General COVID-19 talk, NHL remains suspended MOD Warning post #1

[King'sPawn]

Being right about HFBoards being different than Twitter is one thing. The rest is a long way from being settled. As I said I find it very telling that the “government needs to get out of the way of the people” crowd is suddenly A-Ok with this bullshit because reasons.

Also “what Twitter did to trumps tweets”. Hmm...

“Social media should not fact check posts” says child molester Mark Zuckerberg

I was mostly chiming in regarding Section 230 and how Twitter can't be argued in the same way as public forums like HF.

Regarding Twitter fact-checking Trump, I feel Twitter fact-checking one side of the political spectrum while leveraging Section 230 is unfair. I'm not saying they SHOULDN'T, but it either needs to be even-handed or they lose some protection of tweets they fact check.

For example, if Trump tweeted "Drinking bleach will stop COVID." Twitter can fact-check and say "get the facts on bleach" and link to whatever information they want. Then when someone drinks bleach, Twitter can say "we're not liable since we're not the content creator."

It's dangerous.

I have no problem keeping fools in check, but (general) you can't have it both ways.

 

[KINGS17]

@KINGS17 is right about this. Twitter and social media have certain protections they are leveraging that HFBoards doesn't.

Trump's executive order was basically trying to re-define Section 230.

There is a lawyer who did two very good and informative videos discussing the draft of the order as well as the final copy, as well as the ramifications.

He does a good job keeping it neutral for the most part. Both videos take some time, but they are a must as far as translating legalese.





Long story short, there are valid reasons to question what Twitter did to Trump's tweets, even from a leftist point of view. The questions to ask are A) is the executive order the right platform to address it? and B) Is this particular executive order addressing the issue properly?

The executive order is kind of bogus. It's Trump's way of bringing attention to one of his issues. He is hoping for a lawsuit.

 

[KINGS17]

That's not entirely accurate, the bastardization of the news networks started with the annihilation of the fairness doctrine. Prior to that it was vital to present the facts and only the facts or balanced coverage from various viewpoints. Once that was gone, the networks were free to editorialize, entertain, and become full-on liberal/conservative networks, which is a protection of 1A rights but a clear devolution of the utility of the news networks. If anything, now they CAN edit and delete opinions with which they don't agree, ironically it was 'better' from an equal protection standpoint before, but higher regulated. Pick your poison, really.

There are a few conservative-focused social media alternatives but they don't do well, but unless the fairness doctrine returns in some form for social media, I don't think that expectation can be met.

To try to cycle this back to COVID-19--it sucks having bad data but it also sucks having that data get an editorial spin.

True, regarding the fairness doctrine. I thought that might be going a little too far back for some since it was 1987. I think the fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast news though. I think Reagan, or more likely his advisors, already felt there was too much opinion creeping into the broadcast news and the FCC at his direction obliterated the "fairness doctrine" in an attempt to balance the playing field. The thought was along the lines of "we are already getting left-slanted coverage from the network news, so let's get rid of this and someone will come along and create a network with right-slanted news."

Once the broadcast news started leaning further to the left (see Dan Rather as a prime example), conservatives started looking for another news outlet. Since people love confirmation bias, wallah Fox News was born. BTW, Roger Ailes was a media consultant to Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41. He knew what he was doing in 1987. Fox News was born less than 10 years later.

 

[KINGS17]

I was mostly chiming in regarding Section 230 and how Twitter can't be argued in the same way as public forums like HF.

Regarding Twitter fact-checking Trump, I feel Twitter fact-checking one side of the political spectrum while leveraging Section 230 is unfair. I'm not saying they SHOULDN'T, but it either needs to be even-handed or they lose some protection of tweets they fact check.

For example, if Trump tweeted "Drinking bleach will stop COVID." Twitter can fact-check and say "get the facts on bleach" and link to whatever information they want. Then when someone drinks bleach, Twitter can say "we're not liable since we're not the content creator."

It's dangerous.

I have no problem keeping fools in check, but (general) you can't have it both ways.

