Author Topic: Google facing multiple lawsuits  (Read 49605 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10686
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #180 on: November 03, 2017, 08:24:27 pm »
That's not a gish gallop you Nazi water carrying moron.  That's actually dealing with the topic at hand.

Ironbite-god you're dumb.

Offline Svata

  • Doesn't even fucking know anymore
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Gender: Male
  • No, seriously, fuck astrology.
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #181 on: November 04, 2017, 01:51:22 am »
[
She has also repeated the bullshit about free speech being under fire on college campuses

It's not "bullshit", it's true. What do you call speakers being deplatformed?




NO. ONE. IS. UNDER. AN. OBLIGATION. TO. PROVIDE. A. PLATFORM. FOR. ANYONE.
"Politician" is the occupational equivalent of "Florida".

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5680
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #182 on: November 04, 2017, 02:28:22 am »
[
She has also repeated the bullshit about free speech being under fire on college campuses

It's not "bullshit", it's true. What do you call speakers being deplatformed?




NO. ONE. IS. UNDER. AN. OBLIGATION. TO. PROVIDE. A. PLATFORM. FOR. ANYONE.

I would argue that when you're a public institution, then you run into narrow-right (as opposed to broad-principle) free speech issues.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #183 on: November 04, 2017, 02:44:45 am »
At this point I think it's clear to everyone that Lana knows that they don't have a case. That's why they haven't replied to Murdin. They want a comeback or counterpoint, not to admit that they were wrong and have "lost."
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline Cloud3514

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1776
  • 404: Personal text not found.
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #184 on: November 04, 2017, 04:08:36 am »
Speaking of annoyances, let me deal with some of Cloud's bullshit:

You want to prove that you're not who we think you are... and you pull out the single stupidest tactic of the Ultimate Paragon playbook by specifically calling ME out long after I've stopped arguing with you. I mean, I COULD go through your post point by point and explain how many of those points are fallacious, aren't even arguments (linking an article instead of making a point is not an argument) and demonstrate things like a complete lack of understanding of free speech (as Svata pointed out, free speech does not entitle you to an audience or a platform. Saying that "deplatforming" is censorship is like saying that you have to listen to a Klansman's opinions on people of color in the name of free speech), but I don't have to.

The fact that you're responding to me THREE MONTHS LATER, long after I stopped arguing with you instead of responding to Murdin trying to argue against you in good faith shows that you have no interest in actually discussing these things, you just want to be right. You want us to acknowledge that you've beaten us and the fact that you have zero credibility (and are quite possibly just using a new account to evade at least one ban) and no one here will ever take you seriously at this point makes me wonder WHY you think your bad faith arguments are going to get us to acknowledge that you're right about anything.
Who needs a signature?

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Gender: Female
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #185 on: November 04, 2017, 10:16:52 am »
[
She has also repeated the bullshit about free speech being under fire on college campuses

It's not "bullshit", it's true. What do you call speakers being deplatformed?




NO. ONE. IS. UNDER. AN. OBLIGATION. TO. PROVIDE. A. PLATFORM. FOR. ANYONE.



At this point I think it's clear to everyone that Lana knows that they don't have a case. That's why they haven't replied to Murdin. They want a comeback or counterpoint, not to admit that they were wrong and have "lost."

No, it's because I'm not angry at Murdin. Skybison, Ironbite, and Cloud have all been getting on my last nerve.

Also, direct question: why aren't you reprimanding them for their blatantly dickish behavior? Normally, I wouldn't ask that of you, but since it's against the rules...

Speaking of annoyances, let me deal with some of Cloud's bullshit:

You want to prove that you're not who we think you are... and you pull out the single stupidest tactic of the Ultimate Paragon playbook by specifically calling ME out long after I've stopped arguing with you. I mean, I COULD go through your post point by point and explain how many of those points are fallacious, aren't even arguments (linking an article instead of making a point is not an argument)

...Isn't that exactly what you did?!

and demonstrate things like a complete lack of understanding of free speech (as Svata pointed out, free speech does not entitle you to an audience or a platform. Saying that "deplatforming" is censorship is like saying that you have to listen to a Klansman's opinions on people of color in the name of free speech), but I don't have to.

