Because it doesn't take a "popular view" to do massive amounts of damage. It only takes a mobilized minority who is willing to ruin you if you don't submit to them. I don't think many big businesses are catering to Nazis at all. Being called a Nazi is one of the worst things you can be called in the West, and rightfully so. Unfortunately, that has led to the weaponization of the term to mean anyone the person using the term doesn't like at the moment. Yes, primarily. Yes they do if the majority of people will buy whatever product is given to them, and recent history has shown a majority of people have a pretty damned high tolerance for that... and that a minority of people will ruin them if they don't submit to them. Parler was removed from Apple and Google app stores, Amazon cancelled its hosting services. In a world where one side has a stage and a mic, the other had both pulled right out from underneath them. It it legal? Perhaps. But if the current environment is that one side gets an online platform, along with media, entertainment, and education... while the other gets nothing but is only free from government punishing them for speech... you're not really left with this "open marketplace of ideas." You're left with truth being silenced through fear. The predominant threat is simply related to reputation and career losses, rather than government fines or incarceration. We've had this conversation before. I'm not in the mood for your Al Sharpton routine today, where you describe any thought that I raise as bigoted, racist, antiquated, or some combination of the three.
Well, if you truly don't like the excesses of the left, then enjoy the benefits of DeSantis fighting the culture wars despite you being annoyed with the culture wars themselves. Without him, these "excesses" you speak of, would only have continued to get worse until you're irritated to the point that you turn to a guy like Ron DeSantis. It looks like the difference between you and me is that you just haven't reached that point. I obviously think that's a mistake, but what really frustrates me is that if you haven't realized it to this point, you really never will.
Of course they're not catering to Nazis. It is an unpopular ideology that would hurt their profits. That's the point. They're going to pursue profit. That means taking popular stances. And yet, there is media that is geared specifically towards Republicans. Same with businesses. Same with educational institutions. If that was the best approach to being the most profitable or most effective institution, wouldn't everybody be doing it? Has it? We've seen "boycotts" from both sides have zero effect on businesses. We've also seen effective "boycotts." How can you square that with the idea you're pushing here? If there was this robust market for "conservative thought," wouldn't companies spring up to take advantage and offer platforms for sites like Parler? Isn't that the beauty of the free market? That seems telling. I asked for specifics on what "conservative thought" they're suppressing, and you don't want to answer.
Here ya go: Jeffries encourages moderate Republicans to join Democrats and end House deadlock Geoff Bennett: When you talk about this bipartisan path, are you talking about the fact that you would only need five House Republicans to join with the 212 Democrats and elect you House speaker? And we should say there are 18 Republican members who are — who have been elected from districts that Joe Biden won? Is that we are speaking of? Rep. Hakeem Jeffries: No, because, from the very beginning, we have said this should not be about any one particular individual and any one particular individual's aspirations to lead either House Democrats or House Republicans. This is about what is good for the American people, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. That's why, at this moment, we have got to find a way to come together, restructure the House in a bipartisan way, designed to allow for commonsense things to come to the floor, receive an up-or-down vote, for us to be able to actually move legislation that emerges from the Senate that is bipartisan in nature. And Leader Schumer has done a tremendous job in working with Leader McConnell in that regard. And we want to get the House back on track, function. And we can figure out a way to do it. We are inherently reasonable about what we think can occur. But we just require Republican partners in order to do it. Geoff Bennett: Practically, though, how would this work? So there would be a Republican House speaker, but Democrats would have, what, more committee memberships, they'd have a greater say in how the functions of the floor work? Rep. Hakeem Jeffries: Well, the details need to be negotiated in a good-faith fashion. And we are ready, willing and able to do just that. But, first, we need Republicans to agree on the principle. And there are only two options here. The House can either continue to be driven by the most extreme members of the Republican Conference, or we can alter the legislative landscape in a structured way to facilitate bipartisan cooperation. I'm hopeful that my traditional Republican colleagues who are interested in governance, who care about the institution of the people's house are willing to sit down and talk with us about finding an enlightened path and agreement that allows us to do the business of the American people and solve problems for hardworking American taxpayers. ------------------------------------------------------ He rejected the idea that the moderate Republicans would have to make him Speaker. He outlined parameters of what he wanted. And he offered to negotiate a path forward with moderate Republicans. Isn't that what you requested?
