Reason Roundup

New Bill Would Empower Trolls, Make It Easier for States To Sue Tech Companies

Plus: Atlanta shooter blames "sex addiction," Maryland wants new occupational licensing requirements, and more...

|

The PACT Act is back, and still problematic. The latest bill addressing online content moderation contains a big old mess of changes that could enable trolls and seriously burden solo actors, small businesses, and big tech companies alike, while also giving state prosecutors new power to sue entities they don't like. Called the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency (PACT) Act, the measure has bipartisan support.

Sponsored by Sens. Brian Schatz (D–Hawaii) and John Thune (R–S.D.), the PACT Act was first introduced last summer—and widely panned by constitutional scholars and internet law experts. And while the new legislation contains some changes, lawmakers still failed to fix many earlier problems.

The biggest problem with the PACT Act involves Section 230, the federal law that shields internet platforms from some liability for user-created content. An existing exception to this applies when federal criminal laws are concerned. Under the PACT Act's proposed changes, however, federal civil laws would also be exempted, too. This means federal regulatory agencies could sue online entities when things their users post allegedly violate civil laws, including anti-discrimination and accessibility statutes.

Even more significantly, the PACT Act would let state attorneys general get in on the action—"allowing state attorneys general to enforce federal civil laws against online platforms," as Schatz's press release puts it. That means that for the same alleged violation, a company could face the wrath of the federal government and dozens of state prosecutors at the same time.

"That is a potentially massive change"—and not a good one, points out Techdirt's Mike Masnick:

State AGs have long whined about how Section 230 blocks them from suing sites—but there are really good reasons for this. First of all, state AGs have an unfortunate history of abusing their position to basically shake down companies that haven't broken any actual law, but where they can frame them as doing something nefarious… just to get headlines that help them seek higher office. Giving them more power to do this is immensely problematic—especially when you have industry lobbyists who have capitalized on the willingness of state AGs to act this way, and used it as a method for hobbling competitors. It's not at all clear why we should give state AGs more power over random internet companies, when their existing track record on these issues is so bad.

The PACT Act would also remove Section 230 protections for companies that have "actual knowledge" of illegal content or illegal activity posted by users and do not remove it within four days.

Unlike many similar proposals, the PACT Act would at least require some sort of official documentation saying content is illegal before being forced to remove it. Illegal activity is defined as "activity conducted by an information content provider that has been determined by a trial or appellate Federal or State court to violate Federal criminal or civil law" and illegal content is defined as content "provided by an information content provider that has been determined by a trial or appellate Federal or State court to violate" federal criminal or civil law or state defamation law.

The takedown requirement is perhaps more pointless than anything else. Companies "already take down content with a court order. And often don't or drag their feet without one," writes Masnick. "This is another fix for a problem that doesn't exist"

The PACT Act's provisions go way beyond Section 230. Some of the other requirements in it include mandating internet companies to do the following:

  • Publish an "acceptable use policy."
  • Provide a 5-days-per-week, 8-hours-per-day hotline for people to ask a "live company representative" questions about the acceptable use policy and any content moderation decisions the company makes, as well as to report content that a user thinks may be illegal or may violate the company's acceptable use policy.
  • Provide an email complaint system for the same purposes.
  • Provide a formal appeals process for people who don't like a company's content moderation decisions.

It would also require internet companies twice yearly to submit to the federal government a report outlining how it enforced its acceptable use policy.

The biannual report would have to say how many reports it received, about what kinds of content, and who made these reports; the number of times the company took action on content and what kind and what type of action was taken; the number of content removals broken down by what rules were violated, who flagged the content, what country the content provider was based in, and "whether the action was in response to a coordinated campaign" of some sort; the number of times a company did not remove or take action on flagged content; and the number of appeals it received and what sorts of action were taken on those appeals.

In other words, online entities that allow user-generated content would have to explain and answer to the government for just about every possible content moderation decision made. And failing to properly comply with this transparency requirement would be considered "an unfair or deceptive act" under federal law.

"Individual providers" would be exempt from some of these requirements, including running their own hotlines and submitting biannual transparency reports—but only if they receive fewer than 100,000 unique monthly visitors (which is not really that much).

"Small businesses" would be exempt from the hotline and reporting requirements only if they saw less than 1 million unique monthly visitors.

"Internet infrastructure" services such as web hosting, domain registration, data storage, and cloud management companies and providers of broadband internet access would be exempt.

Overall, the PACT Act is sweeping in terms of the burdens it would place on internet companies without a clear indication of how these changes would solve any existing issues. The bill "solves for things that are not problems, and calls other things problems that are not clearly problems, while creating new problems where none previously existed," Masnick suggests.

As mentioned above, some of the Section 230 changes could be especially damaging. Allowing state prosecutors to sue websites could open up the litigation floodgates and lead to a lot of biased, agenda-driven lawsuits that benefit attention-seeking attorneys general at the expense of internet users and companies. The PACT Act would also burden online platforms and publishers with a crazy amount of new content moderation rules, paperwork, and "transparency" requirements without any obvious upside.

"Forcing every website that accepts content from users to post an 'acceptable use policy' leads us down the same stupid road as requiring every website have a privacy policy," writes Masnick. "It's a nonsensical approach—because the only reasonable way to write up such a policy is to keep it incredibly broad and vague, to avoid violating it. And that's why no one reads them or finds them useful—they only serve as a potential way to avoid liability."

The required process for allowing people to report, question, contest, and appeal all content moderation decisions would be an even bigger burden—and one that allowed for targeted harassment and censorship campaigns by groups intent on punishing certain platforms or silencing certain groups.

"This bill basically empowers trolls to harass companies," Masnick writes. "All it will do is harm smaller companies, like ours, by putting a massive compliance burden on us, accomplishing nothing but…helping trolls annoy us."


FOLLOW-UP

Georgia shooter claims sex addiction. Police say Robert Aaron Long, the man suspected of shooting up three massage parlors and killing eight people on Tuesday, blamed his actions on "sex addiction." Friends of Long's said he was deeply Christian and felt guilty about patronizing sex workers at massage parlors. Already, some media have been minimizing the shooter's actions and instead blaming the existence of massage parlors that permit sexual activity for "leaving the women working there particularly vulnerable to violence and abuse."

Police have also expressed what seems like sympathy for the shooter's sexy-women-made-me-do-it defense, with Cherokee County Sheriff's Office Captain Jay Baker saying at a press conference yesterday that the businesses were "a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate" and "he was fed up, at the end of his rope. He had a bad day, and this is what he did."


FREE MARKETS


QUICK HITS

• A bill to remove the decades-past deadline for ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment passed the House of Representatives yesterday.

• A baby born to a woman who received the COVID-19 vaccine while pregnant "marks the first known case of a baby born with coronavirus antibodies in the U.S., which may offer her some protection against the virus."

• Japan has ruled same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional.

• New Hampshire is coming for tiny homes.

• Meet the new war on terror, just as bad as the old war on terror.

NEXT: Washington Wants To Be Able To Draft Your Daughters Into Military Service, in the Name of 'Equity'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. New Bill Would Empower Trolls

    Pretty sure everything empowers trolls.

    1. ENB looks like she subsists on the life force of living beings.

      1. In other words, semen.

        1. Come again?

          1. THE GREAT JOBS OF USA BOYS GIRLS AND OLDERS I must give my thanks to Ashley, who posted here last week comment About system she uses to earn onlin℮… I’ve got my first check total of $550, pretty cool. i Am so excited, this is the first time i Actually earned something. i am going to work even harder new And i can’t wait for next week payment.

            go to home tab for more detail… Online Jobs provid

            1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings ZXY are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. The courts have successfully implemented laws against perjury for centuries to maintain the only environment of justice, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

        The default has to be the freedom to speak. If a law is perceived to be broken, I don’t want big tech vigilantes invoking their punishment. I want due process in court.

        1. There is a very interesting supreme court case that deals with the rights of a company that owns a town square to limit speech. Marsh vs Alabama. The ruling was that a company that owned a company town could not limit speech in that town. Here is a link to the ruling.

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/326/501

          “ The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”

          In other words, we carry our rights onto private property and everywhere we go and contracts cannot change that.

          People don’t get to profit from violating our rights.

    2. Like due process empowers rapists?

      This bill may be bad, but that is not the first criticism a liberty minded reporter should go to.

      1. You are using the legal term “due process” to describe government-dictated user service agreements and phone tree wait times.

        First of all, that’s a cheapening of what due process has always meant. Second, you are going to be very disappointed if you think the Twitter user service phone number is going to be a panacea for “private censorship” or even a good customer service experience.

        1. Are you under the impression that contracts and their enforcement don’t have due process?

          1. Get back to me when you have a contract dispute with a social media platform where you are their actual customer and you are paying them for a service, rather than trying to use the government to force them to provide a free-of-charge platform for your speech.

            I have pointed out that all the major social media platforms write up their terms of service so they can tell you FYTW when they take down your account or your post. They can do that because they are putting up all the money and paying for everything. There’s no actual negotiation of balanced contract terms as there would be if you were paying them.

            1. “Get back to me when you have a contract dispute with a social media platform where you are their actual customer and you are paying them ….”

              Do you think payment is required in order for a legally binding contract to be formed between two parties? If you are going to wade into the realm of legal analysis, you should take the time to familiarize yourself with … the law. Making shit up is not legal analysis.

              1. My point sailed right over your head.

                Of course you can have a legally-binding contract where no payment took place. That’s not the point.

                The point is that social media companies are providing people with a speech platform for free. That means they have no motivation to write a terms of service other than one that gives them all the power. And you have no bargaining power to make the contract more balanced, because you are paying them shit.

                So, then what do you do. You go crying to the government to make them give you what you want, free of charge.

                1. “Of course you can have a legally-binding contract where no payment took place. That’s not the point. The point is that social media companies are providing people with a speech platform for free.”

                  Free, not free — it does not matter. If they are violating the terms of the contract, they are violating the terms of their own contract. But, you seem to think that because there is no “payment,” they are entitled, by law, to violate the contract with any legal ramifications for doing so.

                  What do you think happens when one party to a contract breaches it? If they do not stop, or if they refuse to rectify the situation, you go to court (the government), or some form of alternative dispute resolution forum (whose award has to be ratified by a court) and make them give you what you are entitled to under the contract.

                  This is how contracts work. This is how all contracts work. You, clearly, do not understand jack shit about contract law.

                  1. Have you actually looked at the Terms of Use contracts for a major social media platform like, say, Facebook.

                    They are written up so that it says right in the agreement they can cancel you for any reason. And they would be crazy not to write it up that way.

                    1. “They are written up so that it says right in the agreement they can cancel you for any reason.”

                      Cite?

                    2. I’ll try to provide a cite later today. I’ve written about it two or three times already here, but before your time I think.

                    3. “I’ll try to provide a cite later today ….”

                      On the bright side, when you fail — and, you will fail — you can always claim that you were being honest because, after all, you “tried.” Personally, I think “trying” to find things that you know do not exist seems like a waste of time, but you keep at it. I hear that sea lions can dive quite deep and stay down there for a while. Good lungs, is what they say. Good circulation, too.

                    4. I won’t fail. But right now I’ve got an event to attend. So, later.

                    5. “I won’t fail.”

                      You will.

                    6. Let’s take the Facebook terms of service as an example:

                      https://m.facebook.com/terms.php

                      Let’s look at some of the clauses their lawyers have put in the terms…

                    7. “ Once any updated Terms are in effect, you will be bound by them if you continue to use our Products.
                      We hope that you will continue using our Products, but if you do not agree to our updated Terms and no longer want to be a part of the Facebook community, you can delete your account at any time.”

                      So, they can change the terms at will. And if you don’t like it, the door is that way…

                    8. “Where we take such action [suspending or terminating your account] we’ll let you know and explain any options you have to request a review, unless doing so may expose us or others to legal liability; harm our community of users; compromise or interfere with the integrity or operation of any of our services, systems or Products; or where we are restricted due to technical limitations; or where we are prohibited from doing so for legal reasons.”

                      We’ll explain maybe. Here are at least five reasons we might not…

                    9. All very one-sided and stacked in Facebook’s favor —- but then, why not — it’s not like you are paying them anything.

                    10. You set out to provide a cite that Facebook’s terms are:

                      [W]ritten up so that it says right in the agreement they can cancel you for any reason.

                      And then cited a bunch of other clauses that do not support your assertion in the slightest because, in fact, there is a delineated list of specific reasons that warrant closure of an account. In other words, you made shit up.

