Stephen Hicks, Douglas Murray and The Madness of Crowds

Canadian libertarian philosopher Dr. Stephen Hicks is coming to Melbourne in March to offer some signposts in the mysterious cultural landscape of current-day political correctness and postmodernism. He will address options and strategies moving forward.

There is a special 20% discount for all events until Australia Day for Catallaxy members. Code: nomopomo

This is it!  All events are in intimate venues. Remember your  20% Catallaxy member discount code: nomopomo

The website of Stephen Hicks. He has an incredibly wide range of cultural, philosophical and economic interests, so check it out!

Just ordered, Douglas Murray’s The Madness of Crowds.  The blurb…

Douglas Murray fights the good fight for freedom of speech . ‘A truthful look at today’s most divisive issues’ – Jordan B. Peterson'[Murray’s] latest book is beyond brilliant and should be read, must be read, by everyone’ – Richard Dawkins. In his devastating new book The Madness of Crowds, Douglas Murray examines the twenty-first century’s most divisive issues: sexuality, gender, technology and race. He reveals the astonishing new culture wars playing out in our workplaces, universities, schools and homes in the names of social justice, identity politics and ‘intersectionality’.We are living through a postmodern era in which the grand narratives of religion and political ideology have collapsed. In their place have emerged a crusading desire to right perceived wrongs and a weaponization of identity, both accelerated by the new forms of social and news media. Narrow sets of interests now dominate the agenda as society becomes more and more tribal – and, as Murray shows, the casualties are mounting. Readers of all political persuasions cannot afford to ignore Murray’s masterfully argued and fiercely provocative book, in which he seeks to inject some sense into the discussion around this generation’s most complicated issues. He ends with an impassioned call for free speech, shared common values and sanity in an age of mass hysteria.

This entry was posted in civil society, Politics of the Left, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to Stephen Hicks, Douglas Murray and The Madness of Crowds

  1. Bruce of Newcastle

    In his devastating new book The Madness of Crowds, Douglas Murray examines the twenty-first century’s most divisive issues: sexuality, gender, technology and race.

    Any surprise that the same people who are pushing this crud are also pushing the climate scam?

    And I disagree that “the grand narratives of religion and political ideology have collapsed”. They have been subverted, by enemy action. There’s a new kid on the block called the green-progressive religion and it is totalitarian and intolerant of rivals.

  2. Rob MW

    “………in which he seeks to inject some sense into the discussion around this generation’s most complicated issues.”

    A total waste of time. For the most part, this generation have been educated to be trapped in a manufactured psychosis from which there is no peer reviewed escape. They are; as mad as cut snakes.

  3. Nighthawk the Elder

    Douglas Murray’s gonna need a new chapter on the current bushfire emergency and international level of vitriol by retarded Swedish high school drop outs, pedo protecting celebs and now pommy weather girls.

    He might have to re-title the book the Insanity of Crowds.

  4. Iampeter

    …offer some signposts in the mysterious cultural landscape of current-day political correctness and postmodernism. He will address options and strategies moving forward.

    I highly doubt it.

    Douglas Murray fights the good fight for freedom of speech .

    Pretty sure he thinks tech companies should be forced to host content they don’t want to. Like most conservatives today, he doesn’t even understand what “free speech” is and advocates for censorship without even realizing it.

  5. Tim Neilson

    In order to save time responding to Iamashiteater’s falsehoods on this issue, it’s time for another round of Iamashiteater Bullshit Bingo (Internet Companies version).
    The modus operandi is as follows:
    1. Iamashiteater usually starts by strutting on to the site and denouncing other people as “confused”, not knowing about politics etc., and proclaiming that conservatives are collectivists, leftists etc.
    2. At any point in proceedings, Iamashiteater, having started with 1., may dissolve into self pity when someone is discourteous to him.
    3. At any point, Iamashiteater may totally falsely claim that no-one has refuted his previous bullshit (or that his previous bullshit has been misrepresented), even if disproof of his claim is only a few comments back on the current thread.
    4. Specifically as regards the tech giants, Iamashiteater will falsely accuse other commenters of wanting the tech giants to be regulated like common carriers.
    5. When it is pointed out that 4 is a total lie, and that commenters are advocating precisely that tech giants NOT be treated like common carriers, especially re common carrier exemptions from defamation etc. Iamashiteater will sneeringly demand “what exemptions?” and deny that such exemptions exist.
    6. Iamashiteater is then referred to section 230 in the USA and the subordinate distributor exemptions in Australia’s uniform defamation law. Iamashiteater then dismisses those as ‘redundant”.
    7. It is then pointed out to Iamashiteater that by dismissing those as “redundant” he is declaring himself to know more about defamation law than:
    (a) the Attorneys-General, AG Departments, Parliamentary Counsel, law reform agencies, legal academics, defamation practitioners and others who took part in the defamation law reforms in Australia; and
    (b) their equivalents in the USA.
    Iamashiteater denies that that’s implicit in his claim, but gives zero justification as to how his denial can possibly be true – just retreating to unsubstantiated generalities, and protestations about how of course he’d support tech giants not getting special exemptions etc if there were any (essentially circling back to 6).
    8. Iamashiteater is asked point blank to state whether section 230 and the subordinate distributor exemptions are:
    (a) redundant – see point 7; or
    (b) not redundant – see point 5.
    Iamashiteater describes the question as a “false alternative”, throws an embarrassingly hysterical toddler tantrum and starts repeating 1 and 2.
    So, instead of wasting our time with Iamashiteater’s cycle of conceit, ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty on this issue, when he posts any of his fatuitous rubbish we can just respond by identifying the particular bullshit in that comment with the appropriate number from the list above.

  6. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3284602, posted on January 7, 2020 at 1:06 pm

    Why would he do that? People on this site don’t advocate for tech co’s to be forced to host content – they just argue that tech co’s should e.g. be treated for defamation law purposes the same as anyone else, i.e. not have specific statutory exemption.

  7. Iampeter

    Trapped by what? The ravings of a sperg?

    You fools LITERALLY have censorship and free speech backwards. You’re not trapping anyone.

  8. Iampeter

    Why would he do that? People on this site don’t advocate for tech co’s to be forced to host content – they just argue that tech co’s should e.g. be treated for defamation law purposes the same as anyone else, i.e. not have specific statutory exemption.

    So you don’t want laws that will allow tech companies to be sued for things they aren’t liable for, falsely equating them with publishers, which they are not?
    You don’t want them regulated under common carrier type laws?

