Vox

Vox, 7 days ago

@wjmaggos

1. Those are features, not bugs. "They" don't give a rat's behind about your values.
2. We don't live in a democracy, nor should we aspire to do so.
3. Using imperative language like "necessary" and "required" isn't going to convince anyone to suddenly grow compassion for people who have been actively hurting our economy, our culture, our country, and crapping on our individual sovereignty for at least my entire lifetime. We're long past empathy. A call to vengeance might work.

Vox, 14 days ago

@thor

It makes me feel better, because it confirms my bias against bad science and bad scientists. Bias confirmation generally gives people a feeling of (possibly smug) satisfaction.

Vox, 16 days ago

@wjmaggos

What did I miss? Who's calling all female celebs men?

Vox, 16 days ago

@wjmaggos

No, but I've missed the last couple of shows because they were travel days, and I missed probably a half hour of today's show because my kiddo called.

Vox, 25 days ago

@wjmaggos

It did disintegrate into name-calling (fag), a bit of accusation (defending niggers) and disparaging my argument as "emotional" because I'm a woman. But, hey, trolls will be trolls. Maybe one of 'em will google the stats and learn something.

Vox, 26 days ago

@wjmaggos @ryan @phoneboy

You're not an idiot. You do, however, seem to be somewhat naive and overly emotional in your political views. Children's spaces should be moderated, because kids need to be protected from predators, but adults have no such need. A mature person knows to use the mute or block features, or simply scroll on. Without getting twisted knickers. Adults don't take things to heart and freak out over mere words. Adults don't get so invested in strangers' opinions.

Vox, 26 days ago

@wjmaggos @ryan @phoneboy

Actually, I didn't answer your earlier question. I don't have spam blockers on my email, but adding one would be the equivalent of muting or blocking someone on social media. It's simply excercising my right to not listen. The equivalent of the kind of "moderation" you're talking about is more like if I could somehow make it illegal to market AT ALL a particular product, one I don't like, via email, but allowing the marketing of other products that I do like.

Vox, 26 days ago

@wjmaggos @ryan @phoneboy

Great example. A week or so ago, a bunch of poasters dogpiled me. At first I attempted to engage, but when I realized I'd stumbled into a nest of schoolyard bullies, I simply withdrew and let them carry on until they ran out of steam. I didn't get butthurt, because I don't CARE about these people. I don't care what they think or how they feel because I don't know anything about them except that their online presence is vapid. So I simply quit listening. Easy-peasy.

Vox, 25 days ago

@nam @wjmaggos @ryan @phoneboy

If there's a spam filter on my yahoo account, it's abysmal. I delete dozens of ads every morning.

I don't think we define "harassment" the same. What might provoke you is null to me. I can't get worked up about strangers typing words. If it was someone I care about saying mean things, that would be different. Or if a stranger physically assaulted me, that would be different. But strangers typing words? Pfft.

3/?

Vox, 25 days ago

@nam @wjmaggos @ryan @phoneboy

I'm a bit confused as to how my withdrawing from a non-productive conversation proves your point. Free speech was practiced by the poasters, while I exercised my right to not listen/respond. I DID keep having my conversation, but I didn't mute anyone because I wasn't offended, and if someone else was, that's a "them" problem. I'm not responsible for shielding grown people's feelings.

Look, I don't like violence in media for all kinds of reasons.

4/?

Vox, 25 days ago

@nam @wjmaggos @ryan @phoneboy

I think it's desensitizing, and may incite all kinds of bad behavior, but I don't DEMAND that NOBODY can watch Hamburger Hill. That's not my place. My place is to choose a different movie. Its a PASSIVE act, just as withdrawing from a thread is a PASSIVE act. BANNING either movies or other people's right to be a dick in public is NOT passive. It's ACTIVE. And it clearly violates our American 1st Amendment. Do I LIKE seeing ppl burn our flag? No.

5/?