                    11. Uh huh. Sure. Very broad reasons, and five excuses listed they can give for not giving a reason at all.

                    12. Not to mention they reserve the right to unilaterally change the terms at any time.

                    13. Uh huh. Sure. Very broad reasons, and five excuses listed they can give for not giving a reason at all.

                      The point is that Facebook is bound to abide by concrete contractual obligations, and cannot just obliterate an account arbitrarily for any reason. The problem is that large social media companies, like Facebook, routinely and arbitrarily violate the terms of their own agreements with users. Rather than acknowledge this is happening, too many people jump into the fray to defend Facebook on the mistaken premise that their contracts with users impose no obligations on Facebook whatsoever and that insisting otherwise somehow means Facebook’s First Amendment rights are being violated.

                      The PACT law is dangerous because of the vicarious criminal liability it threatens to impose upon Facebook for the acts of third parties, but not because it would force Facebook, and other large companies, to comply with regulations that are mirror-images of their own contracts. Forcing Facebook to comply with its own contracts is not problematic. Facebook should already be doing that.

                    14. They are written up so that it says right in the agreement they can cancel you for any reason.
                      So, if they cancel you because you are black…

              2. “Hey, I’m offering free vanilla ice cream free of charge.”
                Geiger, JesseAz: “I want chocolate. I’m going to get the Federal government to force you to give me chocolate. For free!”

                1. Stupid, as usual.

                  1. That just isn’t alpha CACLL level work.

                    1. LMAO

            2. There’s no actual negotiation of balanced contract terms as there would be if you were paying them.

              So, providing your life history, a list of your favorite things, and your complete browsing history to TwitFaceGoogApple, which they then monetize and sell to anyone with cash as well as allowing them to target you and your friends and family with ads that they have already received money for has $0 value? And yet they are the richest companies on the planet?

              The product these companies monetize is the users, not the platform.

              It is seriously not believable that anyone could be so fucking stupid. Collect your $.50, douchebag.

          2. In other words, what you want, at a basic ethical level, is for the government to force a private party to provide you free shit.

            1. “In other words, what you want, at a basic ethical level, is for the government to force a private party to provide you free shit enforce a contract.”

              Fixed it.

              A limited government whose role is to enforce contracts is a fundamental premise of libertarianism.

              1. This isn’t about enforcing contracts. The PACT Act would force social media sites to provide things not in the contract, free of charge.

                1. “This isn’t about enforcing contracts. The PACT Act would force social media sites to provide things not in the contract, free of charge.”

                  This may come as a surprise to you, but most contracts have express provisions that state the parties will, at all times, comply with all applicable federal, state, and local legislation. Even those that do not, incorporate laws by default. If the law passes, it will be part of the contract by default. That is how laws work.

                  If I enter into a contract with you for the purchase of a bushel of apples, it would not be my legal entitlement to then murder you on the ground that not murdering you was not in the contract.

                  What is it like being retarded? Do you even notice?

                  1. “contracts have express provisions that state the parties will, at all times, comply with all applicable federal, state, and local legislation.”

                    Well, duh. What we are debating is whether the PACT Act would be good law. It would not be.

                    1. In other words, what you want, at a basic ethical level, is for the government to force a private party to provide you free shit.

                      No.

                      The PACT Act would force social media sites to provide things not in the contract, free of charge.

                      Like every other law on the books that requires a corporation to do anything.

                      These are not things unique to the proposed PACT law, but every single law on the books. If you are going to characterize compliance with the proposed PACT laws as providing people with “free” shit, especially when people exchange in consideration for access to social media services their likenesses and data, you are completely missing the mark.

                2. The PACT Act would force social media sites to provide things not in the contract, free of charge.

                  You keep writing things like this, “free of charge”, as if what the user provides is worth nothing, yet somehow the companies the user is trading data for free usage are the richest companies on the planet.

                  IE – you’re fucking retarded.

      2. My comment was that to worry it may “empower trolls” was not the first place I would go to criticize the bill. I did not suggest that the bill provided any sort of due process in dealing with social media platforms. I did not even suggest that thought the bill was a worthy idea. It was merely a comparison.

      3. Haven’t you heard? Due process is now out, same as free speech:
        https://reason.com/2020/05/15/aclu-betsy-devos-title-ix-rule-due-process/

    3. Ignorant definitely applies. Here’s your chance to vote whether stupid should also describe my impression of how the internet should work in a virtual land of the brave and home of a functioning 1st Amendment. Please comment. I truly don’t understand how this isn’t the direction we want the world to go.

      Presently the US seems to predominantly have content providers, an intermediary, and an end user /consumer. Feathers seem to get ruffled when the intermediary alters or overrides the receipt of the content entirely.

      As far as I can tell, this is the identical distribution chain used in the CCP, except there government related entities take the place of what we refer to as private companies (which in many respects are more powerful than our government). The protection of free speech does not play a significant part in this process, nor do I see how it would, if our constitution remains unaltered.

      What I sense should be our direction is to neuter the intermediary, by putting all the filtering or censorship in the hands of the end user. Nothing acts to filter from the content provider. If this sounds like the wild west, there is a name for this concept : the dark web. While there is a chaotic association with it, and illicit activities are presumed the standard fare, there are regular arrests, so the bad guys (persons) seem to be kept in check.

      But how is such an environment suitable for family or individual consumption? When Internet Explorer was introduced 25? years ago, it already provided a means of filtering content. I forsee the development of filter plug-in gizmos offered by churches, civic orgs, orgs such as Reason, schools, – anyone but platforms and social media. Like cigarettes, those who have a conflict of interest (as an intermediary, for example ) would need a ‘scary warning label’ stating the risk someone takes letting the fox back in the henhouse willingly!

      It would seem that this model would be promoting liberty to emulate around the world, rather than the current practice (that we seem to share with the CCP). Obviously there’s a few kinks to work out. Plausible?

  2. As we all know, this is fascism:

    GOP Insiders Warn Companies Woke Leftism Paving Way for Corporate-Free Populist Republican Party
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/03/17/gop-insiders-warn-companies-woke-leftism-paving-way-for-corporate-free-populist-republican-party/

    A shift in the corporate world with big American companies embracing so-called “woke” leftist policies along with increased retirements among the old guard of the GOP is fueling a populist surge inside the Republican Party, a new memo from GOP insiders reveals.

    The memo from CGCN, a government affairs firm staffed by top GOP insiders, is titled: “The Party They’ll Get, Not the Party They Want.”

    In the memo, which has no named author, CGCN warns the “business community” that their previous allies in the Republican Party are moving on from protecting business interests to instead focusing on populist priorities of protecting American workers.

    1. “[F]ueling a populist surge inside the Republican Party…”?

      Just now, there’s a populist surge within the GOP? No shit. Were they under a fucking rock for the last 4-5 years?

      Guess figured sticking their fingers in their ears, and LALALALAing away Trump supporters away wasn’t going to work.

    2. If you replace GOP with DNC your comment actually makes sense.

  3. Georgia shooter claims sex addiction.

    I’m beginning to wonder if there might not be something mentally wrong with all these serial shooters.

    1. Nope his motive was racism

    2. “Atlanta shooter blames “sex addiction”…

      Hi Fist of Etiquette,

      It is because there are too many prejudiced and biased, hateful people like YOU, who don’t understand that mental illness is just like physical illness, like an infection or cancer! All that they need, is more money (“your” money via taxes and mandated insurance coverage) and more therapists! ALWAYS more therapists!

      Be more generous and pay for these “poor, ill” people to get more therapy like THIS!

      Therapy from the likes of “Chris Bathum”, see http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article_62b16ee4-2246-11e8-b456-1f240b332af0.html ,
      Malibu ‘Rehab Mogul’ Guilty on 31 Criminal Counts
      Christopher Bathum’s rap sheet includes a long list of charges, from fraud to forcible rape.
      Your tax and health-insurance money at work!!!

      (/sarc, I should hope it is obvious)

      1. “sarc, I should hope it is obvious”

        Yes, we’ve been telling you it is obvious for some time.

        1. Get more therapy, you! Christopher Bathum is your go-to guy!

          1. Fuck off, sarcasmic.

      2. Sqrslsy giving a speech on mental health is like Keith Richards giving a stay drug free speech

        1. Read this and TRY to understand it, knuckle-dragging troglodyte Jesus-killer, Mahatma Gandhi-killer, & Martin Luther King Jr.-killer!

          But you won’t read it, because You are Already Perfect, right?

          http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/

          1. How nice of you to notice my perfection

            1. Slight hint on style though:

              My Perfection!!! Write it THAT way, and You Will Be Perfectly Perfect in All Ways!

    3. If James Hodgkinson were less partisan, I might question your claim.

  4. Top Democrats offer Biden cover on Afghan troop withdrawal
    https://www.axios.com/biden-afghanistan-troop-withdrawal-01967fb2-786c-4ca2-8159-a0a6fe48c822.html

    Driving the news: Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said last week that Biden may have to reconsider the deadline. He told reporters he’s concerned about “the viability” of the peace process in Afghanistan.

    1. Only been 20 years. Cannot expect anything to get better than quickly, amirite?

    2. I would be concerned about the fact that, apparently, the military is going to do whatever it wants WRT troop deployments, regardless of any orders given by the CinC.

  5. Friends of Long’s said he was deeply Christian and felt guilty about patronizing sex workers at massage parlors.

    Non-Catholic Christians are never equipped to deal with guilt.

    1. That’s because the catholics know how to drink

      1. I think this guy doesn’t understand Happy Endings. Or maybe, as a Georgian, he has difficulty separating firearms from his penis.

    2. Untrue. I keep an Alabama church key on my keyring at all times.

    3. Culturally appropriated from Jewish mothers.

  6. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1372549995371638788?s=19

    I realize there are many liberals who derive a type of warped cathartic joy from this, but it’s actually quite a bad and dangerous outcome for a US President to cause this level of rupture in diplomatic relations between the nation with the planet’s largest nuclear stockpiles.

    1. Greenwald is trash. I honestly think he’s in league with Putin on some level. If just calling killer puts us at risk of world ending suicidal armageddon then maybe the problem isn’t the insult but the fact we have a Russian leader who would burn it all down. Does Putin want to see his own daughter melted by a nuke because of an insult?

      1. “Greenwald is trash.”

        This is how you know leftists are scared.

        1. Putin is scared. You’d think he’d be proud to be a killer. Being as he’s a fascist pos.

          1. he’s a fascist pos.

            Your apologizing for Marxism is disgusting. Putin is 100% a child of the Soviet experiment. Socialism always fails, and a corrupt cesspit like Russia that rewards the most vicious killer is the inevitable outcome.

            That being said, that killer needs his ‘Uncle Joe’ persona and will destroy anything that threatens it. Uncle Joe calling him a killer is a sign of dementia.

            1. Remember how folks like Stroozle shit their pants when Trump called Kim Jong Un “Rocketman”?

              1. Meanwhile, Putin challenged Biden to a live debate. Obviously, the word has somehow gotten out that Biden’s last marble is just about to roll out of his head. Fortunately, the earpiece is still keeping it in.

      2. “I honestly think ….”

        That’s a lie.

      3. Isn’t it weird how the heroes of the left are secretly Russian plants when they dare question the narrative.

        But surely it’s GG who’s insane and not you people.

      4. No, you stupid piece of shit. They’ll just continue their filthy little proxies all around the globe- which we KNOW war mongering democrats and RINOs can’t resist- and bleed the US military out slowly, so that there won’t be a need to resort to global armegeddon.

        I really hate that people as stupid as you are allowed to vote. That’s how we got here.

  7. Columnist fantasizes about attacking and sexually assaulting GOP congressman’s family
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnist-fantasizes-about-attacking-and-sexually-assaulting-gop-congressmans-family

    Someone is having an extremely normal one.

    Ocean City Sentinel guest contributor John McCall issued a death threat earlier this year against Republican Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, according to voicemail audio released this week by the lawmaker.

    McCall also authored at least two articles this year fantasizing about Van Drew being physically attacked, his home sacked, and even his wife sexually assaulted.

    “I would swear to your demise as a politician, and I believe that you personally are a degenerate,” McCall said in the Feb. 28 voicemail.

    1. And there has been no consequence whatsoever. None.

    2. This McCall guy seems like a real piece of work. He even misquotes Jefferson to completely reverse Jefferson’s intent

  8. Police have also expressed what seems like sympathy for the shooter’s sexy-women-made-me-do-it defense…

    Cop wives have entered the chat.

