The Media Industry

[Mr. Deez]

What kind of writer goes out of their way to tell someone to obey laws that shouldn't be on the books in a Western democracy?

What's a "Western democracy?" I'm asking sincerely. The idea of a truly limited government (meaning one that not only generally doesn't infringe on its people but legally cannot) isn't a Western thing. It's an American thing. If Australia wants a vaccine mandate, it can do that. I think it's oppressive, but they can do it. If someone who isn't an Australian citizen doesn't like that, his remedy is to not go. It's a little like countries who ***** about the US having the death penalty. If you don't like the death penalty and live outside the US, don't go to the US and don't murder people.

 

[Garmel]

What's a "Western democracy?" I'm asking sincerely. The idea of a truly limited government (meaning one that not only generally doesn't infringe on its people but legally cannot) isn't a Western thing. It's an American thing. If Australia wants a vaccine mandate, it can do that. I think it's oppressive, but they can do it. If someone who isn't an Australian citizen doesn't like that, his remedy is to not go. It's a little like countries who ***** about the US having the death penalty. If you don't like the death penalty and live outside the US, don't go to the US and don't murder people.

You don't know what a Western democracy is? Come on. When some bunghole calling himself a journalist tries to actually defend it I have to laugh. You don't go out of your way to defend crap like that. I don't know the complete story here because you can't trust what the media is telling us but the tennis world isn't on the side of Australia here. Hurting competition between athletes of a world caliber status is stupid and unproductive.

When you see Australians marching risking jail time trying to stop this 3rd world BS that's occurring and some idiot journalist says "dems the rules" then I say **** this guy.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You don't know what a Western democracy is?

I do know what it is. I'm simply contrasting the more general "Western" with the more specific "American." You shouldn't expect a Western, non-American democracy to respect individual rights the way an American one does.

When some bunghole calling himself a journalist tries to actually defend it I have to laugh. You don't go out of your way to defend crap like that. I don't know the complete story here because you can't trust what the media is telling us but the tennis world isn't on the side of Australia here. Hurting competition between athletes of a world caliber status is stupid and unproductive.

He's not defending the vaccine mandate.

 

[huisache]

World quality athletes who don’t want to obey the laws of a country should not go to said country or, alternatively, the world quality athlete should get a pass because they are privileged Aholes. Screw him

 

[Garmel]

Gee, such a terrible guy not bowing down to 3rd world country nonsense. Thankfully, the tennis world doesn't buy into this nonsense.

The shot doesn't stop spread. He is no threat to anyone except the Australian government.

 

[Garmel]

I do know what it is. I'm simply contrasting the more general "Western" with the more specific "American." You shouldn't expect a Western, non-American democracy to respect individual rights the way an American one does.



He's not defending the vaccine mandate.

He is defending totalitarianism. **** that guy.

 

[Garmel]

Zero rational reason to not let him play.

 

[horninchicago]

The point, I think, is that right leaning rag should have plenty of other people/celebrities/athletes/politicians to be critical of yet this guy wastes everyone's time talking about a tennis player from Serbia? Seriously, are there 3 tennis fans who give a crap?

And, since "celebrities" normally are able to thumb their noses at rules and be celebrated for doing so, this douchecanoe probably felt that would be the case. Would the left be concerned if he was thumbing his nose at rules they don't favor?

Again, what does this guy seek to do by highlighting this. He was more critical of the tennis player than the stupid rules.

 

[Garmel]

Again, what does this guy seek to do by highlighting this. He was more critical of the tennis player than the stupid rules.

That's the main issue I have.

 

[Mr. Deez]

He is defending totalitarianism. f**khead that guy.

He's not doing that either. It is possible to argue that a law is bad but also accept that a state or nation has the right to have a bad law and that if you don't live in that state or nation and don't like that bad law you shouldn't go there. Stay in your freer nation. Hell, North Korea has terrible laws. Do I think you should go to North Korea when you don't have to and knowingly violate their terrible laws? No, I think you should stay away from North Korea and not go the way of Otto Warmbier.

The reason why I don't like your approach here is that I'm a big believer in a sovereign's authority to govern itself - even if I don't like what they're doing. It's the foundation of the concept of the nation state and of course federalism when we're talking about the United States, and as much as I oppose vaccine mandates, this issue is bigger and more important than vaccine mandates. Your approach is how the Left justifies forcing its will on conservative states. It's how the European Union justifies screwing with socially conservative nations. They frame their opponent's actions as "authoritarian" or "a threat to democracy," and suddenly they can talk themselves into crapping on their opponent's right to govern themselves. I'm not a fan.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Seriously, are there 3 tennis fans who give a crap?