No, the two aren't even remotely similar. There's a difference between refusing to listen to somebody and trying to prevent other people from hearing what they have to say.

The fact that you're responding to me THREE MONTHS LATER, long after I stopped arguing with you instead of responding to Murdin trying to argue against you in good faith shows that you have no interest in actually discussing these things, you just want to be right. You want us to acknowledge that you've beaten us and the fact that you have zero credibility (and are quite possibly just using a new account to evade at least one ban) and no one here will ever take you seriously at this point makes me wonder WHY you think your bad faith arguments are going to get us to acknowledge that you're right about anything.

No, it's because you got me mad by "subtly" accusing me of being in bed with the alt-right. I'll admit my response to you was emotionally motivated, however.
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.

Offline Svata

  • Doesn't even fucking know anymore
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Gender: Male
  • No, seriously, fuck astrology.
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #186 on: November 04, 2017, 12:18:23 pm »
Why did you quote me and then say nothing in response to it??
"Politician" is the occupational equivalent of "Florida".

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10686
  • Gender: Male
  • Stuck in the middle with you.
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #187 on: November 04, 2017, 03:28:15 pm »
Because Lana has no response to that.  She just wants us to think she's got one.

Ironbite-an amazingly stupid strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off.

Offline Cloud3514

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1776
  • 404: Personal text not found.
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #188 on: November 04, 2017, 04:18:07 pm »
...Isn't that exactly what you did?!

Do you even know what reading comprehension is? My post made one major point: Your sources are bad. All of those links? Were there to back up that point. It's really not that hard to understand what I was trying to say.

Quote
No, the two aren't even remotely similar. There's a difference between refusing to listen to somebody and trying to prevent other people from hearing what they have to say.

YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A PLATFORM.

If someone tells you that you're not going to use their platform, you have not been censored. You're still free to believe whatever the fuck you want to be believe. Your rights have not been violated.

Quote
No, it's because you got me mad by "subtly" accusing me of being in bed with the alt-right. I'll admit my response to you was emotionally motivated, however.

Well, if the shoe fits....
Who needs a signature?

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #189 on: November 04, 2017, 05:42:30 pm »
No, it's because I'm not angry at Murdin. Skybison, Ironbite, and Cloud have all been getting on my last nerve.

You really are just here for the drama aren't you? If you weren't you would have addressed Murdin's points to defend the position of Damore and his supporters but you're much more interested in defending your ego than your position.

Just take it down to flame and burn already, this was never a science and tech thread. At best it's about the politics of diversity and Damore's opposition to it but I don't think you even care about that. You just want to troll angry reactions out of people and watch the sparks fly. We have a place for that, F&B-that's what it's for!

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Gender: Female
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #190 on: November 04, 2017, 05:55:24 pm »
Because Lana has no response to that.  She just wants us to think she's got one.

Ironbite-an amazingly stupid strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off.

Actually, I accidentally hit "post". What I was going to say was that, in many cases, disinvitation amounts to raising a stink until the event gets cancelled. I don't support the use of mob pressure to shut down public meetings.

...Isn't that exactly what you did?!

Do you even know what reading comprehension is? My post made one major point: Your sources are bad. All of those links? Were there to back up that point. It's really not that hard to understand what I was trying to say.

And my post made one major point: most of your "criticisms" held water like a colander. All of those links? Were to back up that point.

Besides, you certainly complained a lot about my sources being "right-wing" (which automatically means they're bunk, apparently), but you never refuted them. So don't act like you won.

Quote
No, the two aren't even remotely similar. There's a difference between refusing to listen to somebody and trying to prevent other people from hearing what they have to say.

YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A PLATFORM.

If someone tells you that you're not going to use their platform, you have not been censored. You're still free to believe whatever the fuck you want to be believe. Your rights have not been violated.

What if you've already been given a platform, but a third party decides to try and take it away from you? Is that not censorship?

Quote
No, it's because you got me mad by "subtly" accusing me of being in bed with the alt-right. I'll admit my response to you was emotionally motivated, however.

