I'm intrigued with old maps. I'm at the stage of my journey through cataract laser surgery where I cannot read anything other than a Kindle with expanding text. Next week I see my optometrist again to get everything fixed with new glasses for reading and a separate lens to bring distance into proper focus. Otherwise known as bifocals.
I look at old maps in awe, wondering how people drew accurate representations of land masses they had never before seen, as well as of areas that I thought were inaccessible at the time the maps were drawn.
(Another precious and timely tweets on our life in US democracy – Matt Taibbi just in less than two days)
• After every tragedy opportunists start proposing we outlaw video games or Marilyn Manson albums or, now, right-wing tweets.
We’re the world’s biggest weapons producer a dozen times over and I don’t ever hear proposals to stop that — nope, it must be tweets inspiring violence.
• The writer Isaac Babel once said the Soviets had taken away "but one right—the right to write badly." It's not free speech unless you protect the right to say things the majority finds reprehensible, toxic, incorrect.
• There's a long list of unprotected speech forms, from libel to incitement to threats to perjury, fraud, and so on. Most are narrowly defined and handled via litigation. We've never had a centralized MinTruth judging something amorphous and broad like "misinformation."
• The 2020 Iowa Caucus was the key disaster here. Tiny state, no result after 16 days, and even the New York Times was asking “WTF?” Instead of realizing quick results are essential to voter confidence and fixing the issue, we’re being asked to accept longer counts.
• I thought Biden was doing a decent job of selling “saving the guardrails of democracy,” but as you say, there was a major record scratch late in the speech.
Telling people in advance the results will take a long time, when the polls look dire, will massively increase paranoia
• Re-tweet -- Walter Kirn @walterkirn: That speech tonight was not a campaign speech. It did not have any real persuasive value or political intent. It was a speech specifically meant to manage and mold expectations about the vote-counting process.
• Even if I knew exactly what happened at Pelosi’s place I wouldn’t be blaming it on a lack of censorship. By that standard we should be wiping out the White Album to stop future Mansons or Blink 182 to prevent Columbines, and so on. Don’t you ever get tired of these arguments?
• If you don’t understand that free speech has to include things you personally consider odious, you don’t really believe in it.
• Either you’re being intentionally obtuse or you really don’t get it, but current law doesn’t come close to allowing prohibition of any post-factum speech downplaying the Pelosi attack. The standard is, you can ban someone saying, “Go in the house and hit him with a hammer.”
• Durbin is wrong here, and he surely knows the real standard for prohibiting speech (incitement to imminent lawless action), so the real question is why a Democratic Senator is going out of his way to incorrectly redefine what free speech means.
• I’m looking forward to a new episode of "TK Live" with to talk about "Truth Cops” With Ken Klippenstein" tomorrow at 3:00 PM ET / 12:00 PM PT. Join us!
• Very strange — for the second time, I discovered Twitter believed I’d muted
@thomaschattwill, though I never did. Related to that weird de-verification episode somehow maybe? Anyone else have that happen, with anyone?
• I read the article. The premise is ludicrous: because Glenn disagrees with U.S./neocon policy, he loves Putin. Just like the New Yorker “Bane of their Resistance” piece, it assumes something must be wrong, an evil pathology at work, when actually — he just disagrees with you.
What a remarkable man and what a great legacy to leave!
I'm intrigued with old maps. I'm at the stage of my journey through cataract laser surgery where I cannot read anything other than a Kindle with expanding text. Next week I see my optometrist again to get everything fixed with new glasses for reading and a separate lens to bring distance into proper focus. Otherwise known as bifocals.
I look at old maps in awe, wondering how people drew accurate representations of land masses they had never before seen, as well as of areas that I thought were inaccessible at the time the maps were drawn.
MT tweets – extracted ~Nov 3 period https://twitter.com/mtaibbi
(Another precious and timely tweets on our life in US democracy – Matt Taibbi just in less than two days)
• After every tragedy opportunists start proposing we outlaw video games or Marilyn Manson albums or, now, right-wing tweets.
We’re the world’s biggest weapons producer a dozen times over and I don’t ever hear proposals to stop that — nope, it must be tweets inspiring violence.
• The writer Isaac Babel once said the Soviets had taken away "but one right—the right to write badly." It's not free speech unless you protect the right to say things the majority finds reprehensible, toxic, incorrect.
• There's a long list of unprotected speech forms, from libel to incitement to threats to perjury, fraud, and so on. Most are narrowly defined and handled via litigation. We've never had a centralized MinTruth judging something amorphous and broad like "misinformation."
• The 2020 Iowa Caucus was the key disaster here. Tiny state, no result after 16 days, and even the New York Times was asking “WTF?” Instead of realizing quick results are essential to voter confidence and fixing the issue, we’re being asked to accept longer counts.
• I thought Biden was doing a decent job of selling “saving the guardrails of democracy,” but as you say, there was a major record scratch late in the speech.
Telling people in advance the results will take a long time, when the polls look dire, will massively increase paranoia
• Re-tweet -- Walter Kirn @walterkirn: That speech tonight was not a campaign speech. It did not have any real persuasive value or political intent. It was a speech specifically meant to manage and mold expectations about the vote-counting process.
• Even if I knew exactly what happened at Pelosi’s place I wouldn’t be blaming it on a lack of censorship. By that standard we should be wiping out the White Album to stop future Mansons or Blink 182 to prevent Columbines, and so on. Don’t you ever get tired of these arguments?
• If you don’t understand that free speech has to include things you personally consider odious, you don’t really believe in it.
• Either you’re being intentionally obtuse or you really don’t get it, but current law doesn’t come close to allowing prohibition of any post-factum speech downplaying the Pelosi attack. The standard is, you can ban someone saying, “Go in the house and hit him with a hammer.”
• Durbin is wrong here, and he surely knows the real standard for prohibiting speech (incitement to imminent lawless action), so the real question is why a Democratic Senator is going out of his way to incorrectly redefine what free speech means.
• I’m looking forward to a new episode of "TK Live" with to talk about "Truth Cops” With Ken Klippenstein" tomorrow at 3:00 PM ET / 12:00 PM PT. Join us!
https://www.callin.com/room/truth-cops-with-ken-klippenstein-gfEnxRMbgZ
• Very strange — for the second time, I discovered Twitter believed I’d muted
@thomaschattwill, though I never did. Related to that weird de-verification episode somehow maybe? Anyone else have that happen, with anyone?
• I read the article. The premise is ludicrous: because Glenn disagrees with U.S./neocon policy, he loves Putin. Just like the New Yorker “Bane of their Resistance” piece, it assumes something must be wrong, an evil pathology at work, when actually — he just disagrees with you.
Well that’s cool as heck !!!