Generally, it's buyer beware when it comes to the internet. Everyone is responsible for their own fact checking. "Fact Checking" has become it's own cottage industry with plenty of bias.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

True, regarding the fairness doctrine. I thought that might be going a little too far back for some since it was 1987. I think the fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast news though. I think Reagan, or more likely his advisors, already felt there was too much opinion creeping into the broadcast news and the FCC at his direction obliterated the "fairness doctrine" in an attempt to balance the playing field. The thought was along the lines of "we are already getting left-slanted coverage from the network news, so let's get rid of this and someone will come along and create a network with right-slanted news."

Once the broadcast news started leaning further to the left (see Dan Rather as a prime example), conservatives started looking for another news outlet. Since people love confirmation bias, wallah Fox News was born. BTW, Roger Ailes was a media consultant to Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41. He knew what he was doing in 1987. Fox News was born less than 10 years later.

I didn't even think about that till you put it that way. Ouch

IIRC you're right, and this was a big talk radio time too.

I'm not going to go so far as say it's a bit of a catch 22, but it's really illustrative of the tightrope act responsible reporters have to walk and how ill-prepared everyone is to both report and receive. Fairness doctrine comes around--Cool, everything's fair and balanced, but oh, we're pushing the scales in one direction a bit, so is it really? Let's get rid of that line and 'free market' it. Now we're seeing the pendulum in the other direction and it's not really better, just different.

Generally, it's buyer beware when it comes to the internet. Everyone is responsible for their own fact checking. "Fact Checking" has become it's own cottage industry with plenty of bias.

And that's one of the Internet's biggest problems, not just Twitter/FB/etc. It's still largely an unregulated frontier with a lot of incredibly grey-area 1A dilemmas. I mean, if we can't even get it right over media that has production teams--like talk radio, TV news, print! media--how the heck are we going to get it appropriate when anyone can be a content creator without a producer/editor?

I don't think these things have clean answers, which is a positive and a negative. Everyone's got a megaphone for better or for worse. It's tough to watch some of these dumpster fires without regulation. But I don't think even the far sides of the left or the right would want a "fairness doctrine" sort of deal for, say, Twitter.

More than anything I wish there were a way for and a market for SOME channel to return to the era of "we're going to present both sides" but things are just so polarized I don't know how they'd pull it off without just drawing the ire of everyone, lol. But in an era when even the facts are questionable, ie Covid data, it's tough to calibrate where the common ground is.

 

[LA Kings Cup Champs]

No, he didn't.

Since you own property, I'd expect you to read not even the fine print...the very large print. They can't just up and decide "well f*** this landlord, I'm withholding rent for the next 18 months, yippee."

• "Nonpayment of rent, late charges, or any other fees. Landlords will not be able to evict a Tenant if the Tenant can show an inability to pay rent and/or related charges due to financial losses related to:
  • • A presumed or confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 or caring for a household or family member who is presumed or diagnosed with COVID-19;
    • Layoff, loss of hours, or other income reduction resulting from business closure or other economic or employer losses due to COVID-19;
    • Compliance with a recommendation from the County’s Health Officer to stay home, self-quarantine, or avoid congregation with others during the state of emergency;
    • Extraordinary out-of-pocket medical expenses related to diagnosis and testing for and/or treatment of COVID-19; or,
    • Child care needs arising from school closures related to COVID-19.
    • The state of emergency regarding COVID-19; or
    • Following government-recommended COVID-19 precautions.
  • A No Fault eviction reason, unless necessary for health or safety reasons
  • COVID-19 related violations for temporarily housing unauthorized occupants or pets or causing a nuisance."

Unless you're one of the severely overleveraged AirBnB scumbags I sincerely doubt that all your tenants suddenly have documented proof of an inability to pay rent due to COVID-19 for an entire year. And, if by some unfortunate coincidence they are, I would expect you as a landlord to exercise some sympathy AND this is the part where they would tell any good business owners to have some reserves for at least a few months worth of vacancy. If not, that's just bad business, not a rights infringement. And Re: rights--your tenants have rights too, especially in california--and that's where the conflict lies. your right to collect rent collides with their right to not have the rug pulled out from under them immediately following a force majeure loss of employment. Unless you forcibly had your eyes closed at the time, you may remember right when this hit and people started losing their jobs a lot of landlords were immediately filing evicition notices...I'm curious to know what your interpretation of rights for those tenants were? To me, their right to shelter in a crisis is an overriding factor, and if you're worried about your mortgage, every smart property owner I know that's run into payment issues is getting sympathy from their servicers to make payments on the back end of the mortgage instead of immediately. Yet, I know more than one landlord who is leveraging the forbearance yet still collecting rent, sadly. Again, this sounds like a conflict you have being unable to tell where "my" rights end and "others" rights begin. You've demonstrated a lot of that, especially in going out of your way to illustrate that "not harming others" is a responsibility rather than a right. Get out of here with that.

