slanderous. The rules still and should apply. Free speech is not promised in the private sector. Outright lies and propaganda should be ridiculed and exposed. Private entities have the right to edit and even censor. Taking that right away IS a violation of free speech.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 12:33:05 GMT -5
Exactly, the restriction of open discourse. If you are standing with someone, you cannot shut of their voice and neither can some unseen third party. The filtering of information by yourself or others that control what you can hear is the issue I am talking about. Seems to me that you agree with me, we just aren't communicating it well. Our solutions are just different, I feel less restriction will be harder for people to deal with but better overall in the long run. You've heard the saying that violence is the language of the unheard. This is unfortunately a very true statement. Do you really think in the end it will be a good thing that those with what is viewed as bad ideas are silenced by some tech overseer? I don't, I think it will end badly for everyone. If it isn't stopped, I know it will end badly for everyone. The first amendment protects you from your government. There is no protection offered from private companies and individuals. You are still subject to the conseqences of what you say. Never had been. Never will be. That's why people get fired for publicly saying things that are against the rules or can be damaging to thier public profile and business model. That's why people have the right to protest and boycott things they percieve to be offensive or slanderous. The rules still and should apply. Free speech is not promised in the private sector. Outright lies and propaganda should be ridiculed and exposed. Private entities have the right to edit and even censor. Taking that right away IS a violation of free speech. At no point did I claim it was protected from private companies. I was just pointing out the problems with these private companies not recognizing free speech. The internet has become the public square, yet it is controlled by private interests. I think this will cause problems and IMO it already has.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 12:48:55 GMT -5
The first amendment protects you from your government. There is no protection offered from private companies and individuals. You are still subject to the conseqences of what you say. Never had been. Never will be. That's why people get fired for publicly saying things that are against the rules or can be damaging to thier public profile and business model. That's why people have the right to protest and boycott things they percieve to be offensive or slanderous. The rules still and should apply. Free speech is not promised in the private sector. Outright lies and propaganda should be ridiculed and exposed. Private entities have the right to edit and even censor. Taking that right away IS a violation of free speech. At no point did I claim it was protected from private companies. I was just pointing out the problems with these private companies not recognizing free speech. The internet has become the public square, yet it is controlled by private interests. I think this will cause problems and IMO it already has. So, you think the law should be changed? That's very different. You think everyone shoukd be allowed to say anything, anywhere at any time? That's chaos. You're trust in people behaving like adults has been proven otherwise in society.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 13:07:07 GMT -5
At no point did I claim it was protected from private companies. I was just pointing out the problems with these private companies not recognizing free speech. The internet has become the public square, yet it is controlled by private interests. I think this will cause problems and IMO it already has. So, you think the law should be changed? That's very different. You think everyone shoukd be allowed to say anything, anywhere at any time? That's chaos. You're trust in people behaving like adults has been proven otherwise in society. No, the law should remain as is. I think we would be better off in the long run if private entities chose to recognize free speech on their public forums. They do not do this currently. I don't think the government should force them to either. But I do think that if they choose to act as publishers by controlling what people can and cannot say, they should not be protected as public platforms should be. Currently they are. But yes, people are allowed to say anything, anywhere at any time. This was not in discussion. The question is should they be allowed to publish it in what is considered a public platform controlled by private interest. Currently they are not.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on May 3, 2021 13:08:40 GMT -5
The first amendment protects you from your government. There is no protection offered from private companies and individuals. You are still subject to the conseqences of what you say. Never had been. Never will be. That's why people get fired for publicly saying things that are against the rules or can be damaging to thier public profile and business model. That's why people have the right to protest and boycott things they percieve to be offensive or slanderous. The rules still and should apply. Free speech is not promised in the private sector. Outright lies and propaganda should be ridiculed and exposed. Private entities have the right to edit and even censor. Taking that right away IS a violation of free speech. At no point did I claim it was protected from private companies. I was just pointing out the problems with these private companies not recognizing free speech. The internet has become the public square, yet it is controlled by private interests. I think this will cause problems and IMO it already has. Just as it has in all areas of broadcast. TV news, Radio, et al The internet isn't new it's just the latest
