Random Political Thoughts

i didn’t say eligible voters

The people who don’t vote don’t matter. If they want their opinion to count for anything, they need to vote.

Pshaw! My opinion means EVERYTHING…on the internet!

I think the word “population” caused the confusion. Kinda superfluous if you mean voters, and sounds a little like voting age population, which is generally taken to mean folks who could vote, not those who did.

1 Like

Possibly - if this weren’t a forum full of statistics nerds…

1 Like

This. It would have been easier and more understandable to say “voters” or “voters in an election” because the “voting population” is generally taken to be “all those who can vote.”

First Rage Against the Machine became political, and now apparently X-men is also woke. You know, the comic book series that began as a critique of racism and has had story lines about the Holocaust. Yeah, apparently it’s now become political. Is nothing sacred anymore?


You’d think they’d be ok with calling them a mutant.

A leftist group supporting a conservative led law suit:

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in NetChoice v. Paxton and its companion case, Moody v. NetChoice. NetChoice is a trade association that represents internet platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter—some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley. With a party like this, the case is bound to be pivotal for the many millions of users of digital services. Sure enough, while the debate at the center of the suit may seem abstruse at first, it could determine whether Big Tech platforms operate fairly for all who use them.

NetChoice sued Texas and Florida to block state laws that were enacted to restrict social media networks’ ability to suspend or otherwise marginalize users. According to NetChoice, the laws violate these companies’ First Amendment rights and, therefore, should be struck down as unconstitutional.

The Open Markets Institute, where we work, filed an amicus brief in support of the states. Those who are familiar with the organization may be surprised by our siding with two conservative state governments. We, however, believe that the underlying question of whether states and the federal government have the authority to regulate social media and other internet platforms as common carriers is critical. If the Supreme Court decides in favor of Big Tech platforms by ruling that they cannot be designated and managed as common carriers, it will take essential regulatory tools away from the government.

Much more at: The Red States Fighting the Good Fight Against Big Tech | The New Republic

I think it’s an interesting question. On the one hand, I disagree with the authors and agree with big tech that without the ability to ban and shadow ban racists / misogynists / bots that social media will look much like Twitter does, and that is bad. But I also think that acknowledging social media companies to be common carriers and allowing regulation is good. I don’t know what happens if different states have contradicting regulations – do they try to supply people in different states different content based on IP address?

Well, they certainly adjust to various national rules. Not sure if it should be different by states, though.

Just as an example: How do we make sure that for this purpose, tech companies distinguish between people who [merely disagree with policy ideas that AOC prefers] and people who [call for her to get out of Congress and back in the kitchen where she belongs] so that honest conversation can be had while filtering out the true riffraff?

That’s a good question. I would lean towards giving the sites quite a bit of leniency, even understanding that will result in decisions that I disagree with. For an actual example, Elon Musk has decided that the word ‘cis’ is a slur and so posts that use it and are flagged by users get hidden. But at the same time, actual racist and anti-semitic stuff does not get labeled as offensive (e.g., I complained about a user whose name was a variant of GasTheJews1488 and it was found by Twitter to be ok. I think that Musk’s policies there are dumb and backwards, but think it should be legal.

But some form of transparency is needed. E.g., in the Twitter case, it is helpful that people understand that the word ‘cis’ is being censored, especially if they disagree. With YouTube, it is important to me that they be able to remove holocaust denial videos or election misinformation videos, and while it is hard to censor those and simultaneously give extreme detail on what is censored, some level of disclosure is needed to preserve checks on the system.

These expectations are too high. Sorry. There is no need to participate on those media ever. No one needs to. My own high expectation (higher than yours) is that people will become smart enough not to bother with those places.

(No, this place is different. Run by a great bunch of people who don’t have any profit goals and don’t have any shareholders to report to.)

1 Like

Apparently you can’t just sue anyone who criticizes you into oblivion.

A high-profile lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s X targeting hate speech researchers appeared to stumble on Thursday as a federal judge sounded a skeptical note on many of the lawsuit’s allegations, suggesting that the company formerly known as Twitter hasn’t done enough to establish its claims.

