The thing is in America we had people who will 'use their guns to defend rights' and we had 'the other'.
The propagandist currently in control of the government has the people who will use their guns to defend their rights (which are currently and successfully being swiftly taken away) under his thumb. And the other are patiently waiting their turn at the post to make as much money as possible under Gavin Newsom.
Its more realistic to look at the situation as a leadership team during layoffs, except the layoffs are the American electorate.
Seems like it’s easier to lose our rights than defend them. It shouldn’t be.
The way Trump has exercised power and ignored the law should be a real wake up for everyone. Imagine if we had a competent dictator? We’d be in real trouble.
> Imagine if we had a competent dictator? We’d be in real trouble.
We just might. After a Democrat comes into office, gets blamed when the really bad consequences of Trump's policies manifest and gets run out on a rail, Republicans will sweep with a "return to traditional, serious business Conservatism" candidate who will really just be the next phase of Trumpism. I don't believe for a second that these people haven't been laying the groundwork for keeping the movement going after Trump.
After all, half the country still believes in everything Trumpism represents, they just want a President to follow through.
You’re being ridiculous if you’re down to the level of saying you don’t have a right to life because there’s no guarantee.
In that case there’s no rights to anything, you just don’t believe in them, and you can stop being coy about by only calling out individual instances people refer to as a right
Correct, the idea of “natural rights” left any serious philosophical defense in the 1970s. I mean bentham’s rotten head amd straw body is the the only body still in philosophy taking “natural rights”
I’ve been debating on the internet under my real name for…30 years? It got boring 20 years ago now the fun part is figuring out what bait makes people make the argument, so I don’t have to.
The most effective way to get a correct answer on the Internet is to get people to disagree with you because they want to prove how smart they are
It’s also the one way left seemingly that people learn.
They’ll see something they disagree with run off to Google or Wikipedia or now one of the chat applications, do a bunch of research (in which case they learn a bunch of stuff) and then they come back and they “prove me wrong.”
If I actually get ppl to go out and learn something that’s a win. There’s probably somebody who read this thread who never heard of Jeremy Bentham and went and looked them up, that is an unambiguous success.
Your original comment technically isn’t even wrong, it’s just the definition of “right” written in a backwards ass way. Unfortunately for you this latest comment proves that this was just an accident!
What's crazy is when asked at one point, Trump specifically referred to it as the "ban on free press". So rhetorically it's not like he's dancing around the constitutionality.
First term was somewhat coy. Second term is "yes we're violating the Constitution/law. What are you gonna do about it? Nothing? Ok cool I'll go do that again" over and over and over
I feel like this they're deliberately framing it this way to lay a trap for the courts, because accepting this framing doesn't really seem to leave a whole lot of legal wiggle room. After all, legally speaking, what is it exactly, if not a privilege? If it's a right, then basically any citizen should be allowed in, subject to fair/non-discriminatory constraints, like capacity... is/should that be the case? If it's neither then what is it?
Some in the administration certainly are capable of 4D chess, but this event seems like the standard playbook: king got mad, and everyone is scrambling for a non-insane post hoc justification.
Even some Fox News commentators have come out against it, because they do not want an illegal precedent where they could be barred from a Democratic administration.
What is really incredible to me are the lifetime politicians who so quickly sacrifice their integrity to defend these actions. There are few cases that are so clear cut.
I mean he blatantly said it was because of their reporting. That’s an in the nose first amendment violation. Full text of his ban announcement is below which was surprisingly hard to find between his firehose of shit in truth social and every media report about it only quoting fragments of sentences.
> I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them “alive.” Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS! Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP
I honestly don't understand what supposedly pro-social purpose is served by reporting on what the appointed head propagandist says from the official propaganda room in the presidential palace. A self respecting reporter should be ashamed to let anyone see their White House press credentials.
Aren't we, the reading public, better served by reporters developing sources, investigating things, and maybe reporting on something the government doesn't want to be in the news?
Rights must be demanded and defended constanrly, otherwise some tin pot dictator will take them without much of a fight.
Do you what your rights or not?
The thing is in America we had people who will 'use their guns to defend rights' and we had 'the other'.
The propagandist currently in control of the government has the people who will use their guns to defend their rights (which are currently and successfully being swiftly taken away) under his thumb. And the other are patiently waiting their turn at the post to make as much money as possible under Gavin Newsom.
Its more realistic to look at the situation as a leadership team during layoffs, except the layoffs are the American electorate.
I was really curious and looked it up. Gun owners went for Trump 2:1 in 2024. I thought it would have been higher tbh.
[flagged]
Seems like it’s easier to lose our rights than defend them. It shouldn’t be.
The way Trump has exercised power and ignored the law should be a real wake up for everyone. Imagine if we had a competent dictator? We’d be in real trouble.
> Imagine if we had a competent dictator? We’d be in real trouble.
