Guardians of the Galaxy

What we need are chaperones.  People of intellect and wisdom and judgement to supervise the masses to make sure that they behave and comply.  That will solve all the world’s problems.

You see, Dr David Smith from the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney believes that

it is naive to maintain that extremist opinions can be rationally debated by a well-informed public in a fictional “marketplace of ideas”.

Ah but Dr Smith, who has a striking resemblance in appearance and tone to Sideshow Dr Bob Terwilliger, who decides what are “extremist opinions”?  You?  Your colleagues at Sydney University?  Your fellow political science graduates?  Please advise.  Go on.  Do tell.

You see, Dr Smith/Dr Terwilliger believes that:

We have seen what happens when people refuse to be arbiters of truth or opinion,

You get Mark Zuckerberg – no fact-checking of any political speech on Facebook.

But Dr Smith/Dr Terwilliger wants those delicate petals at Facebook and Twitter and Google to “fact check”?  You mean like the ABC fact checks?

Go on.  Please tell us how you fact check “political speech”.

TAFKAS is not sure, but he thinks that the Chinese Communist Party fact checks political speech in China.  It this what he you would like?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to Guardians of the Galaxy

  1. stackja

    Communist Party of Australia can fact check.

  2. Pyrmonter

    Is the man a Jacobean re-enactor on his own time? His hair looks fit to have been painted by Lely.

  3. Iampeter

    A political party fact checking is different to a private business doing so.
    By conflating government with business, instead of applying political theory to political questions, you end you up calling for the very thing that you are trying to criticize. I.e. someone will have to fact check Facebook’s fact checking to make sure they aren’t fact checking anyone. That someone will be the government and such a situation would actually be analogous to the Chinese Communist Party fact checking political speech in China.

  4. Rex Anger

    It’s not that different to you thought-checking your hated theists, Petey…

    Just as obnoxious, useless and wasteful.

  5. Leo G

    A political party fact checking is different to a private business doing so.

    Facebook, Google and Twitter are not private businesses.

  6. Tim Neilson

    A political party fact checking is different to a private business doing so.

    What if the private business has a cosy crony capitalist relationship with government?

  7. stackja

    Strong police turnout for damp BLM Town Hall protest
    A Black Live Matter protest at Sydney’s Town Hall this evening has caused peak hour disruptions for commuters, with light rail services cancelled from Central to Circular Quay.
    Clarissa Bye, Carla Hildebrandt and Mitchell Van Homrigh, The Daily Telegraph
    Subscriber only
    |
    June 12, 2020 6:47pm

    Rachel Evans was a lone wolf, arriving bright and early at the rally.
    The 45-year-old is an experienced protester and part of the Indigenous Social Justice Association and the Socialist Alliance.

    Protester Rachel Evans, from the Socialist Alliance and Indigenous Social Justice Association, outside Town Hall tonight. Picture: David Swift

  8. stackja

    2GB news reports: Sydney protesters went to Hyde Park to avoid Town Hall police then protesters decided not to get arrested and went away. Damp weather, damp protest.

  9. Lee

    It’s not that different to you thought-checking your hated theists, Petey…

    Just as obnoxious, useless and wasteful.

    And obscenely arrogant.

  10. Clam Chowdah

    Great post. Please fix the last sentence so it makes sense.

  11. Real Deal

    He looks like a band member from some horrid 80s spandex fake heavy metal band like those sheilas who sang “The Final Countdown”.

  12. Whalehunt Fun

    This raving loon forgets that if someone is going to fact check and monitor, it will be someone who will find his whole family guilty of thoughtcrime because they don’t like the way he votes. He thinks the contract that is society can be violated as he sees fit and yet others will still abide by it. Once you break a contract with the crazies, all bets are off and you are just so much protein for some farmer’s pigs; so much blood and bone for someone’s brassicas; ash for someone’s carrots, organ tranplants for some octagenerian billionaire media mogul. Once the contract of mutual tolerance and light constraint is violated the crazies will come killing. And they are not people who kill quick. They are people who kill slow, so slow, so very very slow so as to eke every bit of agony out of it. And that will just be your children as he forces you to watch. People are worse than animals. People are utter evil made real. They terrify me and this loon, this cretin is proposing to strip away the only thing keeping the crazies away from me.

  13. Mustapha Bunn

    Holy shit,I thought it was a Sheila.

  14. Squirrel

    “…it is naive to maintain that extremist opinions can be rationally debated by a well-informed public in a fictional “marketplace of ideas.”

    Fortunately, we have exquisitely sensitive elites to worry about stuff like this, while the silent majority are getting on with life.

  15. NoFixedAddress

    TAFKAS

    Dr Smith is one of the US Studies Centre Experts.

    https://www.ussc.edu.au/experts/

  16. Old Lefty

    Extremist = anyone ever so slightly to the right of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.

    Stalin’s only possible vices (to be discussed with the utmost discretion only within trusted circles who won’t blab to the capitalist press) were (1) his lack of a clitoris; (2) his sentimental squeamishness about exterminating the bourgeoisie.

  17. Snoopy

    Mustapha Bunn
    #3483709, posted on June 12, 2020 at 7:57 pm
    Holy shit,I thought it was a Sheila.

    So did I.

  18. Hay Stockard

    Snoopy. It’s a typo. I’m sure it was meant to be Dr. Divine Smith.
    Still enough to inspire a loss of confidence in the medical profession.

  19. H B Bear

    One suspects that Sideshow Bob would have his begging bowl out for a fact checking gig.

    We all know what this would mean.

  20. Iampeter

    It’s not that different to you thought-checking your hated theists, Petey…
    Just as obnoxious, useless and wasteful.
    And obscenely arrogant.

    Even if that was true it wouldn’t make me wrong so this is about as pointless as you being on a right wing blog in the first place.
    Triggered, politically illiterate leftists, who get things like free speech and censorship backwards, sure are entertaining.

  21. Carpe Jugulum

    Mustapha Bunn
    #3483709, posted on June 12, 2020 at 7:57 pm

    Holy shit,I thought it was a Sheila.

    I was having a bob each way myself

  22. Rex Anger

    Triggered, politically illiterate leftists, who get things like free speech and censorship backwards, sure are entertaining.

    Jeez you’re boring, Petey.

    Ed Case at least changes his tune and the narratives he uses to try to spite amd.rile everyone round him.

    You’re as ham-fisted and boring as the ideologues we have to suffer in positions of power.

    Beware of ending up like that great liberal Robespierre, Petey. He was so liberal his followers finally topped him in order to curtail his abusive amd murderous tendencies. But he went to his death blaming everyone and everything else for the disasters he wrought.

    He was very liberal. Just like you.

    Moby off, and try to come.up with a better riposte than your tired and clichèd ‘No, U!’

  23. @Iampeter

    TAFKAS is not sure from where in this post is the conflation between government and business comes. Nor does he know which political theory you refer to (especially as there exist more than 1).