    Get outta of here with this clueless and dishonest gibberish.

  9. Iampeter

    Also, you supported the right of RA to fire Folau?
    You support the right of James Cook Uni firing Peter Ridd?

    There’s not a SINGLE issue on which you dumbo’s have picked the right wing side. Or the free speech side.
    Not one. Not even by accident.
    You are advocates of censorship who don’t know what they’re talking about and nothing more.

    The very worst and most clueless of leftists.

  10. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3284710, posted on January 7, 2020 at 2:46 pm

    5

  11. Tim Neilson

    Fencesitter
    #3284705, posted on January 7, 2020 at 2:42 pm

    Good call.

    For present purposes, think of it as a variant of 3, Iamashiteater denying that his bullshit has been refuted.

    I’ll make sure I cover it when I do the generic Iamashiteater Bullshit Bingo card.

  12. Iampeter

    Only at the Cat is total ignorance and lack of arguments considered triumphant arguments. Beclownment is a virtue to you guys.

    Don’t let me get in the way.

    You’re totally winning…

  13. Chris M

    …and now pommy weather girls.

    Indeed, a doofus carping pom. Only trust the Colombian ones.

  14. Iampeter

    Iampeter
    #3284710, posted on January 7, 2020 at 2:46 pm

    5

    Wait…you still haven’t figured out what common carrier laws are and that there are no exceptions for tech companies?
    Oh my god…

  15. Bronson

    Whoa Tim you’ve trigger the boy big time! You can just about see the bile and vitriol dripping from the key keyboard not to mention the sputem fleck screen.

  16. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3284775, posted on January 7, 2020 at 3:36 pm

    5

    Also 3, given that 6 is actually listed above and spells out the answer to 5.

    You’re not even trying Iamashiteater.

  17. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3284766, posted on January 7, 2020 at 3:31 pm

    1

  18. Tim Neilson

    Bronson
    #3284791, posted on January 7, 2020 at 3:53 pm

    I was about to reply that this is actually pretty normal for Iamashiteater.

    But then I realised that you’re still correct.

  19. Iampeter

    5

    Also 3, given that 6 is actually listed above and spells out the answer to 5.

    It doesn’t answer anything. You’re just making assertions because you don’t understand what you’re talking about and then claiming victory.

    There are no exemptions for tech companies. You couldn’t sue them for things they aren’t liable for anyway.

    This has been thoroughly explained to you in numerous threads, but you’ve ignored it and keep re-posting the same nonsense.

    Not that something so obvious should need any explanation…

  20. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3284803, posted on January 7, 2020 at 4:02 pm

    5 and 3 again.

    It’s all set out above.

  21. Iampeter

    All that you’ve “set out” is proof of my very first post in this thread.

    And you won’t be told otherwise.

  22. Herodotus

    Sinc, commenters like iamdicpentupmeter are just thread despoilers. You own them all. Be proud.

  23. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3284846, posted on January 7, 2020 at 4:35 pm

    1, 3 and 5 in a short comment (albeit partly by cross reference).

    I can understand why Iamashiteater doesn’t want to address 6, 7 and 8 on the Iamashiteater Bullshit Bingo card because they totally and incontrovertibly disprove his bullshit.

    But, given that they’re set out in this thread, his mindless repetition of the preceding elements of his bullshit merely causes his self-humiliation to descend to the nadir of abjectness.

    He really ought to get off this site and do something less abjectly humiliating than posting his drivel, like, say, repeatedly soiling his own trousers in public.

  24. Plodes won’t talk about how payment processors ARE regulated and this is how competition in the space is shut up.

    There are alternatives though. Brave. Proton Mail. BTC. Coin Jar. etc.

    So in both points, we (err, the US) need(s) MORE DEREGULATION.

  25. mareeS

    Our kids missed the mass indoctrination by about 5 years, now in their middle 30s with sensible parents and no idiot spouses.

    You don’t know how happy we are that they think and read for themselves, instead of being instructed by someone on high.

    Needless to say they rejected university and went for the real world, very successfully while that option was available.

  26. Iampeter

    Sinc, commenters like iamdicpentupmeter are just thread despoilers. You own them all. Be proud.

    I didn’t despoil any thread. Tim is the one who has derailed this thread with his nonsense, which he copy pastes in every thread.
    You clearly don’t have an issue with threads being derailed, you just have no counter arguments to me pointing out you are a clueless leftist.

    can understand why Iamashiteater doesn’t want to address 6, 7 and 8 on the Iamashiteater Bullshit Bingo card because they totally and incontrovertibly disprove his bullshit.

    Tim, it’s real simple buddy. If you don’t want tech companies to be regulated, like the clueless leftist that you are, then you’d be arguing against conservatives that are calling for this directly (e.g. regulate them like utilities) or indirectly (e.g. treat them like publishers).
    But you aren’t in disagreement with either of these positions. You’re only disagreeing with me.

    But, given that they’re set out in this thread, his mindless repetition of the preceding elements of his bullshit merely causes his self-humiliation to descend to the nadir of abjectness.

    This is a description of what you’re doing, not me.

    He really ought to get off this site and do something less abjectly humiliating than posting his drivel, like, say, repeatedly soiling his own trousers in public.

    I’m not the politically illiterate leftist on what’s meant to be a right wing blog. Derp. Take your own advice you clown.

  27. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3284917, posted on January 7, 2020 at 5:36 pm

    1, 3 and 4.

  28. Iampeter

    Tim, “mindless repetition of the preceding elements of his bullshit merely causes his self-humiliation to descend to the nadir of abjectness.”

  29. MACK

    Just finished reading the Madness of Crowds. Murray is widely read, well informed on both sides of the Atlantic and puts highly rational and articulate arguments, with plenty of specific examples of the madness of modern political correctness. Recommended.
    I’m about to read his “The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam”

  30. mareeS

    Sadness of crowds sums it up. This is where we are.

  31. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3284935, posted on January 7, 2020 at 5:52 pm

    Poor old Iamashiteater.

    If your comments didn’t just mindlessly repeat your own bullshit then the logical response to your comments wouldn’t be repetitive.

    Go on – break out of the cycle of repetitiveness by giving a specific answer to points 6, 7 and 8 above that doesn’t fall squarely within the Iamashiteater Bullshit Bingo card.

  32. MatrixTransform

    Tim Neilson, I want your babies.

