restless94110’s Techdirt Profile

restless94110

About restless94110




restless94110’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 11th, 2019 @ 11:15am

    Lack of Self Awareness

    The lack of self awareness is stunning.
    You think that a CIA operative trying a slo-mo coup is a whistleblower?

    The "rules" changed to admit 2nd or 3rd hand accounts unlike ever before ever?

    If John Kiriakou, a real whistleblower, says this person ain't a whistelblower? That's good enough for me.

    Why isn't it on your radar? Are you willfully ignorant or just ignorant? I can't tell.

    Help me understand how you wrote this brain fart.

  • Oct 10th, 2019 @ 6:02am

    Hypocracy Much?

    And not a word in your article about the exact same issue of Trump's use of Nickleback?

    Wow, what a blind man.

  • Sep 24th, 2019 @ 12:23pm

    Tech Dirt Stands Solidly Against Free Speech

    Trying to figure why Tech Dirt writes these anti-Free Speech pieces all the time.

    Guess they think that those who have conclusions differing from theirs are spewing "bile," as if bile mattered. It's all free speech.

    If you get a phone line installed, the phone company doesn't get to regulate who may speak and who may not.

    Curiously, Tech Dirt comes out again and again against this obvious fact, claiming that some "boomers" or whoever Tech Dirt doesn't like this week are deserving of censorship and suppression.

    Thus does Tech Dirt undermine most of its writings. I'm getting to the point of thinking that it must be some kind of brain fungus the Tech Dirt writers are suffering from. It's a pity.

    Oh, and PS, it's purty obvious that Tech Dirt favorite Hillary was indeed running an outside server in order to hide her pay for play activities. Nothing else makes any kind of sense. Yet, Tech Dirt believes coming to obvious conclusions like that are "bile."

    Is Hill on your board of directors or something? Who knows? And who cares? Many people know nonsense when they read it.

  • Sep 5th, 2019 @ 6:27pm

    Two WORDS

    Kritarchy (rulel by judges). Bona-fide.

    So if i try to start fist fights on the White House lawn, but I am bona-fide then some judge somewhere will determine if the Administrative branch can exert control over the "bona-fide" person? What if they "bona-fide" pulls a gun? What if the person is not "bona=fide?"

    Perhaps if the person works for say, Tech Dirt. Well, that's not "bona=fide" according to our Judge-rulers.

    The world you seem with all your little heart to want? You are one of those people who just think it will never apply to them. It will.

    Only bona-fide people are allowed to comment here.

  • Sep 4th, 2019 @ 7:40pm

    Nonsense

    Any writer who would include "Anti-vax nonsense" in the title of his article, has already made it clear that he has nothing of any value to say.

  • Aug 9th, 2019 @ 3:58pm

    What Kind?

    Of imbecile would start off his article doubting that social media is anti-free speech totalitarian banning going on?

    So Mitch McConnell gets banned? And Tulsi Gabbard gets throttled? Both obvious actions that happened.

    Are you:

    1. stupid?
    2. insane?
    3. have TDS?
    4. evil?

    I truly can't figure out which.

    Why would you support fascist censorship?

    You don't think they will come for you?

    I sincerely do not understand how someone who seems smart at other times is so utterly stupid when it comes to this.

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 5:30pm

    Wokeness

    Netflix subscriber losses are a direct result of its abhorrent Social Justice Worker content and wokeness.

    I recently took a 30-day free trial after a several year absense and right away the AI put me completely off. But then all the NetFlix imprinted new stuff made me wary.

    After reading an interview of the writer/creator of Damnation a Netflix series, I decided to try it.

    I quickly found that in 1931 in the Midwest all women knew better than all men, nanny granny whorehouse madams forced middle aged men to drop trou for her personal examination (along with throwing whiskey on her client's privates), and that only black prostitutes can read (white prostitutes cannot).
    And all black prostitutes in Iowa in 1931 look like Beyonce. And have snarky attitudes that include screaming c***** at the top of their lungs to a white client who had just murdered a person.

    It was 12 minutes into the episode.

    This is why subscribers are leaving Netflix.

  • Jul 11th, 2019 @ 11:51pm

    Consequences of Punishing Free Speech

    "There are consequences to uttering speech others find objectionable. Those consequences are not legal causes of action."