Well, if the shoe fits....

Oh, because I don't agree with your particular brand of left-wing politics, I'm alt-right? Is it because I don't uncritically support Antifa? Or is there some other basis for your claim?

No, it's because I'm not angry at Murdin. Skybison, Ironbite, and Cloud have all been getting on my last nerve.

You really are just here for the drama aren't you? If you weren't you would have addressed Murdin's points to defend the position of Damore and his supporters but you're much more interested in defending your ego than your position.

Just take it down to flame and burn already, this was never a science and tech thread. At best it's about the politics of diversity and Damore's opposition to it but I don't think you even care about that. You just want to troll angry reactions out of people and watch the sparks fly. We have a place for that, F&B-that's what it's for!

I'm sorry, you're accusing me of being a troll? Not the people calling me a "Nazi water-carrier"? Not the people accusing me of ban-dodging based on zero evidence?
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3716
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #191 on: November 04, 2017, 06:00:34 pm »
Well, you only respond to people who insult you enough to warrant your time.

No, it's because I'm not angry at Murdin. Skybison, Ironbite, and Cloud have all been getting on my last nerve.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure Murdin called you a disingenuous, science-hater more interested in pushing your ideological wheelbarrow than getting to the truth of the matter.

 
I fully expected our buddy to jump on the fact that I was supporting some of the memo's claims, and then deflect the burden of proof on us for the rest. Sure enough:
What evidence? Seriously, what evidence? Even Murdin, for all his/her criticisms, didn't actually disprove any of Damore's statements, and even acknowledged that he was right about a lot of things.

Nevermind, I got the order wrong! But I guess it doesn't matter too much when the two utterly predictable rhetorical pirouettes are condensed in a single sentence.

Our buddy here has never had any interest in mutually constructive discourse. I think we're all aware of that by now. Assuming good faith is a beautiful idea, but we also have to accept the fact that people rarely initiate or join this kind of discussion without an ulterior motive. Some simply don't give two shits about wisdom or understanding or any of these soft-hearted degenerate progressive values ; they just want to be right, and pulling all their weight towards their narrative is the most efficient way to achieve that goal.

Obviously not a direct question this time, buddy, but... why do you hate science so much? Why do you keep using it as a blunt weapon against your rhetorical opponents, without showing any respect to its most fundamental principles? Why do you spew self-righteous bullshit like "I guess science is sexist now" or "rather than approaching this ideologically, let's look at it scientifically", only to effectively disown it by including such enormities in your narrative?

Apparently these don't get under your skin sufficiently to garner a response. Clearly his facts were boring and his insults were too highbrow to rustle your jimmies. You aren't here for the discussion, just the trash talk.

If you were here for the issue at hand you might have responded to Murdin's takedown of the Damore-supporting Nintil blogs use of the "Everest Regression". His criticism of the authors interpretation of probability values or that blogs use of survey data from some remote corner of Scotland with a tiny population done in the early decades of the 20th century but that would have been boring.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2017, 06:24:57 pm by Tolpuddle Martyr »

Offline Cloud3514

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1776
  • 404: Personal text not found.
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #192 on: November 04, 2017, 07:04:06 pm »
Oh, because I don't agree with your particular brand of left-wing politics, I'm alt-right? Is it because I don't uncritically support Antifa? Or is there some other basis for your claim?

I'm done trying to argue with you. You didn't address my point. You took each of my statements about why I think your source was pure alt-right horse shit and did one of two things; either say "no, you're wrong" without actually making a point or say "no you're wrong" while linking to an article without actually making a point. You never even made your own argument. But that's not why I call you alt-right.

I call you alt-right because unfailingly do you parrot alt-right talking points. You show the same kind of complete lack of understanding of free speech. You trot out their buzzwords like "SJW" and "regressive left." You sea lion like them. You manage to find ways to agree with them on even the most idiotic of points. You're either alt-right or an alt-right sympathizer and only you seem to be blind to that.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2017, 07:08:06 pm by Cloud3514 »
Who needs a signature?