    …funniest thing I’ve seen for weeks

  33. MatrixTransform

    imprimatur … best spazz chuck evah

    lol

  34. Iampeter

    If your comments didn’t just mindlessly repeat your own bullshit then the logical response to your comments wouldn’t be repetitive.

    Your points 6,7 and 8 were answered in post #3284803: “There are no exemptions for tech companies. You couldn’t sue them for things they aren’t liable for anyway.”

    So, if section 230 in the United States were repealed tomorrow it would change absolutely nothing.
    This has also been explained in numerous other threads too, yet you keep asking me to repeat this point you refuse to accept, while at the same time whining about me repeating myself.

    In the end, it’s not clear what you’re even arguing about. If you didn’t want to regulate tech, if you actually supported free speech and capitalism, you’d be agreeing with me on all the issues from tech to Folau. But you vehemously disagree.

    Your issue is that I’m pointing out what a politically illiterate leftist you and many here are. Beclowning yourselves on a right wing blog.

  35. Tim Neilson

    Your points 6,7 and 8 were answered in post #3284803: “There are no exemptions for tech companies.

    5

    You couldn’t sue them for things they aren’t liable for anyway.” So, if section 230 in the United States were repealed tomorrow it would change absolutely nothing.
    This has also been explained in numerous other threads too, yet you keep asking me to repeat this point you refuse to accept, while at the same time whining about me repeating myself.

    OK, so your answer to 8 is that they’re redundant, which gets us back to point 7…

    In the end, it’s not clear what you’re even arguing about. If you didn’t want to regulate tech, if you actually supported free speech and capitalism, you’d be agreeing with me on all the issues from tech to Folau. But you vehemously disagree.

    4

    Your issue is that I’m pointing out what a politically illiterate leftist you and many here are. Beclowning yourselves on a right wing blog.

    1

  36. Tim Neilson

    PS

    This has also been explained in numerous other threads too

    No it hasn’t. It has been asserted (though you’ve previously gutlessed off when point 7 is raised), but there’s never been one iota of evidence led to support the assertion and it’s never been “explained” how the assertion can be true in the light of point 7.

  37. Tim Neilson

    MatrixTransform
    #3285021, posted on January 7, 2020 at 7:11 pm

    Glad you like it. It’s the only way to cope with Iamashiteater – combine the refutation with the ridicule he deserves.

  38. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Perfesser Davidson, is there any logical reason for allowing this monumental imbecility?

    My scroll wheel is nearly dead.

    I don’t frequent this blog to put up with such idiocy.

    Enough.

    P.S. Thanks, TN – you have infinitely more patience than I do.

  39. Iampeter

    OK, so your answer to 8 is that they’re redundant, which gets us back to point 7…

    It doesn’t get us back to anything other than your points have been addressed and you’re refusing to accept that, nor have any other points to make. Not that any other points can be made. This isn’t complicated.

    Your issue is that I’m pointing out what a politically illiterate leftist you and many here are. Beclowning yourselves on a right wing blog.
    1

    You don’t need to keep pointing this out like an autist. We agree on this point. You and many here are clueless leftists. Me pointing this out triggers you, which is understandable.

    No it hasn’t. It has been asserted

    No, the one making assertions is you. I’m explaining why they’re wrong.

    I’ve found this post which pretty much covers your goalpost moving on this issue to date:

    Firstly, you didn’t know that only the government can censor and embarrassingly suggested tech companies were censoring conservatives, echoing most of the politically illiterate discourse on this subject.
    Once that was pointed out you dropped it and moved onto suggesting tech companies should be treated like common carriers. To which I pointed out that it means you want them regulated like utilities, which is a completely left wing position.
    So you dropped that and moved onto the publisher talking point. Tech companies are picking and choosing who they host so they are publishers. I pointed out that logic makes EVERYONE a publisher and everyone liable. By that logic you could hold the guy who makes the concrete for the data center, hosting Facebook, liable for a comment on Facebook, if that guy picks and chooses customers. In other words, it’s about who has liability not who is a “publisher.” The publisher talking point is hopeless nonsense.
    You then dropped the “publisher” talking point and have now taken up “liability,” as if that was your point all along, with no actual point that I can work out.

    Now we can add the additional shifting of the goalposts to arguing that you want tech companies to not have exemptions. But they don’t have any exemptions, as has been explained and as you refuse to accept because you don’t really have anywhere else to go at this point. This nonsense is all you have left to cling to in order to support regulating tech without having to admit you want to regulate tech.

    Just concede you’re a clueless, censorious leftist and that you want tech regulated because you disagree with them politically . If this wasn’t the case, you’d have nothing to argue with me about.

  40. MatrixTransform

    tee heee .. the gift that keeps on giving

  41. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3285066, posted on January 7, 2020 at 7:44 pm

    It doesn’t get us back to anything other than your points have been addressed and you’re refusing to accept that, nor have any other points to make. Not that any other points can be made. This isn’t complicated.

    3

    No, the one making assertions is you. I’m explaining why they’re wrong.

    3

    Now we can add the additional shifting of the goalposts to arguing that you want tech companies to not have exemptions. But they don’t have any exemptions, as has been explained and as you refuse to accept because you don’t really have anywhere else to go at this point.

    5 [see 6, 7 and 8 as well]

    This nonsense is all you have left to cling to in order to support regulating tech without having to admit you want to regulate tech.

    4

    Just concede you’re a clueless, censorious leftist and that you want tech regulated because you disagree with them politically . If this wasn’t the case, you’d have nothing to argue with me about.

    1 and 4

    Re the rest of it, I’m shocked, shocked! that you didn’t post the response.

    Firstly, you didn’t know that only the government can censor and embarrassingly suggested tech companies were censoring conservatives, echoing most of the politically illiterate discourse on this subject.

    Wrong. I think the example I asked you was whether you’d deny that a private school might “censor” material written by its students, and you gutlessed off from replying.

    Once that was pointed out you dropped it and moved onto suggesting tech companies should be treated like common carriers.

    Totally the opposite. I said they were claiming “common carrier” type status in respect of liability and that they shouldn’t be allowed that if they exercised control over content.

    So you dropped that and moved onto the publisher talking point. Tech companies are picking and choosing who they host so they are publishers. I pointed out that logic makes EVERYONE a publisher and everyone liable.

    Which I pointed out was total bullshit – only those who exercise control over the content should be treated the same as a publisher. Not a concreter or whatever.