The judge in the case signaled he may toss out X’s claims but appeared undecided on whether to let the company amend and refile the suit.

The lawsuit by X against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a nonprofit watchdog group, has been viewed as a bellwether for third parties’ ability to study online platforms and to publish research holding them accountable. The case has raised questions about Musk’s claim to be a “free-speech absolutist” and also of his hopes that “even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means.”

X has accused CCDH of violating the platform’s terms of service and of engaging in illegal hacking in response to research the group published criticizing X’s handling of pro-Nazi and other hateful content. X has also blamed CCDH’s reports, which showcase the prevalence of hate speech on the platform, for amplifying brand safety concerns and driving advertisers away from the site.

But on Thursday in a San Francisco federal court, Senior District Judge Charles Breyer repeatedly interrupted X’s attorney as he pointed out the company failed to clear a key legal threshold to assert damages and that it ignored an opportunity to bring a defamation case.

Oddly enough, one key point is whether or not it was forseeable that Twitter would be overrun with Neo-Nazis because of Musk’s policies. The judge said it was not, hence lawsuit couldn’t go forward. Twitter’s lawyers opted not to argue that it was incredibly obvious that that would happen.

1 Like

The squad from Next Level Girls Basketball notched a 7-1 record in a city-wide basketball league run by Southwestern Ohio Basketball and was preparing for the championship when league president Tom Sunderman notified the athletic academy that it would be too risky to let them play for the title, reported WVXU-FM.

“Doing this for 28 years, what we have worried about is a boys team losing to a girls team (especially in the year end tourney), they may get frustrated and retaliate against a girl,” Sunderman said in a statement. “Then we have liability issues.”

Sunderman said he coached against a team of boys from Next Level in the first game, and he said the team’s gender was listed as male in it registration, but he said the rest of the games were played by girls.

“We entered them into the league assuming they were a boys’ team as conveniently no roster was ever provided,” Sunderman said in his statement.

“Subsequently, their first game was filled in by a boys 6th grade Next Level team … It wasn’t until late January/early February that several teams from the 6th grade division started traveling down to Kentucky to play their scheduled games, that it became apparent that the Next Level team was, in fact, a girls team.”

Next Level director Larry McGraw said he never felt the girls were in danger, but he said they faced gender-based scorn during the season.

“They got giggles, they got laughs, and people talked about them… you know, the looks,” McGraw said. “There’s a lot of that and I think this was a great opportunity for them to say, ‘Yeah, we’re pretty darn good and you should respect us.’”

The league offered the team a chance to pay in another year-end tournament for girls, but the club turned that down and removed all of its other teams from the league’s tournaments in protest.

Hard to believe this is 2024.

1 Like

There wouldn’t be any chance of retaliation in a Boys v Boys game. Ever. Just never ever happens.

1 Like

It’s SO much better to tell the boys, "You’re hot garbage compared to the girls and we’re afraid with your stupid ape brains you’ll lash out in embarrassment. "


I haven’t paid much attention lately, but I thought it was odd that the SOTU was in March, as I associate them with being in January, so I looked it up. (Periods longer than 3 years bolded)

1790: January AND December (same POTUS)
1791: October
1792: November
1793: December
1794: November
1795-1796: December
1797: November
1798-1799: December
1800: November
1801-1802: December
1803: October
1804: November
1805-1806: December
1807: October
1808-1809: November
1810: December
1811-1812: November
1813: December
1814: September
1815-1817: December
1818: November
1819: December
1820: November
1821-1932: December
1933: none
1934–1952: January
1953: January AND February (different POTUSes)
1954-1972: January
1973: February
1974-1980: January
1981: January AND February (different POTUSes)
1982-1984: January
1985-1986: February
1987-1988: January
1989: February
1990-1992: January
1993: February
1994-1996: January
1997: February
1998-2000: January
2001: February
2002-2004: January
2005: February
2006-2008: January
2009: February
2010-2012: January
2013: February
2014-2016: January
2017: February
2018-2019: January
2020: February
2021: April
2022: March
2023: February
2024: March