Social WR Lounge v247: I ain't no sexy boy. I don't dance, son.

[Deorum]

Disagree
U a very thexy boi
Now dance for me dammit!!!!!!!
Work it, Work it

@Deorum

I've given lap dances to a few different dudes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It would be. And it's not a matter of being wary so much as it's exactly what he's doing.

This doesn't even make sense. What end would it serve to disagree with a view you don't hold? If you're renouncing the view that Twitter shouldn't be allowed to criticize Trump or generally do anything that makes anyone think they have an opinion, we agree on that issue. But you're not. You're trying to have it both ways.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Here we go again:

 

[Jack V Savage]

Here we go again:

Gotta get the gov't to punish someone else for having the wrong view.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This doesn't even make sense. What end would it serve to disagree with a view you don't hold? If you're renouncing the view that Twitter shouldn't be allowed to criticize Trump or generally do anything that makes anyone think they have an opinion, we agree on that issue. But you're not. You're trying to have it both ways.

Are you having a nice Friday?

 

[Falsedawn]

Cool. But the ultimate point being made, and that you recognize at the end of your paragraph, is that the government restricts the 1A rights of businesses when it decides there's a greater good to be served. How it's justified is minutiae, and frankly bullshit if the backbone of it is the commerce clause. If the CC trumps the 1A then government is free to censor the press, or any church that takes donations, etc. But again, this portion of the discussion isn't an argument that says the government should limit twitter's free speech. It's an argument that contradicts the claim that the government can't limit it.

And I'll reiterate that when Jack says I want to shut twitter down because it fact checked Trump, that's an incredibly dishonest representation of what I've actually advocated. Which I'll post again, since your lack of comment leaves open the possibility you didn't read that far.

I never said the government was abridging the right to free assembly. In fact, I said the exact opposite. The government has a constutional right to regulate interstate commerce. When your actions affect interstate commerce, it is the constutional right of the government to regulate you accordingly. You're portraying a constitutional action as unconstitutional in order to buttress the notion that this is a first amendment concern, which it very clearly isn't.

The rest of your argument is foundationally based on that faulty premise, which is why I haven't addressed it. It lacks validity. The Civil Rights Act has as much of a connection with Section 230 and the first amendment as the Mann Act does. That is to say, tenuously, if at all.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Are you having a nice Friday?

Yeah. Funny seeing you bail when you know you're wrong but can't just admit it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I never said the government was abridging the right to free assembly. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

You said this.

The government has long held up the rights of businesses to decide their clientele as it relates to private business. In fact, it's the 1st amendment right of association that allows them to do so, so long as it's not on the grounds of discrimination against protected classes.

The government recognizes the right but passed a law that places a limitation on the right. Businesses are not free to disassociate for reasons x, y, z. That's the definition of abridging (i.e. curtailing).

The government has a constutional right to regulate interstate commerce.

Acknowledged multiple times. You keep repeating it rather than responding to how that right comports with the Bill of Rights. Which of those has primacy in your view?

in order to buttress the notion that this is a first amendment concern, which it very clearly isn't.

You've acknowledged the right to association by businesses is limited (i.e. by legislating protected classes). Therefore it concerns the 1st Amendment, since that is the Amendment from which springs said right. Whether or not relevant court cases have taken a different approach to argue against the law doesn't change that fact.

The rest of your argument is foundationally based on that faulty premise, which is why I haven't addressed it.

No clue what you're referring to here.

 

[StoneColdSteveAustin]

Here we go again:

More cancel culture from the political side that has historically indulged in it the most.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yeah. Funny seeing you bail when you know you're wrong but can't just admit it.

Your posts lack any substance. You're just making the same unsubstantiated claims over and over. What's there to continue with? I asked you to post something to back up that I want to shut twitter down because of trump getting fact checked and you brought back a quote pertaining to the scope of government's ability to regulate business activity. Nothing in it about either shutting twitter down or trump getting fact checked.

 

[Trotsky]

Here we go again:

His twitter page is terrible (on this topic and others).

He also CC'd Jack Posobiec in one of his tweets.

 

[Falsedawn]

You said this.



The government recognizes the right but passed a law that places a limitation on the right. Businesses are not free to disassociate for reasons x, y, z. That's the definition of abridging (i.e. curtailing).




Acknowledged multiple times. You keep repeating it rather than responding to how that right comports with the Bill of Rights. Which of those has primacy in your view?