    You then dropped the “publisher” talking point and have now taken up “liability,” as if that was your point all along,…

    …because it always has been. Right from the start I’ve said only that tech co’s ought to be made to choose between “common carrier” type immunities and their current non-common carrier type activities, but shouldn’t have the immunity if they insist on conducting the activities.

    with no actual point that I can work out.

    Well, that’s clearly true.

  42. Iampeter

    Tim, you’ve said tech companies have exemptions under common carrier laws. You’ve not named any.
    I’ve pointed out the (obvious) fact that they have no such exemptions. If section 230 and all common carrier laws are repealed, you still wouldn’t be able to sue them for things they aren’t liable for. Just like now.
    QED.
    Instead of conceding, you’ve then tried to argue your point 7, that I must believe I know more than Head Lawyer Super Smart Guy. That’s just an appeal to authority, not an argument.
    There’s nothing else to discuss on the point of “exemptions” for tech companies other than there are none from common carrier laws and you are wrong.
    What makes your beclownment even more hilarious is that I oppose common carrier laws and things like section 230 anyway.

    And what makes it EVEN MORE hilarious, is that is all designed to evade the fact that most conservatives have openly called for tech to be regulated like utilities (e.g. National Review), or have engaged in frivolous leftist lawsuits, claiming they are being censored (e.g. Dennis Prager).
    These are not some alt-right, Nick F spergs, these are pretty mainstream.

    Any advocates of free speech and property rights and capitalism and actual right wingers, would be outraged by this. But none of you are.

    What you’re actually outraged by is being called out as the clueless, censorious leftists that you are.

  43. MatrixTransform

    yr on a roll Imprimatur …

  44. Megan

    Great work, Tim. I bow down to your brilliance. I’ve been laughing out loud for the last ten minutes.

    Reduced to the spluttering idiocy of “But, but, but….” only using 5000 words when the aforementioned three convey the complete picture!

  45. Iampeter

    I’m just arguing for free speech, capitalism, you know, right wing politics 101.
    Strange that LITERALLY all of you oppose me. On a right wing blog. On a thread promoting speakers who among other things will be discussing free speech.

    There really is no cognitive dissonance, no depth of stupidity, no lack of self awareness, then what can be found at the Cat. There are no words really. Professional writers couldn’t come up with this.

    This is why I love it. There’s nothing like this on the internet.

  46. jupes

    Strange that LITERALLY all of you oppose me. On a right wing blog.

    Read that again and maybe, just maybe, the penny will drop.

  47. Iampeter

    Strange that LITERALLY all of you oppose me. On a right wing blog.

    Read that again and maybe, just maybe, the penny will drop.

    *facepalm* Like I said. No words.

  48. MatrixTransform

    Like I said. No words.

    if only …

  49. Megan

    Always arguing that he’s the only one in step in the battalion. Will never, ever, work it out.

  50. Iampeter

    Always arguing that he’s the only one in step in the battalion. Will never, ever, work it out.

    I’m not arguing this. It is what it is.

    None of you are supporters of capitalism, free speech, etc and none of you are right wing. None of you really know anything about politics, which is why you resort to sneering condescension, as you’ve done here Megan. You’re an embarrassment.
    If this was wrong, you ALL wouldn’t be arguing against me, as I advocate for capitalism, free speech, etc, on what is meant to be a right wing blog.
    This is fine of course. But none of you seem to have the “penny drop” regarding that this means you are leftists.

    Until you figure this out there’s really nothing to discuss.

  51. Tim Neilson

    Tim, you’ve said tech companies have exemptions under common carrier laws. You’ve not named any.
    I’ve pointed out the (obvious) fact that they have no such exemptions. If section 230 and all common carrier laws are repealed, you still wouldn’t be able to sue them for things they aren’t liable for. Just like now.

    6

    Poor old Iamashiteater, contradicting himself in one single short paragraph.

    Section 230 and the subordinate distributor exemptions exist – so Iamashiteater’s assertions that they don’t are demonstrably false on his own admission that s.230 exists.
    Asserting that they are superfluous invites the question why they are there.
    As a matter of simple logic either Iamashiteater knows more about defamation law than everyone involved in their introduction, or Iamashiteater is wrong that they’re superfluous.
    And thread after thread Iamashiteater fails to cite any evidence that they are superfluous – he just repeats his baseless assertion that they’re superfluous.
    If they are superfluous Iamashiteater should be able to cite a decision of a superior Court in a common law jurisdiction validating his assertion, or some other evidence (apart from his own mere assertion) supporting that claim.
    But he can’t.
    Because there is none.
    Quite the contrary – the Explanatory Memorandum for the subordinate distributor exemptions admits that there isn’t.
    I think we’ve had quite enough evidence of the falsity of Iamashiteater’s assertions for one thread, unless he can cite some evidence, apart from his mere assertions.

  52. Up The Workers!

    Will Fatty A. be there to meet him on behalf of Dodgy Dan and “da fugs”, with a $50,000.00 “Conservative Fine”?

    Maybe they can “Carl Beech” him into prison.

    It sure worked with George Pell.

  53. Iampeter

    Section 230 and the subordinate distributor exemptions exist – so Iamashiteater’s assertions that they don’t are demonstrably false on his own admission that s.230 exists.

    There are no exemptions. If there was, you would’ve named what they are by now.
    I’ve explained what you have confused about these laws repeatedly.
    In any case, even if there were exemptions, I would agree that they need to be removed. So there’s nothing to argue about.
    This entire effort on your part is because you want to regulate tech, without having to admit you want to regulate tech.
    It’s about evading the fact that many conservatives OPENLY call for tech to be regulate, like any leftists.
    It’s about evading the fact that many conservatives don’t even understanding concepts like free speech and actually advocate censorship.
    Same goes for everyone here who has failed to actually support any pro free speech, pro property rights or pro deregulation position.

    Can’t imagine why free speech speakers would be advertised here. Especially someone like Douglas Murray who also doesn’t understand these concepts and has failed to stand up for tech companies.

  54. It’s about evading the fact that many conservatives OPENLY call for tech to be regulate, like any leftists.

    Then write an article about that and send it to Sinclair.

    The way around things like Google’s bias is to deregulate the payment processing industry, because payment processing is the keystone to deplatforming people.

    We’ve also got to remember that the government regulated to stop Microsoft from offering a free alternative to Netscape.

    What is needed in the front end and back end (particularly payment processing) is MORE DEREGULATAION.

  55. Rafe Champion

    How many times does it have to be said?
    Don’t feed trolls.