    You also regularly in your comments refer to this as a “right wing blog”. The by-line on the home page refers to Catallaxy as “Australia’s leading libertarian and centre-right blog” and TAFKAS has repeatedly written that he does not ascribe to the bi-polar left-right construct.

    More importantly, both you and I and all the other commentators on this site are guest. And as guests, we have an obligation to bring something to the party rather than come in a crap on the carpet. At least TAFKAS believes this.

    Perhaps you take the opportunity available to make a case, write a post, be constructive rather than seek to retrofit every comment through you work view.

    Please make your case. TAFKAS is confident that many others here would like to better understand.

  24. He was very liberal. Just like you.

    Moby off, and try to come.up with a better riposte than your tired and clichèd ‘No, U!’

    Please.

    Progressive.

    Liberalism is a noble tradition of freedom. Robespierre was a progressive.

  25. Rex Anger

    I would agree in practice LS,

    But the line between liberalism and tyrannical progressivism has a bad habit of blurring with time. If you’ll suffer the opinion of this particular theist, the movement of Enlightenment-era liberalism from worship of God to worship of Self and the driving of the Source of the Natural Law so many liberal thinkers relied upon to elucidate their ideas from the Public Square, led to tyranny and the debasement of otherwise good and noble ideals.

    I think I am far closer to old, old classical liberalism and Bastiat’s The Law, than more modern interpretations.

    @TAFKAS- Sincere apologies for prodding the troll. I’ll pray for him instead. He’ll dislike that even more…

  26. Liberalism isn’t about “worship of the self”. If someone has proposed that, they’ve invented a new theory, but it isn’t liberalism.

    All you need to consider is the veil of ignorance and the golden rule.

    We should be free because we don’t know into which circumstances we shall be born into and the best chance of a happy life is with civil liberties for all, equality before the law and as few restrictions as possible on both competition and cooperation.

  27. Snoopy
    #3483765, posted on June 12, 2020 at 8:55 pm

    Mustapha Bunn
    #3483709, posted on June 12, 2020 at 7:57 pm
    Holy shit,I thought it was a Sheila.

    So did I.

    My first thought was “tip toe…through the tulips….in the garden…

    https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/tiny-tim-8.jpg

  28. Rex Anger

    @LS

    We should be free because we don’t know into which circumstances we shall be born into and the best chance of a happy life is with civil liberties for all, equality before the law and as few restrictions as possible on both competition and cooperation.

    I can roll with that, albeit with some very slightly different wording. I just seem to have arrived at that via Bible and some general research and life experience rather than pure scholarship. Probably just as well- I might have had any understanding of what freedom looks like beaten out of me.

    (Some seminaries and Bible study programs out there are just as bad as unimaginative and programmatic philosophy teachers and courses. But you didn’t hear that from me… 😉 ).

  29. Pyrmonter

    @ Dot

    483872, posted on June 12, 2020 at 11:31 pm
    Liberalism isn’t about “worship of the self”. If someone has proposed that, they’ve invented a new theory, but it isn’t liberalism.

    + 1

  30. dover_beach

    We should be free because we don’t know into which circumstances we shall be born into and the best chance of a happy life is with civil liberties for all, equality before the law and as few restrictions as possible on both competition and cooperation.

    The problem with this is that it seeks to reduce the advantages between persons derive from inheritance, whether of place, family background, education, etc. and so requires as a matter of necessity the continuous interference from the government in order to remove or ameliorate these advantages. This is why the veil of ignorance and Rawlsianism, although increasingly forgotten in political philosophy, was in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the darling philosophy of liberals in the Anglo-sphere.

  31. Rex Anger

    The problem with this is that it seeks to reduce the advantages between persons derive from inheritance, whether of place, family background, education, etc. and so requires as a matter of necessity the continuous interference from the government in order to remove or ameliorate these advantages.

    @ Dover Beach-

    I think the Gospel says it best: Jesus said in Matt 26:11 “You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

    Riches are a resource in service to others and the Kingdom. Some get them, some get enough, some get nothing. And all believers are expected to do the very best with what they have.

    The stumbling block is relying on the riches themselves rather than relying on He who supplies them to everyone. That’s where the whole Camel through the eye of the needle parable comes in.

    The Bible says to pay your taxes and obey (and pray for) your leaders. It does not support oppression or forcible redistribution in the name of ‘equality.’

    Christianity is not anti-rich, anti-capitalist or anti-freedom. People who claim to be members might be, but God is not. Why would He hate the things and the people He made?

  32. Zatara

    For the entire existence of mankind “fact checking” was done by the individual, using their intelligence, experience, and common sense to divine fact from fiction.

    In the marketplace of ideas, sources which showed themselves to be continuously twisted or incorrect were given less and less value. Sources which provided correct and truthful information were welcome and valued. But the ability to evaluate and chose remained a personal right or prerogative and was stoutly defended.

    The current push for “fact checkers” is an attempt to sell the outsourcing of the ability of individuals to discriminate truth from fiction. To get the individual to voluntarily give up their personal right to think and evaluate. To allow an outside entity to control their thoughts and geld their good judgement. To replace their soul if you will.

    Unfortunately, the minds of the young have been well prepared for such by the indoctrination applied to them in the modern, leftist dominated, education system which then hands them off to the leftist dominated media. This is the route to unquestionably accepting propaganda and mind control.

    All in preparation for becoming docile little pawns of a leftist government system.

  33. Iampeter

    TAFKAS is not sure from where in this post is the conflation between government and business comes.

    It was more of a general comment since this conflation happens a lot in similar threads. But to be fair, you are talking about someone suggesting Facebook fact-checks which isn’t comparable to the CCP fact checking, like you seem to be doing. The former is stupid but is free speech and property rights, the latter is a violation of free speech and property rights.

    More importantly, both you and I and all the other commentators on this site are guest. And as guests, we have an obligation to bring something to the party rather than come in a crap on the carpet.

    Well, you’re raising this in a thread where I did bring something to the party, which you may not have understood, while several posters preceding your response here have indeed come in to just crap on the carpet, like Rex and Lee. You don’t seem bothered by that.
    Given the unhinged rants that typify the regulars here, the endless streams of abuse that come my way, that would get anyone banned on any other blog, trying to come after me on these grounds is as disingenuous as it gets.

    Please make your case. TAFKAS is confident that many others here would like to better understand.

    I still don’t understand what part of my original comment needs further clarification.
    You haven’t asked anything. Just tried to accuse me of being rude in a thread where I’m actually on the receiving end of all the insults as usual.

  34. Iampeter

    The problem with this is that it seeks to reduce the advantages between persons derive from inheritance, whether of place, family background, education, etc. and so requires as a matter of necessity the continuous interference from the government in order to remove or ameliorate these advantages.

    How can people being free require “as a matter of necessity the continuous interference from the government?” That would mean they are not free. How do you say stuff like this without seeing the obvious show stopping contradiction? How do none of the big brains here not point this out?
    You may as well just cut to the chase and state your position for what it is: in order to save people from every aspect of their lives being centrally planned, you advocate for every aspect of peoples lives to be centrally planned.
    Why are arbitrary assortment of concepts, some which outside an individuals control, like inheritance or family background, relevant to what a government should or should not be doing? Why would this ever come up in a conversation about politics? Do you know what the subject of politics actually deals with?