    1. Part of me says I’m going to need to see pics of the women that would make you want to murder 8 people before I rush to judgement.

      The other part of me says that the odds that the mythical Helen of Troy is working in a massage parlor are precisely 0.

  9. https://twitter.com/GadSaad/status/1372392476326121473?s=19

    This Lebanese Jew is now a “Hitler apologist.” The Woke Progressive are truly damaged individuals. The most racist, hateful, venomous, diabolical cretins cloaked in the robe of faux-empathy.

  10. “Bill passed by both houses in Annapolis “would require health professionals in Maryland to take implicit bias training as a condition of being issued a license to practice.”

    I’ll see that bet and raise:
    “California’s ethnic studies curriculum sparks sharp divide as vote nears”
    […]
    “SACRAMENTO — California’s Board of Education could be on the verge of approving the nation’s first statewide ethnic studies curriculum, designed to teach high school students about the history of racial and ethnic groups in America.
    But debate over the teaching manual’s content has so fiercely divided educators and activist groups that the authors of the curriculum’s original draft have demanded that their names be removed…”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-ethnic-studies-curriculum-sparks-16033980.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    1. “I’ll see that bet and raise”

      Floor! That’s a string raise!

    2. “Bill passed by both houses in Annapolis “would require health professionals in Maryland to take implicit bias training as a condition of being issued a license to practice.”

      Q: OK Everyone! Welcome to your mandatory implicit bias training session. Now, who can tell me what an implicit bias is?

      A: When you conduct compulsory bias training unaware that it implies that you think minority people are too stupid to seek out their own un- or preferred-bias healthcare?

  11. WSJ reports that China had veto rights over the scientists who could take part in the WHO investigation of coronavirus origins in Wuhan. The only American on the team was Peter Daszak
    https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1372377588568633344

  12. Bill passed by both houses in Annapolis “would require health professionals in Maryland to take implicit bias training as a condition of being issued a license to practice.”

    PANDEMIC

    1. How many times can I quote Governor William J. Le Petomane in my lifetime I wonder…

      1. Fun fact on the origin of the name of the Blazing Saddles Governor:

        Le Petomane and His Fantastic Farts at the Moulin Rouge
        Of all the stars of the stage in the cultural Mecca of late 19th-century Paris, its biggest attraction was a man who farted. The farter, Joseph Pujol went by the name, Le Petomane, meaning “The Fartiste.” He proved to be the epitome of artsy-fartsy.

      2. Harumph, Harumph.

  13. Intelligence Report: Russia Tried To Help Trump In 2020 Election

    Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized “influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process and exacerbating socio-political divisions in the U.S,” says the report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    The unclassified document is the most comprehensive look the intelligence community has released regarding foreign efforts to meddle in the 2020 election.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/03/16/977958302/intelligence-report-russia-tried-to-help-trump-in-2020-election

    “Putin’s Butt-Boy” is not a MAGA foreign policy.

    1. Fuck off and die, turd.

    2. From the people who brought you “Russian Election Collusion” it’s “Russian Election Collusion 2: Fabrication Boogaloo”

      1. Coming this fall, in theaters only…

        In West Philadelphia, where he was born and raised, one man, who had spent the majority of his youth playing sports with the locals discovers that his life was about to do a one-eighty.

      2. Russia loves The Dotard and anything that weakens the USA.

        They have since they met with the Trump campaign to help dish out dirt on Hil-Dog in 2016.

        1. You should inform the FISA court of your rock solid information.

          1. You rightwingers are jokes in Russia. They laugh at how easy it is to own you mfers. Pathetic.

            1. You forgot which sock you were using again.

              1. LOL

                Complete idiot.

            2. Pod….give it a rest.

            3. Are you even aware of what Hillary/Obama gave up to Russia? You seem to believe the lies such as this report, but ignore the actual actions Trump took vs Obama/Hillary and now Biden. Weird you ignore reality to push a report built on a priori assumptions.

              1. Deep down Putin had some secret, nefarious, desire to lose market share on energy. The reason for that wasn’t included in this morning’s email, so lefties don’t know that part yet.

            4. Haha. And here at home politicians on both sides marvel at the useful idiots of the left who demand that the bloated government take even more money to waste. After all, that water feature in your state reps office (and the 6 people they hire to maintain it) ain’t gonna pay for itself!

              What a doosh.

    3. “Intelligence Report”

      DOSSIER! I have a DOSSIER! Why won’t anyone read my DOSSIER!!!

      1. He’s got a list of 225 names!

    4. Wouldn’t you rather be masturbating to pictures of naked children?

      1. The sick fuck can do both.

    5. Aren’t these the same people who assured us this was the most secure election in American history? And since when are we assuming “the intelligence community” tells the truth when half its job explicitly involves disinformation?

      1. A new report by the U.S. intelligence community on Tuesday says Russia sought to help former President Donald Trump in last year’s presidential election. But the document also emphasized there was no indication Russia or any other country attempted to alter actual votes.

        Russia didn’t change actual votes. They just employed useful idiots like Sevo and yourself to spread propaganda.

        1. “Russia didn’t change actual votes.”

          So what the fuck are you crying about then? Different opinions?

        2. Did you read past that line? All they accuse Russia of doing is amplifying the Hunter Biden laptop story which the IC does not claim is false. How terrifying. On one side you have MSM and most major SV companies working to censor the story, on the other hand one is working to actually push a truthful article instead of censoring the NY Post.

          That is the crux of this IC report. They pushed the Hunter biden story. The fact that you are wailing as if this report is more significant just proves you are an ignorant leftist.

        3. Oh, I thought maybe they posted a meme to encourage people to vote for BidenHarris by fax machine.

        4. So, the guy, Tony Bobulinski, who went public to say, specifically that he wasn’t a Russian disinformation agent, was lying about that?
          He was an eye witness to the fact that Hunter’s e-mails were legitimate and that “The Big Guy” knew all about the schemes.
          Judging by his size and military background, I’d like to see SPB2 say that to his face.
          Those Russian™ spies have them some mad skills to be able to create the laptop, with all of Hunter’s never-denied entries, and get that repair guy to do all that he did, despite the FIBBIES burying the information.
          SPB2 is an idiot, that has cast off the “useful” qualifier.

      2. Now do Russia. Tell us how honest their denials are or have they even bothered denyimg any of it? The Russians hardly even deny any of the accusations. I think they’re amazed at the way you rightwingers bend over backwards to believe total bullshit, to serve as useful idiots. I think you actually know the score and you’re playing a game but maybe you’re fucking retarded?

        1. It’s so weird how you and PB always appear at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.

          1. And have exactly the same single-digit IQs!

        2. I’m amazed you think you’re going to survive the bullshit you’re pushing

    6. Yeah dividing Americans is terrible and everybody who does it should be punished.

      *looks at the media*

  14. A bill to remove the decades-past deadline for ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment passed the House of Representatives yesterday.

    Women are never held accountable for being late.

    1. It takes them twice as long to get ready.

    2. Women are never held accountable for being late.

      Their body, their choice, Fist.

    3. Better to be late, then pregnant.

    4. I was always concerned when my girlfriends were late.

  15. https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/thematic_papers/tr-6.pdf

    Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security
    Preparedness for a High-Impact
    Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic
    Center for
    Health Security
    September 2019

    …In the context of a high-impact respiratory pathogen, quarantine may be the least likely
    NPI to be effective in controlling the spread due to high transmissibility. To implement
    effective quarantine measures, it would need to be possible to accurately evaluate an individual’s exposure, which would be difficult to do for a respiratory pathogen because of the
    ease of widespread transmission from infected individuals. Quarantine measures will be
    least effective for pathogens that are highly transmissible, have short incubation periods,
    and spread through true airborne mechanisms, as opposed to droplets. As with travel
    restrictions, quarantine appears to delay the introduction of highly transmissible diseases
    but not prevent their spread entirely. Quarantine measures also appear more effective
    with pathogens that had a longer incubation period, such as measles, compared to those
    with shorter incubation periods, such as influenza.123 Experiences with quarantine during
    the West Africa Ebola epidemic highlight the added difficulty of implementing such
    measures on a large scale, which would only be more difficult in the case of a highly transmissible respiratory disease.129
    NPIs often require addressing additional considerations or challenges to implement. For
    example, quarantine requires strict adherence to be effective, so it works best when
    government has a trusting relationship with the public. Quarantine and other movement
    restrictions also involve legal and ethical considerations and should be supported by
    available evidence to prevent undue burden on affected individuals. The government
    must have both the legal authority to quarantine individuals and the operational ability
    to enforce quarantine orders. Other considerations when quarantine is being considered
    include the responsibility for ensuring the safety of affected individuals that are quarantined and providing medical, communication, and legal services as well as food, shelter,
    and other necessary supplies.

    …Public health authorities should provide this risk/benefit analysis regarding NPIs to decision makers before NPIs are initiated in a crisis. During an emerging outbreak with a
    novel pathogen for which no medical countermeasures will exist, countries may need
    external guidance regarding the implementation of NPIs to contain or slow the outbreak.
    WHO should retain the capacity to rapidly provide this critical guidance, driven by scientific evidence where it exists. In some cases, implementation of some NPIs, such as travel
    restrictions and quarantine, might be pursued for social or political purposes by political
    leaders, rather than pursued because of public health evidence. WHO should rapidly and
    clearly articulate its opposition to inappropriate NPIs, especially when they threaten
    public health response activities.

    1. https://www.aier.org/article/the-one-year-anniversary-of-lockdowns/

      A year later, most states are opening up while those still clinging to lockdowns can no longer control people. Regardless of warnings from the top that going back to normal life is too dangerous, most people have decided to be done with the whole dreadful episode.

      All year we’ve asked ourselves the question: why did this happen? Pathogens are part of life now and always have been. For the better part of a century, social and economic outcomes from new viruses were ever less disruptive. Public health had a settled consensus that disease is something to mitigate through doctor-patient relationships. Taking away people’s rights was out of the question. The last time that was tried in very limited ways in 1918 demonstrated that coercion only distracts, divides, and delays. This is why lockdowns were not attempted for another hundred years. Wisely so.

      In the severe pandemic of 1957-58, officials explicitly said: ‘‘[T]here is no practical advantage in the closing of schools or the curtailment of public gatherings as it relates to the spread of this disease.’’ It was the same in 1968-69, 2006, 2009, and 2012-13.

      Then came 2020 and SARS-CoV-2. The 24-hour news cycle and social media kicked in. Shocking images from China – people dropping dead in streets, police dragging people out of their homes or otherwise sealing whole apartment units – were blasted onto cellphones the world over. Then a part of Italy seemed to erupt. To many, it felt like a plague, and a primitive disease panic took over political culture.

      We know now that the US had sent a delegation to Beijing in mid-February 2020 to get lessons in how properly to control a pandemic, even though the information coming from the Chinese Communist Party has been unreliable at best; there simply is no evidence that their lockdowns in Wuhan were actually responsible for beating back the virus. Obviously so. No disease in history has been suppressed by reliance on brute force over intelligent mitigation.

      It’s extremely telling that the lockdowners have stopped seriously arguing that the lockdowns worked. Justin Fox writing in Bloomberg goes to great lengths to justify the lockdowns on grounds that Covid-19 was more deadly than the Hong Kong and Asian flus of the past, due to exaggerated death data relative to the death data of 2020. In truth, we do not actually know enough about the data to make this assessment. The problems of testing accuracy raise gigantic questions both about case and death data. It will be many years before we can sort out the mess. That people are still arguing death rates from 1918 is telling.

      Regardless, pandemic central planning, even if you believe in it, relies on knowing the severity of a particular disease before the evidence is in. That is simply not possible. Viruses don’t come with severity and prevalence labels. What’s more, there is no escape from the circumstances of time and place. SARS-CoV-2 hit different countries in different ways based on demographics and the population’s immunity profile. Africa, Asia, and America all had very different experiences with the virus regardless of policy.

      What’s most revealing about the article is Fox’s passing comment: “[I]t was not crazy to rely on more-primitive measures. How successful those measures have been will remain a matter of much research and debate…. In the U.S. it’s much harder to know how many lives all the testing and quarantining and mask-wearing and lockdowns have saved.”

      All of which is to say: he doesn’t know. This is the new line of the lockdowners. They can’t cite broad-based evidence of any correlation much less causation between lockdowns and virus control. There simply isn’t any, and meanwhile AIER has assembled 31 serious papers showing no apparent connection between lockdowns and better disease outcomes.