We just might. After a Democrat comes into office, gets blamed when the really bad consequences of Trump's policies manifest and gets run out on a rail, Republicans will sweep with a "return to traditional, serious business Conservatism" candidate who will really just be the next phase of Trumpism. I don't believe for a second that these people haven't been laying the groundwork for keeping the movement going after Trump.
After all, half the country still believes in everything Trumpism represents, they just want a President to follow through.
[flagged]
The right to say useless crap on the internet seems to be in no immediate danger.
That’s not a right either
People can take your life from you, do you not have the right to live?
No you don’t, thousands of people are murdered everyday
There is nothing and nobody guaranteeing your life
There's perfectly legitimate ways to argue against the existence of natural rights (see Bentham), but this strawman ain't it.
At least someone’s done some research on the topic
My guess is that the crowd here needs to go and actually do a little bit more philosophical reading maybe start with deleuze
You’re being ridiculous if you’re down to the level of saying you don’t have a right to life because there’s no guarantee.
In that case there’s no rights to anything, you just don’t believe in them, and you can stop being coy about by only calling out individual instances people refer to as a right
Correct, the idea of “natural rights” left any serious philosophical defense in the 1970s. I mean bentham’s rotten head amd straw body is the the only body still in philosophy taking “natural rights”
Might as well be discussing luminiferous ether
Cool then don’t be coy about your beliefs on rights and just open up with that instead.
And ah I recognize your name now, I have always found your writings a tad off to put it mildly.
I’ve been debating on the internet under my real name for…30 years? It got boring 20 years ago now the fun part is figuring out what bait makes people make the argument, so I don’t have to.
The most effective way to get a correct answer on the Internet is to get people to disagree with you because they want to prove how smart they are
It’s also the one way left seemingly that people learn.
They’ll see something they disagree with run off to Google or Wikipedia or now one of the chat applications, do a bunch of research (in which case they learn a bunch of stuff) and then they come back and they “prove me wrong.”
If I actually get ppl to go out and learn something that’s a win. There’s probably somebody who read this thread who never heard of Jeremy Bentham and went and looked them up, that is an unambiguous success.
:)
> It got boring 20 years ago now the fun part is figuring out what bait makes people make the argument, so I don’t have to
I say this from a glass house. You are an asshole.
Your original comment technically isn’t even wrong, it’s just the definition of “right” written in a backwards ass way. Unfortunately for you this latest comment proves that this was just an accident!
Do you really think this is an interesting line of interrogation?
When we speak of rights, we speak of limits that should apply to our government and the actions of others, not of iron laws of the universe.
That's not what a "right" is.
If you frame it that way we have hardly any rights at all though - it would completely preclude rights like free speech, assembly, fair trial etc
So what’s the use in using that framing? What good is it?
For 99.9% of people when they talk about “rights” they just mean “I feel entitled to this, this makes me feel good”
Religious people use of the same argument to oppose freedom.
What's crazy is when asked at one point, Trump specifically referred to it as the "ban on free press". So rhetorically it's not like he's dancing around the constitutionality.
First term was somewhat coy. Second term is "yes we're violating the Constitution/law. What are you gonna do about it? Nothing? Ok cool I'll go do that again" over and over and over
Absolute treason
https://archive.ph/h6h43
I feel like this they're deliberately framing it this way to lay a trap for the courts, because accepting this framing doesn't really seem to leave a whole lot of legal wiggle room. After all, legally speaking, what is it exactly, if not a privilege? If it's a right, then basically any citizen should be allowed in, subject to fair/non-discriminatory constraints, like capacity... is/should that be the case? If it's neither then what is it?
> because accepting this framing doesn't really seem to leave a whole lot of legal wiggle room.
No, it’s not a problem. The government can’t grant or withdraw a privilege for impermissible reasons.
Courts navigate this fine line already even for their own courtrooms. There are restrictions on rights like time/place restrictions, for instance.
Some in the administration certainly are capable of 4D chess, but this event seems like the standard playbook: king got mad, and everyone is scrambling for a non-insane post hoc justification.
Even some Fox News commentators have come out against it, because they do not want an illegal precedent where they could be barred from a Democratic administration.
What is really incredible to me are the lifetime politicians who so quickly sacrifice their integrity to defend these actions. There are few cases that are so clear cut.
Do they not have press cards in America?
Does gating access behind a card not make it a privilege?
I’m curious how a Jan. 6 insurrectionist would answer this question.
Any pardoned felons here?
I mean he blatantly said it was because of their reporting. That’s an in the nose first amendment violation. Full text of his ban announcement is below which was surprisingly hard to find between his firehose of shit in truth social and every media report about it only quoting fragments of sentences.
> I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them “alive.” Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS! Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I honestly don't understand what supposedly pro-social purpose is served by reporting on what the appointed head propagandist says from the official propaganda room in the presidential palace. A self respecting reporter should be ashamed to let anyone see their White House press credentials.
Aren't we, the reading public, better served by reporters developing sources, investigating things, and maybe reporting on something the government doesn't want to be in the news?
How would we know what they don't want in the news if there's no one paying attention to what they do want in the news?
It's 2026. They can stream it.