You've acknowledged the right to association by businesses is limited (i.e. by legislating protected classes). Therefore it concerns the 1st Amendment, since that is the Amendment from which springs said right. Whether or not relevant court cases have taken a different approach to argue against the law doesn't change that fact.



No clue what you're referring to here.

Why did you ignore the second sentence?

"In fact, it's the 1st amendment right of association that allows them to do so, so long as it's not on the grounds of discrimination against protected classes. Because again, broadly, it affects interstate commerce."


Do you think that what you quoted and ran with is an honest interpretation of what I said? I say hell no.

Hence this

I never said the government was abridging the right to free assembly. In fact, I said the exact opposite. The government has a constutional right to regulate interstate commerce. When your actions affect interstate commerce, it is the constutional right of the government to regulate you accordingly. You're portraying a constitutional action as unconstitutional in order to buttress the notion that this is a first amendment concern, which it very clearly isn't.

The rest of your argument is foundationally based on that faulty premise, which is why I haven't addressed it. It lacks validity. The Civil Rights Act has as much of a connection with Section 230 and the first amendment as the Mann Act does. That is to say, tenuously, if at all.

If you want to continue this discussion, you'll look at my words and read them honestly. If you want to just want to go around in circles to try and portray an explicit constitutional action as unconstitutional to service your argument, then we're done. Because you're not "abridging" anything, given that that "abridgement" is specifically reserved to the government for that specific instance.

 

[Gandhi]

So I'm listening to Dan Gable on the Joe Rogan podcast and around 1 hour and 20 minutes in Joe talks about Danaher's guys not taking rest days and how wrestlers are the same....

There is a pretty famous story Randy Lewis told about Royce Alger.... Basically at Big 10s Royce Alger got ridden for over minute (he still won the match) so Gable told him not to practice for a week leading up to NCAAs... Alger did not get ridden and torched the guy in the rematch.... So rest days are obviously important

That seems weird, I know that Firaz is pretty close to Danaher and really believes in not over training. Maybe you have lighter days instead/active rest but it sounds weird.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

In fact, it's the 1st amendment right of association that allows them to do so, so long as it's not on the grounds of discrimination against protected classes. Because again, broadly, it affects interstate commerce.

I didn't ignore that aspect. It's addressed in the next line of my post.

If you want to continue this discussion, you'll look at my words and read them honestly.

I feel like I'm being far more earnest here than you. So maybe consider that you're not addressing my points as well as you think. I feel like I'm addressing yours.

Because you're not "abridging" anything, given that that "abridgement" is specifically reserved to the government for that specific instance.

This is addressed in my 3rd line. I touched on it before too, but you don't seem to wanna give a straight answer to this simple question. Which has primacy, the commerce clause or the Bill of Rights?

 

[Confucamus]

@Sickness1 I couldn't quote your post because the previous thread was locked. I don't have a Twitch and I'd never be able to commit to hosting one. I don't play enough.

@Gregolian did you beat the GM??

 

[The Diplomat]

Google needs more Johnny 5 gifs

 

[Deleted member 579584]

@Sickness1 I couldn't quote your post because the previous thread was locked. I don't have a Twitch and I'd never be able to commit to hosting one. I don't play enough.

@Gregolian did you beat the GM??

That's fair enough. Agonyandivory plays too if you ever watch some user's play.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Your posts lack any substance. You're just making the same unsubstantiated claims over and over. What's there to continue with? I asked you to post something to back up that I want to shut twitter down because of trump getting fact checked and you brought back a quote pertaining to the scope of government's ability to regulate business activity. Nothing in it about either shutting twitter down or trump getting fact checked.

My posts have not lacked substance, which is why you have run (including refusing to answer simple questions). And I quoted you saying you wanted to restrict their speech, though you said it was for a greater good (note that all opponents of free speech or holders of any position really think that it serves a greater good). Also asked you to clarify your current positions, but you have refused (because you are ashamed of them but also not willing to just change them). You also believed that conservatives were being "shadow-banned," and didn't think Twitter had the right to do that, no? The claim was false (and silly), but also indicated you didn't think they should have freedom of speech.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

.

 

[HereticBD]

Google needs more Johnny 5 gifs

You know what gif I've never seen, but should be an overplayed staple by now?

Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura saying "Obsess much?"

How is that not at the top of the page for "obsession" gifs? It's so perfect.