      1. https://twitter.com/emollick/status/1370546051803979785

        A third of all genetics papers published in Nature over a decade (and 20% across all journals) had errors due to the fact that many gene have names like SEPT2 (the official name of Septin 2), which were automatically coded as dates by Microsoft Excel.

        1. Nature and Science are prestigious journals, but there’s a reason some scientists refer to them as tabloids.

  16. A baby born to a woman who received the COVID-19 vaccine while pregnant “marks the first known case of a baby born with coronavirus antibodies in the U.S.

    Pregnant women apparently were immune to actually catching COVID-19 itself.

    1. Somebody needs to slap a mask on that baby.

    2. I know this was a joke, but an audit of “covid hospitalizations” by the CDC shows that roughly 30% of hospitalizations are pregnant women.

      https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html

      These are people who are obviously in the hospital for non-covid reasons but either tested positive before admittance or acquired the bug in the hospital.

  17. New York Times Admits That There Was Never Any Science Behind the “Six Feet of Social Distancing” “Rule,” and That It Was Something Our “Experts” Just Pulled Out of Thin Air
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/393229.php#393229

    But where did that law come from? Who did the scientific research that determines six feet was the safest distance apart from other people that you could be? Somebody should have asked that question last spring, but as far as we know, nobody did.

    It turns out the research that formed the basis of that law came from a German hygenicist called Carl Flugge. It was Flugge who decided that six-foot separations were necessary to slow the spread of pathogens. The CDC went with Flugge’s judgment. What the CDC didn’t tell us was that Karl Flugge had been dead for nearly 100 years. His research on social distancing was published in the 19th century, before most Americans had electricity or indoor plumbing. So why is that research still guiding public health policy in this country in 2021? It’s a good question, and experts don’t seem to have a good answer.

    Last year, one of the top aerosol scientists in Australia, a woman called Lidia Morawska, likened social distancing regulations to a cult ritual: “The dogma was born. Like any dogma, it’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds and change the dogmas.” So it was all just faith-based, and it had massive consequences.

    Millions of American schoolchildren have not been educated for a year because the CDC turned century-old German theories about tuberculosis into a kind of modern, state-enforced religious faith. It’s enough to make you feel sick.

    1. The 6-foot social-distancing rule is based on nearly 80-year-old science. Scientists at MIT and Oxford have created a traffic-light system to use instead.
      https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the-6-foot-social-distancing-rule-is-based-on-nearly-80-year-old-science-scientists-at-mit-and-oxford-have-created-a-traffic-light-system-to-use-instead/ar-BB18mOOl

      In the late 1800s, the German scientist Carl Flügge had a hunch: Maybe if you maintain enough physical distance between people who are sick and those who are well, you can prevent the spread of pathogens from person to person.

      At the time, it was just a hypothesis, one that scientists like him often tried to test out using glass plates.

      1. https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1372224232118226944

        The New York Times told us last year in a hagiographic profile of a mid-level government bureaucrat that the idea came from a 14-year-old’s science project.

  18. Japan has ruled same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional.

    Well, it’s official. With their celibacy syndrome and now this, the current generation of Japanese is going to be the last.

    1. Then it’s the perfect time for Japan to implement open borders.

      In fact all developed countries — except Israel, of course — should welcome unlimited, unrestricted immigration.

      #OpenBordersWillFixEverything
      #(ExceptInIsraelWhereNothingNeedsToBeFixed)

      1. Bro, can you cool it with the Anti-Semitism? Greatest Ally means Greatest Ally, not Synagogue of Satan.

        Geesh.

      2. Are you OBL or Misek?

  19. New Hampshire is coming for tiny homes.

    And you wanted to be my Free State Project.

  20. Father jailed for referring to biological female child as his daughter
    The warrant was issued by a judge for the arrest of a father for calling his biological female child his “daughter,” and referring to her with the pronouns “she” and “her.”
    https://thepostmillennial.com/rob-hoogland-canada-prisoner-of-conscience

    1. EXCLUSIVE: NYC Judge Removes 6-Year-Old From Mother Because She Didn’t Wear a Mask While Dropping Her Off at School
      https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/03/exclusive-nyc-judge-removes-6-year-old-mother-didnt-wear-mask-dropping-off-school/

      1. My favorite part is that when visiting her daughter, she now has to wear a mask.

        WTF

    2. She is no longer his daughter all children are now property of the state and state demands that you use the name the state says. scary times

  21. #BidenBoom update.

    In 2021 Democrats have raised the minimum wage by: $0.00 / hour

    In 2021 Reason.com benefactor Charles Koch’s net worth has increased by: $4.86 billion

    Mr. Koch lost over $5 billion last year because of Drumpf’s high-tariff / low-immigration policies. And it’s only taken mere weeks with Biden in office for our benefactor to basically erase that deficit.

    #GetReadyForTheKochComeback

  22. https://twitter.com/PeterMoskos/status/1367239624150687746

    This was real progress:
    in 1990 115 people shot (at?) by LAPD
    in 2019, 26.
    In 1990 NYPD shot 111 (killing 39).
    In 2019 NYPD shot 25 (killing 11).

    (and, if you’re trying to figure out the rate, yes, the rate of police-involved shootings in NYC is a fraction of LA)
    Quote Tweet
    Conor Friedersdorf
    @conor64
    · Mar 3
    Among other changes: “Shootings by officers reached a 30-year low in 2019, with fatal shootings declining for the fourth year in a row, according to a new report on police use of force. LAPD officers opened fire on 26 suspects last year, compared with 115 in 1990.” Just pr?

    1. As I learned from crt numbers are racisist as is logic and any acknowledgement of progress. Now you should be forever shunned for using numbers in an argument

  23. Meet the new war on terror, just as bad as the old war on terror.

    You don’t understand. Our betters on Capitol Hill had to endure a very small and very brief taste of what federal buildings and (to a less important extent) hundreds of business owners already on the brink had to endure much of last year and into this.

  24. https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1372550074581057538?s=19

    BREAKING: Former President of Drag Queen Story Hour Foundation and Children’s Court Judge Arrested on Seven Counts of Child Porn

    1. Whhaaaaaat? I did not see that coming.

      1. Only the children saw anything coming.

        1. Too soon ….

          1. He should try thinking of baseball.

        2. San Diegggggggggggggoooooooooooooooooooooo… *music stab*

      2. You could knock me over with a feather.

    2. “Blomme was held overnight and released with a signature. He has been ordered to stay off social media and file-sharing services and is not allowed near any children except the two that he adopted with his husband.”

      So date night is still a go then.

      1. Well those boys are fucked…

        1. LOL

    3. Being a professional perv pays well enough to have two houses… who knew?

  25. This means federal regulatory agencies could sue online entities when things their users post allegedly violate civil laws, including anti-discrimination and accessibility statutes.

    But fuck the users, right? Maybe Reason’s caterwauling would actually matter if its writers were not dead set on completely ignoring the fact that a man is being prosecuted, and is now facing ten years in a federal prison, for posting a meme the government did not like.

    Just don’t come after us!

    If you don’t give a shit about what happens to people, nobody is going to give a shit what happens to Reason.

    1. Yeah, the article disingenuously details how federal regulatory agencies would be able to sue, which Section 230 doesn’t prevent, but the title makes sure that you understand that Jews niggers trolls are the real threat.

  26. Something Is Rotten In The Georgia Secretary Of State’s Office
    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/something-rotten-in-the-georgia-secretary-of-states-office/

    “When she worked here, she was obsessed with the Washington Post. You’d walk by her office and on her monitor was the Washington Post, all the time,” Rountree added. “She obsesses about the Post and she feels like people who are not in the Washington Post are not important. She somehow got charmed and obsessed when she worked as an intern in Washington, D.C., for a year. I think she just became enthralled with the idea of dirty politics, going Woodward and Bernstein and Nixon.”

    1. New Data Show 92,367 Mail Ballots in Nevada Went to Wrong Addresses—in a Single County
      https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2021/03/17/new-data-show-92367-mail-ballots-in-nevada-went-to-wrong-address-n1433120

      This unfortunate number is unwelcome considering President Joe Biden only carried Nevada by 33,596 votes. Clark’s 92,367 bounced ballots demonstrate a real vulnerability with mass mail balloting.

      1. Media’s Entire Georgia Narrative Is Fraudulent, Not Just The Fabricated Trump Quotes
        The fake quotes, bad as they were, are just one of many ways the media have done a horrible job of covering election disputes in the state.
        https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/17/medias-entire-georgia-narrative-is-fraudulent-not-just-the-fabricated-trump-quotes/

        How Media Talked About Georgia Before Biden Won
        “Georgia’s Election Mess: Many Problems, Plenty of Blame, Few Solutions for November,” read the June 10, 2020, New York Times headline of a story by Richard Fausset and Reid Epstein about the “disastrous primary election” in June that was “plagued by glitches, but Democrats also saw a systemic effort to disenfranchise voters.”

        Citing irregularities with absentee ballots and peculiarities at polling sites, the authors said Georgia’s “embattled election officials” were dealing with a voting system that suffered a “spectacular collapse.” They said it was unclear whether the problems were caused by “mere bungling, or an intentional effort” by Raffensperger and his fellow Republicans in the secretary of state’s office.

        “Georgia’s troubled system” would be exacerbated by voting by mail and the increased burden of handling absentee ballots, the article said. The “trouble that plunged Georgia’s voting system into chaos” was related to its Dominion Voting Systems, “which some elections experts had been sounding alarm bells about for months.” Indeed they had!

        “Georgia likely to plow ahead with buying insecure voting machines,” wrote Politico’s Eric Geller in March 2019 about the plan to replace voting machines. He said cybersecurity experts, election integrity advocates, and Georgia Democrats had all warned about the security problems of the new machines, which would be electronic but also spit out a marked paper ballot.

        “Security experts warn that an intruder can corrupt the machines and alter the barcode-based ballots without voters or election officials realizing it,” he wrote. It was alleged that a “meaningful audit” was “impossible.”

        When Georgia picked Dominion Voting Systems in August 2019, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution warned “critics say the system will still be vulnerable to hacking,” citing high-profile hacks of Capital One and Equifax, as well as the online attacks on Atlanta and Georgia courts. “Election officials will have to be on guard against malware, viruses, stolen passwords and Russian interference,” the article continued. Yes, Russians.

        “Georgia in Uproar Over Voting Meltdown,” The New York Times proclaimed in a June 9, 2020, story, citing problems with Dominion Voting Systems and Raffensperger’s management of the election. “The machines bought by the state last year were instantly controversial. Security experts said they were insecure. Privacy experts worried that the screens could be seen from nearly 30 feet away. Budget hawks balked at the price tag. And one of Dominion Voting Systems’ lobbyists, Jared Samuel Thomas, has deep connections to Gov. Brian Kemp, the Republican who defeated Ms. Abrams in 2018,” the article read.

        Washington Post went with “As Georgia rolls out new voting machines for 2020, worries about election security persist,” which said, “election security experts said the state’s newest voting machines also remain vulnerable to potential intrusions or malfunctions — and some view the paper records they produce as insufficient if a verified audit of the vote is needed.”

        If critics on the right were to restate these complaints now, it is likely that tech platforms would ban them or otherwise constrain their free discussion. The same media outlets would likely characterize these claims and concerns as unfounded.

        1. Most honest election ever.

      2. Oh, where’s our noble protector of the establishment’s virtue, to tell us all how there was no substantial fraud, and something about losing 50 lawsuits.

        White Knight, we need you!

      3. It’s moot!

  27. https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1372533904477945856?s=19

    Reminder: Jordan Fuchs fraudulently briefed the Washington Post, which fraudulently reported a story.

    Now both of these parties DEMAND you take THEIR assessments of fraud as gospel.

    If you don’t, Twitter will suspend you and the FBI might knock on your door.

    1. “Reminder: Jordan Fuchs fraudulently briefed the Washington Post, which fraudulently reported a story”

      And several news outlets independently “confirmed” the story with their own sources.

  28. This means federal regulatory agencies could sue online entities when things their users post allegedly violate civil laws, including anti-discrimination and accessibility statutes.

    Reason comments section, we hardly knew ye.

    1. Yup, the commentariat will be toast if this new law passes. But that’s what the Trump mean girls want; to bite the hand that feeds them.

      1. “Yup, the commentariat will be toast if this new law passes …”

        There goes your paycheck.

        1. That’s the real fear for White Knight.

          Don’t worry White Knight, propaganda agents will be more in demand than ever before, and you won’t even be forced to give lip service to libertarianism.

