• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D and the rising pandemic


log in or register to remove this ad



Zardnaar

Legend
Our freedom of speech gets misquoted a lot ... and interpreted to mean what it categorically doesn't too

We have the same right here but it's mostly a set of guidelines with a BUT clause.

Essentially they can suspend them "in a fair and democratic" way translation whatever parliament passes.

Historically we've had 3 or 4 powerful PMs. One DoWed Germany and parliament oked it after the fact iirc.

So yeah a lot more powerful domestically if they choose to use said powers. A lot of it is more social mores and customs vs legal.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
And, how everyone in the Army already gets a half-dozen mandatory vaccinations in basic training, plus others later as you deploy into various areas of the world...
..and yet, at least one LTC (in the Signal Corp, apparently) tendered his resignation because he didn’t want the Covid vaccination mandated by the Pentagon, surrendering his pension and a whole bunch of benefits.

I haven’t heard of the resolution of his case yet, and what level of discharge he’ll be granted.

 




..and yet, at least one LTC (in the Signal Corp, apparently) tendered his resignation because he didn’t want the Covid vaccination mandated by the Pentagon, surrendering his pension and a whole bunch of benefits.

I haven’t heard of the resolution of his case yet, and what level of discharge he’ll be granted.


From what I know of how the military considers officers with that attitude, I suspect it was "Don't let the door hit you on the--"
 




Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
We have the same right here but it's mostly a set of guidelines with a BUT clause.
Most every freedom is limited in some fashion. First that freedom of speech we have is designed to limit government. (not private organizations, facebook or twitter or whomever are not required to host your nonsense). And if your speech can be reasonably considered a call to action to perform an illegal act it is considered, illegal itself.
 

Most every freedom is limited in some fashion. First that freedom of speech we have is designed to limit government. (not private organizations, facebook or twitter or whomever are not required to host your nonsense). And if your speech can be reasonably considered a call to action to perform an illegal act it is considered, illegal itself.
Though I will note it was probably not foreseen that a big part of the channels of speech would end up being controlled by private entities; it wasn't even close to as true at that period.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Though I will note it was probably not foreseen that a big part of the channels of speech would end up being controlled by private entities; it wasn't even close to as true at that period.

It was absolutely as true. They certainly weren't government entities controlling communications at the time. The private entities were newspapers, and book printers, and private individuals standing on boxes in the square reading from pamphlets.

What could not be foreseen was the sheer volume and speed of communication, and its relative anonymity, not that the means were privately controlled.
 

It was absolutely as true. They certainly weren't government entities controlling communications at the time. The private entities were newspapers, and book printers, and private individuals standing on boxes in the square reading from pamphlets.

It was not prohibitively expensive to be a pamphleteer, nor to produce a private newspaper as well distributed as anything away from a big city. There is no equivelent of either now.

What could not be foreseen was the sheer volume and speed of communication, and its relative anonymity, not that the means were privately controlled.

I still disagree. There's a pretty important matter of degree when most of the means of communication for the whole country, if not the globe, is controlled by, in practice 3-5 people, and trying to wedge into that by a new player is all but impossible.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
It was not prohibitively expensive to be a pamphleteer, nor to produce a private newspaper as well distributed as anything away from a big city. There is no equivelent of either now.

So, you seem to be using "private entities" to mean "flipping huge entity", which is inaccurate.

Depending on your definitions, "private entity" means either "not owned by the government" or "not owned by the government or traded on the stock market".

Back in the 1770s, the government didn't own any much of anything in communications. And the Stock Market in New York City didn't open until 1792 - so it was all private entities back in the day.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
..and yet, at least one LTC (in the Signal Corp, apparently) tendered his resignation because he didn’t want the Covid vaccination mandated by the Pentagon, surrendering his pension and a whole bunch of benefits.

I haven’t heard of the resolution of his case yet, and what level of discharge he’ll be granted.

Some follow up on Twitter makes it seem he either quit or was planning on quitting last year, and mention a problem with the dates in the letter. If not fake, seems like requiring vaccines could do wonders for thinning out folks the armed forces might like gone anyway.
 

So, you seem to be using "private entities" to mean "flipping huge entity", which is inaccurate.

Depending on your definitions, "private entity" means either "not owned by the government" or "not owned by the government or traded on the stock market".

Back in the 1770s, the government didn't own any much of anything in communications. And the Stock Market in New York City didn't open until 1792 - so it was all private entities back in the day.

Yet the government had a lot of practical ways to block speech that no private entity did on the scale relevant at the time. Now a number of private organizations have as much or more power to do that.

Look, I'm not saying there's no good reason for Facebook or Twitter to ever block someone. I just think in practice its disingenuous to suggest the power they have in terms of controlling communication these days is any less than the governments. Its probably, in practice, more. And being private entities does not make that a bit less terrifying, nor intrinsically less harmful than China's ability to do so.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I just think in practice its disingenuous to suggest the power they have in terms of controlling communication these days is any less than the governments. Its probably, in practice, more.

So, there's a major difference here. Facebook can remove you from the platform. That is annoying.

Governments can seize your assets, jail you, or even execute you.

When you think about whether a company has more power to control what you say than a government, remember the term "prison camp". And no, I am not overstating the case.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top