Vox, 25 days ago

@nam @wjmaggos @ryan @phoneboy

But I recognize that people have the right to do it, as long as they aren't creating a fire hazard.

Not sure why my skeletal profile matters. I don't feel like I need to billboard my opinions in a profile. If somebody cares what I think about something, they can follow the link to my podcast, or they can converse with me directly. If they don't care, an article-length bio just looks presumptuous and pompous.

6/?

Vox, 25 days ago

@nam @wjmaggos @ryan @phoneboy

About being "our full public selves"... isn't that what poasters are doing? Why would you want to deny them the opportunity to put their full selves on public display, with all their crassness and immaturity available for all to see? Or do they not deserve to be their "full public selves" because someone might get butthurt? As you pointed out, most reasonable people will choose to not hang out with them, and that's fair. Free speech still has consequences.

Vox, 25 days ago

@wjmaggos @nam @ryan @phoneboy

Again, if ya can't stand the heat...

Putting up a trans flag (or a Nazi or Confederate flag for that matter...or even an American flag, which shouldn't be controversial at all since I am actually American) DOES make one a target. If someone does that, I expect they are inviting pushback. Some people seem to thrive on taunting others with their flags in our faces.

Vox, 25 days ago

@wjmaggos @nam @ryan @phoneboy

I think screaming in someone's face DOES violate his/her rights. Free speech shouldn't violate others' rights to quiet enjoyment, and vandalism is also a violation. Again, the right to swing your fist stops at my face. It's really not that hard. I feel like sometimes people deliberately exaggerate and misrepresent what free speech is just to try to dismantle it. Anything can be distorted to ad absurdum, but it's a logical fallacy.

Vox, 25 days ago

@wjmaggos @nam @ryan @phoneboy

Again, free speech does not and never did mean freedom from consequences. You are free to fly an LGBTQ+ flag, but you'll catch some flack over it. Same if you have a Westborough Baptist Church bumper sticker. Having the freedom to say anything doesn't mean it's PRUDENT to say anything, unless you just enjoy stirring the pot, and I think some people do.

Vox, 25 days ago

@wjmaggos @nam @ryan @phoneboy

Cancel culture is akin to not allowing a movie to be screened at all just because I don't like it. So, no, it's not okay. But for me, personally, to curate my own media experience is fine. If I don't want to watch violent movies, I can "cancel" them from my watchlist, but not from yours.

I think you may have more collectivist leanings than I do. I'm a pretty staunch individualist.

Vox, 25 days ago

@wjmaggos @nam @ryan @phoneboy

I also think you care more about people's feelings. I care more about facts, truth, logic and reason. If I tell someone a fact or a truth, and it hurts their feelings, I really can't be bothered. Biological sex is factual and true. This "spectrum" nonsense is just that. If it hurts a "trans" person's feelings, so what? Maybe they'll figure it out before they REALLY hurt themselves.

Vox, 25 days ago

@wjmaggos @nam @ryan @phoneboy

It's one thing for an individual to choose, on an individual basis, what to see/hear or not see/hear. It's ENTIRELY another thing to be forbidden by an external force from either saying or seeing/hearing something.

I would HOPE people would self-censor. That's what decent people do. You don't HAVE to say everything you think about everything. I don't walk into a bar screaming "Eff Biden AND Trump!" even though that's true, and I'm allowed. It's in poor taste.

Vox, 1 month ago

@thor

There seems to be a concerted effort to back people into one corner or the other. That bs about "if you're not with us, you're against us"....No. They don't get to decide that.

Vox, 1 month ago

@wjmaggos

Ranked choice voting SUCKS ASS. All that has to happen for one candidate to emerge supreme is for all of the other candidates in her party to drop out while the opposing party retains more than one contender. Because of ranked-choice voting being introduced in Alaska (and not being well understood by the electorate), and the Republican ticket being split, the single Democrat (her opponent dropped out FOR THIS PURPOSE) emerged victorious in a state that is historically Republican.