  35. Kneel

    “Just tried to accuse me of being rude in a thread where I’m actually on the receiving end of all the insults as usual.”

    Ahem. Not to put too fine a point on it, but telling people they don’t know what they are talking about and are actually the opposite of what they claim is rude and insulting, so I hardly think you can claim to be “on the receiving end … as usual”.

    Then you say this:

    How can people being free require “as a matter of necessity the continuous interference from the government?” That would mean they are not free. How do you say stuff like this without seeing the obvious show stopping contradiction? How do none of the big brains here not point this out?

    Yet you quoted this:

    The problem with this is that …

    Do you not see that, indeed, they are arguing against such interference? Actually pointing out the contradiction that you appear to be claiming no-one sees?
    Again, not to put too fine a point on it, how does your own self professed superior intelligence not notice this?
    Nor is this the first time you have done something similar – it’s enough to make one believe that you are either trolling or are, frankly, the very stupidity bound fool you claim every opposing interlocutor is. I shall be generous and call you troll – of course, if you find such a label offensive, I’m happy to call you an idiot instead.

  36. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Ah, the good ol’ taxpayer funded Useless Studies Centre, that legendary agglomeration of idiocy where not a single rakemeister in its employ was even remotely capable of entertaining the concept of a Fatty Trump victory in 2016.

    Those dunderheads will never live down that heady brew of epic stupidity, ignorance, arrogance and incompetence.

  37. cuckoo

    Damn, that is one ugly woman.

  38. Iampeter

    Ahem. Not to put too fine a point on it, but telling people they don’t know what they are talking about and are actually the opposite of what they claim is rude and insulting, so I hardly think you can claim to be “on the receiving end … as usua

    You’re not putting a point on anything. TAFKAS was responding to my first post in this thread which didn’t say anything about anyone’s knowledge. The fact that you might read it and feel that you don’t know anything means that YOU are the one saying that YOU don’t know anything.

    Do you not see that, indeed, they are arguing against such interference? Actually pointing out the contradiction that you appear to be claiming no-one sees?

    No, that’s not what he is doing. I explained what he is doing but you didn’t understand that just like you don’t understand anything.

    I shall be generous and call you troll – of course, if you find such a label offensive, I’m happy to call you an idiot instead.

    Look clown, it’s you who comes into these threads, covering topics you yourself admit you know nothing about, babble incoherent nonsense with a tone of authority and get everything wrong. You defend raving loons and throw insults, while accusing me of your own behavior.
    It’s not surprising that someone like you is completely confused about who the actual idiot trolls are.

    It’s like a competition among you crazies to see who lacks the most self awareness, says the most beclowning stuff and projects more.

  39. Rex Anger

    Moby off, and try to come.up with a better riposte than your tired and clichèd ‘No, U!’

    Oh Petey, you’ve done it again. Like Robespierre, it’s none of your fault. It’s all these raving loons around me wot done it. Why guillotine me?

    As per the italics, please try to come up with a new riposte. That’s 2 near-identical ‘No, U!s’ in response to 3 separate challenges.

    You’re smarter than us. Why not demonstrate your wit?

  40. dover_beach

    How can people being free require “as a matter of necessity the continuous interference from the government?”

    I’m responding to dot’s interpretation of the veil of ignorance which is a part of Rawlsianism, IamMengele, and the arrangements it requires which are a continuous interference in human affairs in order to erase the advantages that arise from place, family, and the like.

  41. Bruce

    @ NFA:

    “Dr Smith is one of the US Studies Centre Experts.”

    I suspect the fictional “original” was marginally less malignant.

  42. Kneel

    … responding to my first post in this thread…

    “as usual” is hardly specific to one post, is it? Besides which, would you care to quote where TAFKAS was insulting to you in his initial response? BTW, seeking clarification, disagreeing or suggesting rules for civilised discussion – none of which named you directly – are not insults.

    No, that’s not what he is doing. I explained what he is doing but you didn’t understand that just like you don’t understand anything.

    I believe it is self evident that he was doing as I suggested. Perhaps TAFKAS would be so kind as to clarify his own intent. I don’t think he needs to, I think it was perfectly obvious, but apparently not everyone sees it that way. <shrug>

    I am personally inclined to the view that when written communications is used, there are often several reasonable conclusions as to intent or meaning, and that one should suppose that where this is the case, the writer has not deliberately been obtuse or mendacious, merely rushed or careless, and that they had good intentions – as I would expect others to think of me under such circumstances. So that, rather than be insulting and suggest that they are fools, it is better to seek clarification – ie, you might have said “… this seems contradictory – what did I miss?”. I have certainly tried to behave this way to all and sundry – even you. If I have not lived up to the ideal, then I can only plead that I am a mere mortal, that such things happen from time to time, and that I will try to do better in the future.

    I’m not attempting to belittle or insult you – or anyone else – merely suggesting that this medium is open to misinterpretation, either due to sloppy writing or lazy reading, and that in this case, it is your lazy reading that is at fault. As previously, this is the most generous and least insulting interpretation that I can give – not too many here, I think, would object to a claim that you deliberately misread in order to inflame the very insults you complain of, to make yourself the “victim”.

  43. Kneel

    “This time, for SURE?”

    You bubble-headed booby! Oh the pain.

  44. @Iampeter

    I still don’t understand what part of my original comment needs further clarification.

    Well. Your original post was not clear, at least to TAFKAS. And if what you are saying is that there is a difference between a Facebook (private) fact check and a government fact check, well then, don’t agree.

    TAFKAS interprets that you believe that there is a hard wall between government and business (and please correct TAFKAS if he has misunderstood you). If this is the case, while the theory (political or otherwise) may be on your side, the facts are not.

    This “fact checking” is not being driven by government policy, but rather buy a clique of mostly university educated, mostly in the humanities, self righteous Gen Zers/millenials. These are the same people that are employed by both the public and private sector and are working to poison all institutions, public and private.

    Further, a cursory reading of recent history will evidence that Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, Microsoft were nurtured by the US government. Not only directly, but indirectly given the genesis of silicon valley being funded by US Government military spending. Fairchild Semi conductor’s first major customer was the US Airforce to provide processors for the Apollo program. Then Darpanet and Arpanet. And GPS/Glonass. Velcro came out of the space program as have drones and many many other bits of tech.

    Then there is the whole China military-business fusion.

    Whilst TAFKAS might desire elements of the world you describe, it does not exist. Never has and never will.

  45. egg_

    Looks like a Frightbat couch potato.
    I’ll bet s/he wasn’t on the front row of the USYD Thugby team.

  46. Kneel

    “These are the same people that are employed by both the public and private sector and are working to poison all institutions, public and private.”

    I certainly agree that this is the result, although I believe they feel they are trying to “civilise” those institutions, not poison them; protect people, not indoctrinate them. Alas, as with drugs, the dose is the poison, and they appear to have overdosed in this case. That is to say: yes, racism is unacceptable, but responding in kind is not a logical or reasonable response if one desires such things to end.