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 13:14:43 GMT -5
At no point did I claim it was protected from private companies. I was just pointing out the problems with these private companies not recognizing free speech. The internet has become the public square, yet it is controlled by private interests. I think this will cause problems and IMO it already has. Just as it has in all areas of broadcast. TV news, Radio, et al The internet isn't new it's just the latest No, I cannot agree with this. The internet is quite different than TV news and Radio. The internet functions much like a public square. Where anyone can stand and speak their mind on whatever they so choose. But the private interests that own these sites can decide what can be heard and are able to take away one's ability to share their opinions. TV News and radio never really offered that ability to speak in the same way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 13:19:07 GMT -5
Just as it has in all areas of broadcast. TV news, Radio, et al The internet isn't new it's just the latest No, I cannot agree with this. The internet is quite different than TV news and Radio. The internet functions much like a public square. Where anyone can stand and speak their mind on whatever they so choose. But the private interests that own these sites can decide what can be heard and are able to take away one's ability to share their opinions. TV News and radio never really offered that ability to speak in the same way. As is thier right under the first amendment. The law would HAVE to be changed in order for that to happen. Regardless of how you feel about it.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 13:25:53 GMT -5
No, I cannot agree with this. The internet is quite different than TV news and Radio. The internet functions much like a public square. Where anyone can stand and speak their mind on whatever they so choose. But the private interests that own these sites can decide what can be heard and are able to take away one's ability to share their opinions. TV News and radio never really offered that ability to speak in the same way. As is thier right under the first amendment. The law would HAVE to be changed in order for that to happen. Regardless of how you feel about it. No, it wouldn't. They can choose to act differently. The law does not have to change for people to make different choices. Regardless of how you feel about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 13:32:57 GMT -5
As is thier right under the first amendment. The law would HAVE to be changed in order for that to happen. Regardless of how you feel about it. No, it wouldn't. They can choose to act differently. The law does not have to change for people to make different choices. Regardless of how you feel about it. I see. More of an honor system. Well, good luck with that. You have a lot more faith in the "adults" than I do. Let me give an example. I'm in a band that relies 100% on drawing people in. We all have very different views on politics and religion. We have decided that it is in the band's best interest not to discuss these things in public or on social media. Both are very devicive and could literally cut our fan base in half. Now, if I were to decide that I no longer wanted to adhere to the rule and the CONSEQUENCES of my actions alienate our fan base....should the band hold me accountable?
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasman on May 3, 2021 13:34:30 GMT -5
Just as it has in all areas of broadcast. TV news, Radio, et al The internet isn't new it's just the latest No, I cannot agree with this. The internet is quite different than TV news and Radio. The internet functions much like a public square. Where anyone can stand and speak their mind on whatever they so choose. But the private interests that own these sites can decide what can be heard and are able to take away one's ability to share their opinions. TV News and radio never really offered that ability to speak in the same way. Replace the owners of private interests that own platforms in the public square of the internet and replace it with the owners of private interests that own platforms on TV and Radio. The rich control the platforms. Same as it ever was.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 13:36:42 GMT -5
No, it wouldn't. They can choose to act differently. The law does not have to change for people to make different choices. Regardless of how you feel about it. I see. More of an honor system. Well, good luck with that. You have a lot more faith in the "adults" than I do. Let me give an example. I'm in a band that relies 100% on drawing people in. We all have very different views on politics and religion. We have decided that it is in the band's best interest not to discuss these things in public or on social media. Both are very devicive and could literally cut our fan base in half. Now, if I were to decide that I no longer wanted to adhere to the rule and the CONSEQUENCES of my actions alienate our fan base....should the band hold me accountable? Yes. But how would that require a law change to make a different choice?
