Search results

I don't think they banned Jones because he's on the right. They probably banned him because of his conspiracy "theories" and call for violence. It doesn't have to be tit for tat (right vs left). It can be truth vs lies. It just so happens that there are many high profile alt-righters who call...

A few reasons crime might be low in Japan: The Japanese don’t debate whether evolution should be taught in school. The Japanese don’t wear shirts that say “Fuck your feelings vote Abe” The Japanese have socialized health care. The Japanese don’t believe in individualism. The Japanese...

Except dell was priced as if PC’s were the next minidisc and dell was generating a lot of cash.

The Tesla bonds inexplicably traded at sub 3percent (and the collateral didn’t even include the battery factory) but I don’t think the mezzanine markets will be as forgiving. Further trumps tax policy has severely impacted the PE industry as they can’t deduct all the interest expense. So some PE...

Those tend to be cash flow positive.

Fair enough. Personally I don't consider banning Alex Jones a right or left thing - he has obfuscated the truth and advocated violence. I doubt Alex Jones speaks for you but maybe I am wrong. I don't consider you one of the people I talked about. If I did, I wouldn't have spent so many minutes...

Computers haven’t evolved to the point they can determine what to censor without bias. But you can’t deny that Alex Jones has a right to use his platform to spout his nonsense and YouTube has their right to deny him access. You aren’t advocating free speech as much as denying YouTube their...

As it shouldn’t be: but who determines what is pornography determines it by their biases.

It is Youtube's property (just like the NFL owners who can fire players who kneel for the anthem); in many cases, it is also their legal obligation. They are obliged to remove child pornography and other things. Of course, this is censorship and wrong.

As you said earlier, truth has a bias to it. So by your standard, there can be no slander since there is no objective lie. That is your argument why Alex Jones should not be banned. His conspiracy statements are only lies to the person who views them as lies through their biased lens. I meant...

30 cents less his cost of carry. 3M libor is 2.35%, I doubt he funds better than that.

They probably have to verify Musk's tweet. SEC will probably investigate as market manipulation.

Adjust the trade so you don’t have to take the loss. Duh!

There can’t be any of those things if there is no such thing as objective lies. You said that if someone can decide if something is a lie then bias is involved and that is wrong. So if I call you a pedophile you can’t say that is slander because that is your bias. This is why you are against...

There are no objective facts - thus there is no such thing as slander, libel, or even confidentiality. A TOS is also a contract. You sign one when you open an account with YouTube. Want to keep trying?

Firstly a world without some kind of censorship would not function. If I put a sign outside your work that you are a pedophile, that would cause you a problem even if it were not objectively true. If I released government secrets, that would be okay because a confidentiality agreement is a...

There are definitely objective truths out there. A world without any censorship would be a troubling one. We are in the face of it today where "alternative facts" can exist. Clearly there is a balance and I believe no one reasonable would think that banning Alex Jones is a bad idea. Did you...

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/07/media/jared-kushner-new-york-observer-articles/index.html

Are you against the censorship of people who intentionally obfuscate and create misleading information? What about Russian troll bots?

Who claimed that?