    Assuming the good intentions of all actors should be one’s default position – not that such intentions absolve them of responsibility for the consequences. It is only where people refuse to even acknowledge their mistakes, and thereby fail to learn from them, that malicious intent and/or gross negligence/stupidity is deserved as a moniker. High ideals are all well and good, but reality has a habit of destroying those who ignore it – as a certain “free zone” in one USA city is discovering.

  47. egg_

    it is naive to maintain that extremist opinions can be rationally debated by a well-informed public

    Their ABC keeps ramming down out throats that a trace gas is cooking the planet, despite Climategate.

    Grid-powered electric cars are being forced on the public by Green* governments.

    *Leftwing extremists.

    Anyone who disagrees with the above is labelled “Far Right Wing”, rather than Centrist?

    Whose “extremist opinions” do you disagree with?

  48. dover_beach
    #3483920, posted on June 13, 2020 at 12:43 am

    We should be free because we don’t know into which circumstances we shall be born into and the best chance of a happy life is with civil liberties for all, equality before the law and as few restrictions as possible on both competition and cooperation.

    The problem with this is that it seeks to reduce the advantages between persons derive from inheritance, whether of place, family background, education, etc. and so requires as a matter of necessity the continuous interference from the government in order to remove or ameliorate these advantages. This is why the veil of ignorance and Rawlsianism, although increasingly forgotten in political philosophy, was in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the darling philosophy of liberals in the Anglo-sphere.

    Rawls has it totally wrong, as do you.

    If it is dynamic, is applied to everyone and the decision maker admits their poverty of foresight, than intervention becomes almost entirely undesirable, let alone feasible.

  49. Iampeter

    “as usual” is hardly specific to one post, is it? Besides which, would you care to quote where TAFKAS was insulting to you in his initial response?

    It’s like you’re responding to some fantasy thread that exists only in your head.

    BTW, seeking clarification, disagreeing or suggesting rules for civilised discussion – none of which named you directly – are not insults.

    But directing concerns about civilized discussion at the one not being uncivilized is dishonest. This doesn’t need any clarification. Again you posted a wall of text that has no connection to what you’re responding to.

    I am personally inclined to the view that when written communications is used, there are often several reasonable conclusions as to intent or meaning, and that one should suppose that where this is the case, the writer has not deliberately been obtuse or mendacious, merely rushed or careless, and that they had good intentions – as I would expect others to think of me under such circumstances.

    Wow. Well, personally I believe when you have no clue what’s going on you have no business babbling nonsense with a tone of authority. But that’s just me.

  50. Rex Anger

    3 ‘No, U!s’ and counting, Petey…

  51. Iampeter

    Well. Your original post was not clear, at least to TAFKAS. And if what you are saying is that there is a difference between a Facebook (private) fact check and a government fact check, well then, don’t agree.

    Well, that’s what I thought and that’s what I was responding to.
    What a business does/doesn’t do is not analogous to what a government does/doesn’t do.
    There are also certain actions that only a government can engage in, like censorship, for example.
    In other words, Facebook fact checking is about the same as government fact checking as a square is a circle.

    Further, a cursory reading of recent history will evidence that Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, Microsoft were nurtured by the US government.

    Not any history on planet earth it isn’t. Most of the tech giants made their fortunes before Silicon Valley spent a cent on government lobbying, which only began after conservative leftists tried to break up Microsoft in the 90’s. All of these companies made their money through innovation and good business practices. Trying to suggest otherwise is untrue, unjust and belongs on Marxist blogs.
    Bottom line is that you need to realize that tech is the victim here. They are basically the last industry not yet a ward of the state and they make everything else possible thanks to their productivity, which is in turn looted to subsidize everything else.

    On Australia’s leading right-wing/libertarian/not-leftist-apparently blog, we should be calling for getting government out of every other industry too, not arguing for them to crush what private enterprise still remains.

  52. Iampeter

    3 ‘No, U!s’ and counting, Petey…

    You’re the only one doing this, nut job.
    Following me from thread to thread like the crazy person you are.
    Boy oh boy have I triggered you good.

  53. Rex Anger

    nut job.

    Love you too, baby…

  54. egg_

    One suspects that Sideshow Bob would have his begging bowl out for a fact checking gig.

    We all know what this would mean.

    He’s vying for Chief Wrongologist?

  55. Iampeter

    I’m responding to dot’s interpretation of the veil of ignorance which is a part of Rawlsianism, IamMengele, and the arrangements it requires which are a continuous interference in human affairs in order to erase the advantages that arise from place, family, and the like.

    Oh yea, that makes sense.

  56. @Iampeter

    Most of the tech giants made their fortunes before Silicon Valley spent a cent on government lobbying

    That is just manifestly incorrect and not based on any historical evidence.

    Silicon Valley lobbying of government started well before Microsoft was founded let alone after attempts were made to break it up. The leading Silicon Valley lobby shop came of age in the 70s when the industry was seeking US government protection from Japan.

    It was this lobbying that attracted much of the military defence spending to the area and that brought the US, amongst other things, the carried interest deduction. And section 230, which provides the protections necessary for Facebook and Twittter to exist, well predated that also. Carried interest and section 230 don’t happen by accident. And the current venture industry and Twitter/Facebook/Google don’t happen without them. And as a matter of fact, Page and Brin were working in the Bill Gates building at Standford which was funded by Microsoft as an image investment while they were trying to destroy Netscape through predatory conduct.

    You may want it to be otherwise, but it is not.

    And with respect to the essence of this post, TAFKAS does not want government or private sector “fact checkers” of political opinion. If people show up to TAFKAS’ door with guns to shoot him, TAFKAS is less concerned with whether they are there at the direction of the state than he is in trying to stop them/get away.

    While you are at it Peter, when you are calling for government to get out of industry, should there be any intellectual property protections and company charters? They are after all gifts of the government.

    Remember, Ayn Rand is in the fiction section of the book shop. As is Dianetics.

  57. Tim Neilson

    Iamashiteater said: A political party fact checking is different to a private business doing so.

    I asked What if the private business has a cosy crony capitalist relationship with government?

    Iamashiteater failed to respond, because the question utterly destroys the bullshit he’s expounding.

    He’s had his bottom spanked humiliatingly on the statutory protection government gives the tech giants from defamation liability, and he’s frantically trying to forget about that whole issue, because it squarely raises the issue of crony capitalism in this context.

    The statutory protection was originally intended for genuine “common carriers” like phone companies. The government extended it to the tech giants despite them being very different to phone companies, i.e. the tech giants use their algorithms etc. to curate their content in support of specific political views.
    Of course the tech giants are entitled to do that. The policy issue is why an organisation which is carefully curating its content to slant one way should get an exemption intended to protect organisations which genuinely make their services available for any (lawful) communication.

    The reason it happens is of course because the tech co’s ensure that their content is slanted heavily towards big government high tax high spend interventionist “woke” policies conducive to woke politicians’ and big government careerists’ ambitions. The symbiosis between the tech co’s, the “government” troughers, and the “woke” political parties is obvious. But that’s hardly a good policy argument for it.

