mbainter.bsky.social
148 posts
45 followers
132 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I can see how you got there but that's not really my argument. Bluesky just isn't designed for nuanced conversation.
comment in response to
post
Journalists have it bad enough already without having to constantly move their limited support base around to keep the keyboard warriors happy.
comment in response to
post
I have no problem with people making that choice for themselves, or advocating that others do it. But when someone makes that choice the ethical standard for everyone else that's where I have a problem.
comment in response to
post
(btw - I'm still interacting with *you* because your disagreement was reasonable and not ad-hom. I don't think there are easy answers here and I'm happy to engage. I just dislike seeing us tearing down those who would be our allies over an ethical gray area)
comment in response to
post
Look at the kind of things that have been said to me here for saying that people should be able to make different ethical choices wrt using substack or subscribing to one without being constantly dragged for it. Even the original comment I replied to that started this.
comment in response to
post
But I'm not asking anyone to befriend or even read the people on substack. I'm just saying maybe we shouldn't tear down those who are allied with us because they view the ethics of this differently and choose to keep their content on substack or to subscribe to people who do.
comment in response to
post
Because friendship requires genuine affection built around trust. I could build that kind of connection with someone so diametrically opposed to me, who would actively want to hurt people I care about.
comment in response to
post
True, in the sense of public ownership. I'm meaning a space open to the public, like the theoretical "bar" mentioned in this discussion. I don't see it as fundamentally different than that.
comment in response to
post
I'm not arguing for bothsidesing. I'm not even arguing deplatforming is a bad idea. I'm arguing that this kind of "purity test" mentality where we demonize people for not making the exact same ethical decisions we do as the enemy isn't productive. And mayben either is leaving those spaces sometimes.
comment in response to
post
I'm arguing we should not fall into that same trap. We should learn from their mistakes.
comment in response to
post
The point is that we've seen the way the right labels everything they don't like as communism and specifically, the communism of authoritarian regimes. Or to associate people with it to discredit and silence them.
comment in response to
post
I specifically didn't use a specific number because the specific numbers are debatable and often inflated by propaganda. But it doesn't change the terrible suffering under lenin, stalin, mao, pot, etc. but that is not the point.
comment in response to
post
Not the way I would define friends, but I do know people who I would argue support fascist ideas. But I'm not arguing we should be friends here, I'm arguing we should cede public spaces or accuse people of guilt by association just for using a common software tool.
comment in response to
post
That's a fair critique. I should've said their official policy is to be content neutral, but they have definitely acted inconsistently with that in promoting content like hers.
comment in response to
post
What I'm against is authoritarianism in all its forms.
comment in response to
post
Weiss is not a neutral voice. She pretends at it but not very well.
comment in response to
post
The problem is authoritarianism, not just the fascist brand of it. Millions have been killed under both communism and fascism. Should we also bar "communists" from public spaces? Who gets to decide who is a "communist" or a "Nazi"? Is the mere accusation enough? Is associating enough?
comment in response to
post
That is a self fulfilling prophecy though. We cause that by ceding those spaces to them, and by castigating folks who choose to stay and make sure other points of view are represented.
comment in response to
post
And the perceived "oppression" of those views by the elusive "they" only adds weight to those arguments for those folks.
comment in response to
post
When someone gets pipelined into those dark corners they only get the propaganda. Nobody is engaging with them, and with the data we have on the level of literacy in this country too many don't have the tools to see through it on their own.
comment in response to
post
I understand your point of view, but there is an argument to be made that forcing these views underground hasn't helped. Having it out in the open where we can respond to it and expose its intellectual bankruptcy might be better.
comment in response to
post
That's disingenuous. They are aggressively content neutral and therefore do not remove people for having views they may find abhorrent. That's not the same as being a far right platform. There is a lot of progressive content on substack.
comment in response to
post
Fortunate son isn't mocking the military, it's protesting that the wealthy and connected made sure their kids didn't go while flippantly sending others to fight.
comment in response to
post
Unless whoever picked the music was a subversive intending for this to be a big middle finger to Trump.
comment in response to
post
They do have that right, but it only protects against the *government* infringing on it. As individuals in a community we are not required to give them a hearing.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Oops, that should read *will not click thru*
comment in response to
post
Except the insurrection act is an explicit exception to PCA, and the NDAA further guts its protections. Even if that wasn't true, who is going to enforce it? Congress? The Courts?
comment in response to
post
There is more in the article, though I have a laundry list of issues with that as well. However, the NYT has data on readers, they know most people watching this short will click thru to the article, and of those that do most won't read beyond the headline or first paragraphs.
nyti.ms/4kxgvAf
comment in response to
post
Tolerated? In a lot of them it's considered a delicacy!
comment in response to
post
And I'll be honest, I'm not sure I care if they were cited for being in a u-haul. It seems like a petty and futile response to the repugnant ideology being put on display. A thunderous unmistakable rejection from us is needed, not a moving violation from the state gov's costumed lapdogs.
comment in response to
post
I understand why you came to the conclusion but I do not hold the position from your final clause (following the "but"). Is there some point about the rest you feel is incongruent with reality?
And do you think the city gov dissenting would be meaningful when KCPD doesn't answer to them?
comment in response to
post
*more* than a strongly worded letter? Are you trying to give Chuck Schumer the vapors?
comment in response to
post
If they're right, then there *should* be consequences, but I think we both know...
comment in response to
post
I am not an expert, so I'm prepared to be wrong on this - but I don't put a lot of stock in a police officer's knowledge of the law. Particularly given that it is to their benefit to be ignorant of it under current case law.
comment in response to
post
Often unmentioned as well is the tax paid by employees in commuting to work, child care, parking/transportation, etc. The opportunity costs we pay in our own well-being when we end up commuting 2-3 hours a day plus a full day of work.
(Mind - I know all of these matter to *you*.)
comment in response to
post
intervals what amazon and other tech giants did to the areas around Seattle. Wonderful local businesses, restaurants and people driven out by rising cost of living and skyrocketing property demand. Not to mention the other impacts of growing urban environments.
comment in response to
post
and they see the need to be intentional about leadership, investment and communication as an undue burden. We are too quick to accept this without considering the other point of view.
What about the tax *we* pay as society for what it means to concentrate a workforce? I saw firsthand in punctuated
comment in response to
post
In this thread you also mentioned a tax businesses pay, and I can't help but come back to that because I do think this is an issue. The costs of office real-estate often come with benefits to an employer, and so they struggle to see the costs they pay for remote as a wash.
comment in response to
post
I don't think *you* are saying they're insurmountable - but that is a common refrain among the RTO crowd...esp the uh, "less savory" elements. Nauseating viewpoints from techbro C&C types we constantly see promoted across business "news" and opinion sites like Forbes.
comment in response to
post
For #2, yes - you said those were defaults. However, I was referring to the broader scope of your comments and I was attempting to express how that wider commentary was coming across to me as an individual audience member.
comment in response to
post
It's not actually against the law to do that in MO or in KC, as best as I can tell from reading the relevant statues as a layman.
It's hard to say what would happen if the same size group of BLM protestors did the same thing, but if the reaction wasn't the same it would be *unlawful*.
comment in response to
post
Arrogance.
comment in response to
post
This is all bs. It's a way of convincing people who don't understand the technology to believe the marketing about how advanced it is. Particularly gullible CEOs that will then mandate paying obscene amounts of money for access.