the whole "innocent until proven guilty" shit is just as stupid as the people whining about the first amendment when twitter suspends them or whatever. The whole point is to protect you from the state. Every single American could believe Gaetz is guilty of trafficking a minor and he would still get a trial and have his rights respected. Call me a lib for it if you want, but that's probably a good thing because the bourgeois state probably wouldn't like to treat us the same way (I know it doesn't but at least in theory it is supposed to). I never entered into a social contract with Gaetz so I can judge him however I want and I don't have a monopoly on violence so I don't owe him the presumption of innocence.
Hey you're trampling on my first amendment rights by disagreeing with me
The whole point is to protect you from the state.
In the Reputation Economy, you can be fucked pretty hard long before the state gets its hands on you. Particularly true if you're a politician, as your whole job hinges on people's impression of you.
What bothers me about Greenwald's defense of Gaetz is that Gaetz is a stooge for the MIC and has been precisely because his fiance - Ginger Luckey, jesus christ what a name - has grabbed him by the dick and dragged him into it. On policy alone, Greenwald should theoretically hate this guy. Why is he bending over backwards to defend Gaetz under the banner of sex-trafficking of a fucking minor?
It's like going to bat for OJ Simpson by defending his reckless driving.
wait so you, presumably a socialist, don’t consider censorship by media companies to matter?
Socialists generally believe for-profit anything is fundamentally awful, and at best, tainted. That's not the issue we're talking about here. So these fundamentally dogshit entities propagating moral or social panics is just par for the freaking course.
It really looks like the thesis of that post is that censorship by private entities doesn’t count. Is there a different thesis?
Not OP but I think the thesis is that censorship by private entities isn't a first amendment issue because the constitution only applies to state actors. Similarly the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal test that only applies to the state, because of the power imbalance between individuals and the state. By comparison, in civil trials, the standard is "balance of probabilities".
okey dokey. do we care about the constitution as a source of right/wrong?
No and that wasn't the point either. If I read the post correctly, OP is saying that "innocent before proven guilty" is a standard that only applies to the state. He then mentioned the first amendment as another commonly misinterpreted standard that only applies to the state. You have skipped entirely past the primary point, and latched on to the free speech example for some reason.
EDIT: also I see that OP has already replied to you, so go argue with him instead lol
I'd say it's along the lines of "it's kind of pointless to discuss how good/bad the baby is cause it's definitely going out with the bathwater"
Ah I see what you're saying. I'm interested what OP says, I dunno.
My point is that the first amendment is very clear in only protecting speech from the government and anyone who is citing it in relation to media censorship clearly hasn't read the amendment.
My views on media censorship are to expect it. I dislike it when causes and people I support are censored, but I don't particularly subscribe to the liberal notion that free speech must be protected for anyone from everyone else at all costs. Media is a tool of class war and it should be treated as such.
from the mind that brought you 'transmen are just butch lesbians ackhtually' and 'so called bi people are ten times more likely to be in opposite-sex relationships than same-sex ones, isnt that interesting' comes a thrilling new factoid!
'you didnt do anything wrong if you dont get convicted!'
:thonk-trans:
wait, he already did a 'its not murder if the cops are the ones that shoot you' so...
Also "more people are becoming trans because our society encourages it" because if there's one thing trans people always say it's that the United States is extremely accepting towards, and supportive of, them transitioning.
yeah, this was by no means a comprehensive list of spicyhot terf-takes from this asshole (let alone his other bullshit)
:trans-sad:
so called bi people are ten times more likely to be in opposite-sex relationships than same-sex ones, isnt that interesting
I liked that one the best because it sounds so provocative, and then you remember that the base rate is that 10x as many people are straight, so we expect bi people to be in heterosexual relationships 10x as often
truly we
live in a societyhave a statistical analysis.:galaxy-brain:
I am 10000 times more likely to be in an opposite sex relationship than a same sex one. Or 100000 times. Or 1000000 times. It's all the same anyways, anything times 0 is also 0.
Glenn Greenwald1 hr ago Right, the proper term for an adult having sex with a 17-year-old even where it's illegal is not pedophilia, and I thought about making that point, but decided it wasn't worth it. But you're right.
Sauce: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/due-process-adult-sexual-morality/comments#comment-1710756
Hey, what's Glenn Greenwald up to? :squidward-nochill:
Oh. :squidward-chill:
Given all the other shit involved in this scandal, I'm mildly upset that "She wasn't quite 18 yet!" is the headline.
The whole concept of Sugar Babies exposes such horrible rot in the American culture and economy. Like, shouldn't the existence of this service ring a bunch of alarm bells for anyone? And yet we're pretending the problem is the exact age of the girl involved and the fact that the guy is a Congressman rather than some random petite bourgeois used car dealer.
Wow that whole exchange is a parody.
Yikes at the guy who definitely understands european age of consent law and calls the US sexually repressed for not being allowed to fuck 14 year olds.
Yikes at the guy who definitely understands european age of consent law
It's kinda true though, you wouldn't go to jail for that however it's not unlikely that you'd be accused of some kind of manipulation by the family.
Also yikes, this person is intentionally conflating kids having sex with other kids and adults seducing said kids.
You can tell glenn the sky is blue and he will come out with display calibrator thingy, point at the sun, and say it’s white, dude is contrarian to the last opinion he heard
Nah he's pretty consistent actually. Its just that sometimes he picks really stupid battles.
Hunter Biden: Smoking crack, snorting coke, fucking adult strippers
This Dork: uhm actually that's bad and you should be jailed
I gave Glenn the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but to see him carrying water for Matt Gaetz of all people.
Matt Gaetz said he wanted death squads to hunt "antifa" in the streets. He would have Greenwald killed if he were able to. Jesus christ man, do better.
When you’re leftish and hate Democrats so much but you end up carrying water for Republicans. That’s how you get Glenn Greenwald.
And quite a few people lately on twitter. There are some people that hate the Democrats to much which I can't believe I'm saying.
Lol remember the person on Twitter who asked him what Hunter Biden was charged with?
I remember a liberal once saying that Glenn's issue is that he associates "the system" with Bolsonaro in Brazil and MSNBC in America, which leads to him having good journalism in Brazil and being pro-GOP in America. Seems accurate.
MSNBC is the system here, but that sure as shit doesn't prevent the GOP from advocating for something even worse than the current system
New rule, if you have Palpatine eyes in your 30s you don't get the benefit of the doubt on anything.