Now, I agree I'm not a big fan of "executive orders" and "emergency powers" so I think you DO have a legitimate gripe to a degree there, albeit a temporary one. But good luck with that lawsuit, I'm pretty confident they'll actually rule, ironically, in favor of your tenants' right to property over yours.

Perfectly stated!

 

[LA Kings Cup Champs]

While tear gassing those very same protesters, so he could go take a photo op in front of a church he hadn’t been to in over a year...

That said, no way civil war II, just Trumps usual bluster. He is probably dialing it up another notch, now that his bravado has been tarnished after it came out he ran to a bunker when a few protestors got within a few football fields of him.

While tear gassing those very same protesters, so he could go take a photo op in front of a church he hadn’t been to in over a year...

That said, no way civil war II, just Trumps usual bluster. He is probably dialing it up another notch, now that his bravado has been tarnished after it came out he ran to a bunker when a few protestors got within a few football fields of him.

What would constitute it being called a Civil War to you? You any of you?

There are many people out there that are trying to kill cops.

It is only a matter on time before the militia groups start showing up with their AK-47s. It that what it will take before you open your eyes to the fact that America 2.0 is over?
George Floyd protests: Rioters target police across US; 4 shot in St. Louis, 1 in Vegas, Bronx hit-and-run caught on video


George Floyd protests: Rioters target police across US; 4 shot in St. Louis, 1 in Vegas, Bronx hit-and-run caught on video

 

[KINGS17]

What would constitute it being called a Civil War to you? You any of you?

There are many people out there that are trying to kill cops.

It is only a matter on time before the militia groups start showing up with their AK-47s. It that what it will take before you open your eyes to the fact that America 2.0 is over?
George Floyd protests: Rioters target police across US; 4 shot in St. Louis, 1 in Vegas, Bronx hit-and-run caught on video


George Floyd protests: Rioters target police across US; 4 shot in St. Louis, 1 in Vegas, Bronx hit-and-run caught on video

I dunno, maybe if you type civil war in large bold caps?

 

[HeadInjury]

99% of Americans are at home watching this on TV, almost all shaking their heads in disgust.

This isn't a Civil War, but it shows that a small percentage of people can cause significant disruptions to everyday life.

 

[LA Kings Cup Champs]

99% of Americans are at home watching this on TV, almost all shaking their heads in disgust.

This isn't a Civil War, but it shows that a small percentage of people can cause significant disruptions to everyday life.

99% for now. But this will not stop until all of the scumbag police officers, correctional officers, lawyers and judges are removed from their posts and those that deserve it are charged and convicted of the crimes that they have committed. And that is going to take a LONG time. And with Trunk fueling the fire of more government control, which is what the people are protesting against, it looks to me that things are going to be much worse than they have to be. It maybe this is all necessary to bringing about the change that is needed in this country.

 

[tny760]

99% for now. But this will not stop until all of the scumbag police officers, correctional officers, lawyers and judges are removed from their posts and those that deserve it are charged and convicted of the crimes that they have committed. And that is going to take a LONG time. And with Trunk fueling the fire of more government control, which is what the people are protesting against, it looks to me that things are going to be much worse than they have to be. It maybe this is all necessary to bringing about the change that is needed in this country.

take a breath and go outside for a few minutes

 

[KINGS17]

99% for now. But this will not stop until all of the scumbag police officers, correctional officers, lawyers and judges are removed from their posts and those that deserve it are charged and convicted of the crimes that they have committed. And that is going to take a LONG time. And with Trunk fueling the fire of more government control, which is what the people are protesting against, it looks to me that things are going to be much worse than they have to be. It maybe this is all necessary to bringing about the change that is needed in this country.

I know this much; looting, destruction of private property, and anarchy are not the answer.

 

[LA Kings Cup Champs]

take a breath and go outside for a few minutes

I wonder why so many attack me when I ask a simple question!? It seems to be that you don’t want your mind to go there so you shut your mind off from it and attack me as some crazy person, instead. You are sounding a bit like Trump right now. I would ask you to either address the issue are just simply stay out of it.

