OrangeMonkey

It seems like you are suggesting the government can restrain speech and then, if the people disagree that the government, that they then can sue the government to allow it.

I don't want to live in the world you suggest.

This right here is why I am glad we have a constitution in the US and resist efforts to make it easier to change.

In general, when someone suggests the only solution to "too much free speech" is for people to be filtered, I say "You first."

Twitter hasn't been burdened by "extreme right" "abusing all communication platforms."

If it was, then we would have seen a left exodus years ago and not suddenly coming up now. This comment has me so confused.

I think we can agree to disagree.

People can respect you as a person, but no I don't think people have to respect different viewpoints. I can respect that you have a lived experience that differs from mine and that your viewpoint is X, but I do balance that against my own views and speak my own truth as well.

If you think that you have to respect every viewpoint that differs, think of the viewpoints of the party you dislike. Think of any of their views. Do you respect their _view_ or do you respect the person and want to allow their speech while disagreeing with it?

Me? I think the best way to deal with speech I don't like is not filtering or censorship its more speech. Anytime I see an implication that someones view needs to be filtered I think "You first."

I'm sorry but did you just say that democracy only works if we have censorship?

> Personally I don't think this acquisition is healthy for a democracy,

Only a fascist would force free speech onto people.

Courts exist to make people whole.

The court decided the executive branch didn't have the right to fire the workers. Because of that, the workers lost their jobs, insurance, and pay.

How else would you suggest the court make them whole again?

Don't be purposefully obtuse - its not helpful to anyone and just makes you look like a troll.

Germany did not want to produce oil/gas locally due to concerns about environmental impact. Instead, they decided to import it from Russia. With the Russia pipeline destroyed, they are now competing for these same 'dirty resources' on the global scale resulting in widespread suffering in the developing world.

If you are going to imply that you didn't understand this as the meaning of the statement, I think its pretty telling.

You seem to have become mistaken - I am talking about a companies fiduciary duty to shareholder and maximizing long term shareholder value. You are talking about popular sentiment.

True. They are private companies, not Public. I am fine with this.

You know I never checked. I mean it seems obvious it would but I don’t recall seeing a study.

Honestly though a study like that may be banned from most research houses as it can fall into a bad spot. What happens if the study found it didn’t help. :/

I feel like the regulations here are good regardless. I don’t Want someone to be penalized specifically because of their race.

Let’s fast forward in financial regulation knowledge with a question perhaps.

Why do you think the sec had to require that directors and executives have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders? Why are executives fined and jailed when they violate this?

Those answers should explain why there is an incentive to not allow public investable companies to fuck with their investor money in a way that isn’t necessarily in their best interest. If they want to do that, you can invest in private companies that the mom and pop investor can’t get hoodwinked into.

Arguments aside, completely unrelated to substance, that’s a scary looking link. What were you trying to link to? I enjoy conversing about the substance of arguments but I’m not clicking that. Any help?