    That’s not to say that one couldn’t conclude that tech co fact checking might be acceptable in a way that political interference isn’t.
    But to pretend that in the real world there’s a sharp and absolute distinction between political action and big business action is just delusional.

  58. Clam Chowdah

    It this what he you would like?

    Wut?

  59. Rex Anger

    @ TAFKAS-

    Remember, Ayn Rand is in the fiction section of the book shop. As is Dianetics.

    #Oof

    On the subject of fact checking, someone said earlier that such things were traditionally done by the consumer, having the education and wit to decide for themselves what was believable. Education and comprehension standards have fallen, and manipulative ‘persuasion’ techniques in all forms of media have risen in turn.

    The right of civic participation, franchise and speech in society is forever loudly cited and championed, but the corresponding responsibility for people to understand enough about an issue to be able to make an informed decision, and for society to educate people such that they are capable of making their minds up in an informed manner, is all but ignored.

  60. Yarpos

    Why is it that academics, especially the ABC go to reference types, usually have bad hair? Most of them look like they have been dragged through a barbed wire fence backwards.

  61. egg_

    Most of the tech giants made their fortunes before Silicon Valley spent a cent on government lobbying

    That is just manifestly incorrect and not based on any historical evidence.

    Great how trolls just make sh1t up without a shred of evidence.

    Is there a Fact Checker in da house?

  62. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    It this what he you would like?

    TAFKAS is not sure, but he thinks that the Chinese Communist Party fact checks political speech in China.

    Is this what you would like?

    Fixed on ‘is behalf. Now sod orf.

  63. Boris

    Wholeheartedly agree with the Spartacus on this one.

  64. Iampeter

    Silicon Valley lobbying of government started well before Microsoft was founded let alone after attempts were made to break it up.

    By “Silicon Valley” I mean the tech giants that conservatives are accusing of censoring them, like Google, Microsoft, etc, all of which made their fortunes without lobbying government.

    And section 230, which provides the protections necessary for Facebook and Twittter to exist, well predated that also.

    What protections does section 230 provide that allow Facebook and Twitter to exist?
    Also, S230 doesn’t predate anything. It came along in mid-90’s along with the rest of the beginning of tech regulation.

    while they were trying to destroy Netscape through predatory conduct.

    This is boilerplate leftist nonsense and economic illiteracy. There’s no such thing as “predatory pricing.”

    If people show up to TAFKAS’ door with guns to shoot him, TAFKAS is less concerned with whether they are there at the direction of the state than he is in trying to stop them/get away.

    Except private enterprise does not have the ability to turn up at your door with guns because it is not the state, it’s private enterprise.

    While you are at it Peter, when you are calling for government to get out of industry, should there be any intellectual property protections and company charters? They are after all gifts of the government.

    When I’m calling for government to “get out of industry” I mean it should just perform it’s actual function which is to protect rights, which includes things like intellectual property, obviously.
    These are not “gifts of the government,” it’s the governments proper function.

    Remember, Ayn Rand is in the fiction section of the book shop. As is Dianetics.

    Yet you’re the one spouting leftist nonsense on a right wing blog, as if we’re living in some kind of dystopian sci-fi movie, where Evil Corporations are coming to get you in the middle of the night.

    BTW, when are you going to pull up all these other posters here with the endless insults and rants? You were saying before how we were guests on this blog, etc, etc. Weird how I’m literally the only person that ever gets pulled up on stuff like that.

  65. Iampeter

    I asked What if the private business has a cosy crony capitalist relationship with government?
    Iamashiteater failed to respond, because the question utterly destroys the bullshit he’s expounding.

    Sorry Tim. I must’ve missed a post from you amid all the unhinged rants and personal attacks of the raving crackpots here. I guess that’s my bad.
    Anyway, not sure what the point of the question is. As usual it’s not really addressing anything anyone’s saying. Also, as we know from our previous exchange you don’t know how even basic things like liability work so there’s nowhere to go.

  66. Rex Anger

    Except private enterprise does not have the ability to turn up at your door with guns because it is not the state, it’s private enterprise.

    Bullshit Petey. Happens all the time in places round the world you’d never visit. Has also happened historically. Think of Amazonian loggers chasing out Indian tribes, drug cartels ‘clearing’ themselves space. Farmers being pushed out by diamond miners. Heck, why not even RoP tribesmen in the Congo chasing farmers off their ancestral land so their cattle can graze. All private enterprise, baby. Every last one.

    Repeating incorrect facts, then calling TAFKAS a leftist, insulting him and then whinging ‘Y me?’ is poor form even by your low standards. Stick to ‘No, U!’ Petey. It’s less likely to expose your lack of knowledge and give people excuses to not scroll on past and lay the boot into you instead.

  67. @ TAFKAS-

    Remember, Ayn Rand is in the fiction section of the book shop. As is Dianetics.

    Don’t be an idiot your whole life.

    AYN RAND NON-FICTION

    For the New Intellectual (1961)
    The Virtue of Selfishness (1964)
    Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1967) [very, very good]
    The Romantic Manifesto (1970)
    The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (1971) [Republished as Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (1999), with additional essays by Peter Schwartz.]
    Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (1979)

    Non-Fiction published posthumously

    Philosophy: Who Needs It (1982)
    The Voice of Reason (1988)
    The Ayn Rand Column (1991)
    The Letters of Ayn Rand (1995)
    Ayn Rand’s Marginalia (1995)
    Journals of Ayn Rand (1997)
    Russian Writings on Hollywood (1999)
    The Ayn Rand Reader (1999)

    Which outnumber her fiction by about one or two books if I have counted them correctly.

  68. BLOODY HELL

    Let’s get some clarity here.

    From *awful* wikipedia.

    Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. At its core, §230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by third-party users:

    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.

    The statute in §230(c)(2) further provides “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith. …

  69. dover_beach

    Rawls has it totally wrong, as do you.

    If it is dynamic, is applied to everyone and the decision maker admits their poverty of foresight, than intervention becomes almost entirely undesirable, let alone feasible.

    If the ‘veil of ignorance’ is dynamic? The only poverty of foresight the veil requires is the decision-maker’s place within the system. I’m not sure why this, and the other aspects, make intervention undesirable to a decision-maker. If the decision-maker notices advantages to social groups increasing and decreasing movement between these groups wouldn’t they judge that intervention is warranted according to their own lights?

  70. Not if they can do basic arithmetic.

    The most privileged in society are the children of those who receive the least amount of government assistance.

    When the decision becomes dynamic and even inter-generational the case for intervention beyond the rules of the game becomes impossible, let alone unfeasible.

  71. dover_beach

    The most privileged in society are the children of those who receive the least amount of government assistance.

    When the decision becomes dynamic and even inter-generational the case for intervention beyond the rules of the game becomes impossible, let alone unfeasible.

    I’m talking about continuous additions, modifications, and subtraction of the rules of the game, not welfare in particularly.