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 13:37:16 GMT -5
No, I cannot agree with this. The internet is quite different than TV news and Radio. The internet functions much like a public square. Where anyone can stand and speak their mind on whatever they so choose. But the private interests that own these sites can decide what can be heard and are able to take away one's ability to share their opinions. TV News and radio never really offered that ability to speak in the same way. Replace the owners of private interests that own platforms in the public square of the internet and replace it with the owners of private interests that own platforms on TV and Radio. The rich control the platforms. Same as it ever was. This part is true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 13:37:24 GMT -5
I see. More of an honor system. Well, good luck with that. You have a lot more faith in the "adults" than I do. Let me give an example. I'm in a band that relies 100% on drawing people in. We all have very different views on politics and religion. We have decided that it is in the band's best interest not to discuss these things in public or on social media. Both are very devicive and could literally cut our fan base in half. Now, if I were to decide that I no longer wanted to adhere to the rule and the CONSEQUENCES of my actions alienate our fan base....should the band hold me accountable? Yes. Then we agree. The rules apply otherwise chaos.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 13:43:36 GMT -5
Then we agree. The rules apply otherwise chaos. Order comes from chaos, self responsible order is better then exteriorly controlled order. We've all dealt with chaos in one form or another and came out of it a bit scarred but better for the experience. It unfortunately will not happen because people prefer to be able to expunge their own responsibility and blame others. It is why so many children are found at ages in which they should no longer be children. I would prefer if society did not encourage such things. It is like giving the candy to a kid that was throwing a fit because you told them they couldn't have a candy. Our institutions are treating people this way and have been for a while. This is how we got here and it won't get better by continuing the same actions going forward. It will only get worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 13:46:28 GMT -5
I see. More of an honor system. Well, good luck with that. You have a lot more faith in the "adults" than I do. Let me give an example. I'm in a band that relies 100% on drawing people in. We all have very different views on politics and religion. We have decided that it is in the band's best interest not to discuss these things in public or on social media. Both are very devicive and could literally cut our fan base in half. Now, if I were to decide that I no longer wanted to adhere to the rule and the CONSEQUENCES of my actions alienate our fan base....should the band hold me accountable? Yes. But how would that require a law change to make a different choice? Answer your edit. It wouldn't if you were going on the honor system. No accoutabilty requires A LOT of faith in human beings. I live in Florida. I have ZERO faith in humanity. It's pretty much over down here. 😜 Enforcment of the rule would require a law or 2 to chamge. Possibly an amendment. Which requires an act of Congress.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 13:54:49 GMT -5
Then we agree. The rules apply otherwise chaos. Order comes from chaos, self responsible order is better then exteriorly controlled order. We've all dealt with chaos in one form or another and came out of it a bit scarred but better for the experience. It unfortunately will not happen because people prefer to be able to expunge their own responsibility and blame others. It is why so many children are found at ages in which they should no longer be children. I would prefer if society did not encourage such things. It is like giving the candy to a kid that was throwing a fit because you told them they couldn't have a candy. Our institutions are treating people this way and have been for a while. This is how we got here and it won't get better by continuing the same actions going forward. It will only get worse. Nice cliche but it doesnt apply. There are laws that prevent the chaos from becoming overwhelming and out of control. There are many forms of minor chaos that people overcome. The old BIG chaos' that helped shape and destroy the world are now governed by laws and are mostly preventable. If you arw talking about the PC crowd, then you are preaching to the choir. I have 2 daughters in thier 20's and they are offended by everything. Otherwise I again totally disagree. If anythibf, things are worse because people can anonymously say any damb thing they want without fear of consequences.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 13:55:55 GMT -5
