Big Tech Authoritarianism

Longbow said:
So you don't have any proof then.

Trump has a lot of enemies on both side of the aisles, a lot of motive to impeach him. It was a simple vote, no evidence required. It's called politics for a reason.
Click to expand...
You are fighting a losing (and pointless) battle. Even Mitch McConnell has turned his back on this idiot. His opinion far outweighs yours.
 
dLockers said:
You are fighting a losing (and pointless) battle. Even Mitch McConnell has turned his back on this idiot. His opinion far outweighs yours.
Click to expand...
Well yes, because Trump lost, and why side with the loser? McConnell wants to stay in the game, again... politics. Also Trump turned on some Republicans, he wasn't a party player.

Point is, big tech and others in this thread keep parroting the same phrase about Trump inciting an insurrection, but no one seems to provide any evidence of this.
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
Because he wants them to be made in America not in China.

"A massive blow to the sector"
You're literally just making stuff up. Read some proper reports.

US domestic production increased, solar industry employed more people than coal etc etc.

All good stuff for a more resilient, self sufficient, less polluting country
Click to expand...

Trump throughout his 2016 campaign was all about coal, fracking and traditional oil drilling. He laughed at renewables. He could have embraced them as well as tradition hydrocarbon based fuels and the sector would have increased even more. The US isn't going to make solar as cheaply as China or the Far East. Like it won't make electronics as cheaply as that region. Adding 30% plus to the cost of solar was always going to hurt it. Adding 30% to the cost of any product in a market is going to hurt it. The fact it still grew doesn't mean the market wasn't hurt, it grew in spite of Trump.

Jobs in solar actually fell in 2017, 18 with a small growth in 2019.
https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data

The US still imports solar PV

https://www.statista.com/statistics/232941/us-imports-of-solar-equipment-by-source-contry/

You can see here prices went up just when Trump placed the tariff on solar when he took office. The fact they have fallen is due to the cost of panel production continuing to decline worldwide.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/216791/price-for-photovoltaic-cells-and-modules/
 
Longbow said:
Well yes, because Trump lost, and why side with the loser? McConnell wants to stay in the game, again... politics. Also Trump turned on some Republicans, he wasn't a party player.

Point is, big tech and others in this thread keep parroting the same phrase about Trump inciting an insurrection, but no one seems to provide any evidence of this.
Click to expand...
Literally nobody of any pedigree (in social, academic or professional circles) agrees with you.

People are even more unclear why you are arguing the opposite. Do you need a hobby? Your energy would be much better focused elsewhere.
 
Longbow said:
Well yes, because Trump lost, and why side with the loser? McConnell wants to stay in the game, again... politics.

Point is, big tech and others others in this thread keep parroting the same phrase about Trump inciting an insurrection, but no one seems to provide any evidence of this.
Click to expand...

What do you think happens when a politician spends 4 years saying the other side want to end the republic, that they are communist. Then in the lead up to the election keeps saying the election is going to be corrupt, that he can only lose if the election is stolen. Then he loses and keeps telling his voters that their country is being stolen in front of their eyes, that he/they won in a landslide, that the commies are taking over, that they have to fight to keep their republic. He just keeps ramping up the rhetoric to the point that an angry mob commits an insurrection. He wasn't alone of course, his lackies played their part feeding the lie that the election was stolen. When people believe their country is being taken over and the election was stolen a percentage will act with violence. This was pretty much inevitable with Trump. His aides are reported as saying he was smiling as they stormed the Capitol and he had to be begged to make that video where he told them to go home but he loved them all. His MAGA mob were chanting to hang the VP, his VP. He threw Pence under the bus. No wonder Pence wasn't at the WH or Andrews yesterday. He backed Trump for 4 years and that is how Trump repaid him.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
What do you think happens when a politician spends 4 years saying the other side want to end the republic, that they are communist. Then in the lead up to the election keeps saying the election is going to be corrupt, that he can only lose if the election is stolen. Then he loses and keeps telling his voters that their country is being stolen in front of their eyes, that he/they won in a landslide, that the commies are taking over, that they have to fight to keep their republic. He just keeps ramping up the rhetoric to the point that an angry mob commits an insurrection. He wasn't alone of course, his lackies played their part feeding the lie that the election was stolen. When people believe their country is being taken over and the election was stolen a percentage will act with violence. This was pretty much inevitable with Trump. His aides are reported as saying he was smiling as they stormed the Capitol and he had to be begged to make that video where he told them to go home but he loved them all. His MAGA mob were chanting to hang the VP, his VP. He threw Pence under the bus. No wonder Pence wasn't at the WH or Andrews yesterday. He backed Trump for 4 years and that is how Trump repaid him.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately these contrary mary's get a kick by arguing the opposite of what the rest of the world is seeing. They think they are "woke" and have "done their research" and do not "trust everything the news tells them".

I don't understand how they get on in the real world, especially in trying to find a partner. They seem to require Trump saying "I DECLARE INSURRECTION" for it to be evidence of his behaviour leading to that point. Idiots.
 
dLockers said:
Literally nobody of any pedigree (in social, academic or professional circles) agrees with you.