  56. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3285495, posted on January 8, 2020 at 7:34 am

    1, 3, 4 and 5

  57. Tim Neilson

    How many times does it have to be said?
    Don’t feed trolls.

    But I’m having such fun!

  58. Rafe

    Payment processors as a means to stifle dissent is a worthy discussion topic, as is the discussion of how markets evolve to create alternatives, and why anti trust stops this dynamic process.

    The regulation and control of payment processing ahs even been used to shut up the porn industry.

    They won’t even touch “free speech platforms”.

    The regulation and expertise is what stopped Peterson and Dave Rubin from starting their own processor and thus free speech platform.

  59. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3285201, posted on January 7, 2020 at 9:19 pm

    PS I almost forgot…

    That’s just an appeal to authority, not an argument.

    When asserting a proposition of law, what evidence would you suggest be led other than “authority” i.e. legislation (e.g. s.230, the subordinate distributor exemptions), extrinsic materials (e.g. the Explanatory Memorandum to the subordinate distributor exemptions) and case law (if applicable)?

    That’s why your claims 5 and 6 above are so incontrovertibly false.

    You can’t cite any authority for them, and you just lie through your teeth to deny the existence of the clear authority against them.

    It’s no good proclaiming “I am the mighty Iamashiteater, greatest genius in the known universe, and I decree that [insert 5 and 6 claims here]”.

    You have to start with authority and then apply legal reasoning to it.

    But since you’ve got no authority all you can do is lie and bloviate, and revert incessantly to your claim 3.

  60. Iampeter

    Iampeter
    #3285495, posted on January 8, 2020 at 7:34 am

    1, 3, 4 and 5

    Yea I know what I’ve said and you know you have no counter to it. You don’t need to keep repeating what I’m saying. Everyone can read.

    How many times does it have to be said?
    Don’t feed trolls.

    If you think I’m trolling I can’t imagine what you’re doing blogging about politics on what’s meant to be a right wing blog. But I shouldn’t be surprised at this comment from someone who has spent all of 2019 advocating leftist and censorious positions on every issue and demonstrating no understanding of what free speech even means.
    You’re basically a much more confused and dishonest version of someone like Monty.

    That’s why your claims 5 and 6 above are so incontrovertibly false.

    If they were incontrovertibly false, you’d just give an example of an exemption. But you have not done so. You just don’t know what common carrier laws do.

    But like I said, I wouldn’t support any exemptions anyway so this entire effort on your part is a waste of time. There’s nothing to argue with me about there, other than you doubling down on your random tangent which doesn’t change anything about my actual point and you’ve gotten the tangent wrong anyway. Classic cat thread.
    As I said, this is just an exercise in evasion of the fact you’re a clueless leftist and so is the conservative movement. You have no business discussing free speech, which none of you understand and obviously don’t support.

    We’re just going in circles. You agree with everything I’ve said and just keep describing it back to me all thread. Not arguing against anything except right wing positions.

  61. Let’s talk about over regulation re: payment processors and anti trust and stop LARPing.

  62. Tim Neilson

    If they were incontrovertibly false, you’d just give an example of an exemption. But you have not done so.

    3 and 5

    See 6

  63. Tim Neilson

    Iamashiteater analysis:

    “Section 230 doesn’t exist!”

    later…

    “OK it exists but it’s redundant.”

    After being referred to point 7….

    “I’ve changed my mind – I’m reverting to claiming it doesn’t exist.”

  64. Iampeter

    3 and 5

    See 6

    Yea I know. You can’t actually give an example. Why are you repeating what I’m saying back at me?
    But again, I’d oppose any exemptions anyway, so what’s your point?

    “Section 230 doesn’t exist!”

    later…

    I never said S230 doesn’t exist, just that it doesn’t do what you think it does.
    Again, what’s the point you’re trying to make?

    At no point have you (or anyone here) argued in favor of free speech or capitalism or property rights. Just arguing against me for advocating these positions and pointing out that conservatives oppose them.

  65. mh

    Excellent skewering of Iampeter, Tim!

  66. Iampeter

    Yea I am defeat!
    The only guy in a thread about free speech, advocating free speech has been skewered!

    Another example of needing a penny to drop…

  67. Iampeter

    So Tim, in this thread you’ve repeatedly brought up the random point that you believe tech companies have “exemptions” resulting from regulations like section 230. It’s not clear why you bring this up in the first place because even if it was correct, it wouldn’t do anything to disprove my point that conservatives are a bunch of clueless, censorious leftists, that want to regulate tech.
    In any case, you have repeatedly being unable to provide an example of such an exemption. I think you believe something will change legally if section 230 is repealed, but as has been explained repeatedly, you still won’t be able to sue tech for things they aren’t liable for. Which means literally nothing will change.
    I’m sure you’ll be clarifying this when you have a chance to respond.

    Then once you’ve clarified that, and since I agree that any exemptions you’ll provide examples of should be repealed anyway, meaning there’s nothing to argue with me about re this point, you’ll then easily clarify what it is you’re actually arguing with me about.
    All thread. And all other numerous threads where you’ve been repeating these same points over and over.

    I mean, it’s not like you and the people supporting you here have spent all thread unable to answer a single question, nor actually explain your own point of view in any way shape or form.

    You’d be the biggest and most unaware clowns, scoring own-goals, on the whole internet.

  68. Tim Neilson

    So Tim, in this thread you’ve repeatedly brought up the random point that you believe tech companies have “exemptions” resulting from regulations like section 230.

    5

    even if it was correct,

    It is – s.230 and the subordinate distributor exemptions.

    it wouldn’t do anything to disprove my point that conservatives are a bunch of clueless, censorious leftists, that want to regulate tech.

    1 and4

    In any case, you have repeatedly being unable to provide an example of such an exemption.

    3 – see above

    I think you believe something will change legally if section 230 is repealed, but as has been explained repeatedly, you still won’t be able to sue tech for things they aren’t liable for.

    6

    You have never “explained” any such thing – you’ve just made the unsubstantiated assertion and gutlessed out whenever you’re asked for evidence that the repeal wouldn’t make tech co’s potentially liable.
    Shrieking “I am the mighty Iamashiteater, the greatest genius in the known universe, and I decree [insert proposition 6]” is not evidence, and the Explanatory Memorandum to the subordinate distributors exemption is strong evidence that you’re wrong. You’ve got nothing.

    you’ll then easily clarify what it is you’re actually arguing with me about.

    See points 3 to 8.

    The rest – 1 and 2.

