Certainly considering the context and biographical information of the author may help,in understanding something they said. However, let’s say your favorite author wrote something about poverty that you strongly agreed with, and thiught was eloquently stated. It bedomes part of your worldview. Then you find out that tye author was a rich industrialist, and not a poor person. Does your opinion of his insight change? Do you drop it from your worldview because the wrong kind of person said it?
Or the whole internet, where censorship can easily be found that makes the SDMB look like a massive case of Tourette’s Syndrome in comparison…usually by those on the right.
You seem to ignore the excluded middle between “extensive use of speech codes” (Gosh, I just love the use of undefined ominous terms to rile up the troops, don’t you?) and mindless diarrhea of the mouth.
I don’t give a fuck about that irrelevant bullshit. Your deflection is transparent and pitiful. Or to quote a wise philosopher…
The disconnect here is that you are equating dissent with censorship. On this board, you can get modded for using “N_____” or “F__” or a handful of other epithets meant to dehumanize and other (in truth, perhaps “MAGAt” should be moderated as well, as its function is comparable), but most of your non-mainstream ideas will stand without moderation or modification.
In other words, you are not facing censorship, rather “you are a fucking idiot” (which you have visited upon me, so there). Try submitting ideas that are not archaic festering dregs and perhaps you will not feel so “censored”.
That’s a bullshit attempt at digression from the substance of what I said.
As a kid I once wrote a simple computer program to generate “computer poetry”. It consisted of syntactic templates that were randomly selected and randomly populated by a vocabulary of words organized according to a simple taxonomy. It occasionally produced unexpected nuggets of verse that were actually quite beautiful and maybe even inspirational. Should my opinion of this “insight” change knowing that it was produced by the randomized compositions of a machine?
The answer is that your point is disingenuous. A particular expression can be taken at face value as a useful aphorism while still asserting the obvious truth that genuine understanding of life experiences is not a theoretical exercise; it comes from people who have lived or are closely familiar with those experiences and their impact on a person’s psyche.
I’ll go back to Bush the Younger (who was probably one of your heroes) as an example, and his inability to even comprehend poverty (IIRC, he said something like “I just don’t understand the poor”). He got elected in part on a platform of “compassionate conservatism”. Here’s how compassionate he was – this is without even getting into the mass killings of the Iraq war:
Senate Finance Chair Chuck Grassley had carved out room in his blueprint for one of the president’s signature campaign promises — $6 billion per year in tax credits aimed at encouraging charitable giving to organizations fighting poverty. In the negotiations, however, the president’s legislative team told Grassley to “get rid of” the charity tax credits. Grassley’s advisers were stunned, as were their Democratic colleagues. Why? Because the money was needed for another political priority: the $100 billion cut in the estate tax.
Compassionate conservatism won George W. Bush the White House in 2000, a year Democrats should have taken in a landslide. But over the next eight years, it badly undermined the Republican reputation for competence and fiscal rectitude. Instead, the GOP came to resemble a gaggle of earmark-chasing charlatans who veered from phony compassion to get-tough border-fence theatrics with dizzying speed.
So, would you consult this fucker for advice on dealing with poverty? Or would you “drop [him] from your worldview because [he’s] wrong kind of person”?
I sure as hell wouldn’t consult him for advice on anything, especially poverty.
I told Sam that he was taking a risk, but does he listen? 
This really wasn’t addressed,
Exactly what language is being ‘’‘policed’‘’ by which rule/ruling?
No dodging off to things not SDMB, cite the rule/ruling that you are referring to.
Is it this,
Prohibited practices. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is defamatory, abusive, hateful, harassing, pornographic, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or in violation of U.S. law. We reserve the right to revoke the posting privileges of persons misrepresenting themselves on the SDMB.
or this,
Illegal activity. Do not post material that in our opinion encourages or facilitates activity that is illegal in the U.S., including but not limited to how to use virtual private networks (VPNs) to conduct illegal activity or peer-to-peer file sharing technology to evade copyright law. Discussion of the legality of such practices is permissible. We encourage people to abide by local U.S. law, which varies by jurisdiction. Please do not post suggestions or advice on how to evade local U.S. law. We do not expect rigorous compliance with laws in other countries, especially censorship laws in authoritarian states. Nonetheless, please consult with SDMB staff before posting advice on such laws.
