Re: Glenn V. *Still* Won't Answer

On Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 2:35:12 AM UTC+2, BT George wrote:
> On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 8:33:14 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: 
> > On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:01:54 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote: 
> > > On Friday, March 26, 2021 at 6:41:44 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 9:52:05 PM UTC-4, Glenn V. wrote: 
> > > > > On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 1:10:17 AM UTC+1, BT George wrote: 
> > > > > > On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 11:09:59 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 6:33:39 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 5:26:16 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote: 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On 21 Mar 2021 02:03:44 -0000, BT George <[email protected]> 
> > > > > > > > wrote: 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >> >> 
> > > > > > > > >> >> I'll give you one last chance. What motivates making it illegal in Georgia 
> > > > > > > > >> >> to help feed voters in line? How is reducing the number of polling 
> > > > > > > > >> >> stations in certain districts motivated? Does this help eligible and 
> > > > > > > > >> >> registered voters? 
> > > > > > > > >> >> 
> > > > > > > > >> >> Do you understand that those are important questions? 
> > > > > > > > >> >> 
> > > > > > > > >> > 
> > > > > > > > >> >John I admittedly haven't followed every post in this thread, or even the 
> > > > > > > > >> >details of the Georgia issue very much. ...Though I would agree feeding 
> > > > > > > > >> >voters in line might well prove a way of "manipulating" votes from the 
> > > > > > > > >> >very poor and hungry, especially if the "feeders" would be able to 
> > > > > > > > >> >identify or show support as Dems or Republicans. But I cannot see much 
> > > > > > > > >> >legitimate reason to reduce polling stations only in certain districts. 
> > > > > > > > >> Do you even know that is true? 
> > > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >No I don't. As I said I haven't followed the Georgia issue closely, 
> > > > > > > > >largely because I take it for granted that if it's anything is too crazy 
> > > > > > > > >it won't get too far, and of course, you know my general sympathies are 
> > > > > > > > >not with making voting virtually standardless as the Democrats have shown 
> > > > > > > > >every predilection to do. Do you have knowledge that it is *not* only in 
> > > > > > > > >certain districts? (I can look it up, but since you and Glenn are arguing 
> > > > > > > > >the Georgia, I assumed you would had already dug into it enough to 
> > > > > > > > >validate his claim.) 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Glenn made the charge. I'm not going to answer a question *assuming* 
> > > > > > > > that what was asserted it true 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >> And there could be no legitimate reason? Like maybe, turnout is low 
> > > > > > > > >> in those districts, or there are plenty of polling stations even after 
> > > > > > > > >> the number is reduced? 
> > > > > > > > >> >So if you haven't answered Glenn then I would call on you to "own" head 
> > > > > > > > >> >on your take of the motivation behind this. 
> > > > > > > > >> Nonsense. I don't even know it is true, and I certainly don't know 
> > > > > > > > >> what the motivation is, if it is true. 
> > > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > > >> Aren't you aware that the media lie a lot? Remember, they said Trump 
> > > > > > > > >> called white supremacists "good people." 
> > > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >Come on .John. This is still *me*. I believe by now you know me well 
> > > > > > > > >enough to know I am *well* aware the MSM often lies and distorts 
> > > > > > > > >right-wing stands! (Fact: So does some a the right wing 
> > > > > > > > >media---depending on the source.) incidentally Glenn knows very well I 
> > > > > > > > >feel form private conversations that I fell that way and am *passionate* 
> > > > > > > > >about the injustice and he has even agreed he has seen that too sometimes 
> > > > > > > > >and also disapproves. But as my other comments make clear, I would think 
> > > > > > > > >since you and he are debating this at particular *issue* at length, this 
> > > > > > > > >should be something your own research would have confirmed or denied. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > That's an evasion, since I'm not going to give an answer that 
> > > > > > > > *assumes* something that might be untrue. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Well not answering him---even if it is to show he is full of it---could 
> > > > > > > look as much like an evasion on your part as his failure to answer you 
> > > > > > > will look if he doesn't follow through. His claim is he is waiting for 
> > > > > > > you to meet his challenge and then he will give a direct answer (see my 
> > > > > > > further comments below on that demand). But again, at this point I am 
> > > > > > > simply taking a friend's word on why he isn't answering you yet. I 
> > > > > > > consider you a friend as well, so I am happy to accept your word on why 
> > > > > > > you aren't responding. But FWIW, this touches on several things brought 
> > > > > > > up or hinted at in this long exchange: 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/controversial-voting-bill-heads-to-georgia-house-floor 
> > > > > > > > Why are you making excuses for his failure to answer? 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Because my time and correspondence with Glenn convinces me he is a good 
> > > > > > > person and (hopefully) is not answering for the reason he gave: "You 
> > > > > > > still haven't answered him." Now if you think you have a superior right 
> > > > > > > to get his answer first, the two of you just might be at an impasse. But 
> > > > > > > since *both* of you took this *particular* issue on, the call on how to 
> > > > > > > proceed is yours, not mine. My stance is clear: 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 1) Standards like providing a photo ID are perfectly fine. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 2) Measures to make it harder to vote by mail are fine provided all 
> > > > > > > parties have the same restrictions, and adequate allowance is made for 
