4 ms·
I assume it means changing governance policies while letting them continue to make their own decisions within that framework.
by rogerkirkness 7mo ago
I assume it means changing governance policies while letting them continue to make their own decisions within that framework.
- halestock 7mo agoIt doesn’t.
- mpalmer 7mo ago[flagged]
- Waterluvian 7mo agoWhen it comes to “simplest and most likely explanation,” the bad faith assumption is now the leading choice with the current regime.
- kjksf 7mo ago[flagged]
- enoint 7mo agoThe GP comment mentions policy. I think you’re downvoted for trying to grow the scope to include all of Trump’s poems, homilies, and philosophical musings.
- terribleperson 7mo agoThis is pretty obviously one more step in an effort to make sure that all coverage of U.S. military actions is positive and under the control of the administration. It's also part of a more recent push to make sure that Iran war coverage is positive. See the head of the FCC threatening to revoke broadcast licenses over Iran war coverage.
- nutjob2 7mo agoAlthough you're being sarcastic, that is actually is a pretty fair description, on current evidence.
- mpalmer 7mo agoThis person's ridiculous comment is a fantastic example of bad faith. Whataboutism, putting words in my mouth, and a singularly irritating (willful?) ignorance of current events. The person who posted this is perhaps not already aware of: - The FCC chair Brandon Carr threatening broadcasters to cover the war correctly, or else lose their "license" - Federal judges repeatedly calling out the admin for ignoring court orders, bypassing regulation, and arbitrarily prosecuting political enemies (Jerome Powell being only the latest failed attempt) - Hegseth saying he can't wait for David Ellison to take over CNN so the coverage improves If they were aware of these things, I would expect them to recognize a LITTLE significance in the removal of a commitment to 1A principles from a publication owned by the government.
- lovich 7mo agoThey’re aware but it won’t matter. For all their accusations of TDS everyone on this forum can clearly see how deranged they are. It’s a cult and you’re seeing the adherents act like cultists here.
- mpalmer 7mo agoIndeed. I was trying set an example of what good faith looks like, but not for their benefit.
- e584 7mo ago[dead]
- estearum 7mo agoAloofness is not the intellectual asset that you think it is
- roysting 7mo agoPrecisely. It’s the same methodology used to suppress speech and thought through social media where the terms of service and social media guidelines are used to create a micromanaged framework of approved speech and thought that just happens to align with what one particulate group or another controls. The next layer of this control harness is to neutralize the Constitution in America that protects inalienable rights, is the “freedoms of speech (within paternalistic approved boundaries), but not freedom of reach” mentality of, “sure, say all you want, but you won’t even be allowed or able to see that we put you in a digital speech dungeon.” We are essentially allowing and creating an analog to the very sadistic and evil conditions imposed by the ruling aristocratic class of the past and the hidden hand that ruled your life as non-nobility. You get thrown in digital dungeons with no recourse or rights. You are beaten and abused for you thought and speech. You have no right or ability to defend yourself from the torments and abuses of the ruling psychopaths, etc. That is why freedom of speech is so important, because the sick and depraved ruling class people cannot stand even the ability of people to talk about the abuses they perpetrate against them. It’s typical abusive patterns of truly awful people that are the enemies of all of the rest of humanity.
- philistine 7mo agoYour point of view is nonsensical. Where do you believe that you are entitled to a platform? Can you force a publisher to publish your book?