I don’t like the excesses on the left, but I don’t fear them either. They are not the majority opinion in the Democratic Party. That’s why Biden won. That’s why Adams won in heavily Democratic NYC. In my mind there was already pushback in the left of these excesses. 100% disagree with this. The left would have mostly fixed themselves. Sure there will always be a fringe but that was working its way out, and that has nothing to do with guys like Trump or DeSantis. I do not want authoritarianism in any form to fight these left annoyances. The Right wing authoritarianism is a far bigger threat than woke crap. The woke crap will go away. Authoritarianism tends not to. Again you get all worked up about this stuff which best I can tell really doesn’t affect our day to day lives. You are deeply upset about a trans dude doing a Bud Light ad want an authoritarian to intervene. I could care less. Again our respective perceptions of the world around us are irreconcilable.
Non starter. The pubs won the majority and a pub should be SOH. 20 dems could have had Emmer and bigger deals agreed to. Nope, had to be a dem as SOH. Go team, we helped MAGA pick a magat for SOH.
The line continues to be pushed further to the left by the second. This pushback you speak of exists, but it's not in plain view for the public for the most part... and functions as a brake slowing the transition down rather than a true push in the opposite direction. Completely wrong. And the easiest way of proving this is that the left-wing authoritarianism pre-existed the DeSantis's and Trump's of the current Republican Party. They are a reaction to the authoritarian left and will either change or go away when the authoritarian left is gone, or at least not dictating the direction of the country anymore. That, however, is still not the case. It's not just the Trans dude in the Bud Light ad. It's the fact that there's this whole organized mob on the left that will try and ruin you if you say anything about it they don't like, even that it's a dude, not a woman, which is simply true. It's the fact that Bud Light decided to push the idea that Dylan Mulvaney is a woman. The left can't have it both ways. They can't cancel businesses for not toeing the line of their progressive litmus tests, even if the businesses choose to be apolitical, then ask critics why they care when businesses choose to openly further progressive points. PROGRESSIVES care, that's why they pressure businesses in the first place and that's why Bud Light did that stunt in the first place. Agreed, but I appreciate the civil turn this conversation has taken. If we're going to disagree, I wish all of our conversations were like this.
He explicitly said he was willing to agree to a Republican Speaker if the relevant Republicans were willing to negotiate a bipartisan deal. Emmer didn't do that.
That also means not pissing off a small group of people who threaten to destroy your business and livelihood if you do, especially if you think you can split the baby by appeasing them while simultaneously keeping a disgruntled customer base who will buy what you're selling anyways. Clearly not. Fox has the biggest audience, yet they're the only mainstream conservative cable network. And we're seeing the cable news business deteriorating, largely because of the alternative media people now have access to. But it takes time to dent cash cows like cable news and establishment media like New York Times. It's happening, it's just happening slowly. These outlets would have you believe it's strictly due to increased competition. Although that's true, they could mitigate the problem by appealing to a wider audience and just trying to report the news than act like a PR wing for Republicans or Democrats. Then again, a lot of people like that too. The American people seem to be addicted to outrage and controversy. So maybe that might be the media market. Everything will gravitate towards partisanship over time. But that doesn't change the fact that political media representation, particularly in establishment media, is not in proportion with the population. Not even close. That is completely not true. It's affected Bud Light sales. And although the direct effects you see on paper may not tend to last, it absolutely affects the marketing presentation of businesses moving forward. When people who offer platforms are threatened, it makes it less likely for those platforms to be offered moving forward. It's too great a risk. That is exactly the case with Parler. Conservatives don't like Twitter, so they create their own called Parler. Parler is deplatformed as I mentioned earlier. Other companies offer a platform to Parler are threatened by folks like media matters to cut their funding from things like advertisers if they have them. There's a whole machine trying to keep conservative voices from speaking out. And yes, they can only do so much to prevent someone from "saying something." But they can do a Hell of a lot to make it REALLY expensive to say anything the leftist mob deems controversial, or make it so nobody hears it. This comes in the form of pressuring the firing of an employee, the boycott of a business, and the pulling of advertisers.
