"To be fair, this might just be a problem with me. Kinda fed up with bad examples of "Trump so bad!" He's bad enough w/o blaming him for other people's crap..."
I completely understand this sentiment. I too wish those opposed to President Trump would be honest in their criticism, and too often they are not. Nobody who reads what I write is under the misconception that I'm a fanboy of the President, but I try to be fair about it. Hence a paragraph dedicated to President Obama, where I have to say is the only paragraph that I got truly snarky....
"Then you go on to say he's taking aim at the First Amendment."
.....and I linked to our own post about him doing exactly that. That isn't bashing, it's referencing our previous accurate post.
"Then you state he's basically declaring war on the press."
From President Trump's own speech at the CIA the other day: "As you know, I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth." How is it bashing to accurately paraphrase his own words, exactly?
"Then you go on to say that on his first day as President, the police arrest 8 journalists covering a protest at his inauguration."
Well, to be fair, the only reason I wrote that SIX journalists were arrested, not eight, is because it, you know.....happened.
"However true any of those things are, and aside from the last sentence, did any of those things have anything to do with what the DC police did? In my honest opinion, the first paragraph read like you were winding up a flaming fastball aimed right for Trumps head."
Excuse me, but the President is the chief of the enforcement wing of the government at the federal level. He may not directly write policy for local and state law enforcement, but are you really suggesting that they do not take their cue or influence from THE PRESIDENT? Posture by a president makes a difference and, as he has framed the media as an enemy, you're suggesting that this sentiment and framing won't filter to the local level?
"TL; DR: My real problem is the article conflates "OMG Trump!" with business as usual, giving the implication that this is some *new* troubling sign of the decline of free speech rights."
Do me a favor, honestly, and let me know what you think. Read the whole thing again with the knowledge that the way I was actually TRYING to position the post was that this is a continuation of a practice during the inauguration of someone whose stated aims and public statements suggest that this will become an even DEEPER problem than already exists. In other words, the argument I was making was that past administrations' bad actions have opened the door to someone who might make past abuses look like child's play (this, again, is based on Trump's statements about the press generally).
I'm honestly interested if you think it reads differently the second time around. I typically try to avoid being so explicit in the framing of a post, trusting that I'm getting my message across, but that doesn't mean I'm always, or even usually, successful....
I rather enjoy this line of thinking. Under this idea, the media ought not report on wars, murders, etc. They've reported on those things for, like, ever, and they still occur, so apparently it isn't making any difference and they should stop....
Wait a tic....exactly how is commissioning an investigation into the potential influencing of an election by a foreign state hypocritical? Spycraft is a reality of the world. I don't for a moment argue that we didn't do the things you suggest, but how in the world is trying to discover what happened on our end hypocritical? In your estimation, we should just cover our eyes and pretend something might not have happened?
I will say that if you're lucky enough to find a few curators that fit your interests, they can really be a boon to searching out new and interesting titles. The problem, as I stated in the post, is that the curator program has the same problem as game releases on Steam: glut.
According to the linked article, it appears the concept of a "fashion santa" was already in the works at the mall when the model approached them. They only hired someone else when the original model refused to cease claiming he was the only one who had any rights to the "character".
"I had to go to the Kotaku article, find the name and search for it. Pretty crappy of Tim to run a story about the game, but only include mention of which game he's talking about in a quote from the "real" article."
Actually, I completely agree with you. It's usually not as much an issue in posts like this, except for three things that conspired to make this a bigger problem in this post:
1. I didn't include the name of the dev or game in the title post, which was kind of dumb
2. I only included the name of the game in the pull quote, which, having not included it in the title was kind of dumb
3. Because the name of the game is a single word, because the pull quotes are italicized (which is how I usually identify game titles in my post, by italics), and because the first letter of the game title is one which can be confused with another lower case letter, the title in the pull quote is SUPER easy to miss, which it was kind of dumb for me not to realize
In other words, mea culpa for being kind of dumb kind of often when it comes to calling out the title in this post. Sorry, guys.
You took a post that listed three acts including the Stein, Clinton and Trump campaigns and then claimed we singled out Trump. You, mind friend, win dumbest comment on a thread in which you had hefty competition. That's actually quite impressive...
What meat do you want? I write for this site regularly and I can say that I do not write with a bias against any particular party or candidate. I simply critique or discuss a particular issue at hand. It's really that simple. I'm generally critical of the subjects about which I write, but I don't pick and choose.
