FreeSpeechWarrior280

She was....treated like Jewish people were in the holocaust? Really?

who said she's "using bigotry against Jews"?

quote:

---

We live in a country in which nearly ALL of news media, the entertainment industry, professional and collegiate sports organizations, the educational structures and social media lean left of center.

---

This is not true. I steadfastly deny it. These organizations only exist within American capitalism, and they are owned by people who profit from American capitalism. At the end of the day, they all support American capitalism.

quote:

---

This combination creates the very contemporary society in which we all live.

---

Stunning analysis.

quote:

---

You can imagine it being a physical structure even.

---

Wait, huh?

quote:

---

A "chamber" if you will.

---

Oh. lmao.

quote:

---

And in this "chamber" there is one preferred and protected speech, and it's the one promoted by these institutions. It gets repeated over and over as each institution amplifies the latest talking point to where it soon gets repeated by the citizenry. It bounces back and forth to a point in which it becomes unable to ignore.

You might even call this an "echo."

---

Spot on, here! The preferred speech, of course, is speech that's supportive of American capitalism. Dissenting voices are allowed (just not tooo loud), of course, to give the image of "fair and balanced" debate.

Of course, it doesn't really suit your argument to say we live in the echo chamber of capitalism, does it?

quote:

---

posters here with balls hefty enough to suggest this place is the problem

---

man...don't get cocky! "problems" are important. This place isn't a "problem." This place doesn't have...idk, any sort of power. Biden's administration? That's a problem. Megacorporations? Those are problems. This isn't even one of the more influential breeding grounds of white supremacy and nationalism, as much as it wished it was.

:bow: :bow: :bow: love her, for the most part! yes!

obviously, harm is harm -- that's tautological. but what harms one person does not harm another. I'm not allergic to peanut butter -- so giving me a peanut butter sandwich is no harm. My friends who are allergic? It would be a harm to them!

Likewise, I have less than three thousand dollars. Taking a few hundred from me? Major harm. Taking a few hundred from, say, anyone with several million? Not a harm.

yeah, how dare i have the nerve to state the obvious :rolleyes:

i absolutely agree there are plenty of liberal echo chambers. the entire viewership of CNN....of MSNBC....etc. despicable, imo. I'm not a liberal, of course!

but to be, completely, perfectly, honest, I think that if you'd run in socialist/communist circles you'd see they're anything but echo chambers. sure, there are a few given principles we all agree on, but that obtains in literally any community. i've found internal debate and dialog to be much more vigorous in these leftist "echo chambers" than in liberal or conservative circles.


but none of that matters to someone with a victim complex, i.e., everyone on this board. you've got a conservative in the white house right now and you still cry....lmao

I believe they have just as many rights -- at least, human rights -- as the rest of us. As I see it, rights are defenses against harms -- and a natural consequence is that when the threshold for harm is higher, the threshold for rights-violation is likewise higher.

The main feature of "wokeness" is "the thing I don't like." Interrogate what's the common thread between everyone -- MAGA, neolib centrist, "brocialists", boomer conservative -- who calls their enemies "woke" and you'll realize it just means "i don't like this person!! they're BAD!"

I care about people facing actual, meaningful consequences for their speech. A multi-millionaire losing a gig? Yawn! Miss me with that.

(also, I love Inherent Vice, lmao!)

I'm sorry, but that's absolutely not the "logical conclusion." A logical conclusion is something inevitably determined by the premises -- say, 1) dogs are great to play with, 2) Rex is a dog, ergo 3) Rex is great to play with.

Now, I could also say "Rex loves wagging his tail," and that's certainly POSSIBLE, but it's not DETERMINED by the premises. Likewise, "South Americans cannot transmit COVID-19" isn't contradicted by your premises, yes, but neither is it necessitated.

I mean, think about how many people die in car accidents every year.

I value people's lives, and don't want them to die in car accidents.

I also value easy transportation and the ability of people in the suburbs to go to the grocery store.

Does that mean I DON'T value their lives and the danger of car accidents because I say "yeah, driving to Albertsons is fine"?

Does it mean, maybe, that I think people driving to Albertsons are immune to car accidents?

No! It may just mean I think the benefits of going to the store outweigh the risk of injury or death.

Likewise, "South Americans (or whoever) can transmit COVID-19, but it's more important that they be allowed into the country because the benefits outweigh the risks. A similar situation does not obtain for Floridian travel," is perfectly consonant with your premises.

Trust me...don't talk about logic unless you know what you're doing ;)

yawn. it's your own damn problem that you're so blinded by hatred that you can't see right-wing extremism for what it is, or even recognize it.