TakeYouToTasker

As has been, quite frequently, the case in these scenarios lately. When you attempt to implement a philosophy in which victimhood confers power, don't be surprised when people start to manufacture victimhood.

Any other logical fallacies you'd like to post today?

No, you're making it about the government, because you're talking about the enforcement of a "should" action, and it's the government tasked with the enforcement. As such, there's absolutely zero way around the fact that you'll be instructing the government to be the arbiter of what the actual truth is in order to enforce your standards. If you don't want to go down the rabbit hole, Alice, start by not jumping directly into it with both feet. Further, these media don't "seek" First Amendment protections. They have them, guaranteed by the Amendment in question, which does not issue caveats nor carve-outs in it's language. You're asking for a new interpretation of the Document which would create a new type of unprotected speech, and the speech you're looking to exempt from Constitutional protection is political speech. It's absolutely beyond me how you don't view these things as absurdly problematic.

Or vice-versa, depending on who's in power.

OK, so you actually do wish to implement an official "Ministry of Truth". Because our government is absolutely trustworthy, and should be able to dictate to it's citizens what the truth is, and should be able to punish those who step outside what they have decided are the boundaries, and this is in no way problematic, and certainly doesn't directly jeopardize freedom?

misleading title

You're a completely classless piece of ****.,

Your "solution" in which government actors, and their lackys with large tech firms, are the arbiter of what American citizens are permitted to read is far more problematic than American citizens being influenced by foreign actors. It's not that it's "OK", it's that the remedy is worse than the disease.

What he's suggesting is that he's not that familiar with democratic principles or the English language.

No, you're missing the point if you think there's any meaningful difference between setting up a facebook group to market an idea to individuals or taking out an ad. Both are advertising mediums, and neither are coercive or use force.

Thank God there's an "official" thread. I thought the unofficial threads were super unprofessional.

You're equating wealth with income, which is inaccurate, but I'll play. The top 1% wealthiest Americans pay roughly 50% of all taxes. Given they only control roughly 40% of all wealth, is it fair to say that they are currently overtaxed?

Helmet to helmet!!!

Zay!!!

Ohhhh, nice catch Zay!

Late hit!

Read option!!!

Please be ok Shady

Oooof. No good.

That's against us.

Great stop! 3 and out baby!!!!

You think CEOs of publicly traded companies should skip earnings reports to shareholders (in this case almost everyone who owns any sort of non-sector mutual fund) to participate in uninformative dog and pony shows at the behest of political royalty?

I thought the left wanted tax loopholes closed? Or did you just mean loopholes for other people?

No, I don't miss the point entirely. What those Facebook adds are, are opinions, real or not, about American politics. They are not coercive, and do not involve force. America is a free country, and for all the problems inherent to the situation, creating a structure under which a "Ministry of Information" official or otherwise, which dictates what information Americans are allowed to read is a much greater problem.