      2. Can you tell us how not passing net neutrality ended the internet while you are at it?

        1. No, I’m not going to discuss a completely unrelated issue.

          1. “No, I’m not going to discuss a completely unrelated issue.”

            How is “completely” unrelated?

            1. OK, fine. I’ll discuss net neutrality. I didn’t think net neutrality laws were necessary, which is probably in agreement with JesseAz’s views. And yours.

              So, there’s nothing to debate. We all agree.

    2. Yeah, because Section 230 did a great job of protecting us from Preet, Backpage, Pornhub, etc., etc.

      It’s almost like you’ve been told that it protects free speech on the internet and never heard anyone tell you that’s a lie.

      The thing’s goddamned title is “Protection For ‘Good Samaritan’ Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material”! How the fuck do these retards keep up the narrative that it’s necessary for free speech/internet?

      1. “because Section 230 did a great job of protecting us from Preet, Backpage, Pornhub, etc., etc.”

        Free speech doesn’t matter because it’s not technically a first amendment violation. It’s only wrong if it is the federal government doing it. Goverment created monopolies “Private” companies acting in the interests of elected officials don’t count.

        1. Arf! Arf! Aaar-Arrrfff! Arf!

        2. It’s only wrong if it is the federal government doing it.

          Sadly you probably didn’t misuse the word wrong with the word illegal instead. I actually believe you think attacks on free speech rae just dandy if Corporations do it at the behest of government.

          1. This is the thing that pro-230 idiots don’t realize; the “it’s only censorship if the government does it” pretty much cedes the argument that S230 is not the 1A and simply gives preferential treatment to preferred speakers. At best, it’s Congress attempting to ‘neutralize’ a platform that, when people say we need more neutrality, they say the government shouldn’t/can’t guarantee neutrality.

          2. rtfh (read the fucking handle) 🙂

  29. “Japan has ruled same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional”

    Just like in Canada, the UK, Germany, Brazil, France, Holland, the USA, Italy, Spain, etc. Same-sex marriage is the only movement where social acceptance was mandated by the courts, rather than the legislatures and before a majorty of the respective populations viewed it favorably.

    This is very different from racial equality and women’s suffrage. It emphasizes how the modern power centers operate by rule from above.

    1. “We’ll fix it in post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

  30. Besides the fact that he’d be better for billionaires like our benefactor Charles Koch, we Koch / Reason libertarians also supported Biden because we knew he’d be tough on Russia.

    You can’t accuse President Joe Biden of holding back on what he truly thinks of Vladimir Putin. In pretty extraordinarily frank comments to ABC News, Biden described Putin as a “killer” devoid of a human soul.

    Ordinarily I’d ridicule the concept of a “soul” as a bunch of superstitious nonsense. But in the context of insulting America’s #1 enemy I think it’s a valid statement.

    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

    1. Ordinarily I’d ridicule the concept of a “soul” as a bunch of superstitious nonsense. But in the context of insulting America’s #1 enemy I think it’s a valid statement.

      Everything I’ve read about Putin’s response is that he’s offended that Joe called him a killer.

      The funny part is, it’s like Frankenstein’s Monster calling Dracula a soulless killer.

  31. Greenwald substack newsletter:

    Oh my, marvel at those extremely rigorous editorial standards: regurgitating serious accusations from ex-CIA operatives without bothering to note that they were unaccompanied by evidence and that even those agents admitted they had none. But, as they usually do these days, The Intercept had plenty of company in the corporate media.
    That those materials were “Russian disinformation” became so reflexively accepted by the U.S. media that it became the principal excuse to ignore and even censor the reporting, and it also helpfully handed the Biden campaign an easy excuse to avoid answering any questions about what the documents revealed. “I think we need to be very, very clear that what he’s doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation,” said Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield when asked about the prospect that Trump would raise the Biden emails at the debate. From the CIA’s lips to the mouths of corporate journalists into the hands of the Biden campaign.
    As the U.S. media disseminated this “disinformation” tale, nobody — including the Bidens — has ever claimed let alone demonstrated that a single document was anything other than genuine — something that would be exceedingly easy to do if the documents were fraudulent. “The Biden team has rejected some of the claims made in the NY Post articles, but has not disputed the authenticity of the [laptop] files upon which they were based,” acknowledged The New York Times. Ample evidence corroborates that the documents are genuine.
    As for the claims of Russian involvement in the laptop story, there was never any evidence for it: none. The CIA operatives who invented that storyline acknowledged that. The week that tale emerged, The New York Times reported that “no concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation” and the paper said even the FBI has “acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.” The Washington Post published an op-ed by Russia fanatic Thomas Rid who candidly pronounced: “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t.” And the only time the U.S. Government has ever spoken on this question was when the Director of National Intelligence stated: “Hunter Biden’s laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.”
    These documents raised important questions about the presidential frontrunner’s knowledge of or participation in his family members’ attempt to profit off of their association with him, questions implicating his integrity, ethics and honesty. Yet those documents were suppressed by a gigantic fraud, perpetrated by the CIA and their media allies, which claimed that the documents were forged and that they came from Russia.

  32. The latest bill addressing online content moderation contains a big old mess of changes that could enable trolls and seriously burden solo actors, small businesses, and big tech companies alike, while also giving state prosecutors new power to sue entities they don’t like.

    If they don’t like the internet, they can go start their own internet.

  33. New Bill Would Empower Trolls

    Is it called the Tulpa Act?

    1. “Rent Free Accommodations Act” actually.

    2. That’s rich coming from someone who’s paid to troll here like you, Jeff.

  34. Congressional laws abridging freedom of speech are my favorites.

  35. “Under the PACT Act’s proposed changes, however, federal civil laws would also be exempted, too. This means federal regulatory agencies could sue online entities when things their users post allegedly violate civil laws, including anti-discrimination and accessibility statutes.”

    I don’t suppose it’s any consolation that private individuals could still sue the federal government?

    LOL

    Criminal law is the dividing line between when it’s is and isn’t appropriate for the government to protect our speech. Because you have the right to speak freely without interference from government doesn’t mean you are no longer obligated to respect the rights of other people with your speech–just as the right to bear arms doesn’t mean you can’t be prosecuted for violating people’s rights with your gun.

    Still, in order for the government to come after you for violating someone’s rights with a gun, they need to prove you chose to violate someone’s rights with a gun beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of your peers, which is the standard for a conviction in criminal law. There is no reason why they shouldn’t need to clear the same criminal standard when the government writes a law that comes after you for violating someone’s rights with your speech.

    In other words, if this law erases the distinction between civil and criminal, then it should be unconstitutional. This is why the malice standard, for instance, arises in defamation law. Because our defamation laws need to conform with the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech”), in certain cases, you need to prove actual malice to a jury just like you’d need to prove mens rea in a criminal case. If this law doesn’t make a similar distinction in deference to the First Amendment, then I don’t see why it should survive the scrutiny of the courts.

    1. In other words, if this law erases the distinction between civil and criminal, then it should be unconstitutional.

      I think the doctrine you are trying to get at is vagueness. In the criminal context, any law that does not sufficiently and narrowly delineate the precise conduct that is prohibit should be struck down as unconstitutionally vague.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine#Unconstitutional_vagueness

      1. I’m referring to the way our laws regarding speech need to be justified in light of the First Amendment.

        “The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a Federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

        —-Actual Malice

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice

        In this example, there needs to be something like mens rea in criminal cases (actual malice) in order for defamation law to pass the scrutiny of the First Amendment.

        In civil law, when you sue someone for violating your rights, you don’t need to prove mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt (or have a unanimous jury). You just need a majority by a preponderance of the evidence.

        That civil law standard is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the First Amendment.

        It’s one thing for the government to justify coming in and censoring speech on the basis of criminal activity. The standards are different for pretty much everything in a criminal case. You can get search warrants, make arrests, indict people, and do all sorts of things within the context of criminal law based on those higher standards. In civil law, you can sue people for contract violations that aren’t crimes!

        The government can’t turn on a dime and say, “Oh, well, we’ve decided that the legal distinctions between criminal law and civil law that evolved over the course of centuries through the courts to comply with the Constitution don’t matter anymore. And what we used to be able to only do within the context of criminal law, we can do in civil law now–because Congress passed a law!

        Ahem . . . actually, the First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from passing such laws. “Congress shall make no law” That’s the First Amendment’s primary feature.

        1. “In this example, there needs to be something like mens rea in criminal cases (actual malice) in order for defamation law to pass the scrutiny of the First Amendment.”

          Mens rea does not mean “malice.” Different crimes have different mens rea requirements — for example, negligence, recklessness, etc. Some crimes do not require any mens rea, and provide for strict liability (many statutory rape laws). Mens rea is also very different from the burden of proof. There is no relationship between the two.

          “That civil law standard is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the First Amendment.”

          It is sufficient. Defamation existed at common law at the time the Founder drafted and the States adopted the Constitution. You are getting some legal elements mixed up here.

          1. “Mens rea does not mean “malice.”

            I didn’t say they were the same. I said they function the same way in their respective contexts.

            Generally speaking, in order to convict someone of using a gun to commit a crime, you need to prove mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. There needs to something that functions the same way when you’re applying defamation law to criticizing public officials. No actual malice and mens rea aren’t the same thing, but–because of the First Amendment–actual malice functions in those defamation cases the way mens rea would function in a criminal case.

            This is one example of the way our laws are different because of the general principle–that they need to conform with the First Amendment. In other Commonwealth countries, the defamation laws are very different because they don’t have the First Amendment. Politicians suing news outlets and journalists for inaccurate statements made about them isn’t exactly uncommon in Australia, Canada, and the U.K., and the reason they’re different is because they don’t have the First Amendment.

            The point is that you need a higher standard in deference to the First Amendment when we’re talking about the government censoring speech. There’s one standard when we’re talking about the government going after somebody for not taking down some awful photos of children being victimized. That is a legitimate criminal violation that is not protected by the First Amendment. There is a different standard at work when the the government is going after people for saying things online that aren’t criminal but offend feminists.

            If that law erases the distinction between those two things, then it should be unconstitutional.

            1. So, is it the case that you want defamation law (a civil tort) restructured to require proof of actual malice beyond a reasonable doubt?

              1. I can see a good argument for doing that generally, but that isn’t the case I was making here.

                I was showing evidence that our speech laws need to conform to the First Amendment, and that the Courts have long held that there is a distinction that needs to be made between the standards of civil law and the standards of criminal law in deference to the First Amendment. If and when the government wants to make laws that impact speech, they need to recognize that distinction. When government officials want to sue people for saying inaccurate things about them, the normal civil law standards for defamation, certainly, are insufficient in light of the First Amendment–according to the courts.

                And so, the standards of civil law are insufficient to justify government censorship–in principle, according to the courts–and if this law passes and tries to justify government censorship on the basis of civil law, then it should fail to survive the scrutiny of the courts for that reason.

                1. I get it, now.

                  Thanks.

    2. In other words, if this law erases the distinction between civil and criminal, then it should be unconstitutional.

      Now do S230.

      1. In all cases, holding people responsible for things they didn’t do is necessarily wrong. Criminal law and civil law don’t need to be different just for the sake of being different.

        If it’s unjust to try people for murders that they’d didn’t commit–according to the government’s own prosecutors–in criminal law, it may be unjust to hear wrongful death suits against them in civil law, too–when the plaintiffs don’t even allege that the person they’re suing perpetrated the murders in question.

        1. I see. So to avoid running afoul of the 1A, the malice standard should apply to civil cases unless Congress says it shouldn’t pre-emptively. How very lucid and principled of you.

          1. You don’t seem to be acknowledging the principle that the government has no business trying people who aren’t even alleged to have perpetrated the offense according to the plaintiffs.

            1. “You don’t seem to be acknowledging the principle that the government has no business trying people who aren’t even alleged to have perpetrated the offense according to the plaintiffs.”

              If I am reading this correctly, it would seem to dictate that all conspiracy, solicitation, and attempt charges (the inchoate crimes) are out. That seems like a bridge too far.

              1. I don’t want to speak for Ken, but I think you may be reading too broadly. To give a concrete example, “He swung a machete at my head and missed, and I managed to get away” could still be prosecuted as attempted murder, which would technically be a distinct crime from murder, with a different range of punishments.

                1. And that opens up the door for the government to make ever more attenuated conduct a crime, in and of itself. Perhaps Ken could clarify.