People are even more unclear why you are arguing the opposite. Do you need a hobby? Your energy would be much better focused elsewhere.
Click to expand...
So yet more appeals to authority. "Politicians said he did it, the news said he did it, academic said he did it", and yet nothing else is provided.

Why am I asking? This is forum, for discussion. People make a claim and I'm asking for evidence to back up the claim.
 
Longbow said:
So yet more appeals to authority. "Politicians said he did it, the news said he did it, academic said he did it", and yet nothing else is provided.

Why am I asking? This is forum, for discussion. People make a claim and I'm asking for evidence to back up the claim.
Click to expand...
You are the one arguing the contrary. Why don't you prove he didn't incite an insurrection?
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Trump throughout his 2016 campaign was all about coal, fracking and traditional oil drilling. He laughed at renewables. He could have embraced them as well as tradition hydrocarbon based fuels and the sector would have increased even more. The US isn't going to make solar as cheaply as China or the Far East. Like it won't make electronics as cheaply as that region. Adding 30% plus to the cost of solar was always going to hurt it. Adding 30% to the cost of any product in a market is going to hurt it. The fact it still grew doesn't mean the market wasn't hurt, it grew in spite of Trump.

Jobs in solar actually fell in 2017, 18 with a small growth in 2019.
https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data

The US still imports solar PV

https://www.statista.com/statistics/232941/us-imports-of-solar-equipment-by-source-contry/

You can see here prices went up just when Trump placed the tariff on solar when he took office. The fact they have fallen is due to the cost of panel production continuing to decline worldwide.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/216791/price-for-photovoltaic-cells-and-modules/
Click to expand...

Quick, find some random stats.

Lets use your own website, SEIA have been pretty good over the years to get an overall view of whats happening. I have skin in the game with renewables so i do have to keep my ear close to the ground.

https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data

Sorry but continuing with this stance that Trump has been awful for renewables is so far removed from the reality, it hurts my brain.
 
I honestly have no idea what you are on about.

Someone made a claim that person A did X, I've asked for evidence, but all I get is:

"Person B who hates person A said it happened."
"You can't disprove X."
"Can you prove Y."

The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. I guess my mistake was asking in GD.

The only person who has given a non-absurd answer is Colonel_Klinck.
 
ianh said:
Ah, those rules only apply to one side of the "debate" - The other side are seemingly free to post the most vile stuff imaginable without risk of ever being banned because their "target" is seen to be morally objectionable to the Tech Giants.

For example, if I was to now post a picture on Twitter of me holding a large knife and a decapitated blood-soaked Biden head, I would be understandably be banned yet when Kathy Griffin poses on Twitter with a large knife and a decapitated blood-soaked Trump head - TWICE - she isn't banned.

It's that level of absolutely blatant hypocrisy that makes people understandably angry. The old adage of "One rule for me and another for thee" is always going to ferment anger and discontent, and is at odds with the desire for "equality" so many apparently want.
Click to expand...

Yeah there do seem to be some rather clear double standards with these platforms, you can get away with all sorts of abuse in reply to a right-wing blue checkmark person, save for obvious things like calling someone the c-word. On the other hand someone saying "OK dude" to a trans person can get a suspension etc..
 
Longbow said:
I honestly have no idea what you are on about.

Someone made a claim that person A did X, I've asked for evidence, but all I get is:

"Person B who hates person A said it happened."
"You can't disprove X."
"Can you prove Y."

The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. I guess my mistake was asking in GD.

The only person who has given a non-absurd answer is Colonel_Klinck.
Click to expand...

See, your problem is that you are trying to use a bit of logic and reason ;) Just do like them and go for the old ad hominem to the nuts.
 
Longbow said:
I honestly have no idea what you are on about.

Someone made a claim that person A did X, I've asked for evidence, but all I get is:

"Person B who hates person A said it happened."
"You can't disprove X."
"Can you prove Y."

The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. I guess my mistake was asking in GD.

The only person who has given a non-absurd answer is Colonel_Klinck.
Click to expand...
As I said, the chap has been impeached for the charge. You then counter that with saying it was political. I said the academic, professional and political world has the same consensus. You said we believe the media.

You are not willing to accept any proof other than a direct quote from Trump declaring insurrection.

Therefore the discussion is pointless as you are ignoring the consensus and implying you are the "woke" one.
 
I do not think it is a fact (as I understand a fact to be, i.e, a truth that cannot be proved untrue) that Trump incited an insurrection on social media. This would require evidence and proof and that just isn't going to happen with what we have now, but could emerge in the future.

I do however accept and agree that in theory his actions and inactions caused what happened, but this isn't the same as an absolute fact in the same way we'd say "water is wet". It's a pretty solid theory though that an awful man that riles up racist support can influence those same people to do what they did. The onus is on the claimants of this theory to prove it true with evidence if they want it to be treated as a fact, and anyone is free to provide evidence to disprove it.

However, in general just because lots of people say something (consensus) does not make it true without some objective truths to back it up, or allowing other objective truths to disprove. Shutting down a discussion doesn't mean your statement is true, it just means you've acted in a totalitarian manner.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom