3 ms·

One irony atop another: securing this land (against the onslaught of big business) was a celebration for Conservatives, not Liberals. That and, I miss the Repu

One irony atop another: securing this land (against the onslaught of big business) was a celebration for Conservatives, not Liberals. That and, I miss the Republican party that didn't actively try to piss off the ACLU every hour on the hour. It's just nonstop… • book bans • rhetoric about sending the military after political opponents • politicians ruled as being above the law • short circuiting due process with immigrants, both illegal and not • breaking up families of would-be asylum seekers for no damn reason • the Trump Muslim ban • the constant erection of/for Ten Commandments statues It used to be a thing in some conservative circles, “No, that teacher is Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912, not Council of 1879, I don't want his people educating my child about what he thinks the Ten Commandments really mean!!” I used to fancy myself a conservative back then. The ACLU and libertarians were the people that the Left had kind of given up on, and we were happy to say “yes, come be conservative with us, and we will try not to piss you off.” Now everyone has given up on them, they had to hold their noses and vote Kamala and pray for a few more years of “not again.” I'm not even a libertarian, just don't understand why we are wasting resources pissing them off

anon291 2y ago
[flagged]
- crdrost 2y ago
  Just to be clear, are you saying that the ACLU has not been pissed off at the GOP for book bans? Or are you just saying they should be mad at Amazon more? (Because like, libertarians and the ACLU are not going to get mad at Amazon for deciding what rules they want to enforce in their own marketplace. Which makes me read your comment as just another instance of shouting “fuck the libertarians!” that I above called a phenomenal waste of conservative resources. Like, why? There shouldn't be this strange alliance between the “only government that can be trusted is a dead government” people and the fucking political Left, like, WTF if that’s what’s going on)
  - anon291 2y ago
    I'm saying that banning the publication of books on a market place has a greater effect on the distributoin of information than banning books in classrooms. I fully agree that you can't use the law to force Amazon to unban the books. I'm just saying that private sector book ban for adults is more damaging than the removal of controversial material in children's libraries.
    - crdrost 2y ago
      I get that, probably if I got you talking to my "dead gummint" friends you'd talk past each other about the word "damaging", they'd say "that's not damaging at all, what are you smoking?" etc. etc. Just to be clear, what you need to understand if you want to bring them back Right is that for them "damaging" is defined by "someone shows up with a gun at your house and tells you to do something that you don't want to do." Amazon can do whatever, precisely because the people who Amazon sends to your house, like they might have a gun if they're practicing open-carry, but they don't tell you to do anything that you don't want to do. They literally cannot define any damage that Amazon is doing by manipulating their marketplace, because Amazon's not sending out the Men With Guns. And just to be clear, again, I don't agree with my friends on these matters, I just find it absolutely fucking nuts that back when I was a hardline conservative I made these friends and now that I'm moderate and independent somehow they are the ones that I'm seeing supporting Kamala and the Democrats.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- vlovich123 2y ago
  > The GOP wants to ban pornographic materials in children's classrooms. One of the most popular books on the "ban" lists is Handmaid's Tale. If you read that and classify it as pornographic, I might direct you to retake high school English to brush up on reading comprehension. There's also a huge difference between the government banning content and private entities banning sale of that content on their platform but OK.
  - anon291 2y ago
    > There's also a huge difference between the government banning content and private entities banning sale of that content on their platform but OK. A legal difference yes, but not a political one.
    - vlovich123 2y ago
      Really? I'd say there is a political difference. I can escape a private corporation if I really wanted to, or shop elsewhere for that specific content. I can't generally escape government rules unless they're specially crafted to carve out private schools. And if they do carve out private schools, then you're saying the materials aren't actually harmful to rich privileged kids and only the poors?
      - anon291 2y ago
        Can you escape a private corporation if it basically has a monopoly on book distribution in this country? Can you be an investigative journalist who correctly investigates and publishes your unbiased results if only one of those results will be able to earn you money? Really? Back when I was a democrat, the democrat party would not have stood for this.
        vlovich123 2y ago
        > Can you escape a private corporation if it basically has a monopoly on book distribution in this country? Let's be precise with our words. A monopoly doesn't mean no competition. Amazon only controls 50% of the online+offline print book market which as far as monopolies go isn't as dominant as Google's 88% and closer to iOS's ~50%. It's a dominant position but there's plenty of room for you to go obtain books elsewhere. Additionally, self-publishing has never been easier. > Can you be an investigative journalist who correctly investigates and publishes your unbiased results if only one of those results will be able to earn you money? Really? No idea what this is about. If we're still on the can't publish anything "anti-trans" topic, might be worthwhile to consider that people identifying as trans make up less than half of 1 percent of the population (~0.4% if we're rounding up). Maybe there just isn't actually all that much interest in a niche population that has no power?

anon291 2y ago

[flagged]

crdrost 2y ago
Just to be clear, are you saying that the ACLU has not been pissed off at the GOP for book bans? Or are you just saying they should be mad at Amazon more? (Because like, libertarians and the ACLU are not going to get mad at Amazon for deciding what rules they want to enforce in their own marketplace. Which makes me read your comment as just another instance of shouting “fuck the libertarians!” that I above called a phenomenal waste of conservative resources. Like, why? There shouldn't be this strange alliance between the “only government that can be trusted is a dead government” people and the fucking political Left, like, WTF if that’s what’s going on)
- anon291 2y ago
  I'm saying that banning the publication of books on a market place has a greater effect on the distributoin of information than banning books in classrooms. I fully agree that you can't use the law to force Amazon to unban the books. I'm just saying that private sector book ban for adults is more damaging than the removal of controversial material in children's libraries.
  - crdrost 2y ago
    I get that, probably if I got you talking to my "dead gummint" friends you'd talk past each other about the word "damaging", they'd say "that's not damaging at all, what are you smoking?" etc. etc. Just to be clear, what you need to understand if you want to bring them back Right is that for them "damaging" is defined by "someone shows up with a gun at your house and tells you to do something that you don't want to do." Amazon can do whatever, precisely because the people who Amazon sends to your house, like they might have a gun if they're practicing open-carry, but they don't tell you to do anything that you don't want to do. They literally cannot define any damage that Amazon is doing by manipulating their marketplace, because Amazon's not sending out the Men With Guns. And just to be clear, again, I don't agree with my friends on these matters, I just find it absolutely fucking nuts that back when I was a hardline conservative I made these friends and now that I'm moderate and independent somehow they are the ones that I'm seeing supporting Kamala and the Democrats.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
vlovich123 2y ago
> The GOP wants to ban pornographic materials in children's classrooms. One of the most popular books on the "ban" lists is Handmaid's Tale. If you read that and classify it as pornographic, I might direct you to retake high school English to brush up on reading comprehension. There's also a huge difference between the government banning content and private entities banning sale of that content on their platform but OK.
- anon291 2y ago
  > There's also a huge difference between the government banning content and private entities banning sale of that content on their platform but OK. A legal difference yes, but not a political one.
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    Really? I'd say there is a political difference. I can escape a private corporation if I really wanted to, or shop elsewhere for that specific content. I can't generally escape government rules unless they're specially crafted to carve out private schools. And if they do carve out private schools, then you're saying the materials aren't actually harmful to rich privileged kids and only the poors?
    - anon291 2y ago
      Can you escape a private corporation if it basically has a monopoly on book distribution in this country? Can you be an investigative journalist who correctly investigates and publishes your unbiased results if only one of those results will be able to earn you money? Really? Back when I was a democrat, the democrat party would not have stood for this.
      - vlovich123 2y ago
        > Can you escape a private corporation if it basically has a monopoly on book distribution in this country? Let's be precise with our words. A monopoly doesn't mean no competition. Amazon only controls 50% of the online+offline print book market which as far as monopolies go isn't as dominant as Google's 88% and closer to iOS's ~50%. It's a dominant position but there's plenty of room for you to go obtain books elsewhere. Additionally, self-publishing has never been easier. > Can you be an investigative journalist who correctly investigates and publishes your unbiased results if only one of those results will be able to earn you money? Really? No idea what this is about. If we're still on the can't publish anything "anti-trans" topic, might be worthwhile to consider that people identifying as trans make up less than half of 1 percent of the population (~0.4% if we're rounding up). Maybe there just isn't actually all that much interest in a niche population that has no power?