  36. Police say Robert Aaron Long, the man suspected of shooting up three massage parlors and killing eight people on Tuesday, blamed his actions on “sex addiction.” Friends of Long’s said he was deeply Christian and felt guilty about patronizing sex workers at massage parlors. Already, some media have been minimizing the shooter’s actions and instead blaming the existence of massage parlors that permit sexual activity for “leaving the women working there particularly vulnerable to violence and abuse.”

    Media has actually been blaming something else totally unrelated. Luckily, only 2 of our idiot leftists here jumped to conclusions.

    1. B-b-b-b-but he was wearing a Carhartt jacket so he had to be MAGA!!

    2. “Luckily, only 2 of our idiot leftists here jumped to conclusions.”

      Cite?

      1. Arf! Arf! Aaar-Arrrfff! Arf!

        ::splashes in the water::

      2. There is a paid troll here in the Reason comments (one of several fifty-centers) who uses the moniker “White Knight”.

        This troll’s purpose is to try and deflect criticism of the Democratic Party and, to a lesser extent, Reason Magazine articles and writers who support the agenda of the Democratic Party.

        In order to halt conversation, the trolls here use disruption techniques.

        White Knight’s favorite disruption technique is to demand a citation even for the most ordinary or obvious statements. Keep in mind that these requests aren’t just reserved for controversial statements but often for matters of common knowledge (e.g. the formula for water is H2O). The purpose of this is twofold:

        In the first, a commenter will waste time and energy hunting down a citation.
        When such a citation is posted White Knight will then redefine the criteria and claim that the citation is worthless; or, if unequivocal, White Knight will ignore the response, and move elsewhere. Either way the purpose of disruption was served.

        In the second, if the commenter ignores White Knight or refuses to play along, White Knight will then follow the commenter along, claiming at every post that they are dishonest and can’t back up their statements. Here too, harassment and disruption are the purpose.

        It is important for us all not to enable White Knight.
        If you see White Knight making an inane citation request over an uncontroversial claim, please respond by posting “Fuck off, White Knight”, or by pasting this warning.

        1. Thank you. I feel people questioning really obvious points to be really frustrating.

        2. White Knight often denies having said things that he or she clearly said. One time, White Knight denied saying something and forget he or she said it earlier in the same thread. At best, treat White Knight as slapstick comedy.

          IF IF IF somebody really is paying White Knight to make Democrats look stupid here, whoever is paying for it is getting their money’s worth.

          1. That’s pretty vague. I can assure you I didn’t say a word of speculation about the massage parlor shooter’s motivation.

            1. Cite?

      3. Hmm, nobody provided a link to a commenter, “leftist” or not, jumping to conclusions about Long’s motivations.

        So, looks like you are once again arguing against “leftists” who only exist in your imagination.

        1. Arf! Arf! Aaar-Arrrfff! Arf!

          1. Face it, Geiger. You are never going to become alpha CACLL with weak material like that. You even stealing R Mac’s schtick, which was already lame.

            Meanwhile, I have owned you on this one. The obvious truth is that none of us “lefty shits”, me, chemjeff, De Opp, sarc, whoever made any comment saying that the guy who shot up the massage parlors was racist or sexist (or whatever was being vaguely insinuated). If any of us had, you would link to it.

            1. The obvious truth is that none of us “lefty shits” …

              At least you finally admitted that you and the gaggle of retards that march in lockstep with you are a bunch of lefty shits. Frankly, I think “lying lefty shits” is a better descriptor — although, to be blunt, I also think the acronym I coined (i.e. “Leftist Morons Arguing Online”/LMAO’s) is also quite brilliant.

              Now, if you jump back in the water, I may just throw you a fish. Go, now! Go, little sea lion!

  37. Police have also expressed what seems like sympathy for the shooter’s sexy-women-made-me-do-it defense, with Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office Captain Jay Baker saying at a press conference yesterday that the businesses were “a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate” and “he was fed up, at the end of his rope. He had a bad day, and this is what he did.”

    How can you possibly conflate the act of explaining to the public a murderer’s motivations as eliciting or expressing any type of sympathy? Does ENB even understand the meaning of the word “sympathy”? How is it in any way a “defense”? I guess when the entire race narrative fell through, ENB had to pivot to misogyny …. on the part of the police? Oh, wait … what? ENB was just blindly regurgitating some bullshit from a left wing blog? Now it makes sense.

    Of all the hacks that write for the shit show of a publication, ENB is by far the least qualified. She needs to take her ass back to Bustle, where she can write about giving the best blowjobs and having sex with fictional monsters.

    1. Have you noticed that the narrative dictates that everyone has to have some sort of social motivation these days, and that nobody does shit just because they’re crazy.

      1. Crazy? There is no such thing as “crazy.” People are a product of their environment. People have no agency. People are not responsible for their actions. If people do something bad, it is because there is a deeper, lurking evil that made them do it. The bird only flies because of the wind; caging the bird achieves nothing.

        Societies that embrace collectivism invariably embrace the concept of collective guilt and, consequently, collective punishment. Totalitarianism cannot survive without internal enemies — and the best way to ensure a steady flow of internal enemies is the preemptively label everyone an enemy. For it is not the goal of the totalitarian to oppress a person, but all persons, and all humanity.

        1. Poor victimized Geiger.

          1. Your comment makes no sense.

            1. Make that plural.

              1. OK, you often play the poor victimized conservative, too. You use it to justify your anger and assholishness, as well as the Capitol insurrection.

                https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-before-trying-saving-the-world-try-cleaning-your-room-first

                “There is another typical feature of ideological pursuit: the victims supported by ideologues are always innocent (and it is sometimes true that victims are innocent), and the perpetrators are always evil (evil perpetrators are also not in short supply). But the fact that there exist genuine victims and perpetrators provides no excuse to make low-resolution, blanket statements about the global locale of blameless victimization and evil perpetration — particularly of the type that does not take the presumed innocence of the accused firmly into account. No group guilt should be assumed — and certainly not of the multigenerational kind. It is a certain sign of the accuser’s evil intent, and a harbinger of social catastrophe. But the advantage is that the ideologue, at little practical costs, can construe him or herself both as nemesis of the oppressor and defender of the oppressed. Who needs the fine distinctions that determination of individual guilt or innocence demands when a prize such as that beckons?”

                1. I think you and Buttplug need to read that far more than Sevo.

                2. Arf! Arf! Aaar-Arrrfff! Arf!

          2. Lol, how does your inference have anything to do with what he said?

            1. Three responses. Not bad. That’s $1.50 at least, and should be enough for cup noodles. Another few and he can upgrade to Hot and Spicy Beef!

          3. There is a paid troll here in the Reason comments (one of several fifty-centers) who uses the moniker “White Knight”.

            This troll’s purpose is to try and deflect criticism of the Democratic Party and, to a lesser extent, Reason Magazine articles and writers who support the agenda of the Democratic Party.

            In order to halt conversation, the trolls here use disruption techniques.

            White Knight’s favorite disruption technique is to demand a citation even for the most ordinary or obvious statements. Keep in mind that these requests aren’t just reserved for controversial statements but often for matters of common knowledge (e.g. the formula for water is H2O). The purpose of this is twofold:

            In the first, a commenter will waste time and energy hunting down a citation.
            When such a citation is posted White Knight will then redefine the criteria and claim that the citation is worthless; or, if unequivocal, White Knight will ignore the response, and move elsewhere. Either way the purpose of disruption was served.

            In the second, if the commenter ignores White Knight or refuses to play along, White Knight will then follow the commenter along, claiming at every post that they are dishonest and can’t back up their statements. Here too, harassment and disruption are the purpose.

            It is important for us all not to enable White Knight.
            If you see White Knight making an inane citation request over an uncontroversial claim, please respond by posting “Fuck off, White Knight”, or by pasting this warning.

      2. Hate in search of a crime to justify the predisposed assertions of hate crime. It’s not enough to be against the killing of 8 people for any reason at all, people need to be against the killing of 8 people for the right reason.

        Interesting that if gun control legislators pointed to this as an example, Reason might recognize the morally-repugnant ghoulishness of such positions.

        1. The intermediate aim is to make every crime a matter of politics with the ultimate objective of making politics a crime. Totalitarianism is nothing if not predictable.

        2. You have to remember that when a crazy person shot up a gop baseball practice that was okay because he had the right motives. The same apply to blm riots

          1. Who precisely said that it was OK? Cite?

            1. Arf! Arf! Aaar-Arrrfff! Arf!

      3. What I’ve noticed, is the Democrats and MSM making up motivations of the crazies for political purposes. While claiming guys like the shooter of the GOP softball team are just crazy and not motivated by the Democrats rhetoric to “get in their faces”.

        IMHO, it’s a result of liberals lack of understanding of the moral foundations of conservatives (while conservatives have no problem understanding liberals – but you won’t read about this in the MSM because it conflicts with liberals’ opinions of themselves. Just read “Born This Way” by Jonathan Haidt, here in Reason. You’ll see why liberals attribute evil motives to conservatives, and how D politicians encourage that belief to win elections.

        It also provides the excuse for Democrats, to cheat in the election, because they believe they’re doing good in doing that.

  38. A baby born to a woman who received the COVID-19 vaccine while pregnant “marks the first known case of a baby born with coronavirus antibodies in the U.S., which may offer her some protection against the virus.”

    Or may endow her with mutant superhuman abilities, we’ll have to monitor this situation carefully.

  39. Oh look, more culture war garbage stoked by Team Red to generate perpetual outrage and more grifting for themselves.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/543742-desantis-says-florida-school-curriculum-will-expressly-exclude-critical

    1. Hold up, nutbag. Are you actually supporting Critical Race Theory??

      1. Yes, chemjeff is a fervent devotee of (post) modern Nazism

      2. I’ll tell you what I don’t support. Grandstanding politicians making mountains out of molehills in order to rile up ignorant supporters with exaggerations and slippery-slope doomsaying.

        1. That’s not what I asked!
          DO-YOU-SUPPORT-CRITICAL-RACE-THEORY?

        2. “making mountains out of molehills”

          Ok I see what happened, you thought RDS was FOR racial grievance mongering.

          Simple misunderstanding on your part

          HTH

          1. I know, right? Thank heavens Governor De Santis is doing exactly what the people voted for him to do – micromanage public school curricula!

            1. Florida has 2.5 million k-12 students and you want the governor their parents elected to ignore their welfare.

            2. “micromanage public school curricula!

              Yet if someone prayed in a school, chemleft would be screaming for interference.

        3. We would probably take your objections more seriously if you could demonstrate an opposition to CRT on principle from previous posts discussing its implementation in other places.

          1. “Why won’t you take political grandstanding more seriously????”

            1. What did your deflection have to do with all the other times that has been discussed and not in the context of political grandstanding?

              Face it. You have no history of opposing it and you’re aware we know it.

              1. I am completely opposed to the right-wing caricature of Critical Race Theory which holds that white people are evil and should apologize for their skin color. Glad I could clear that up for you.

                1. Do you think replies like that make you look better? Or that you’re getting the better of anyone?

                  You’re trying to portray yourself as informed and intelligent and persuasive, and when offered an opportunity to demonstrate an informed intelligent persuasive argument and your history of discussing said subject, you attack and troll me.

                  You know you support a disgusting and divisive ideology. You cannot prove otherwise so you go full attack dog.

                  1. The less you engage the better. He is a paid troll, and his tactics are well documented around here.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

                    1. This can’t be emphasized enough.
                      Chemjeff/White Knight are paid to troll here.

                2. Ching! $.50!

            2. Keep changing the subject, TDS-addled shit.

        4. No need to find teaching racism to be wrong and a bad idea. Just let them do it. No biggie.

        5. making mountains out of molehills

          The racist purge of mole people from our nation’s history books continues unabated…

        6. Slippery slope doom saying? So school boards across the country haven’t been incorporating CRT into the curriculum at an increasing rate?

      3. I think he’s saying that, like Antifa, Critical Race Theory doesn’t exist.

        1. Oh it exists. It exists in multiple forms, actually. There is the actual Critical Race Theory, and then there is the right-wing caricature of Critical Race Theory.

          The actual Critical Race Theory, like any academic theory, has its pluses and minuses. I’m not sure it’s appropriate to teach it in schools, not because it is wrong per se, but because I don’t think that is the most appropriate venue for such an esoteric academic discussion.

          The right-wing caricature of Critical Race Theory, of course, is ridiculously evil. Well duh.

          Actual Critical Race Theory: Racist people build racist institutions, and those racist institutions continue to produce unjust results long after the original racists are dead.

          Right-Wing Caricature of Critical Race Theory: White people are evil and should apologize for their skin color.

          Of course I don’t want that second one taught in schools. Who would?