  72. Tim Neilson

    Also, as we know from our previous exchange you don’t know how even basic things like liability work so there’s nowhere to go.

    Just to recap, Iamashiteater has no idea how defamation law works.
    For starters just check out these zingers, showing that Iamashiteater has no concept of the prima facie liability of the tech co’s…

    Iampeter
    #3467278, posted on May 29, 2020 at 3:51 pm
    You still won’t be able to sue tech companies for things they aren’t liable for, like what people post on Twitter or Facebook, for example.
    Whether a business is a publisher or not doesn’t have anything to do with it.

    Iampeter
    #3469076, posted on May 31, 2020 at 9:41 am
    Google is not a publisher.

    Compare the judgment in Defteros v Google LLC [2020] VSC 219, an authoritative ruling on what defamation law actually is, from a superior Court of record…
    Google submitted that it could not be liable as a secondary publisher, because its search engine is fully automated and does not intend the communication of any particular words or images, including any third party webpage to which a user might navigate. I do not accept this submission, which is at odds with the reasoning of Beach J in Trkulja v Google Inc (No. 5),[16] with the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Trkulja (CA),[17] and with the reasoning of the South Australian Full Court in Duffy (FC).[18]

    So, having established that, we then turn to Iamashiteater’s next zinger…
    Iampeter
    #3467639, posted on May 29, 2020 at 11:00 pm
    … regulations like s230 don’t protect companies from anything.

    Compare an authoritative judgment from a superior Court of record on the subordinate distributor exemptions (our equivalent of s.230) set out below. Ask yourself a simple multiple choice question – was Google NOT liable for hosting defamatory material on its platform “up to 10 October 2009” (though it was liable for the rest of “the whole period”) because:
    (a) the Court held Google wasn’t a publisher of defamatory material it hosted on its platform ;
    (b) the Court held Google couldn’t be liable for hosting defamatory material on its platform because that’s not the way liability works; or
    (c ) the Court held that Google was prima facie liable in defamation for hosting defamatory material on its platform, but accepted the jury’s decision that for the period “up to 10 October 2009” that liability was negated by the statutory subordinate distributor exemption.
    [Candidates are advised that only one of those answers is correct.]

    Trkulja v Google Inc LLC & Anor (No 5) [2012] VSC 533
    37 Finally, Google Inc submitted that notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, it was entitled to judgment on the basis that it had established its innocent dissemination defence in respect of the images matter for the whole of the period the subject of this proceeding (not just up to 10 October 2009 as the jury found).
    38 Section 32(1) of the Defamation Act relevantly provides:
    “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.[44]”
    39 In support of its submission that the jury was bound to find in its favour on the question of innocent dissemination for the whole of the relevant period, Google Inc advanced submissions along the same lines as those advanced in respect of its submission that there was no evidence to sustain a finding of publication against it. These submissions must be rejected for the reasons I have already given.

  73. @Iampeter.

    There is so much here to comment on.

    By “Silicon Valley” I mean the tech giants that conservatives are accusing of censoring them, like Google, Microsoft, etc, all of which made their fortunes without lobbying government.

    That is just not true. Absolutely not true. And also, Google, Microsoft, etc would not exist today if they did not stand on the shoulders of those who came before. If the US government did not spend the billions to set up Arpanet there would be no internet and so what would google be doing? And without the billions on the US space program, there would not have been the scale to drive the microprocessor industry …. yes it may have happened but not as fast or far as it developed.

    What protections does section 230 provide that allow Facebook and Twitter to exist?

    If you don’t know what section 230 is you may as well pull up stumps now and go home. You have no idea what you are talking about. It provides them statutory protections against being sued for comments/posts on their platforms by users of their platforms. Imaging someone coming to your house (by invitation) and writing some defamatory content on your wall and you being sued and not the writer.

    Go ask NineFairfax if they would like similar protection given Dylan Voller has been given permission to sue them for defamation for a comment a punter put up on their Facebook page. A comment on the SMH facebook page by another Facebook member …. Voller is not suing the person who made the comment or the people who are hosting the comment but the person on whose Facebook page the comment appeared.

    Have a look also at the conduct of Google, Facebook, etc with respect to the proposal of the US ISPs to charge high bandwith service users v-a-v net neutrality.

    Covering your ears, stomping your feet and screaming no, no, no. Is not an effective debating technique. State some facts. Point to some evidence to support your assertions.

    This is boilerplate leftist nonsense and economic illiteracy. There’s no such thing as “predatory pricing.”

    TAFKAS did not say predatory pricing. He said predatory conduct. This makes TAFKAS think that you don’t even know who Netscape was. But more to the point, what do you call it when you have established an innovative business (browsers) that did not exist any before and the biggest business on the street decides to replicate your product and then give it away for FREE for the purpose of putting you out of business. You get no other revenues from browser sales and they get revenue from other things. What do you call that?

    Except private enterprise does not have the ability to turn up at your door with guns because it is not the state, it’s private enterprise.

    Really? What’s going to stop them? Their good will? Their morals? Are you for real?

    When I’m calling for government to “get out of industry” I mean it should just perform it’s actual function which is to protect rights, which includes things like intellectual property, obviously.

    Ah. This is the magic line. “perform it’s actual function which is to protect rights”. So who decides what government’s real function is? You? Dr Smith? Sideshow Bob? The experts at the US Studies Centre? And what rights are being protected with company charters? And intellectual property – what rights are those and whose are they? And should patent protection be 2 years, 2 months or 25 years? And who funds the patent office that manages this? Do the people who have no stake in the intellectual property have to be taxed at the point of a gun to fund this or should their contributions be voluntary?

    It strikes TAFKAS that you have not thought very far past the rhetoric.

    Yet you’re the one spouting leftist nonsense on a right wing blog, as if we’re living in some kind of dystopian sci-fi movie, where Evil Corporations are coming to get you in the middle of the night.

    But Peter, it is you who comes to this blog and pours scorn on every one here before even making an argument, irrespective of shallowness of the argument. You make statements with certainty with no mind to the nuance, complexity, and at least in this case, the facts.

    You throw out crap and criticism at the collective. Hang on, are you a collectivist? A communist?

  74. @Iampeter

    as we know from our previous exchange you don’t know how even basic things like liability work so there’s nowhere to go.

    Peter. Based on previous posts, one suspects that @Tim is a solicitor. Please state your qualifications to discuss “basic things like liability”.

    Even better, please post something describing your understanding of “basic things like liability”.

  75. @Legalise

    Don’t be an idiot your whole life.

    TAFKAS has only been an idiot for half his life. Despite his efforts, mathematics prevents him from increasing that to this whole life.

    One also suspects that the books you quote aren’t really sold in most bookshops and that Peter has not read beyond Atlas.

  76. Iampeter

    And also, Google, Microsoft, etc would not exist today if they did not stand on the shoulders of those who came before. If the US government did not spend the billions to set up Arpanet there would be no internet and so what would google be doing?