It can’t be this,
Hate speech. Do not post hate speech directed against any race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender in any forum.
or this,
Guidelines for discussion of transgender issues. Discussions of transgender issues are often fraught and opinions tend to be polarized. Nonetheless, the SDMB believes frank conversation reflecting a wide diversity of views is the surest way to establish common ground. To facilitate such discussion, please observe the following guidelines, which apply to all forums except the Pit, where guidelines 2 through 6 apply. (The first two guidelines apply to all discussion regardless of subject.)
- You are welcome to express your views forcefully but please do so in a civil manner. If you continually use inflammatory language, treat others with contempt, or otherwise behave in a manner we consider uncivil and we tell you to stop, please do so or face revocation of your posting privileges.
- We do not mod posts based on inaccuracy, illogic, lack of cites, etc. We leave it to other posters to point out such defects. If a poster demonstrates a pattern of deliberate misrepresentation, lying or other uncivil behavior, we may tell them to knock it off and expect them to do so. We do not warn posters merely for expressing views or starting threads on topics others find disagreeable.
- Please do not state or imply that transgender people are mentally ill. We realize the question remains controversial. However, we’re not going to settle the matter here, and raising it tends to poison other discussion of transgender issues. Please keep your opinions on the subject to yourself.
- Do not deliberately misgender another poster – that is, refer to them by a pronoun or other sex-specific term indicating a gender other than the one they identify as. This applies only in cases where a poster’s gender identity is reasonably clear. Likewise, do not deliberately misgender off-board figures.
- The use of the term cisgender or the prefix cis- to refer to individuals whose gender identity matches their biological sex is not required but can be helpful in avoiding ambiguity when discussing transgender issues. That said, we do not have a code of acceptable gender-related expressions and do not wish to referee terminology. Please be considerate of the feelings of others and avoid needless provocation when using gender-related terms. If you feel others are using gender-relating terms or expressions improperly and you wish to correct them, please do so in a civil manner.
right?
Here ya go, Reorganized SDMB rules let’s see what the problem is?
This is very stupid. What idea can’t enter the “marketplace” (I love how you’re so capitalist that you even analogize discussions to transactions) unless allowed to call immigrants “invaders”? Please be specific.
If the only idea that stays out of the marketplace is part of the Great Replacement Theory, how many tears do we need to weep over that first-cousin-to-Nazism being excluded from the L’il Shop of Thoughts on a private messageboard?
If there’s any truth to what you’re saying, it’s that I’m not at all confident that in modern society, pluralism will win over violent white supremacy. The cultish dedication to Trump and the concommitant embrace of murderous racism is on the upswing, and I’m genuinely terrified that January 6 was just a test run for something far, far worse. If getting one small corner of the Internet to take a principled stand against Great Replacement Theory can move one person away from joining that white supremacist cult, it’s worth doing, because the consequences of its victory are horrific to contemplate.
Don’t tell us what we should or shouldn’t fight for. I personally, literally, fought for the right to never have to hear anyone called kaffir again. The rest of the previously marginalized in my country agree with that. We made it the law. Freeze Peach absolutists can get fucked.
What about if we’ve already lived that reality, came out the other side, and don’t want to hear their poisonous shit ever again?
I didn’t know the First Amendment was a Canadian thing… and all those unfree European countries, how they must suffer so under their yoke of oppression…
As Karl Popper and Gowdin themselves could tell you, that is what should had taken place already regarding the censorious violent and seditious people from the right, there is a growing group of right wingers who depend on naive guys like you to ignore how they are growing regardless of many noticing that they are already missing many toes.