Thanks

 

[tny760]

I wonder why so many attack me when I ask a simple question!? It seems to be that you don’t want your mind to go there so you shut your mind off from it and attack me as some crazy person, instead. You are sounding a bit like Trump right now. I would ask you to either address the issue are just simply stay out of it.

Thanks

just gotta breathe for a second man, look up and see that the sky is in fact, not falling. just like it wasn't falling last time. or the time before that. or the time before that.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I wouldn't call it a civil war but I would call it a new civil rights movement. Young people of all colors are sick of not having their voices heard and the frustration from everything including the virus is boiling over.

I know this much; looting, destruction of private property, and anarchy are not the answer.

I think most agree, but I think MLK JR said it best. We condemn riots, "But in the final analysis, a riot is a language of the unheard." That's a peaceful man who everyone reveres, but even he understands the why, without condoning it. That's a lesson. What happened when people in OC were upset at ongoing stay-at-home orders? Peaceful protest. It's not different, just escalated. And now everyone is paying attention, right? So what happens next matters.

 

[tny760]

and there go the goalposts

 

[KINGS17]

I wouldn't call it a civil war but I would call it a new civil rights movement. Young people of all colors are sick of not having their voices heard and the frustration from everything including the virus is boiling over.






I think most agree, but I think MLK JR said it best. We condemn riots, "But in the final analysis, a riot is a language of the unheard." That's a peaceful man who everyone reveres, but even he understands the why, without condoning it. That's a lesson. What happened when people in OC were upset at ongoing stay-at-home orders? Peaceful protest. It's not different, just escalated. And now everyone is paying attention, right? So what happens next matters.

Peaceful assembly is appropriate and is a right granted to every citizen in this country. Destruction of the private property of others, and violence perpetrated against private citizens who are protecting their property is not acceptable. We are seeing not just the destruction of private property, but in many cases the assault of people who own and are protecting their private property. Is it any wonder why some business owners stand on the roofs of their property with rifles in hand when the government to which they pay taxes will not or cannot protect it?

The escalation to rioting is different from a peaceful protest. The language of a riot will not be translated by many.

Yes, now every one is watching and what the majority probably want is to have the looters arrested and jailed. This isn't serving the cause of reducing police brutality, or getting justice for George Floyd.

 

[Master Yoda]

I wouldn't call it a civil war but I would call it a new civil rights movement. Young people of all colors are sick of not having their voices heard and the frustration from everything including the virus is boiling over.






I think most agree, but I think MLK JR said it best. We condemn riots, "But in the final analysis, a riot is a language of the unheard." That's a peaceful man who everyone reveres, but even he understands the why, without condoning it. That's a lesson. What happened when people in OC were upset at ongoing stay-at-home orders? Peaceful protest. It's not different, just escalated. And now everyone is paying attention, right? So what happens next matters.

I think peaceful protests are vastly different than riots. Riots aren't escalated protests.
Riots are a bunch of idiots thinking about themselves and themselves only without regard or respect of fellow man.

 

[Master Yoda]

Peaceful assembly is appropriate and is a right granted to every citizen in this country. Destruction of the private property of others, and violence perpetrated against private citizens who are protecting their property is not acceptable. We are seeing not just the destruction of private property, but in many cases the assault of people who own and are protecting their private property. Is it any wonder why some business owners stand on the roofs of their property with rifles in hand when the government to which they pay taxes will not or cannot protect it?

The escalation to rioting is different from a peaceful protest. The language of a riot will not be translated by many.

Yes, now every one is watching and what the majority probably want is to have the looters arrested and jailed. This isn't serving the cause of reducing police brutality, or getting justice for George Floyd.

Same thing happened during the LA riots.
These business owners risked their lives to protect what they worked all their lives for.
And those who didn't or don't, lose everything and have to start over.

 

[ibleedkings]

99% for now. But this will not stop until all of the scumbag police officers, correctional officers, lawyers and judges are removed from their posts and those that deserve it are charged and convicted of the crimes that they have committed. And that is going to take a LONG time. And with Trunk fueling the fire of more government control, which is what the people are protesting against, it looks to me that things are going to be much worse than they have to be. It maybe this is all necessary to bringing about the change that is needed in this country.

