As much as I consider the author of the article the deep hand behind Elon's puppet performances, some items of this are just too funny to ignore
> Can we believe that a Brazilian judge banned X without American backing, in a tragicomic perversion of the Monroe Doctrine?
Yes? Why? Is it hard to block?
(in a more charitable interpretation this can be construed as a statement of disbelief more than a question over capacity - but that again betrays a certain naivety over how things work. And yes I was never in favor of that block)
It's funny how these people ignore any agency of other countries or people. In a way it tells a lot how much these people take democracy and self-determination seriously. Of course given the quality of education in the US and the size of their egos, it's not surprising
> Our First Amendment frames the rules of engagement for domestic fights over free speech, but the global reach of the internet tempts its adversaries into a global war. Can we believe that a Brazilian judge banned X without American backing, in a tragicomic perversion of the Monroe Doctrine? Were we complicit in Australia’s recent legislation requiring age verification for social media users, the beginning of the end of internet anonymity? Did we muster up even two minutes’ criticism of the UK, which has arrested hundreds of people a year for online speech triggering, among other things, “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”? We may expect no better from Orwellian dictatorships in East Asia and Eurasia, but we must support a free internet in Oceania.
I'm trying to find a way to interpret the argument charitably. I think that he's saying that foreign countries may be free to sanction or block US internet firms, but that the US should respond forcefully to such actions.
There is a certain degree of hypocrisy here, given the impending TikTok ban which Peter Thiel himself supported. That ban, universalized, implies that nations should be able to manage internet-based services and applications on their sovereign territory.
I think it is a lot more general than that, and outlined in the first sentence. In a world interconnected with soft power, the battle lines on free speech are unclear, and the US position is not ideologically consistent.
The only new era Trump is capable of leading us into is an era of idiocracy. Mark my words, that era will turn out poorly for the majority of Americans who don't earn their living by cons and grift.
>The only new era Trump is capable of leading us into is an era of idiocracy. Mark my words,
You words have been well-marked since the 1970's, consistently proven decade after decade. Now might as well be etched in stone since it's too late for sensibility to creep in, and some of the stupidest shit will probably outlast the vehicle.
>It may be too early to answer the internet’s questions about the late Mr Epstein.
No need, Epstein & Trump were well-proven to be low-class untrustworthy operators by nature way before the internet existed.
All of the old money in Palm Beach would question your judgment of character if you associated with low-lifes like this. They were so out-of-place in the respectable yachting communities and had no legitimate business in the high-class country clubs of South Florida. 19th century and 20th century titans of industry did kind of look down their nose at fake millionaire wannabes for a reason.
After the old money died, oh well there went the neighborhood.
>A time for truth and reconciliation
If past performance is any indication, the next 4 years will not be one of those times.
Quite surreal to watch Thiel and his little puppets try to market this faux awakening to the skeptical public out there, when so many of them are up to their necks in their own ties to Epstein and spook cut-outs like In-Q-Tel.
His "deepest" questions have well know answers.
The US had decades of low interest rates, dollar hegemony and no large power challenger. So its easy to get away with lot of excess. Until you can't.
The problem with every empire is that eventually the aristocracy/oligarchy/ruling class get high off their own supply.
As much as I consider the author of the article the deep hand behind Elon's puppet performances, some items of this are just too funny to ignore
> Can we believe that a Brazilian judge banned X without American backing, in a tragicomic perversion of the Monroe Doctrine?
Yes? Why? Is it hard to block?
(in a more charitable interpretation this can be construed as a statement of disbelief more than a question over capacity - but that again betrays a certain naivety over how things work. And yes I was never in favor of that block)
It's funny how these people ignore any agency of other countries or people. In a way it tells a lot how much these people take democracy and self-determination seriously. Of course given the quality of education in the US and the size of their egos, it's not surprising
The full quote is interesting.
> Our First Amendment frames the rules of engagement for domestic fights over free speech, but the global reach of the internet tempts its adversaries into a global war. Can we believe that a Brazilian judge banned X without American backing, in a tragicomic perversion of the Monroe Doctrine? Were we complicit in Australia’s recent legislation requiring age verification for social media users, the beginning of the end of internet anonymity? Did we muster up even two minutes’ criticism of the UK, which has arrested hundreds of people a year for online speech triggering, among other things, “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”? We may expect no better from Orwellian dictatorships in East Asia and Eurasia, but we must support a free internet in Oceania.
I'm trying to find a way to interpret the argument charitably. I think that he's saying that foreign countries may be free to sanction or block US internet firms, but that the US should respond forcefully to such actions.
There is a certain degree of hypocrisy here, given the impending TikTok ban which Peter Thiel himself supported. That ban, universalized, implies that nations should be able to manage internet-based services and applications on their sovereign territory.
I think it is a lot more general than that, and outlined in the first sentence. In a world interconnected with soft power, the battle lines on free speech are unclear, and the US position is not ideologically consistent.
What do they say about this at Gawker?
Spot on
Apparently, this is not a parody.
Archive link in case it gets paywalled: https://archive.ph/h1GOf
The only new era Trump is capable of leading us into is an era of idiocracy. Mark my words, that era will turn out poorly for the majority of Americans who don't earn their living by cons and grift.
>The only new era Trump is capable of leading us into is an era of idiocracy. Mark my words,
You words have been well-marked since the 1970's, consistently proven decade after decade. Now might as well be etched in stone since it's too late for sensibility to creep in, and some of the stupidest shit will probably outlast the vehicle.
>It may be too early to answer the internet’s questions about the late Mr Epstein.
No need, Epstein & Trump were well-proven to be low-class untrustworthy operators by nature way before the internet existed.
All of the old money in Palm Beach would question your judgment of character if you associated with low-lifes like this. They were so out-of-place in the respectable yachting communities and had no legitimate business in the high-class country clubs of South Florida. 19th century and 20th century titans of industry did kind of look down their nose at fake millionaire wannabes for a reason.
After the old money died, oh well there went the neighborhood.
>A time for truth and reconciliation
If past performance is any indication, the next 4 years will not be one of those times.
The "old money" was all made by psychopaths too, many of whom practiced all the same pedocratic techniques that Epstein has made broadly known.
A "bit" one-sided - as is to be expected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse
Quite surreal to watch Thiel and his little puppets try to market this faux awakening to the skeptical public out there, when so many of them are up to their necks in their own ties to Epstein and spook cut-outs like In-Q-Tel.
"How the Deep Right is Coopting Conspiracy Consciousness" https://open.substack.com/pub/childrenofjob/p/peter-thiels-g...