So no, there are exceptions to the rule, it is when the intolerant tries to use those rights on their way to falsely accuse immigrants that they are trying to take over a place with violence and murder and in the end to have the intolerant use those false accusations as a justification to remove the immigrants.
…
As an aside, one has to notice how deftly Sam_Stone avoided dealing with how off the dictionary definition he is allowing others to get away with. So, really, this message board is not the place for Humpty Dumptys either.
Sam dropped this turd in a Trump indictment thread, probably being well aware that the mods would shut down the hijack and it would go unchallenged.
You are a liar, because we all know you aren’t that stupid.
Here’s what Comey actually said.
in looking back on our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
Link to entire statement
Which is pretty much the opposite of what you claimed.
He didn’t claim she did nothing wrong. People do things that are wrong and careless at work all the time. He didn’t even claim she shouldn’t face consequences. But not all wrong or careless things rise to the level of crime, and this one didn’t.
Sam frequently seems ignorant of the way the law works in the US, as evidenced by his breathless anticipation of Hillary Clinton being indicted for (imagined) crimes that are long past the statutes of limitation - I think he still believes they’ll find a loophole. He obviously doesn’t know how charging decisions work, how prosecutors look at the resolution of past cases with similar fact patterns to determine whether or not to bring charges. ( there is similar process for sentencing recommendations).
So, he DIDN’T say he wouldn’t prosecute her because of who she is. He said that no matter how much the Republican prosecutors and FBI agents would’ve loved to “get” her, they had previously decided to not to prosecute everyone else that did the same thing that she did, so they couldn’t make special rules to “get” Hillary.
Jared and Ivanka should be grateful for that decision, BTW.
That’s the problem with Sam. I think he’s a smart fellow, and interesting to read. But his political posts are often such a mixture of actual fact, misleading paraphrases, and flat-out false statements (delivered unambiguously and with an air of authority) that his contributions cry out for a diligent fact check. And who has time for that?
As many times as he’s been called out, it’s still amazing how consistently, and how lazily, Sam lies.
Thanks–I thought Sam was full of shit here, but it’s helpful to read the entire statement. Here’s the fully money quote, to provide context:
Note the bits I highlighted, and see if it reminds you of any other case. It’s like Comey was prophetically predicting differences between Clinton’s case and another case of a presidential candidate who used to be in DC.
The bit where Sam is lying the most is when he says that nobody would prosecute her “because of who she is.” That is a flat-out lie.
I posted this.
Sam managed to extract this.
It is beyond pathetic.
If you make the connection that SS is actually trolling, not just lazy, it becomes much less amazing. If your goal is ‘librul tears’ being factual isn’t an asset.
Public Service Announcement:
As you have demonstrated, there is absolutely no reason to let anyone’s assertions go unchallenged in a thread hijack. You know how to do this, but for others who don’t:
Open a new topic and title it how you want. Example: “Refuting the Statements Made by Sam Stone in the ‘Does Jack Smith Have Any Recourse if Judge Cannon Gives Him No Prison Time?’ Thread”. Or do it exactly like @Ann_Hedonia has done here in Sam’s Pit thread! Personally, I’d open a new thread in the original forum, as it will be more widely read.
In your first post in your new topic, copy the link from the post you are challenging from the original thread and paste it into your new thread. Do this by clicking on the time stamp in the upper right hand corner of every post made on the board. This will create a link-back to the original post you wish to discuss without disrupting or continuing the hijack in that original thread.
Discuss.
Easy peasy.
We are not trying to discourage discussion, only keep threads to their original stated topics.
A valiant endeavor, akin to herding cats.
LOL, no word of a lie, that.
I figured it out. Sam is actually from a different reality. Think about how far removed the things he posts are from the real-world except in technology. Clearly, technology is about the same (except apparently Agile development). But in his reality Musk is a genius inventor. In his reality, it is the left that are trying to impose their will on everybody. In his reality, the unvaccinated aren’t being infected and dying at vastly higher rates. It all makes sense if he’s from a parallel universe.