Friend, the number of Americans without a state ID or drivers license is AT LEAST 1% (surveys of registered voters) and possibly as high as 10% (surveys of Americans generally, registered to vote or not). Even at the low end, you're talking about MILLIONS of people.
If you want to suddenly make it illegal for millions of people to vote, you had better have a good fucking reason to do so, such as an equal number of millions committing voter fraud. Nothing like that even remotely exists....
"This is just terrible, you assume that my bitching and whining about your "quality of bias" makes me NOT on your team. Well all I can tell you is that you are wrong Mike, not the first time, won't be the last time either. I generally support TD's pieces on freedom and liberty, I just often disagree with what you think is a good solution to some of the problems like the FCC's net neutrality garbage rules."
DUDE, read what he said, because you missed it. Mike's point is that there is NO TEAM being supported here at Techdirt in terms of political parties or candidates. It's not that we don't think YOU are on our team; we don't deal in the "teams" at all. That those that love the team aspect of politics keep trying to yank us into it isn't going to work. We'll happily criticize every one from every party or ever independent as we find things worth criticizing. If it happens to be YOUR team in the crosshairs, that doesn't make us biased against them, but your reaction to it makes you biased FOR them. This is what you keep missing....
"If we make those IDs free, there's no way it can be disadvantageous to the poor."
Sure, so long as you also make it absolutely equally free to travel to where the free IDs are, make sure that everyone is equally able to take the time necessary to get one, and make certain that getting one isn't tied to anything that requires money to acquire (such as a vehicle, an address, a utility bill, etc.). Good luck actually getting THAT done....
Guys, come on. What Mike said is that if people are going to scream "Bias!" for his calling Infowars a crackpot conspiracy theory site, then those people can leave. That isn't a matter of politics. It isn't that Infowars peddles to the right wing; it's that their articles are entertainment in the form of conspiracy theories. They're no more news than is anything written by Jim Marrs or the anti-vaxxer folks. Again, those aren't matters of bias, they're matters of fact-based claims versus non-fact-based claims.
As for the posts themselves being biased against Donald Trump.....please. PLEASE. We've lambasted every candidate in this idiotic election. I will come right out and tell you that I do not like Donald Trump at all. Nor did I like his chief opponent. So, if I write a post here that criticizes our President Elect, that doesn't mean I'm biased against him, it means I found something in him worth criticizing.
And another thing: why is it that all the folks that constantly scream how everyone has a bias that always shines through can't see how their very belief in that calls into question the validity of their belief? If THEY have a bias (and they obviously do, by their own acknowledgement, since they think EVERYONE does), then their claim that everyone is biased might be a manifestation of THEIR bias, and now we're in Inception politics and I have to go throw up....
This nation didn't even burp up this idea of economic terrorism when hundreds of American bookstores refused to sell or carry the work of Salman Rushdie, because of a threat levied on him and his publisher from a foreign dictator. If you couldn't call THAT economic terrorism, nothing in this law should be worthy of the title, either....
The more popular the sentiment that you oppose becomes, the more important it is to oppose censoring it, as with all censorship."
I didn't put the passage you're responding to as well as I could have. The point I was trying to make is that true alt-right thinking is still a tiny minority in the country, and there's no reason we can't combat it with speech and win. It might be different if 98% of the country was goose-stepping around. The fight might take different forms if that was the case, but I still wouldn't be advocating for censorship.
"Wait, why is censorship an undesirable thing in all cases except "harassment"? Once you start splitting hairs about what speech should be allowed and what speech shouldn't, it's only a matter of time until the "shouldn't" category grows and grows. Why, to you, does the theory about good speech driving out bad speech apply everywhere except where "harassment" is concerned?"
I believe you misunderstood me. I didn't say that all speech that is labeled harassment is bad speech. What I said was that if Twitter decided to limit the bans to accounts it could clearly demonstrate were harassing other Twitter users, we could leave our outrage at the door. At some point, we must concede that Twitter is a company designed to incorporate as many users as it can. If a Twitter user is harassing others and causing them to cease using the service, particularly if the language used is threatening or violent, I can completely understand why Twitter would want to ban that person to foster the staying of the other users.
Bans over pure ideology, on the other hand, are a whole different animal.