    If the US government was not involved to begin with we would’ve had big tech even earlier. Also, the US government cannot invest billions, they had to tax that from private enterprise first. Etc, etc. I mean, I can’t believe this is even a point of contention on a not-left-wing blog.

    If you don’t know what section 230 is you may as well pull up stumps now and go home.

    It’s you who doesn’t know what it is, which was the point of my question. It doesn’t protect anything, it formalizes what already exists. I.e. tech companies already cannot be sued for comments on their platforms because they aren’t liable, but foreseeing a lot of issues with people understanding this, lawmakers in the mid-90’s spelled it out in s230.

    TAFKAS did not say predatory pricing. He said predatory conduct.

    I meant “predatory conduct.” That was a typo on my part but my point stands. There is no such thing as “predatory conduct” or any other variant of those words in capitalism. This is a Marxist talking point.
    Also, the example of Microsoft bundling their own internet browser with their OS so people don’t need to pay for it separately, therefore beating Netscape out of the market, is innovation and capitalism at work. It cannot even be confused with “crony capitalism,” let alone Marxist nonsense like “predatory conduct.”
    Again, I can’t believe this is even a point of contention on a not-left-wing blog.

    You get no other revenues from browser sales and they get revenue from other things. What do you call that?

    Capitalism. Obviously. Maybe your new name should be Bernie Bro Spartacus?

    This is the magic line. “perform it’s actual function which is to protect rights”. So who decides what government’s real function is? You?

    Sigh. This is indeed the root of the problem.
    Not to be rude, but TAFKAS you need to learn what politics is about and learn what the proper function of government is.
    I think it’s a pre-requisite to blogging on the subject.
    You guys call me rude for comments like this, even though none of you care about actual rude and raving comments, because you know it’s true and it triggers you.

    It strikes TAFKAS that you have not thought very far past the rhetoric.

    You keep taking digs like this but it’s you who hasn’t thought past rhetoric, spending all thread regurgitating laughable leftist talking points from today’s hopeless conservatives.

    I’m glad this exchange exists so I can link back to it next time you all start crying about me calling you politically illiterate leftists.

  77. @Iampeter

    Oh Peter, dear Peter.

    TAFKAS does not know whether you are in or are planning to seek political office, but you are a master of staying on point, never answering a question asked or letting evidence get in the way of your message.

    Will get to the rest shortly, but will ask for the 3rd time. Please advise what rights the government is protecting by chartering corporations?

    If the US government was not involved to begin with we would’ve had big tech even earlier.

    Really. Who would have built ARPANET? Who would have sent up GPS satelites? Who would have ordered the microprocessors at scale gave us the current tech industry? Would you buy the $100K home computer offering that IBM had?

    It (s230) doesn’t protect anything, it formalizes what already exists. I.e. tech companies already cannot be sued for comments on their platforms because they aren’t liable,

    Really. It was designed for ISPs not tech companies. And who decided for what they are liable? You? And if this is the case, why the tech firms fighting like mad to stop the repeal of s230?

    Also, the example of Microsoft bundling their own internet browser with their OS so people don’t need to pay for it separately, therefore beating Netscape out of the market, is innovation and capitalism at work.

    Really. What about the rights of the shareholders/investors in Netscape? Taking your logic to the extreme, there would be no innovation ever because why innovate if someone can just put you out of business by ripping you off. You know like for the IP protections you see to defend.

    Not to be rude, but TAFKAS you need to learn what politics is about and learn what the proper function of government is.
    I think it’s a pre-requisite to blogging on the subject.

    TAFKAS is not such a petal that he is triggered by Peter. However, despite several requests of you to articulate your view on what the “proper function of government is” you never have. And whilst it may be a pre-requisite to blogging, only one of us is actually blogging – and it ain’t you. TAFKAS blogs. Iampeter comments.

    I’m glad this exchange exists so I can link back to it next time you all start crying about me calling you politically illiterate leftists.

    Selectively quote to your heart’s content. But try occasionally to answer a direct question, to provide some evidence in support of your theories and perhaps also state your theories. Or are you scared that you might be held account for your words.

  78. Rex Anger

    @ TAFKAS-

    Peter only ever replies “No, U! when called out. He is never wrong and has no need to debate or defend his point or prove anything. He knows with absolute conviction that he is cleverer, more politically aware and ‘purer’ than the rest of us, and we really don’t deserve his attention.

  79. Kneel

    “TAFKAS has only been an idiot for half his life.”

    But which half? Ah, there’s the rub! 🙂

  80. Iampeter

    but you are a master of staying on point, never answering a question asked or letting evidence get in the way of your message.

    I’m answering your questions but you just don’t understand the answers.

    Please advise what rights the government is protecting by chartering corporations?

    Recognizing the company as an entity for legal purposes and so forth. What’s the point of this question?

    Really. Who would have built ARPANET? Who would have sent up GPS satelites? Who would have ordered the microprocessors at scale gave us the current tech industry? Would you buy the $100K home computer offering that IBM had?

    You heard it hear first, folks. At Australia’s leading right wing blog, the technological innovations of the last few decades are not thanks to private enterprise but the government.

    Really. It was designed for ISPs not tech companies.

    ISP’s are tech companies.

    And who decided for what they are liable? You?

    Just like knowing what the proper function of government is and why is not determined by me, neither is liability.
    These are just concepts you might need to know if you’re going to discuss these topics without making a fool of yourself.

    What about the rights of the shareholders/investors in Netscape?

    What about their rights, Bernie bro? Is somebody innovating better than you a violation of your rights now? What even is this?

    TAFKAS is not such a petal that he is triggered by Peter.

    Good and I respect you for that if nothing else.

    However, despite several requests of you to articulate your view on what the “proper function of government is” you never have.

    Aside from literally explaining it to you, you mean?
    But the bigger question is why are you blogging about politics if you don’t have a position on what the proper function of government is?

    Selectively quote to your heart’s content.

    I will never selectively quote, I will link to threads and your own words. I really couldn’t make it up anyway.

  81. Iampeter

    Really. Who would have built ARPANET? Who would have sent up GPS satelites? Who would have ordered the microprocessors at scale gave us the current tech industry? Would you buy the $100K home computer offering that IBM had?

    I knew I heard all this somewhere before.

  82. @Iampeter

    And you wonder why people dump on you. Let me suggest it may have something to do with statements like this:

    I’m answering your questions but you just don’t understand the answers.

    Not agreeing with you is not a lack of understanding.

    Recognizing the company as an entity for legal purposes and so forth. What’s the point of this question?

    The point of the question is that you have not answered it. What does “and so forth” mean? Or is this just short hand for yada yada yada or what you say when it does not compute for you?

    And per your government of rights protection, what right is the government protecting to allow people to pool their capital to invest and to get limitation on liability? This was an innovation necessitating government or does your research show that there were limited liability in ancient Greece or Rome or wherever before the Dutch did it.

    Per your treatise:

    government in practice maintains the courts, police and armed forces and NOTHING else

    Which one of these does the corporate charting and the IP registration fall under? Do the policy or the army or the courts register companies and trademarks?

    ISP’s are tech companies.

