1
fskfsk 1 point ago +1 / -0

That can't happen in the USA because:

The Antifa were outnumbered.

The Irish people knew the police were backing them instead of frivolously prosecuting them.

1
fskfsk 1 point ago +1 / -0

The is why cops need to use restraining holds. How are you supposed to arrest someone who doesn't want to be arrested?

by jaylaw
1
fskfsk 1 point ago +1 / -0

How would a voter in NYC know about this? This is the first time I ever heard about it.

3
fskfsk 3 points ago +3 / -0

This is why you never promote your own business on Twitter/FaceBook/Reddit/etc. They can cut you off at any time for any reason, and then you lose the audience you worked so hard for. Even if you don't get banned, FaceBook can refuse to show your content to your followers unless you pay to promote it.

When you put content on FaceBook, you're promoting FaceBook's brand, not your own brand.

Always make your own website on your own domain, as thedonald.win found out.

0
fskfsk 0 points ago +1 / -1

http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/Exhibit207072020.pdf

I don't see how this proves the officer's innocence. It sounds like they're talking past each other. The transcript is 20 minutes of:

Officer: Quit resisting, get in the police car.

Floyd: I can't breathe! I'm dying! I'm not resisting!

It goes on and on like that for 20 minutes.

1
fskfsk 1 point ago +1 / -0

That article missed the real point.

IT departments in big corporations are now 100% Indian. That doesn't happen without institutional racism.

I go on interviews, and I'm the only person there who was born in the USA. I wonder why they even bothered interviewing me. There's probably some requirement that they "couldn't find qualified Americans" before hiring more h1bs, so they go through the motions of interviewing people they have no intention of hiring.

Who's hurt by this? Older workers, some minorities, people from 2nd or 3rd tier schools, who wind up not getting any job at all.

1
fskfsk 1 point ago +1 / -0

What's rule 240? Do you mean section 230 safe harbor provision? That's what makes companies like Google/Facebook/Twitter not legally responsible for what the users post, BUT at the same time has enough loopholes to allow political censorship.

Donald Trump tried to remove section 230 protection via executive order, but I'm not sure he will win in court.

1
fskfsk 1 point ago +1 / -0

I was reading about this, and almost all the posts I found were people cheering the ban. Is it that one-sided now? Has the other view been completely censored?

Even the Libertarians were saying "Well, YouTube is a private company, they can do whatever they want." The problem with that line of reasoning is that, for 99%+ of the people, if you aren't on Twitter/Google/FaceBook, you don't exist.

You can say "Well, make your own website.", but they even have an answer for that. You'll get banned from Paypal, credit card processing, hosts, and domain registrars. Also, the network effect favoring the incumbents is HUGE.

Also, YouTube is (I believe) still not profitable. It's subsidized by Google's other revenue. If you pay your own video hosting costs, the $$$$ will get to you quickly.

Yeah, I could stop using Twitter/Reddit/YouTube, but that's cutting myself off from 99%+ of the stuff that's out there.

Personally, I found Stefan Molyneux too tiresome to listen to. He'll spend 2 hours on a video when the idea could be explained in 3 minutes. I agree with things like Taxation is Theft and the non-aggression principle, but I don't have the time to listen to him for hours a day.