    So Tech Dirt writers like Tim & Mike are for "consequences" for uttering speech?

    Kind of puts the lie to the entire article's POV. Kind of puts the lie to Tech Dirt itself.

    Guess when your site crosses the rapidly changing line and suffers "consequences" you might finally understand. Or maybe not.

    Probably not, if one were to judge by the articles you write about free speech censorship issues. Not a clue would be the best way to describe both you guys. Ah well, still good on other things.

    Just the huge blind spot when it comes to the 1st Amendment.

  • Jun 22nd, 2019 @ 11:48am

    Clarity

    So let me get this clear: you are against Free Speech?

    Else why you have your panties in a bundle because somebody wrote for a "white supremicist" site?

    So in other words, if it's approved speech then you are good? Mike, you missed te boat completely on the banning and censoring of conservatives and now you are just an out and out fascist with our idea that free speech is only popular speech.

    Such a shame on such a great site, except of course for every article you write.

  • May 18th, 2019 @ 1:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your fe

    The problem is that you think those things you emotionally and subjectively label with a series of social justice warrior scare words are universal and thus all should be banned because we live in a decent society.

    Freedom of speech allows repugnant speech because what was "repugnant" 5 years ago may not be as society grows and changes. Banning things freezes the society in amber. Society becomes fossilized and repressive.

    People who can't speak freely are not free people. All because you deem something you personally believe is repugnant.

    Eventually, you realize when they come for you, too, that your idea of decent is another, more powerful entity's idea of repugnant.

  • May 18th, 2019 @ 1:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your feelin

    Being exposed to speech you don't happen to like is what America is about. It's a free speech country.

    If you don't like the speech, don't read the speech. Nothing is preventing you from turning the television off or not watching that video. You have the choice to read the or listen to the speech or not. Yet, you want to prevent others having that same choice.

    And you reasoning is that the mob agrees with you?

    The very definition of tyranny by the majority and exactly the thing that those who wrote the Constitution were afraid of. Why? Because they knew from history that democracies turn into mob rule, but republics protect the rights of the minority. Central to that is freedom of speech.

    All these comments in this area of the thread are the same: the mob doesn't like something or the mob feels uncomfortable with some speech and therefore the mob should have the right to prevent that "they" don't like from being put out there.

    It's tyranny. And it boomerangs on the people in the mob. Sooner or later.

  • May 18th, 2019 @ 1:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Free Speech is not for nice speech or popular speech. It is for unpopular speech even hate speech, as the Supreme Court has ruled over and over again.

    Saying something is abhorrent is emotional and subjective. Your abhorrent speech is another's kind speech.

    Saying that something is so abhorrent no one would "have" you is totalitarian at its heart.

  • May 18th, 2019 @ 12:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sweet child of mine, you just don't seem to be able to understand. It's too simple I guess for your complicated mind.

    Let's say that I am Granny GoodThink. I open up a twitter account and am forced to sign a ridiculously nonsensical ToS cooked up by fools who call themselves attorneys, but which means nothing at all except "we can do anything we want to, boy."

    Then I post my cookie recipes on twitter.

    All is well until some soyboy in San Francisco decides that one of my recipes is racist and bans me.

    Yes, my free speech has just been abridged. Why? Because twitter is now the Public Square due to its monopoly. I have been effectively censored.

    It would be exactly like this:

    Hi. it's Granny GoodThink again. This time, I call up the phone company and order a phone line. It is installed. I start making phone calls and sharing my tasty and homey recipes with people far and wide.

    Some soyboy is monitoring my phone calls to make sure that none of my speech on my phone is racist. He decides that one of my recipes is racist (not the same recipe, a different one). He then disconnects my telephone.

    In both cases my freedom of speech has been abridged. There is absolutely no difference. I can't go to another phone company. But even if I could, the other phone company likely would have maybe 10 people on it.

    This is apparently your point: that if i can go to some other service that means everything is happy sunny since I have the freedom to say my speech to 2 or 3 people instead of 2 billion.

    You really need to think this through. Freedom of speech is coming to social media monopolies. It's going to happen. The reason? Because social media is censoring primarily conservative speech and thought. And that is un-American, but more than that: the 1st Amendment stipulates that freedom of speech and related freedoms are not given they are a part of humanity, and not to be abridged.