That’s just not what I see. When Mayor Adams wins in NYC with a message of centrism and anti wokeism - that is in plain view. When Biden pummels the more left leaning alternatives, that is in plain view. And again, it’s just not nearly as important to me as you. I have no idea what left wing authoritarianism you are talking about. Not Biden. Not Obama. Not Clinton. Even Bernie and Elizabeth Sanders, while they have some far left views, are not authoritarian. Who is this mob you are talking about? The former Twitter mob? That was just Twitter. I don’t care about Twitter. Or X. X is now a mob of right wing idiots. Social media is not reality. I am far more scared of the MAGA mob who is steadily growing more unhinged and will resort to violence to get their way. Who is this “Left” you are referring to? It isn’t the majority of Democrats. Bud Light did that because they made a bad marketing gamble. Most companies are infatuated with making inroads into the 18-34 demographic, when consumers are still forming their preferences. Past 40 they tend not to change a lot. So they thought they could appeal to that demographic by doing the whole Dylan bit. It backfired. It alienated its core customer base. They lost market share. Problem solved. Ron DeSantis or any other government figure didn’t have to get involved. I’ll try to change the tenor of the conversations. But I have to admit, this subject matter is not something I find interesting. I don’t care about woke shit that much. It’s a convenient distraction from the more pressing matters of the day.
How is a small group going to destroy a business if no large group agrees with them? Do you think a small group of Hamas admirers could destroy a business here in Florida for not celebrating Hamas's terrorist attack? Multiple others popped up. The problem is that the majority of Americans aren't interested in "conservative news." It already has. It was completely true until you cut out the other sentences. Some boycotts are effective. Most aren't. Because a small outraged group isn't going to make a difference if there aren't a lot of other people out there who agree with their stance. Total nonsense. If there was oodles of money to be made, somebody would be there reaping the rewards. The reason businesses weren't stepping up to the plate is because the "thought" on Parler that groups objected to (hate speech and speech seeking to incite violence) wasn't popular.
Hamas is an extreme example. No. When you're getting into these terms like "small" groups and "large" groups the conversation kind of gets complicated. One person would probably have a hard time destroying a business unless they're masters of intimidation and manipulation. Groups of thousands of people, however, who don't even encompass a majority of the Democratic Party... that's a different story. They just have to make themselves more trouble than it's worth for the business. And their job is easier if everyone else just shuts up about it, which was typically what happened before recently. It's still that way to a large degree, but a lot more people are getting tired of it and are expressing that sentiment. Perhaps not a "majority." But I'm not even sure a majority of Americans are interested in any kind of news. But there's a much bigger market for it than the establishment media likes to pretend. Okay. Again, depends on the size of the group, what exactly "small" means. If 10% of Democrats thought this way and were incredibly adamant and mobile about it, that's more than enough to make a dent. That's millions of people. That's not "small," but it's by no means representative of the will of the people. No it's because all of the major tech companies think the same and live in a bubble.
There are no "conservatives" who are able to build tech infrastructure. What would stop them from profiting off of a huge untapped market?
Existing tech giants in the marketplace and the lack of capital to compete with companies that have been established and growing for decades. Not saying it's impossible, but it's very difficult in an already highly technical field. People are already trying.
You don't need to compete with them. You just said that they're refusing to even touch a market. You believe that market can be quite profitable. Why is it difficult?
Those are your words, not mine. Last I checked, conservatives use Google, Instagram, Twitter (even before Musk), etc. As far as why it's difficult? You have the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, and Giants pooling their resources and working collaboratively while excluding everyone else. Then you're surprised that Oakland can't compete with them on their own despite the fact that the aforementioned 5 aren't running a tight ship. Once you hit that level of infrastructure and profitability... you have a much bigger margin for error in how you run your business because it takes so much time for anyone else to catch up. None of this is impossible... but boy is it both risky and difficult.
If the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, and Giants all told "conservatives" that they didn't want them as fans, wouldn't Oakland be incentivized to appeal to those disaffected "conservatives"? Wouldn't that be profitable?