> > > > > > > persons legitimately unable to vote in person. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 3) No changes should be made that appear directly motivated only towards 
> > > > > > > erecting uneven and/or onerous barriers to one side's constituents. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 4) Not a fan of "feeding anyone" period as this would allow more room for 
> > > > > > > manipulation than any good it would do in increasing turnout. 
> > > > > > > Categorically opposed to it if any partisan affiliations can be 
> > > > > > > reasonably made. 
> > > > > > > > He was refusing to answer *long* before he brought up the "closed 
> > > > > > > > polling places" claim about Georgia. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Glenn doesn't deny that Twitter and Facebook have banned Trump. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > If he will post evidence that "certain districts" have had voting 
> > > > > > > > places reduced, *and* that there was some nefarious motive, I'll 
> > > > > > > > respond. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > He has made the charge, let him support it. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Agreed. I think this is probably part of the early rumors and 
> > > > > > > mischaracterization. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >> And they lied about a call he made to a Georgia official. 
> > > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > > >> And they lied about a guard at the Capitol in Washington being 
> > > > > > > > >> bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher. 
> > > > > > > > >> >If you answer that, then he will 
> > > > > > > > >> >be in no place to refuse to directly confirm his position on banning Trump 
> > > > > > > > >> >and other Conservatives. 
> > > > > > > > >> > 
> > > > > > > > >> Again, nonsense. I don't even know whether his polling station claim 
> > > > > > > > >> is true. 
> > > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > > >> But he knows perfectly well whether he approves of Trump being banned. 
> > > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > > >> Why do you think he won't answer? 
> > > > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >I am withholding judgement for now---because I know on past discussions. 
> > > > > > > > >Based on those, I believe it unlikely he has a good feeling about that 
> > > > > > > > >kind of censorship. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Then why won't he answer? 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > He probably doesn't like the *left* being censored. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I'll let him say. All I want is for him to express here what my previous 
> > > > > > > convos with him would imply. I am hoping you two work the impasse out as I 
> > > > > > > want to see. 
> > > > > > > > >His point seems to be he is still awaiting your 
> > > > > > > > >answer to his questions and then he will address yours, because he is 
> > > > > > > > >accusing you of changing the subject. Regarding the answers he says he 
> > > > > > > > >wants, if he is right about it targeting certain districts, it's a valid 
> > > > > > > > >question that wouldn't hurt you to answer and leave him *no excuse* to 
> > > > > > > > >remain silent on this point. Of course, if he is wrong about it being 
> > > > > > > > >only in certain districts, then he is missing a key justification for why 
> > > > > > > > >the Republican efforts in Georgia are so bad. (And as I already said, 
> > > > > > > > >feeding hungry voters is generally suspect; all the more so if it can be 
> > > > > > > > >done by partisans who want to influence a vote, so that doesn't bother me 
> > > > > > > > >much on the Republican effort.) So maybe then all you need to do is point 
> > > > > > > > >out how that is a misrepresentation of the Republican effort. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Let him produce evidence. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > But just to show you how silly this is, the leftist WASHINGTON POST 
> > > > > > > > admitted the following: 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > <Quote on> 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > But Janine Eveler, Cobb County elections director, said she 
> > > > > > > > doesn’t have enough staff trained in advance voting to operate the 
> > > > > > > > same number of polling places for the runoff, which has taken on national 
> > > > > > > > significance because it will determine which party controls the Senate. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > “We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers 
> > > > > > > > due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” Eveler responded 
> > > > > > > > in a letter to the groups. She added that “the remaining team members 
> > > > > > > > who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. … 
> > > > > > > > We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just 
> > > > > > > > unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.” 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > In an interview Monday, Eveler said the workers are seasonal employees 
> > > > > > > > hired and trained for statewide elections. She said that many of them 
> > > > > > > > were “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three 
> > > > > > > > weeks.” 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Eveler said the county will add more check-in stations that were used in 
> > > > > > > > the general election, which should get voters into the booth more quickly. 
> > > > > > > > She also noted that voters will have only three contests on the runoff 
> > > > > > > > ballot: the two Senate races and a seat on the Georgia Public Service 
> > > > > > > > Commission. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Eveler said she did not think voters of color would be adversely affected. 
> > > > > > > > She said the early-voting sites are located in “each quadrant of 
> > > > > > > > the county,” and while acknowledging that some voters will be 
> > > > > > > > inconvenienced, she said that “there are other options for 
> > > > > > > > voting.” She said voters could use absentee ballots or show up on 
> > > > > > > > Jan. 5, when all of the county’s 145 precincts will be open. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > <end quote> 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > So it seems it's only EARLY VOTING stations that have been closed. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Good that the leftist WASHINGTON POST actually presented the other 