  69. Iampeter

    It is – s.230 and the subordinate distributor exemptions.

    What’s the exemption you nitwit? What could you do if 230 wasn’t there that you can’t do now?
    What don’t you understand about this question?

    You have never “explained” any such thing

    I’ve stated that you can’t sue tech companies for things they aren’t liable for. Just like anyone.
    Section 230 doesn’t change this.
    What part of this don’t you understand or think is incorrect?

    you’ll then easily clarify what it is you’re actually arguing with me about.
    See points 3 to 8.

    How do points 3 to 8 change the fact that conservatives are politically illiterate leftists, calling for censorship without even realizing it. Calling for tech companies to be regulated, suing YouTube to force them to bake a cake, etc?

    What’s your argument that addresses this point?
    How is the point of conservatives being clueless leftists addressed by tech companies having any exemptions (which you can’t provide an example of)?

  70. Iampeter

    The rest – 1 and 2.

    I don’t understand this response. The fact that you are clueless leftists is what I’m saying.
    Why are you just repeating it back to me? Is repeating it back to me supposed to be refuting this point?

    You’re a pretty serious spastic aren’t you?

  71. Tim Neilson

    I said It is – s.230 and the subordinate distributor exemptions.

    You said What’s the exemption you nitwit? What could you do if 230 wasn’t there that you can’t do now?
    Admit it, you’ve never read the subordinate distributor exemptions and you have no clue what they’re about.

  72. Iampeter

    Admit it, you’ve never read the subordinate distributor exemptions and you have no clue what they’re about.

    Have YOU read it? Because you STILL haven’t answered my question.
    Do you think because it has the word “exemption” it’s providing some kind of exemption? Do you think North Korea is a Republic because it has it in the name?
    Last time I’m bothering to ask: what would you suddenly be able to do if s.230 disappeared today, that you couldn’t do with it in place?

    And of course the bigger question you’re completely ignoring: how do tech companies having exemptions you can’t list, change the fact that conservatives are politically illiterate leftists, calling for censorship without even realizing it. Calling for tech companies to be regulated, suing YouTube to force them to bake a cake, etc?

    What have you even been arguing with me about for multiple threads?

  73. Tim Neilson

    I’ve stated that you can’t sue tech companies for things they aren’t liable for. Just like anyone.
    Section 230 doesn’t change this.

    The point is whether in the absence of s.230 or the subordinate distributor exemptions a tech co might be liable in defamation for a defamatory statement which a customer disseminated via the tech co’s platform.

    You keep saying “I am the mighty Iamashiteater, greatest genius in the known universe, and I decree that a tech co couldn’t be liable in that way”.

    Your purported decree is a proposition of law.

    Your self-acclaim doesn’t validate the proposition.

    To prove it to be true, you’d need first to point to proper legal authority on the issue – legislation, extrinsic materials or case law – to define the limits of the relevant circumstances in which someone is liable in law for a defamatory statement (and establish the converse, being that in other circumstances there is no liability).
    Then you’d need to apply that definition, by proper legal reasoning, to the facts of a tech co’s operations, and demonstrate adequately by logic why those facts inexorably put a tech co outside the definition in relation to their customers’ use of the platform.

    You have never even begun the first step.
    You’ve never referred to one single piece of actual evidence to support your assertion – you just keep repeating it and gutlessing out whenever evidence is called for. You just pronounce “I am the mighty Iamashiteater, greatest genius in the known universe, and I decree that a tech co couldn’t be liable in that way”.

    By contrast, I’ve pointed to actual legal authorities, being s.230, the subordinate distributor exemptions and the EM to the subordinate distributor exemptions, which as a matter of straightforward logic indicate that everyone involved in their introduction believed your proposition to be false.

    Sure, you can keep insisting “I am the mighty Iamashiteater, greatest genius in the known universe, and I say that all those people were wrong”, but that’s just an admission that you’ve got zero evidence, and that you can’t explain how your proposition can be sustained against the contrary evidence that’s been repeatedly put forward.

  74. Tim Neilson

    Have YOU read it?

    I’ll take that as an admission that you haven’t.

    Yes, of course I have. Paragraph (g) is specifically crafted to ensure that a tech co can’t be liable in defamation for statements made by its customers via the tech co’s platform.

    Do you think because it has the word “exemption” it’s providing some kind of exemption?

    No, I read it and the relevant extrinsic materials just like I do with any other legislation, and thus formed an understanding of what its intended effect is.

    what would you suddenly be able to do if s.230 disappeared today, that you couldn’t do with it in place?

    Bring a defamation action in the USA against a tech co for statements made by its customers via the tech co’s platform, and have the case heard. With s.230 in place you’d just have summary judgement given against you by virtue of the mere existence of s.230. [And please, please, don’t respond with “I am the mighty Iamashiteater, greatest genius in the known universe, and I decree that a tech co couldn’t be liable in that way”- either provide some proper legal authority as evidence or STFU.]

    how do tech companies having exemptions you can’t list,

    This is an outright lie. The mere fact that you’ve never read the subordinate distributor exemption and have no clue what it’s about doesn’t mean it isn’t an exemption to which I’ve referred repeatedly.

    change the fact that conservatives are politically illiterate leftists, calling for censorship without even realizing it. Calling for tech companies to be regulated, suing YouTube to force them to bake a cake, etc

    1 and 4

  75. Iampeter

    The point is whether in the absence of s.230 or the subordinate distributor exemptions a tech co might be liable in defamation for a defamatory statement which a customer disseminated via the tech co’s platform.

    Yea, so like I said repeatedly, you don’t understand how liability determines who you can sue and therefore don’t understand what you’re reading.

    If you’ve read the law, you certainly haven’t understood it. You lack basic thinking skills.

    And finally, since I’d agree that any exemption would need to be repealed anyway, and that this entire tiresome point from you doesn’t address my point in this thread anyway, I’m asking what point you’re actually trying to make all thread?

    1 and 4

    Yes that’s what I said. The question is what’s your counter to what I said? You space cadet.

  76. Tim Neilson

    Yea, so like I said repeatedly, you don’t understand how liability determines who you can sue and therefore don’t understand what you’re reading.

    Please give me a citation for your sources supporting your assertion that tech co’s couldn’t be liable in those circumstances.

    You won’t be able to, because there is no such thing. You’re just lying through your teeth.

    I’ve outlined very clearly my sources for the proposition that they might, and you’ve provided zero answer except “I am the mighty Iamashiteater, greatest genius in the known universe, and I decree that a tech co couldn’t be liable in that way”.