          1. It’s always fascinating to watch you boil your childish misunderstanding of an issue down and then attack your enemies for your own lack of ability to understand the complexities.

            One facet, for example, of CRT that none of its adherents deny is that racism is redefined based on power relationships. This results, coincidentally of course, in those adhering to that being able to tar their enemies as racist with openly and disgustingly racist arguments, but which are now redefined as “critical analyis” because they’re being done by people who (while controlling all 3 federal branches of the US government) claim to have no access to power.

            You, being a racist, accept this as natural and proper.

            1. Actual Critical Race Theory:

              https://globalsocialtheory.org/topics/critical-race-theory/

              Right-Wing Caricature: WhItE pEoPlE aRe eViL

              1. your link explicitly agrees with what I said

                and you dodged it

                or you could read this one

                (why do you ALWAYS ACT LIKE YOUR REFERENCES FROM A COUPLE PEOPLE ARE DEFINTIVE)

                https://www.communicationtheory.org/critical-race-theory/

              2. It goes ON and ON.

                What I said was accurate. It’s even in ONE OF THE SOURCES YOUR KIDDIE PRIMER ON CRT CITES ITSELF

                https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2332649214557042

                More than Prejudice: Restatement, Reflections, and New Directions in Critical Race Theory
                Eduardo Bonilla-SilvaFirst Published June 23, 2016 Research Article

                Abstract
                Racism has always been “more than prejudice,” but mainstream social analysts have mostly framed race matters as organized by the logic of prejudice. In this paper, I do four things. First, I restate my criticism of the dominant approach to race matters and emphasize the need to ground our racial analysis materially, that is, understanding that racism is systemic and rooted in differences in power between the races.

                ROOTED you piece of filth.

                1. Nothing like proving your points with his sources.

                  1. Or, as chemtwat refers to it, “twisting his words.”

                2. Lol, chemleft just got his ass handed to him royally.

                  1. If, as you allege that chemjeff is a paid troll, he did not just get his ass handed to him. You did, for engaging with him, and he got paid.

                    Gee, it’s almost like you don’t really believe your own brilliant ideas.

                    1. ???
                      That makes zero sense. Post hoc doesn’t ergo propter hoc here.
                      You can be a paid troll and still fail at your job, I mean just look at you.

                    2. How do those Hot and Spicy Beef cup noodles stack up against the original?

                3. So what? I didn’t actually question your assertion. Yes, part of Critical Race Theory – actually, part of the discourse on race for some time now – posits that racism is about power imbalances as well as about bigotry. This isn’t new. Tell me why this is supposedly so outrage-inducing as to cause Trump and De Santis and other right-wing leaders to issue diktats banning its teaching.

                  None of what CRT actually is even approaches the CRT bogeyman that right-wingers have created on this topic. None of this is about white people apologizing for their skin color or being told to shame themselves because they are white. You are actually proving my point for me. That CRT is not this caricature teaching that white people are inherently evil. But it DOES contradict the jingoistic right-wing narrative that the USA is the greatest of greatest places ever and THAT is why, I believe, so many right-wingers are upset about it. Not because they think it is wrong per se, but because it upsets the nationalistic narrative that they have constructed about the country. They don’t like being told that America has racist elements in its foundation and so they will try to suppress its teaching rather than have a real conversation about the actual history of the US.

                  1. Arf! Arf! Aaar-Arrrfff! Arf!

                  2. “So what? I didn’t actually question your assertion. Yes, part of Critical Race Theory – actually, part of the discourse on race for some time now – posits that racism is about power imbalances as well as about bigotry. This isn’t new. Tell me why this is supposedly so outrage-inducing ”

                    You WERE told.

                    Your reply was

                    “Actual Critical Race Theory:

                    https://globalsocialtheory.org/topics/critical-race-theory/

                    Right-Wing Caricature: WhItE pEoPlE aRe eViL”

                    Because you lie about wanting conversation. You are here to ignore people and troll.

                  3. Well Jeff, there’s a lot of left wing media and politicians that really, really want that Atlanta nut job to be racist.

                    Fuck your grievance mongering, and fuck your divisive CRT.

          2. As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. When they ask, I will teach my sons that their beautiful hue is a fault line. Spare me platitudes of how we are all the same on the inside. I first have to keep my boys safe, and so I will teach them before the world shows them this particular brand of rending, violent, often fatal betrayal.

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opinion/sunday/interracial-friendship-donald-trump.html

            This is not some right wing claptrap caricature, but a perfect example of critical race theory as it is understood by one of its proponents, one who also happens to be a law professor. Maybe you can explain to Professor Yankah why he is wrong, rather than lecturing us about how we are the ones that don’t quite get it.

          3. The actual Critical Race Theory, like any academic theory, has its pluses and minuses.

            Not the least of which would be that it’s widely unproveable/untestable/measurable and, in plenty of places where it’s cherry picked as true, exists lots of open ground lacking any cherries where it’s objectively false. As such it would be more appropriately identified as Critical Race Conjecture or Critical Race Fantasy. At best, it’s a niche facet of institutionalism, far less pervasive and detrimental than things like credentialism or scientism.

            1. Yeah, you are basically right, at least as far as I have read on the subject. They’ll claim that, for example, the real reason why SCOTUS outlawed segregated schools wasn’t because they actually believed “separate but equal” was bad, but because they wanted to present a better image of the US for purposes of fighting the Cold War against the Soviets. That the racism inherent in doctrines like Plessy v. Ferguson was still alive and well, just now with a better PR team. I mean, that *might* be true, I don’t know, but it’s an academic discussion, not some OMG NAZI level of sedition. It’s ridiculous.

              1. It has the same factual legitimacy as phrenology, son.

                1. So your argument is that it’s not rigorous enough? Guess what, *I agree!* It relies a lot on post-hoc rationalizations and trying to invent motives for people long dead.

                  So THAT is why people like Trump and De Santis and right-wingers generally are so furiously outraged over CRT? That it isn’t rigorous enough? LOL

                  1. damikesc
                    March.18.2021 at 2:10 pm

                    It has the same factual legitimacy as phrenology, son.

                    chemjeff radical individualist
                    March.18.2021 at 3:13 pm

                    So your argument is that it’s not rigorous enough?

                    Are you capable of reading anything without immediately replacing all the written words in the statement with other words of your own choosing? Is it an issue with perception? Reading comprehension? Or just being full of shit?

          4. Racist people build racist institutions, and those racist institutions continue to produce unjust results long after the original racists are dead.
            Like affirmative action?
            The only institutionalized racism in the U.S.

    2. No child should be permitted to graduate from any public educational facility without understanding — deeply and genuinely — that all white people are evil.

    3. BROKE – Everyone should get equal treatment full stop

      WOKE- White People are the worst and irrecoverably evil

    4. DeSantis is obviously trying to become the next Trump. Get the crowd riled up over things that Team Blue is doing, but catastrophized and exaggerated to the nth degree.

      1. So, you support critical race theory?

      2. PHEW! I thought CRT was being implemented in schools but your post made me feel better about my misunderstanding.

      3. Critical Race Theory is evil, fascist, sociopathic garbage couched in the language of pop psychology.
        Everyone should fervently oppose it no matter where you sit on the political spectrum.

        1. [E]vil, fascist, sociopathic garbage …

          But enough about chemjeff …

      4. Actually, people aren’t riled up enough over CRT. It’s blatantly racist. But you be you Jeff and go ahead and support a racist curriculum.

        1. Anything to distract people from the real issues. Get people riled up over some caricatured, catastrophized left-wing bogeyman instead of some issue more pertinent. Like, for example, removing government control of the schools entirely.

          1. You want to know what is a nonsensical bogeyman? Qanon.
            You want to know what a genuine fascist threat is? Critical Race Theory.

            1. Because you say so? We now have a Congress member who has spouted QAnon b.s. We had a violent mob storm the Capitol building with QAnon believers among the rioters.

              1. We have CRT already having dominated law schools and are now trickling down into primary education.

                But, yes, QAnon is so much worse than BlueAnon.

                1. And they cannot both be bad trends to be concerned about?

                  1. Where is Ghislaine Maxwell these days, anyway?

              2. a violent mob storm the Capitol building with QAnon believers among the rioters

                About that: A Study Shows Very Few Capitol Hill Rioters Were QAnon Red-Staters With Ties to Right-Wing Groups

                1. It was only “very few”. You know that doesn’t counter what I said.

                  1. So how many “QAnon cult members” do you think led the fire extinguisher battalion’s invason of the sacred halls of government? And does the presence of one QAnon Gruppenführer make the insUrrEction a QAnon one?

        2. People are dying of COVID and suffering tremendous economic harm due to the pandemic. So let’s see – let’s spin the wheel of Right Wing Outrage – oh ho, today it lands on Critical Race Theory! Tomorrow, what will it be? “Illegal Invasion”? Transgender Bathrooms? Dr. Seuss? Maybe something completely new! Tune in and find out!

          1. “People are dying of COVID and suffering tremendous economic harm due to the pandemic”

            Not in Florida.

            Gives DeSantis time to deal with CRT.

            Boom.

            1. Oh I get it, you’re shilling for Team Red and helping along their perpetual outrage machine to generate power for them. “Oh I don’t know what Critical Race Theory actually is, but I heard on the rad-ee-o that it was racist bullshit so I’magonna get all outraged!!!!”

              1. You sound like a paranoid lunatic, please don’t shoot any asian hookers.

              2. “you’re shilling for Team Red”

                You’re a fucking paid troll, a fifty-center!
                You don’t get to call other people “shills”, asshole.

                1. “You’re a fucking paid troll, a fifty-center!
                  You don’t get to call other people ‘shills’, asshole.”

                  Wow, what a bizarre, self-defeating comment. If you really think chemjeff is a troll, why do you respect your own time so little that you are responding to him. Are you avoiding cleaning out the garage or something.

                  1. Somehow you’ve decided that you can insinuate that when people call you and chemleft out for shitposting and fifty-centing, it is somehow self-defeating.
                    I don’t know what logical contortions you’ve taken to reach that conclusion, but it’s fucking stupid.

              3. It is just factually not true that people are not dying of COVID in Florida. 55 died yesterday.

              4. I mean I don’t know what argument you meant to make, but what you literally argued is that people are not dying of COVID-19 in Florida.

              5. You brought up COVID and the pandemic.

                The economic harm were the policies vicious and evil leftists demanded where THEY had to be protected but the lower classes had to toil away to serve them.

          2. You realize that you’re the one that brought up CRT, right? You’re the one who looked out at the news and saw tremendous suffering and harm from the pandemic, brushed that aside, and said “Hey DeSantis is making educations decisions for his own state.” Decisions that are well within his purview to make and that, above, you indicated you agree with.

            1. He is manufacturing outrage by targeting this niche academic theory that gets his followers riled up because they are presented with this warped caricatured view of CRT. It is easy demagoguery. I’m pretty sure De Santis was elected governor, not Chief Superintendent of Curriculum.

              1. “niche academic theory”

                It’s hardly niche when they’re teaching it in public schools, you dishonest fuck.
                And being an academic theory doesn’t legitimize it anymore than scientific racism, which was also an academic theory that also ended up being taught in public schools in the previous 20’s.

          3. let’s spin the wheel of Right Wing Outrage

            I have seen this multiple times now. Jeffy was posting sparsely for months and now all this. Must have been at a retreat for Alinsky adherents.

      5. Yes Jeff, it’s much better to “get the crowd riled up” over things that happened decades and centuries ago.

        If you can’t see that this constant rehashing of history is designed to divide people, there’s no hope for you.

        An individualist would know this.

  40. Whats the problem with any of these? Keep 230 and implement all 4 as a condition. We all realize that social media is neither a common carrier nor a publisher. We need to hammer out some guidelines that dont rely on what lobbyists could dream up in 1995.

    Publish an “acceptable use policy.”
    Isn’t one of the biggest complaints is that one can be banned or censored and have no idea why nor any recourse?

    Provide a 5-days-per-week, 8-hours-per-day hotline for people to ask a “live company representative” questions about the acceptable use policy and any content moderation decisions the company makes, as well as to report content that a user thinks may be illegal or may violate the company’s acceptable use policy.
    This one may go to far with its snitch-line. But It is absurd that if you need customer service from google, they do not have any way to contact a live person. I lost my password for my gmail account for 6 years. In that whole time I was never able to get a person to talk to me. If they are going to receive special legal protections, they can throw the common man a bone and hire some minimum wage phone operators.

    Provide an email complaint system for the same purposes.
    Seriously… WTF not? If you have to censor, be fucking accountable.