> > > > > > > > side of the story. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yes, delving into the issue a bit---which I honestly wasn't interested 
> > > > > > > enough till now to do personally since I knew anything truly crazy would 
> > > > > > > never become law--it looks like the "only in certain places" (aimed at 
> > > > > > > voter suppression) was one of those early misinformation rumors. I hope 
> > > > > > > Glenn will read this, and either clarify why this is a valid claim or 
> > > > > > > admit it was not as might have been advertised to him. I, for one, cannot 
> > > > > > > say there was not at some level an effort at "soft" suppression here. 
> > > > > > > But that alone doesn't exercise my soul greatly because mere 
> > > > > > > *inconvenience* is NOT a valid excuse not to vote. And as I said in the 
> > > > > > > other thread, I think mere inconvenience would turn away more Democratic 
> > > > > > > voters (especially young voters) than Republicans, and such voters should 
> > > > > > > disenfranchise themselves regardless of Party. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > .John 
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------- 
> > > > > > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm 
> > > > > > Hi Glenn, 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I do hope you are planning to respond, even if it is to not continue to 
> > > > > > "play ball". But having shown confidence that you would respond with 
> > > > > > transparency, I would really appreciate a formal response---or even a 
> > > > > > formal exit to the discussion based on impasse. The silence is your 
> > > > > > right, of course, but the risk is that it allows your antagonists to be 
> > > > > > easily cast you as just another stupid Leftist who "ran" from the 
> > > > > > discussion. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Also, as I said in my last reply to .John, I do believe there was likely 
> > > > > > at list some initial thought of "soft" forms of Democratic voter 
> > > > > > suppression. (Really more "dissuasion.") But would you likewise concede 
> > > > > > that the extent and depth of claimed "suppression" was being significantly 
> > > > > > exaggerated by many media outlets, and that, in fact, some of the things 
> > > > > > in the Bill (e.g., requiring a valid Voter ID) are neither unfair or 
> > > > > > unreasonable requirements? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Brock 
> > > > > Of course I will respond. Even though I don't appreciate John's dishonest 
> > > > > way to debate and even though I also don't like his way of using 
> > > > > whataboutism here. I will respond also this posting of yours Brock, 
> > > > > certainly. But right now I just don't have the energy do this, as I'm very 
> > > > > busy with other things. Probably by beginning of next week, things should 
> > > > > have eased up a bit. 
> > > > You could have responded yes or no in a lot less time than it took you to 
> > > > type out that paragraph. 
> > > Only if he plans a yes or no answer. Some questions require more. 
> > > (E.g., "Did you stop beating your wife senselessly lately?" But yes or no 
> > > don't work when you haven't been beating her at all.) In this case 
> > > Glenn's position is he was avoiding a simple answer because he didn't 
> > > believe he had received one to one or more of his questions. If he never 
> > > comes back and dodges eternally, then no skin off anyone's back but mine 
> > > for defending him. 
> > John's question certainly wasn't a loaded question. It was straight 
> > forward and it's a binary choice. Either Glenn approves of the social 
> > media companies banning Trump or he doesn't.
> Agreed. And if Glenn had told me he didn't answer yet because it was 
> loaded, I would have told him he was full of it. Rather, he was saying he 
> felt he could withhold his answer till John answered something he asked to 
> his satisfaction. Since then John has provided some additional posts and 
> commentary, so I am giving taking Glenn at his word and letting him come 
> back and address the question as well as point out where he feels he is 
> still being evaded as it sounds like he wants to post carefully and cannot 
> with divided attention. (I do know he recently got involved as an elected 
> official locally in Sweden, so any politician who actually wants to handle 
> his elected job first before continuing to post endlessly on the Net has 
> my applause!) 
> 
> BTW, though I *blanket* disapprove of any politically-oriented media bans, 
> I can imaging a classic Liberal (as I peg Glenn to be as opposed to an 
> aggressive Progressive Left activist) taking a somewhat more nuanced 
> approach. E.g., perhaps still thinking a "time out" for Trump in the 
> midst of a *perceived* armed rebellion could be tolerable, as long as not 
> permitted to go on indefinitely. Though even *if* I could excuse the 
> latter, I would *still* think that crisis time had now passed and would be 
> calling on the Left Coast "Net Police" to drop the bans and restore him 
> and others with an opinion they don't like immediately.

Brock,

Sorry i took some time to get back here.

So, the answer to John's ridiculous whataboutism question about banning 
Trump, is of course no, it was not the right thing to do.

The reason may not be what John or the rest of these ultraconservative 
dinosaurs like, of course. Few things would ever bother me less, frankly.

Because Big Tech are basically freed from any third party doings on their 
platforms, as stated in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 
1996, which several Court decisions has established.

In plain terms. Big Tech has far too much power about far too many things 
in society. They need to be regulated by Congress. In such a way that 
competition, innovation and a whole range of other things, often very good 
things, are not destroyed or tampered with.

However, they also need to be regulated so that they can be held 
accountable for third party content on their platforms. Regulations that 
states what is harmful to society, individuals or other corporations. 
Their algorithms should of course be looked into very carefully. This 
would eventually reach the Courts to get established what is acceptable 
and what is not.

And Brock, this is the short answer.