    Cite some sources for your proposition, or admit you’ve got no grounds for it.

    If you’ve read the law, you certainly haven’t understood it.

    I have read and understood the subordinate distributor exemptions, which are clearly contrary to your assertions.

    You clearly haven’t even read them.

    If, by “the law”, you mean something else which you claim validates your assertions, please give me a citation for it.

  77. Iampeter

    Please give me a citation for your sources supporting your assertion that tech co’s couldn’t be liable in those circumstances.

    In what circumstances?
    I’m saying tech companies can’t be sued for things they aren’t liable for. That’s what s.230 says too, making it redundant.
    If there’s a circumstance in which they are liable, then they SHOULD be sued.
    Even on this specific tangent of yours, you’ve not really understood what you’ve been arguing about in three threads now.

    I have read and understood the subordinate distributor exemptions, which are clearly contrary to your assertions.

    Which assertion is it contrary to? I’m sure if there was actually a specific line describing special protections for tech companies, you would’ve mentioned it by now. I’ve only been asking you all thread. You claim to have read it. This shouldn’t be so hard…

    And finally, since I’d agree that any exemption would need to be repealed anyway, and that this entire tiresome point from you doesn’t address my point in this thread anyway, I’m asking what point you’re actually trying to make all thread?

  78. Tim Neilson

    I said Please give me a citation for your sources supporting your assertion that tech co’s couldn’t be liable in those circumstances.

    You said In what circumstances?

    I had said two comments earlier The point is whether in the absence of s.230 or the subordinate distributor exemptions a tech co might be liable in defamation for a defamatory statement which a customer disseminated via the tech co’s platform.

    You’re either dishonest or sub-cretinous, or both.

    You have repeatedly asserted that tech co’s can’t be liable in defamation for a defamatory statement which a customer disseminated via the tech co’s platform, in the absence of something like s.230 or the subordinate distributor provisions.

    Despite repeated requests, you have failed to provide one word of legal authority – legislation, case law, extrinsic materials – to validate that assertion.

    That’s because there isn’t any.

    I’ve repeatedly referred you to the authorities which contradict your assertion.

    Which assertion is it contrary to? I’m sure if there was actually a specific line describing special protections for tech companies, you would’ve mentioned it by now. I’ve only been asking you all thread. You claim to have read it. This shouldn’t be so hard…

    The assertion that tech co’s can’t be liable in defamation for a defamatory statement which a customer disseminated via the tech co’s platform, in the absence of something like s.230 or the subordinate distributor provisions.
    The specific provision is, as I’ve said thread after thread, paragraph (g).

  79. Tim Neilson

    (1) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that— (a) the defendant published the matter merely in the capacity, or as an employee or agent, of a subordinate distributor; and (b) the defendant neither knew, nor ought reasonably to have known, that the matter was defamatory; and (c ) the defendant’s lack of knowledge was not due to any negligence on the part of the defendant.
    (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person is a subordinate distributor of defamatory matter if the person— (a) was not the first or primary distributor of the matter; …

    (3) Without limiting sub-section (2)(a), a person is not the first or primary distributor of matter merely because the person was involved in the publication of the matter in the capacity of— … (g) an operator of, or a provider of access to, a communications system by means of which the matter is transmitted, or made available, by another person over whom the operator or provider has no effective control;

  80. Tim Neilson

    OK, so now you give me your authority for the proposition that in the absence of s.230 or para(g) the tech co’s couldn’t be liable for defamation for a defamatory statement which a customer disseminated via the tech co’s platform.

  81. Iampeter

    The point is whether in the absence of s.230 or the subordinate distributor exemptions a tech co might be liable in defamation for a defamatory statement which a customer disseminated via the tech co’s platform.

    Yea and as I responded to that, you don’t seem to understand how liability works.
    Here let me answer your own question for you. S.230 says:

    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

    This is redundant because you couldn’t treat a provider or user of an interactive computer service as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider anyway.

    There are no exemptions. Just you not understanding the very law your expressing expertise about.

    The assertion that tech co’s can’t be liable in defamation for a defamatory statement which a customer disseminated via the tech co’s platform,

    They can’t be. Otherwise everyone is liable for everything. You don’t understand how liability works.
    At this point you’re just reduced to saying the most open and vague statements possible, because you haven’t read, nor understood the law you’ve spent all thread trying to argue with me about. For no reason you can explain either.

    “We need to determine if tech companies can be sued for something, in some general context I can’t specify and s.230 is preventing them from being sued for some general reason I also can’t explain. I’m Tim Nielson, Space Cadet reporting for duty.”

    PS since I’d agree that any exemption would need to be repealed anyway, and that this entire tiresome point from you doesn’t address my point in this thread anyway, I’m asking what point you’re actually trying to make all thread?
    This last is a rhetorical question, because I know the answer. I just wanna know how you rationalize it.

  82. Iampeter

    OK, so now you give me your authority for the proposition that in the absence of s.230 or para(g) the tech co’s couldn’t be liable for defamation for a defamatory statement which a customer disseminated via the tech co’s platform.

    See, I know what I’m talking about so don’t need to appeal to authority.
    In order to be sued for something you have to be liable. That means have responsibility. And tech companies are no more responsible for what people say over their services, then phone companies are responsible for what you say over the telephone.

    Obviously.

  83. Tim Neilson

    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

    This is redundant because you couldn’t treat a provider or user of an interactive computer service as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider anyway.

    Poor old Iamashiteater, such colossal conceit and ignorance.

    You clearly know nothing about defamation law.

    The whole point of s.230 is to deem the tech co not to be a “publisher” within the meaning of defamation law – not “publisher” in whatever way you want to think of it.

    Once again you’ve totally failed to provide any evidence that a tech co wouldn’t be a “publisher” within the defamation law meaning – it’s just “I am the mighty Iamashiteater, greatest genius in the known universe, and I decree that a tech co isn’t a “publisher” within the meaning of defamation law”.

    See point 7 and 8 above – the very existence of s.230 and para (g) demonstrates that the tech co’s were believed to need protection. You proffer no rationale for why multiple jurisdictions would enact redundant legislation – the answer being of course those provisions aren’t redundant. You’re assuming that you know more than everyone involved with their enactment.

    The assertion that tech co’s can’t be liable in defamation for a defamatory statement which a customer disseminated via the tech co’s platform,

    They can’t be. Otherwise everyone is liable for everything.