    Oh are they. Why? Because they lay pipes and cables? My plumber does that. Is he a tech company?

    What about their rights, Bernie bro? Is somebody innovating better than you a violation of your rights now? What even is this?

    Clearly you have never invented anything or started a business. Or have you? If TAFKAS invents a drug or writes a book, can the big guy across the road just copy me and put me out of businesses? Do tell why anyone would innovate in Peterland?

    But the bigger question is why are you blogging about politics if you don’t have a position on what the proper function of government is

    TAFKAS does have a position on the proper function of government. It’s just not your position. And that dear sir is the essence. You seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you or does not share your world view is morally, intellectually or otherwise inferior.

    TAFKAS now gets it. What you seek is not a dialogue but a monologue. You want an echo chamber. You want everyone to bow at the feet of Peter, Lord of Politics. Fine. But TAFKAS thinks your positions are unrealistic and bordering on the idiotic.

    TAFKAS does not debate public affairs with toddlers because when they hear something they don’t like they reply, as Rex below suggest, No You. Much like debating with you.

    Goodbye Peter. It’s been real. Have a nice day. Don’t take offence, but TAFKAS has used up his lifetimes supply of reply to Peter tokens.

  83. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3484580, posted on June 13, 2020 at 9:20 pm
    you don’t know how even basic things like liability work so there’s nowhere to go.

    Tim Neilson
    #3484699, posted on June 14, 2020 at 1:27 am
    [First quotes Iamashiteater: … regulations like s230 don’t protect companies from anything.]
    Cites Trkulja v Google Inc LLC & Anor (No 5) [2012] VSC 533 which rules straight out that our equivalent of s.230 DOES shelter Google from defamation liability that it would otherwise have had.

    Iampeter
    #3484774, posted on June 14, 2020 at 8:13 am
    … section 230 … doesn’t protect anything, it formalizes what already exists. I.e. tech companies already cannot be sued for comments on their platforms because they aren’t liable, but foreseeing a lot of issues with people understanding this, lawmakers in the mid-90’s spelled it out in s230.

    Iamashiteater, the intellectual difference between you and a lower primate is that the lower primate is capable of learning by trial and error.

    Only a few days ago you got the most humiliating bottom spanking in internet history on this very issue, and here you are voluntarily presenting yourself for another totally degrading caning.

    Do you really think that anyone is impressed by your pseudo-analysis of tech co’s not being liable, when on this very thread, before you had even commented, there’s a fully cited extract from a decision of a superior Court of record saying exactly the opposite?

    Do you derive some bizarre sexual gratification from revealing yourself as the most conceited, stupid, wilfully and persistently ignorant and dishonest contemptible repellent little turd in human history?

  84. Iampeter

    @TAFKAS – I guess you do get triggered by me after all.
    Let’s see, you responded to me originally trying to suggest I was being rude and that I was a guest, while having absolutely nothing to say to those actually being rude and needing to be reminded that they are guests.
    You then pretended to engage in a debate on topics you know nothing about and aren’t really interested in, using caricature leftist talking points without even realizing it.
    You’ve then tried to play off your utter lack of any coherent position as “disagreement.”
    And finally you’re projecting your own childish, rude and disingenuous behavior onto me.

    Another Classic Cat thread and the last time I indulge you TAFKAS.

    Anyway, don’t mind me. I’ll let you get back to pretending to discuss politics and economics to try and impress each other, for some reason…

  85. Kneel

    government in practice maintains the courts, police and armed forces and NOTHING else

    But they don’t – in practice they do much more than that.
    Perhaps you meant in theory instead.
    Your theory – with which your opponents disagree (obviously).
    After 100+ years, it seems there is still no agreement on “the proper function of Government”.
    Yet you spout your view like it is undisputed fact –and denigrate any who disagree as ignorant (you appear to fail to take account of the fact that some are simply pragmatic about things).
    This is not to say you are wrong, BTW – just pointing out that what one side thinks is “obvious”, is “obviously wrong” to the other side. Surely I don’t need to provide examples, do I?
    And since governments both enact and repeal legislation as is their want, this can only be settled by a change to the constitution, which seems unlikely given the highly partisan nature of the change you claim to desire.
    So in practice it seems highly unlikely you will get the changes you want, regardless of how “correct” you feel they are – at least without a civil war, revolution etc. This is not to say that you shouldn’t press for what you feel is right, just noting that to get what you really want, you’ll need to convince the majority of the population and the majority of states it’s better than what we have. Given the closeness of the two parties in polling and that one would be implacably opposed to your wants, good luck with that.

  86. Rex Anger

    @TAFKAS – I guess you do get triggered by me after all.
    Let’s see, you responded to me originally trying to suggest I was being rude and that I was a guest, while having absolutely nothing to say to those actually being rude and needing to be reminded that they are guests.
    You then pretended to engage in a debate on topics you know nothing about and aren’t really interested in, using caricature leftist talking points without even realizing it.
    You’ve then tried to play off your utter lack of any coherent position as “disagreement.”
    And finally you’re projecting your own childish, rude and disingenuous behavior onto me.

    Petey, that is yet another textbook “No, U!” And you’re escalating beautifully. I am looking forward to the day you try this shtick on The Doomlord himself…

  87. Iampeter

    But they don’t – in practice they do much more than that.
    Perhaps you meant in theory instead.

    Hmm, I dunno. I mean it’s completely obvious that’s what I meant, but let’s discuss it some more so you can condescend to someone saying stuff you don’t understand. That makes you look totally smart.

    Yet you spout your view like it is undisputed fact

    Undisputed fact about what?
    If you actually took a breath you’d realize that what I’m saying here is no more complex or controversial than, “you need to have a view on politics to discuss politics.”
    None of you have this, which is why you’re so triggered by me.

    and denigrate any who disagree as ignorant

    Um, I’m the one on the receiving end of thread after thread of unhinged insults.
    Once you’ve addressed that then you can get back to me about denigrating somebody, you dishonest, clueless clown.

  88. Rex Anger

    And again, Petey…

  89. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3485042, posted on June 14, 2020 at 2:19 pm
    Iampeter
    #3485209, posted on June 14, 2020 at 6:03 pm

    Hey Iamashiteater, looks like you missed my comment at Tim Neilson
    #3485007, posted on June 14, 2020 at 1:13 pm, with the question: Do you really think that anyone is impressed by your pseudo-analysis of tech co’s not being liable, when on this very thread, before you had even commented, there’s a fully cited extract from a decision of a superior Court of record saying exactly the opposite?

    I’m feeling unloved, what with you demonstrating the full range of your intellect with all these brilliant displays of logic and winning zingers in your responses to other commenters, but seemingly ignoring me.

    Why don’t you showcase your genius by answering my question?

    Come on, give me the old “you don’t understand how liability works LOL” zinger as an answer to the express judicial authorities that totally contradict your assertions about defamation law! Just one more time – please? You know you want to.

  90. Kneel

    “Undisputed fact about what?”

    Bwahahaha! It’s right there – the bit you carefully left out.

Comments are closed.