You can't make this stuff up!

 

[Lt Dan]

What would constitute it being called a Civil War to you? You any of you?

There are many people out there that are trying to kill cops.

It is only a matter on time before the militia groups start showing up with their AK-47s. It that what it will take before you open your eyes to the fact that America 2.0 is over?
George Floyd protests: Rioters target police across US; 4 shot in St. Louis, 1 in Vegas, Bronx hit-and-run caught on video


George Floyd protests: Rioters target police across US; 4 shot in St. Louis, 1 in Vegas, Bronx hit-and-run caught on video

There has been 1 civil war in American history it lasted from 1861-1865. As a student of history I can tell you with confidence that the only reason it lasted as long as it did was because the US did not have a standing military. there were some officers around from the war 15 years earlier, but most were from the south. The US at the time did not want or have a strong central government. There were not agencies like the NSA, FBI, or CIA in place.

The current US military has 1.3 million men and women ready to crush any insurrection


These civil flare ups have happened repeatedly through American history. They are very temporary, they are not anything close to a war and believe me when I tell you that little to nothing will actually change for the good


If this were actually a civil war the military would be mowing the protesters rebels down with M1 abrahams and attack helicopters and it would be over in a matter of minutes

Watch this

that is what would happen if an actual civil war started


I am guessing that you are in your late teens or early 20s and still live at home, that is pretty obvious. You have little to no understanding of history, human emotion and the ability to apply both to the current times. It's almost like this is a fantasy of yours and you are doing everything in your mind to make it possible.

Just so you know the following happens when these occur , it is almost like a script

1) peaceful protests start
2) a small percentage of the protesters, usually bored white kids who live at home, start violence and are able to incite a small portion of the peaceful crowd
3) professional thieves execute well organized hit and run looting operations while the cops are distracted


Don't believe me, google the 1992 LA riots and be sure to watch what happened when the National Guard and US military showed up. It was over quick. there was no revolution and once again, almost nothing changed for the good.

You know what did change? African American neighborhoods that were burned never recovered. The residents mostly moved to the Inland Empire or out of state and liquor licenses became much harder to obtain. That's it


and as far as the people with the AK-47s you mentioned. They would be shooting the looters and protesters, not overthrowing the government.

 

[Legionnaire]

The current US military has 1.3 million men and women ready to crush any insurrection


You mean like they've successfully done in places like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan?

 

[Lt Dan]

The current US military has 1.3 million men and women ready to crush any insurrection


You mean like they've successfully done in places like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan?

Apples and oranges. You are talking about an invading army on foreign soil who were being armed by other countries

but look at the kill ratios in those places. Vietnam was 20 to 1, in Iraq and Afghanistan an estimated 507,000 are dead compared to under 5000 Americans



and here comes the boom in NY.


The "Civil War" will be over soon

 

[Legionnaire]

Not apples and oranges at all. You're talking about soilders taking arms against citizens - their friends and family. It won't be 1.3 million for long.

 

[Lt Dan]

Not apples and oranges at all. You're talking about soilders taking arms against citizens - their friends and family. It won't be 1.3 million for long.

really? So why did 1992 end the way it did? and how successful was Tienanmen square?

Also the odds of these soldiers going up against their "friends and family" are close to zero. that was a pretty bad reach

Most military come from smaller towns and mostly red states. do you really think that any of them are going to have relatives or friends in NYC, LA, Minny, or Chicago? the odds are strongly against that


and yes it was apples and oranges

Vietnam- The US got in the middle of a (at that point) 20+year fight for independence against a largely organized army who was being supplied by the chinese and the Soviets with a badly devised plan to win the hearts and minds of the people rather than killing anyone who stood in their way

Afghanistan- the US invaded a country that no country has ever completely conquered fighting insurgents from surrounding countries who were also supplied munitions from other countries with a badly devised plan to win the hearts and minds of the people rather than killing anyone who stood in their way

Iraq-The US fighting insurgents from surrounding countries who were also supplied munitions from other countries with a badly devised plan to win the hearts and minds of the people rather than killing anyone who stood in their way

also remember- none of this took place on american soil. It has been proven time and time again that soliders fight better at home

A civil war or any uprising would be met with swift and painful response. It would be extremely short and painful for those that rose up. Who is going to supply them? Canada? Mexico?