    That is, of course, total bullshit and indicative of your lack of understanding of defamation law. Someone who distributes or facilitates the distribution of a defamatory statement may be liable, but other people aren’t. It’s about the most common aspect of legal reasoning to have to draw a line as to causation, and clearly s.230 and para (g) were enacted because of a concern that tech co’s fell on the “liable” side of the line.
    Your lack of understanding of how law works is staggering.

    See, I know what I’m talking about so don’t need to appeal to authority.

    This is the clearest demonstration yet of your total ignorance of law in the USA and Australia and any other common law jurisdiction.
    No proposition of law is valid unless it can be based on valid legal authority. Just to be clear, “I am the mighty Iamashiteater, greatest genius in the known universe, and I decree …” isn’t proper legal authority.

    In order to be sued for something you have to be liable. That means have responsibility. And tech companies are no more responsible for what people say over their services, then phone companies are responsible for what you say over the telephone.

    Once again, mere assertion (and indicative of your ignorance of law). Whether a tech co is “responsible” in a defamation law sense depends on the relevant legal authorities, not on your assertions – and you’ve failed to provide any authority. “I am the mighty Iamashiteater, greatest genius in the known universe, and I decree that tech co’s aren’t responsible”, without citing supporting authority, is just an admission that you’re wrong.

  84. Tim Neilson

    University of New South Wales Law Journal
    Turner, Ryan J — “Internet Defamation Law and Publication by Omission: A Multi-jurisdictional Analysis” [2014] UNSWLawJl 2; (2014) 37(1) UNSW Law Journal 34
    The test of publication by a positive act in Australia is derived from the judgment of Isaacs J in Webb v Bloch.[10] In that case, Isaacs J held that defamation requires an intention to assist in publication, stating that ‘“if he has intentionally lent his assistance to its existence for the purposes of being published, his instrumentality is evidence to show a publication by him.”’[11] On this definition, a publisher includes any person or entity that intentionally assists in the act of publication. The mental element of the wrong is satisfied by an intention to assist in publication, rather than an intention to publish defamatory material or knowledge of a publication’s defamatory content.

    I admit I’ve used a secondary source here, but it refers to the relevant High Court authority that shows that “publisher” is wider in defamation law than in general use, and that intentionally providing a platform for publication could well lead to liability.

    So from now on, please stop with the bullshit assertion that s.230 and para(g) are redundant. They aren’t. They are genuine exemptions.

  85. Iampeter

    Yea I’m not having this discussion again from scratch and explaining things that have already been explained to you. You don’t understand how liability works. You don’t understand how laws work. You don’t understand s2.30 – I mean you couldn’t even quote from it to support anything you’re trying to say that would be easily provable by directly quoting if what you were saying is correct.

    The point is that even if there were exemptions I’d agree that they need to be repealed. So there’s nothing to argue about here except you continuing to display no understanding of any of this. The only question left is: even if tech companies had exemptions, which they don’t, what is your point in this thread?

    How does this change my point 1 from your list? That you are politically illiterate, censorious leftists and so is the entire hopeless conservative movement?

  86. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3286210, posted on January 8, 2020 at 6:12 pm

    3

  87. Iampeter

    Oh, you refuted something I’ve said? This should be as easy to prove as the “exemptions” of S230.

    How have you incorrectly arguing that S230 grants exemptions to tech companies refuted the fact that you are politically illiterate, censorious leftists and so is the entire hopeless conservative movement? Kinda helps reinforce it if anything.
    You refuted that National Review called for tech companies to be regulated like utilities?
    You refuted that Dennis Prager engaged in a frivolous leftist lawsuit, trying to claim YouTube was “censoring” him?
    You refuted the fact that most in the conservative movement, certainly no one in this thread, has expressed even so much as a sentence of opposition to any of these massive assaults on free speech and capitalism?
    You refuted that everyone from Rafe on down supported Falou’s lefist, frivolous lawsuit, shaking down RA, in violation of their property rights and free speech?
    You refuted that everyone from Rafe on down supported suing James Cook Uni for firing Peter Ridd, in violation of the universities property rights and free speech?

    You keep following me from thread to thread, reposing the same list which includes some of my points, like an autist, but you must’ve also been posting all these refutations that I’ve missed. My apologies!

    Please point out the exact post in this thread you’ve done all this and I’ll concede.

  88. Tim Neilson

    Every single one of my comments has successfully refuted the specific bullshit of yours at which it was directed. “Res ipsa loquitur”.

    Specifically, re the existence and utility of defamation exemptions for tech co’s:
    (a) on my side, statutes, extrinsic materials and High Court case authority, all supporting my assertions, set out and explained above in great detail;
    (b) on your side an apologia for having absolutely zero evidence for your bullshit, consisting of the flabbergastingly megalomaniac statement “I know what I’m talking about* so don’t need to appeal to authority”.

    * a false statement, as is evidenced by this entire thread.

    Anyone who advances a proposition of law [i.e. in your case the proposition that tech co’s can’t be liable in defamation for a defamatory statement which a customer disseminated via the tech co’s platform] and claims they don’t need to appeal to authority is just revealing total ignorance of the law. Seriously, you’d get 0% in the most basic introductory subject in law school if you tried that attitude.

  89. Iampeter

    Every single one of my comments has successfully refuted the specific bullshit of yours at which it was directed. “Res ipsa loquitur”.

    Yea totally. Remember how you refuted the fact that National Review has called for tech companies to be regulated like utilities, for example.

    You’re a dishonest moron, who does nothing but post gibberish and then engage in projection, ignoring everything that’s told you in reply.
    I’m done helping you pretend you have any business on a right wing blog.
    But this will be a good thread to link back to you next time you try derail a thread.

  90. Tim Neilson

    Epic logic fail, yet again.

    I never posted about NR or expressed any comment about it.

    So NR is totally irrelevant to my statement that every single one of my comments has successfully refuted the specific bullshit of yours at which it was aimed.

    You really ought to try to learn to think logically. If you succeeded it would save you a good deal of self-humiliation.

  91. Iampeter

    Epic logic fail, yet again.

    I never posted about NR or expressed any comment about it.

    I know you didn’t. I did.
    I made a whole bunch of points in this thread, of which this was one, that you haven’t understood and you certainly haven’t refuted.

    You’ve repeatedly failed to even be able to answer what point you’re trying to make in this thread.
    There’ll be no more threads like this with a blithering idiot like you.

Comments are closed.