I think there needs to be a balance. Not too far for either extreme. I believe one party depends on the other... They should work together finding what should be common goals. The split is so intense that there is a bigger battle to stay in power and appear as good for the population than to cooperate together to bettering the country. That sucks, but it's how it is. Idk tho, I think having only two parties with weight is damaging... It's telling enough that the option that it is not Trump with the most popularity is Biden, in spite of him being too old and weary to represent the country as a president. He isn't in the condition for the burden of the tasks of a president of one of the biggest countries... Yet still he's the most popular after Trump, which is weird if it represents the sentiment of the population as a whole...
General Politics Thread
- Thread starter Yoshi
- Start date
Both are popular because of the media and the economy. Trump is the most moderate president of my lifetime. He is very much a populist but the media paints him as Hitler. Biden is the most progressive president (not in a good way) of my lifetime as well, even more so than Obama.
Our political landscape is a mess.
Last edited:
Well, but I don't think the standard media plays that big of a role anymore. I think with the access to internet, and just ppl's own interest in seeking videos, interviews and all... Have a wider reaching than whatever the mainstream media decides to portray. That's why I find it strange that outside of Trump, there's no viable opportunity that could feasibly win other than Biden.Both are popular because of the media and the economy. Trump is the most moderate president of my lifetime. He is very much a populist but the media paints him as Hitler. Biden is the most progressive president (not in a good way) of my lifetime as well, even more so than Obama.
Our political landscape is a mess.
The right has options people like, the left doesn't. I think this is because they let weird socialists into their democrat party like the libertarians did.
The media as a whole still has massive influence. TV media has influence over people that are older, internet media through people that are younger. The reason it does is because most people just don't pay attention. A lot of people will hear some vague story about Trump being a criminal and think "how can anyone support him?" without looking into anything. You don't see it as much on the other side because the media overwhelmingly supports democrats. They are the machine war party now. It used to be republicans. There are still plenty of republicans that support the same BS war crap but there is a growing faction of populists within the party which I am thankful for. The two party system sucks.
Eh I think the traditional media would have a tendency to support democrats, while the internet social media like X and all gathers more strength from crazy far rights, like Andrew Tate, that creator from LibsOfTikTok....
Up until Elon took over, social media was heavily favouring Democrats. Google, Twitter and Facebook have all been caught multiple times throttling right-wing content (I'm talking centre-right, not far-right).
Ehh I feel Elon plays a neutral standpoint but he seems pretty right leaning to me... And while he has done some good banning of sickening content, many idiots are allowed to have a voice there who spread nothing but hateful content towards certain groups, like Andrew Tate --- sickening misogynistic, Chaya from tiktok who speaks of matters she doesn't even understand and always in a ridiculing situation as "that's what leftism do to ppl", plus making outlandish comments that do nothing but spread harm. That MMA fighter as well, Sean Strickland, constantly talking about homosexualism in a very sickening way, saying some times that he wishes to kill some YouTubers who he doesn't consider "man".... X does a terrible job at that...
For what it's worth, I don't agree with Andrew Tate in the slightest, but I think he should be allowed to have his content accessible (so long as it's not illegal). It's better to know what ideas are out there and how to deal with them (and which people embrace them), then to pretend they don't exist.
Furthermore, Chaya does little more than share publicly viewable TikToks. That's hardly hateful. There is concerning content out there that people pretend doesn't exist or are trying to treat as normal. I think this stuff does need to be exposed.
Finally: okay, let's say we ban all these varying degree of hateful but not necessarily illegal stuff (parts of which you described, I am entirely on your side about it being wrong or sickening). People aren't exposed to it. Okay.
1. people still harbour these feelings and ideas, and discuss them in other places. That's why 4chan exists. That's why "the dark web" exists. That's why a lot of very sickening content gets distributed on E2EE services like Telegram. You're not going to stop those particular ideas manifesting by censoring the slightly less worse people like Andrew Tate spewing crap.
2. it's all great, that's happy. Let's say someone further left or further right than Elon/Zuck/whoever takes over the platforms and decides "Hm... no BLM content" or "Provide your voting history or you can't participate". While they're well within their rights as platform owners to do that, you're also setting precedent of censoring idealogues they don't agree with just because.
Furthermore, Chaya does little more than share publicly viewable TikToks. That's hardly hateful. There is concerning content out there that people pretend doesn't exist or are trying to treat as normal. I think this stuff does need to be exposed.
Finally: okay, let's say we ban all these varying degree of hateful but not necessarily illegal stuff (parts of which you described, I am entirely on your side about it being wrong or sickening). People aren't exposed to it. Okay.
1. people still harbour these feelings and ideas, and discuss them in other places. That's why 4chan exists. That's why "the dark web" exists. That's why a lot of very sickening content gets distributed on E2EE services like Telegram. You're not going to stop those particular ideas manifesting by censoring the slightly less worse people like Andrew Tate spewing crap.
2. it's all great, that's happy. Let's say someone further left or further right than Elon/Zuck/whoever takes over the platforms and decides "Hm... no BLM content" or "Provide your voting history or you can't participate". While they're well within their rights as platform owners to do that, you're also setting precedent of censoring idealogues they don't agree with just because.
The problem is that ppl shouldn't be allowed to spout totally degenerate content with heavy misogynistic and homophobic views, some times approaching it even with threats, because they are influencers, there are ppl who follow them a lot, so they do have the power to influence ppl into hateful content... That's not right. And LibsOfTikTok would many times pick videos outta context, add own snide remarks in them and in a biased way dig for those that might be more outlandish and then portray the left who support the LGBTQ as that way, by choosing extreme videos who were still made in a way with snide remarks. She was advocating for what kids were being taught and when some woman interviewed her for her to talk about the book she wanted to forbid, she didn't even know to tell a little about what the book was about or how it was harmful. Not to mention continuously painting people LGBTQ in her accounts as individuals removed from reality, and all... Can't see how this isn't harmful
By those standards, you'd have to ban just about all influencers, left and right (which in all honesty, I'm all for).
Well, not quite. I think it'd just need a good sense to identify what is within freedom of speech and what's already bordering hateful comment that may affect others in risky ways
Just to be clear: I don't agree with people posting hateful comments. However, they have the right to expression within the means of the law.
But giving governments the right to legislate against that is a very fast decline into tyranny. There's a lot of wtf cases in the UK of people being arrested for "hate crimes" for things like:
Singing 'Kung Fu Fighting'
Sharing memes
Praying silently outside abortion clinics
Yeah, that's why I think there should be an independent organisation that would evaluate each decision of taking that down and one which would have as much power as members of the government who would take the comments down... Which could even be argued to be done by the judiciary system, if from a neutral power the best. It should be implemented in transparent ways and assured that there'd be no debate and exchange of ideas with society and specialists even over some that got taken down unfairly.
But I mean, you get to the same problem. Who elects the indepedent organisation? Who oversees them? How do you assure they have no biases? How do you prevent it being overrun or manipulated by activists? Who pays for it?
These people are just as vulnerable, corruptable and human as elected officials. It's just the same crap with extra steps.
Yes, they are... But still, that's why I think it should have as much transparency about the process of regulating posts as possible. It will be vulnerable to corruption, sure... But everything regarding politics is vulnerable to corruption and manipulation...
On the one hand, I don't really support the draft, and women forced into combat even less.They are trying to pass drafting equality and forcing women to be part of it if it were to come to it.
On the other hand, the equality is actually equality.
Oh I get it. I think most women that would be drafted wouldn't be sent to the front line anyways but still.