Offline Eiki-mun

  • der Löwe aus Mitternacht
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Gender: Male
  • On the fields of Breitenfeld.
    • Main Personal Blog
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #193 on: November 05, 2017, 05:15:30 pm »

What if you've already been given a platform, but a third party decides to try and take it away from you? Is that not censorship?


I want to focus on this one sentence in particular. It really depends on the actions of the third party in question. If they choose to use their free speech to remind those giving the platform that their actions may have financial or other consequences, or if they choose to protest or use their free speech to shout down the person given the platform using their own platform, then it's not censorship by any means. If they, oh, say...

Decide to shoot the people who are exercising their free speech rights, then that's obviously censorship. Among other things, like attempted murder.
There is no plague more evil and vile to watch spread than the plague that is the Von Habsburg dynasty.

Offline Lana Reverse

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Gender: Female
Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
« Reply #194 on: November 05, 2017, 07:37:32 pm »
Oh, because I don't agree with your particular brand of left-wing politics, I'm alt-right? Is it because I don't uncritically support Antifa? Or is there some other basis for your claim?

I'm done trying to argue with you. You didn't address my point. You took each of my statements about why I think your source was pure alt-right horse shit and did one of two things; either say "no, you're wrong" without actually making a point or say "no you're wrong" while linking to an article without actually making a point. You never even made your own argument. But that's not why I call you alt-right.

I call you alt-right because unfailingly do you parrot alt-right talking points. You show the same kind of complete lack of understanding of free speech. You trot out their buzzwords like "SJW" and "regressive left." You sea lion like them. You manage to find ways to agree with them on even the most idiotic of points. You're either alt-right or an alt-right sympathizer and only you seem to be blind to that.

You're only proving my point. Believe it or not, I actually thought your opinion might've been based on an innocent misunderstanding. But now, I know that I'm only "alt-right" because your definition of the term is hilariously broad. The term "regressive left" was coined by Maajid Nawaz, a Pakistani-British Muslim. My views on free speech were inspired in part by Frederick Douglass, hardly somebody I'd expect the alt-right to admire. If believing in the right to express unpopular opinions makes me alt-right, then I guess the ACLU is alt-right too. Your explanation of why you think I'm alt-right says a lot more about your ignorance and prejudices than any flaw on my part. Since I now know that we're working on fundamentally different definitions of the term, I'm just going to ignore any further accusations you might give.

But that doesn't mean I'm giving up hope on you. You're not stupid, and you have the capacity to learn. I'd just like to warn you that lumping everybody you disagree with into the same category never ends well. I used to make the mistake of doing that, and it came back to bite me in the ass. Don't let that happen to you.


What if you've already been given a platform, but a third party decides to try and take it away from you? Is that not censorship?


I want to focus on this one sentence in particular. It really depends on the actions of the third party in question. If they choose to use their free speech to remind those giving the platform that their actions may have financial or other consequences, or if they choose to protest or use their free speech to shout down the person given the platform using their own platform, then it's not censorship by any means. If they, oh, say...

Decide to shoot the people who are exercising their free speech rights, then that's obviously censorship. Among other things, like attempted murder.

Wholeheartedly agreed on the latter part, but not so much on the former.

Quote from: Frederick Douglass
Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

Granting the right to speak but not the right to hear is like granting the right to sell but not the right to buy. Before you mistake my meaning, I don't have a problem with debate. Arguments are not censorship, they're responses. I don't have a problem with protesting speakers either. What I do mind is trying to prevent a speaker from being heard. When you do that, you are robbing their audience of their right to listen.

Consider the following scenario: George Takei is invited to speak about LGBT issues at Regent University by the school's Gay-Straight Alliance (for the purposes of this hypothetical scenario, let's pretend Regent has one). Some of the school's more vocally religious students take offense to what they believe he will say. They start a campaign to have the talk cancelled, claiming that what he's previously said is "violent" and "harmful". When that fails, they try to force the event's cancellation through intimidation. This time, they succeed. Was Mr. Takei censored? Was his audience wronged?
Beware those who hate the rich more than they love the poor.