    Provide a formal appeals process for people who don’t like a company’s content moderation decisions
    I may even go back to facebook if they implemented all of these policies. ENB is a fucking fascist dingbat.

    1. The big problem, is that Section 230 not only is a benefit to large tech companies but also to small blogs run by hobbyists or church ladies who want to talk about their own topics with their circles of friends without being inundated with trolls, spam, or abuse. So while Twitter can afford to staff a 24-hour hotline to address user issues, how about these other guys? As always, piling on more regulations is actually a benefit to the big guys because they can afford to endure the regulations but the small guys cannot and are run out of business.

      1. So what, thats the way fascism runs the western world. It’s not like they cant unfairly crush their competition already.

    2. “But It is absurd that if you need customer service from google, they do not have any way to contact a live person. I lost my password for my gmail account for 6 years. In that whole time I was never able to get a person to talk to me.”

      Yay, big government stepping in to solve your customer support problem!

      1. It’s so weird how you and Jeff always appear at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.

        1. Sea lions travel in packs …

        2. It’s the same guy, as is DOL. Nobody makes the exact same punctuation and grammatical errors like those three accounts make, without being socks.

          I know that sarc and Dee get blamed for the WK account, but it’s pretty obviously the same guy as chemjeff and DOL.

          Now that I’ve said that watch him deliberately try and change them up a little. But it won’t matter because he isn’t cognizant of his errors in the first place.

          1. Well, sarc has completely disappeared and now WK is coincidentally picking up the slack and persistently shitting up the comments with sarc’s patented “mean girls” references and unbridled sanctimony. Other than that, I think you are spot on.

      2. Im not a fundamentalst libertarian, so your gotcha didnt get me. I dont favor the NAP much either and would surely slap the shit out of you given the chance.

    3. Provide a 5-days-per-week, 8-hours-per-day hotline for people to ask a “live company representative” questions about the acceptable use policy and any content moderation decisions the company makes, as well as to report content that a user thinks may be illegal or may violate the company’s acceptable use policy.
      This one may go to far with its snitch-line. But It is absurd that if you need customer service from google, they do not have any way to contact a live person. I lost my password for my gmail account for 6 years. In that whole time I was never able to get a person to talk to me. If they are going to receive special legal protections, they can throw the common man a bone and hire some minimum wage phone operators.

      Provide an email complaint system for the same purposes.
      Seriously… WTF not? If you have to censor, be fucking accountable.

      Provide a formal appeals process for people who don’t like a company’s content moderation decisions
      I may even go back to facebook if they implemented all of these policies. ENB is a fucking fascist dingbat.

      Fuck you, repeal 230.

      Your idea is the very reason why the 1A says “Congress shall make no law” and is the perfect example of the one-way ratchet and ‘just the tip’ legislative maneuvering that any libertarian would recognize as the reason why the 1A says ‘make no law…’. S230’s intent was to shield providers from lawsuits and allow them to moderate as they see fit. That thumbs the scale. Requiring them to provide hotlines, email complaint systems, and appeals’ processes puts another bigger thumb on the other side of the scale. One of the next steps along the path is the Title IX kangaroo courts we see in univeristies across the country; where organizations with no authority or ability to interpret and enforce the law are charged with doing so. You’re as much an ignorant, fascist dingbat as ENB.

      1. Social media isnt the press, so you can suck my dick.
        You really think repealing 230 is going to do anything other than cancel comment sections?
        KSchultz is absolutely correct, repeal of 230 is going to work in favor of the established players and there is no way around it. Their lawyers will be writing the new laws.

  41. https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1372271070892396546?s=19

    Vaccines should not be voluntary but y’all aren’t ready to have that conversation

  42. New Hampshire is coming for tiny houses.
    Hell, I didn’t know that New Hampshire was even breathing heavily.

  43. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1372561728597327878?s=19

    People who believe “teaching should be political” should be fired. They have no business teaching our kids or setting their curriculum.

    “@FCPSEquity
    If you have an extra moment and already took the @ProjectImplicit test, we invite you to read @TheAtlantic “Teaching Should be Political” So often, educators are told to “stay out of politics” when in reality it is our duty to engage in some of these uncomfortable conversations”

    1. People who believe “teaching should be political” should be fired.

      Absolutely. Like the history teachers who teach “America is the greatest nation in the world”. What a bunch of political garbage. Why don’t they teach the REAL history?

      1. It took me years to discover what conservatives meant by “American Exceptionalism”.

        Then Bush invaded Iraq and I knew that it meant normal rules of civility doesn’t apply to the USA. We are exceptional!

        1. It took me years to discover what conservatives meant by “American Exceptionalism”.

          That’s because you have a ball-numbingly vacant intellect. To even the average, it is an extremely self-evident and non-controversial observation.

        2. Somehow Buttplug thinks that Trump and MAGA supported the Iraq war but the Democrats didn’t.
          He really has the memory of a goldfish.

        3. “American Exceptionalism”, from the right-wing, is: “America is the greatest country on the earth, and if you teach something different, you will be fired!”

          1. if you teach something different, you will be fired!

            You Really Think chemjeff Would Do That? Just Go On the Internet and Make Up Lies?

      2. What teachers were ever fired for not teaching that?

        I mean, almost none do so now. So what ones did in the past?

    2. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1372569106839392258?s=19

      This is why people who believe teaching is political need to be fired. They’ll act on it and lie. Start firing them. Test their resolve.

      “@sheathescholar
      I think it’s so funny that these people think that banning these terms will stop us from using the theory subversively in curriculum and classrooms.”

      1. Just wait until a white kid shoots up a school because CRT teaches him how institutionally evil and racist the white man’s schools are.

  44. https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1372557756729810948

    The former head of the Cream City Foundation, which sponsors Drag Queen Story Hour in Milwaukee, has been arrested on charges of possessing child pornography.

    1. Apparently the court said he gets to maintain unmonitored contact with his two adopted boys, which is all kinds of wrong.

  45. MIGRANT CARAVAN! SHIT YER PANTS BOYS! MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS ARE PORING IN YER COUNTRY!

    Fox News has racheted up the outrage.

    1. Was that from the same intelligence report you were pimping upthread?

    2. you watch foxnews?

      1. I like to watch Tucker Carlson to see what kind of weird shit he is making up.

        Recently he has been saying QAnon CT was made up by liberals. He just makes shit up to make wingnuts feel good about the GOP.

        1. “I like to watch Tucker Carlson”

          gross, just because he looks young, fucking gross

        2. QAnon is the establishment liberal’s slenderman.

          1. QAnon is the weak cousin to BlueAnon.

    3. Yup it is the same outrage generating machine.

      Dr. Seuss, “illegal invasion”, Critical Race Theory, all these outrage-inducing faux panics in order to generate anger and fear and power for themselves.

      1. faux panics

        Which part of banning Doctor Seuss and teaching CRT in schools is “faux”, chemleft?

        Because unlike your March 5 uprisings, this is actually happening.

        1. Well, that Biden didn’t mention Dr.Seuss being touted as proof that the Left was “canceling” Dr. Seuss.

          1. Lol, wut?

              1. Hit him over the head with a fire extinguisher to get his attention.

              2. How does that counter my observation that right-wing sources touted Biden’s not mentioning Dr. Seuss in his speech as proof the Left was canceling Seuss?

                You are arguing against a point I did not make.

                1. You were arguing against a point we did not make. I said the left was canceling Seuss and I never said anything about Biden.
                  You’re the one who brought up Biden’s reading week. Not me.

        2. The idea here, is to take some tiny story and blow it up into a gigantic OUTRAGEOUSLY OUTRAGE in order to generate headlines and coverage and power.

          1. So insane, rampant censorship and the most bigoted ideology since national socialism being taught to schoolchildren is “tiny stories”.
            Got it, you’re psychotic.

          2. “The idea here, is to take some tiny story and blow it up into a gigantic OUTRAGEOUSLY OUTRAGE in order to generate headlines and coverage and power.”

            Well, most of the media did that during Trump’s entire term, often starting with outright lies.
            So you’re right, the left does that constantly.

        3. Which part of banning Doctor Seuss and teaching CRT in schools is “faux”

          It’s faux because they want to deny it directly undermines the self-esteem of the majority of Americans. Leftists have to destroy before they build.

  46. geez just what this world needs is an empowered WK

  47. Robert Aaron Long, the man..blamed his actions on “sex addiction.” Friends of Long’s said he was deeply Christian

    I am not “deeply Christian” but am pretty sure God frowns more on murder than handies.

    1. Every sperm is sacred, dude.

      1. Fuck off and die turd; make kids safe.

      2. Buttplug can’t remember the Bible verse telling you to shoot at hookers if you can’t stop frequenting them, but he’s sure it’s in there. Right next to the bit about Trump.

  48. Keith Olbermann Blasted For Saying We Are ‘Wasting Vaccinations on Texas’

    https://www.newsweek.com/keith-olbermann-blasted-vaccines-wasted-texas-1573363

    Mildly humorous remark starts up the wingnut poutrage.

    1. Un-funny asshole gets called on vile ‘joke’.
      Fixed, turd.

    2. it would be humorous. but Olbermann

    3. “Olbermann shared Abbott’s tweet announcing the order and wrote: “Why are we wasting vaccinations on Texas if Texas has decided to join the side of the virus?”

      You’ve actually chosen to defend that, Buttplug?

      This is as much of an own goal as chemjeff plumping for Critical Race Theory earlier.

    4. Keith Olbermann has not been mildly humorous since his first stint on ESPN.

      And nobody is demanding he be fired. Funny, huh?

  49. https://twitter.com/tricksyrix/status/1372523882469588993?s=19

    Holy shit. Half hour drive to work and EVERY SINGLE NPR news story mentioned “racism”. Weather. Economy. Coronavirus. Journalism. Every single message from corporate sponsors. EVERYTHING.

    1. Yeah I quit when, after dropping out of the Paris Accord, they had an expert from Harvard flatly say that while China has done worse in the fight against AGW, what we really need is more authoritative and unwavering leadership like they have.

      You don’t care about the climate because, by your own admission, China’s doing worse. You rather overtly think that America should be a communist dictatorship for no other reason than you prefer communist dictatorships.

      Astounded me to think that the same money that subsidizes NPR also subsidizes Radio Free America. Imagine, during The Cold War, paying to broadcast pro-socialist propaganda to people standing bread lines. I’d rather listen to a broadcast of them setting fire to the money.

  50. “Called the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency (PACT) Act, the measure has bipartisan support.”

    Because both parties love them some censorship.

  51. Critical theory is (post) modern Nazism

    https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1372582785899065348?s=19

    SCOOP: North Carolina’s largest school district launches a campaign against “whiteness in educational spaces”—and encourages teachers to subvert parents and push the ideology of “antiracism” directly onto students without consent.

    Here’s the story.

    1. Chemleft hardest hit.

  52. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1372583909532303364?s=19

    Medical Lysenkoism by law in Ohio. Unnecessary deaths will occur. Police Lysenkoism has already led to dramatically increased crime and murder rates—unnecessary deaths—and so will this, but in a more grotesque and hideous way.

      1. Don’t tell buttplug he thinks CRT isn’t a thing that people are basing policy on

    1. But…but…but I thought CRT was a nothingburger.

  53. End social media now and put their execs on trial for treason and sedition.

  54. “This is another fix for a problem that doesn’t exist”
    — Growing by the day;

    just like the global warming hoax did… That…
    – Helped bankrupt the nation while destroying the motor industry.
    – Helped bankrupt the nation while subsidizing unreliable energy.
    – Helped shut down many people energy sources altogether.
    And gave an excuse to illegally communize 54% of the U.S. landmass and the timber industry throwing the homes market into another FAILURE that needed subsidizing and bailout.

    And in the big picture: Only the forces of Gov-Guns can monopolize Stupid because no-one would pay willingly for stupid.

  55. Can a business deny you service based on your political beliefs? I guess yes..not based on if your gay or protestant but for your political beliefs? Another irrational part of the CRA of 1964…either you let all sellers discriminate or not.

    Obviously the social media bolsheviks have overplayed their hand..more and more of my libertarian and conservative friends are leaving and finding online spaces…viva the revolution…

    1. from Wikipedia article on Barry Goldwater:
      “A member of the NAACP and active supporter of desegregation…, Goldwater voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but reluctantly opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, believing one its provisions to be unconstitutional and a potential overreach of the federal government…”
      Which provision? The one that outlawed racial discrimination by private establishments.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.