Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
It's a Chewbacca Defense deflection. It's not meant seriously.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Honestly, a car is also very difficult to get away from someone who is too reckless to use it responsibly. Judges across the country refuse to throw the book at people who have no business behind a wheel. At least we have mandatory registration.
I can't wait until self-driving matures enough that I can reasonably count on the vehicle in the next lane to behave rationally. Not that I myself would be driving in this situation either, but you know what I mean.
Unfortunately there's no such thing as "self-driving guns".
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 27th 2021 at 2:41:50 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I mean, "Self-Driving Guns" are just combat robots. They're controversial, but personally I'm supportive of the idea once the technology gets to that point.
The world could use a Mega Man.
Edited by Protagonist506 on Mar 27th 2021 at 11:52:35 AM
Leviticus 19:34Actually, in seriousness, Battle Network was oddly prescient. I mean, a Smart Phone basically is a PET. It even has the "Net Navi" Siri.
Leviticus 19:34Getting off topic, I think.
My problem is that I just can't take Twitter seriously enough to care. He got banned from something I would never use anyway.
Of course, the real issue is liability. Twitter loved Trump because he drew followers. But now there is a non-zero chance they might be held liable for the actions of people following disinformation that appears within Twitter. Bye, bye, Mr. Trump.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.That may be a Small Reference Pool because it's not about reaching you but a billion other people.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Do we know the actual number of the US public on Twitter? We’d need to filter out bot accounts, accounts belonging to people outside the US, accounts belonging to businesses/organisation, accounts used by politicians and journalists for work, accounts used by celebrities as part of their work, sock-puppet accounts of people with another main account, ect...
How many people are actually on Twitter, compared to people hearing about Twitter news because journalists are all on Twitter?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranA problem people have when talking about Twitter is overstating how much of the population actually uses it. Yes Twitter has 187 million user accounts worldwide, but that includes duplicate accounts and bot accounts, meanwhile the US has a population of 328 million people. At the end of the day for all the talk about monopolies and Twitter's reach, only a comparatively small number of Americans actually use it.
Apparently there are 69 million Twitter accounts from America, with Japan next at 50 million and India third with 17 million.
Edited by Shaoken on Mar 27th 2021 at 7:41:28 PM
"How many people are actually on Twitter, compared to people hearing about Twitter news because journalists are all on Twitter?"
Yeah, I dont think anyone actually knows, including the folks running Twitter. Accounts are easy to count, people are another matter.
Less than 200 million total accounts worldwide? That's a lot less than even I thought it was.
Edited by DeMarquis on Mar 27th 2021 at 4:53:48 AM
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Well, the idea that blocking someone from Twitter harms their free speech rights is still ludicrous.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""That's still a lot for one single platform. Don't let Facebook dazzle you into thinking anything under a billion is peanuts."
The problem I'm having isn't the size of a social media platform, it's that I have a difficult time taking social media in general very seriously (except as a problem).
Edited by DeMarquis on Mar 27th 2021 at 5:02:15 AM
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.The proper response to people whatabouting cars is to agree with them. "Sure, so why don't we treat guns like cars? You know, licensing, registration, insurance, and we take your gun away if you unholster it after you've been drinking."
(It won't work, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be said more often.)
In terms of Trump getting banned from Twitter, one important element to remember is that he basically shut himself up after the ban. He refused to use any of the other methods available to him until he started basically posting tweets on the White House website.
It's the same situation now, where he has a bunch of different avenues available to him, he just refuses to use any of them because he's a stubborn ass.
The thing that everyone's kind of glossing over is that Twitter does have specifically stated rules and Trump did break them. Well before he was actually banned, but he broke specific rules. If a public figure wants to stay on Twitter, they should...just not break the rules. And the rules aren't really that onerous either. The problem is that Twitter doesn't enforce them properly in general, not that public figures are sometimes subject to them.
Like, if there's a public park, and someone's going around screaming about how they should be in charge and that they could get away with murdering someone and actively trying to cause other people to commit violence, that's not a free speech issue, that person is actively dangerous and should be arrested. It doesn't actually matter that they're on public property, they're still threatening to cause active harm. And if they're a politician or an ex-politician, that shouldn't protect them.
I kind of get what Sanders was talking about, but it's super naive and doesn't address the rules of the platform or the actual reason Trump was banned.
Edited by Zendervai on Mar 27th 2021 at 5:29:57 AM

A long time ago I legit heard someone say, "YEAH WELL TED KENNEDY KILLED A WOMAN WITH HIS CAR, SHOULD WE BAN CARS TOO".
It's the most asinine form of whataboutism I've ever heard.
No beer?! But if there's no beer, then there's no beef or beans!