Yes. But how would that require a law change to make a different choice? Answer your edit. It wouldn't if you were going on the honor system. No accoutabilty requires A LOT of faith in human beings. I live in Florida. I have. ZERO faith in humanity. It's pretty much over down here. 😜 An enforcment of the rule wouod require a law or 2 to chamge. Possibly an amendment. Which requires an act of Congress. Well, if there is no faith to be had in humans than we really should go to complete anarchy and see what survives in the end. As we are ill-equipped to continue as we have. I also did not say, "No accountability" you keep twisting my words about. Allowing people to speak their mind and not silencing them for saying unpopular things is not "no accountability". There are consequences to all of our choices. Freedom of speech never stood for freedom from consequences of that speech. I just don't think it is in the best interests of anybody that private tech companies determine what can be said or heard. I have seen much in my life and seen both sides of human nature both internally and externally. I'm not sure which prevails in the end, but I am willing to find out for the hope of better things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 13:57:38 GMT -5
Answer your edit. It wouldn't if you were going on the honor system. No accoutabilty requires A LOT of faith in human beings. I live in Florida. I have. ZERO faith in humanity. It's pretty much over down here. 😜 An enforcment of the rule wouod require a law or 2 to chamge. Possibly an amendment. Which requires an act of Congress. Well, if there is no faith to be had in humans than we really should go to complete anarchy and see what survives in the end. As we are ill-equipped to continue as we have. I also did not say, "No accountability" you keep twisting my words about. Allowing people to speak their mind and not silencing them for saying unpopular things is not "no accountability". There are consequences to all of our choices. Freedom of speech never stood for freedom from consequences of that speech. I just don't think it is in the best interests of anybody that private tech companies determine what can be said or heard. I have seen much in my life and seen both sides of human nature both internally and externally. I'm not sure which prevails in the end, but I am willing to find out for the hope of better things. I don't disagree that we are heading for a cliff and chaos is enevitable. I'd just like to win some SBs before that happens
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 13:58:44 GMT -5
Order comes from chaos, self responsible order is better then exteriorly controlled order. We've all dealt with chaos in one form or another and came out of it a bit scarred but better for the experience. It unfortunately will not happen because people prefer to be able to expunge their own responsibility and blame others. It is why so many children are found at ages in which they should no longer be children. I would prefer if society did not encourage such things. It is like giving the candy to a kid that was throwing a fit because you told them they couldn't have a candy. Our institutions are treating people this way and have been for a while. This is how we got here and it won't get better by continuing the same actions going forward. It will only get worse. Nice cliche but it doesnt apply. There are laws that prevent the chaos from becoming overwhelming and out of control. There are many forms of minor chaos that people overcome. The old BIG chaos' that helped shape and destroy the world are now governed by laws and are mostly preventable. If you arw talking about the PC crowd, then you are preaching to the choir. I have 2 daughters in thier 20's and they are offended by everything. Otherwise I again totally disagree. If anythibf, things are worse because people can anonymously say any damb thing they want without fear of consequences. The PC crowd is the major part of what I am talking about. But I cannot apply my principles to one group and not another. Which is fundamentally the problem with the manner in which these large tech companies apply their rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2021 14:00:07 GMT -5
Nice cliche but it doesnt apply. There are laws that prevent the chaos from becoming overwhelming and out of control. There are many forms of minor chaos that people overcome. The old BIG chaos' that helped shape and destroy the world are now governed by laws and are mostly preventable. If you arw talking about the PC crowd, then you are preaching to the choir. I have 2 daughters in thier 20's and they are offended by everything. Otherwise I again totally disagree. If anythibf, things are worse because people can anonymously say any damb thing they want without fear of consequences. The PC crowd is the major part of what I am talking about. But I cannot apply my principles to one group and not another. Which is fundamentally the problem with the manner in which these large tech companies apply their rules. It's about keeping your fan base.
|
|
|
Post by jmike on May 3, 2021 14:00:20 GMT -5
Well, if there is no faith to be had in humans than we really should go to complete anarchy and see what survives in the end. As we are ill-equipped to continue as we have. I also did not say, "No accountability" you keep twisting my words about. Allowing people to speak their mind and not silencing them for saying unpopular things is not "no accountability". There are consequences to all of our choices. Freedom of speech never stood for freedom from consequences of that speech. I just don't think it is in the best interests of anybody that private tech companies determine what can be said or heard. I have seen much in my life and seen both sides of human nature both internally and externally. I'm not sure which prevails in the end, but I am willing to find out for the hope of better things. I don't disagree that we are heading for a cliff and chaos is enevitable. I'd just like to win some SBs before that happens LMAO.....I'm with you one that my friend. Giants sure have been a small sliver of that chaos the past few seasons.
|
|