    The reason for this is obvious: the next ban will be you, child. You will be banned sooner or later. Just like all totalitarian regimes do. First they came for Granny Good Think and I said nothing, etc., etc., then they come for little old you.

    I'm tired of explaining basic concepts of freedom to snarky children. I'll look at the remaining comment replies in my inbox and then I'm out. This should be enough, though it should not have to be explained at all to any American. You should know better.

  • May 17th, 2019 @ 6:58pm

    Re: Re: How does it go again? Oh right. Fuck your feelings

    Bro. Or should I say Bruh. You should take a civics class and learn about the Commons. It doesn't matter if it's a monopoly or a government, bro.

    The reason? Because your idiotic "recommendation" that everyone who is censored by gigantic monopolies should just dance around the Maypole and then go invent a competing service is obvious just whining like a bitch.

    No one with a brain would seriously believe that I or you or anyone including your cat could just move from Twitter or Facebooks'billions of users to their own social media site?

    Are you ok, bruh? You sound like a moron with every post. You surely cannot believe a word you say.

  • May 17th, 2019 @ 6:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So let me understand: You are seriously asking where did free speech on Twitter go when free speech on Twitter is banned?

    Um, dude. Free speech was banned on Twitter.

    I mean, are you that stupid or do you just play a stupid fool on TV?

    I'm godsmacked that you don't seem to be able to understand rampant censorship of free speech on social media.

    It's what the article we are commenting upon is about!!!

  • May 17th, 2019 @ 6:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks for playing.

    I will try to help you out.......
    There is no jack in your house.
    Does that help you out?
    A jack has not a thing to do with standing.

    Did you really need me to tell you that there is no jack in your house? Wow. You are sounding more and more retarded with every post.

    I recommend you go back about 20 comment replies to the part where analogies are explained. Good luck!

  • May 17th, 2019 @ 2:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It doesn't matter what yoiu see or don't see, nor does it matter that you personally never have your own views censored. Tech companies are overwhelmingly liberal and are censoring and shadow banning ideas that they don't think are correct, mostly coming from what is known today as the right.

    Because Brietbart caved to a fake smear by left-wing crazies proves nothing except that Brietbart caved.

    The facts are clear: left leaning tech censors are using their monopoly powers to censor free speech, at this moment that is pirmarily right-wing free speech. All censorship of any type is wrong. Today it is the right. Tomorrow it could be you, and probably will be.

  • May 17th, 2019 @ 2:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks for playing.

    How the product is paid for has nary a thing to do with ground to stand on. The TOS is also meaningless. How the phone company gets their money doesn't matter at all. If a business gets its money via monthly fees or selling your data it matters not.

    Just like the phone company which is a monopoly, everybody has standing on social media as it is the modern phone company.

    Just because you don't personally do anything on social media doesn't matter either. You are free to not have a phone also. And all your friends and uncles and aunts don't have to have phones.

    But if you do have a phone the phone company isn't allowed to prevent you from getting a phone line and they are not permitted to censor your calls nor are they allowed to cancel your phone line because some dipshit in the phone company doesn't like what you say on your phone line.

  • May 17th, 2019 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Willful Blindness

    why is it sad that the writer will be an incel?

    Incels are people, too.

    I don't know where you live, but many many women marry for money, height, status. The data is crystal clear: women don't marry men who make less than they do or have lower status than they do.

    Things change in a man's life and often things then change in their wive's desire for them. It's a simple fact of life. Just because you aren't that way (you say) and you don't know anyone who is like that (you say) doesn't mean a thing.

    Ma'am, stop arguing against evolutionary psychology: there are valid and simple reasons for female hypergamy. It's seen in humans and in the lower primates who we are most related to (chimpanzees and bonobos).

    Because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't so. Believing in fake narratives is what is truly sad.

  • May 17th, 2019 @ 11:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Productivity has been rising for the past 40 years without a concurrent rise in wages.

    It's been said that the true min wage should be at 25/hour based on the productive rise since the late 60s to now.

    Time to play some catch up, at least until the robots take over.

More comments from restless94110 >>