Lots of non-tennis fans give a crap. I don't know how this is being covered in the US, but it's one of the biggest stories in the news here. Pretty much every media outlet covers it every day right now.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Another liberal journalist gets sick of the illiberal BS dominating mainstream news outlets and goes to Substack - this time from Canada. Link.

 

[Garmel]

He's not doing that either. It is possible to argue that a law is bad but also accept that a state or nation has the right to have a bad law and that if you don't live in that state or nation and don't like that bad law you shouldn't go there. Stay in your freer nation. Hell, North Korea has terrible laws. Do I think you should go to North Korea when you don't have to and knowingly violate their terrible laws? No, I think you should stay away from North Korea and not go the way of Otto Warmbier.

The reason why I don't like your approach here is that I'm a big believer in a sovereign's authority to govern itself - even if I don't like what they're doing. It's the foundation of the concept of the nation state and of course federalism when we're talking about the United States, and as much as I oppose vaccine mandates, this issue is bigger and more important than vaccine mandates. Your approach is how the Left justifies forcing its will on conservative states. It's how the European Union justifies screwing with socially conservative nations. They frame their opponent's actions as "authoritarian" or "a threat to democracy," and suddenly they can talk themselves into crapping on their opponent's right to govern themselves. I'm not a fan.

Yet, my approach isn't the one that is agreeing with the left, yours is. The left is cheering this on. I didn't say Australia can't do what they want. I just don't have a problem with someone breaking a few rules when they're trying to screw him over when he's trying to make a living. The guy had natural immunity from having Covid and this is a completely irrational approach by Australia. The guy is no threat to the Australian people.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Yet, my approach isn't the one that is agreeing with the left, yours is.

When your approach is driven by principles rather than preferred outcomes, that's going to happen from time to time. The reason why is that the Left, of course, is unprincipled, but when it's convenient, they'll fraudulently echo that principle.

States' rights is a similar thing. Do you like states' rights as a principle or just as a slogan to utter when the liberals want to impose on your state? I actually like them as a principle. That means I can tell the Left to **** off and leave Texas alone. However, it also means that I can't be a busybody. I have to tolerate California doing things that I don't like.

The left is cheering this on. I didn't say Australia can't do what they want. I just don't have a problem with someone breaking a few rules when they're trying to screw him over when he's trying to make a living. The guy had natural immunity from having Covid and this is a completely irrational approach by Australia. The guy is no threat to the Australian people.

The problem is that if it's ok for him to break rules we don't like, then what happens when others want to break a few rules in our country that they don't like?

 

[Garmel]

When your approach is driven by principles rather than preferred outcomes, that's going to happen from time to time. The reason why is that the Left, of course, is unprincipled, but when it's convenient, they'll fraudulently echo that principle.

States' rights is a similar thing. Do you like states' rights as a principle or just as a slogan to utter when the liberals want to impose on your state? I actually like them as a principle. That means I can tell the Left to f**khead off and leave Texas alone. However, it also means that I can't be a busybody. I have to tolerate California doing things that I don't like.


The problem is that if it's ok for him to break rules we don't like, then what happens when others want to break a few rules in our country that they don't like?

Defending totalitarian measures isn't exactly being principled. States rights isn't an apt comparison here, bub. You're talking about leftists wanting to cause permanent change to a state vs someone who just wants to play ball and win some money. Would I have an issue with a foreign player dicking around New York's Covid rules? Absolutely not. When you try to take someone's ability to make a living due to rules that don't actually affect anything I don't have a problem with rule breaking. I feel the same way about Rodgers sticking it to the NFL and their stupid Covid protocols. If Australia actually had something of substance I would agree with them but there isn't anything here. How about the Australian people who are breaking the rules by having "illegal" protests against their government. Are they in the wrong since they aren't following the rules?

Deez, you've talked about having an Amazon Fire Stick and a VPN. Sounds to me you're not above ignoring rules you don't like either.

 

[Monahorns]

It is possible to argue that a law is bad but also accept that a state or nation has the right to have a bad law and that if you don't live in that state or nation and don't like that bad law you shouldn't go there.

States and nations don't have rights. Individuals do. Laws that violate natural rights are called injustice and should be fought against tooth and nail by the people. These things should be distinguished by natural law/natural rights.

 

[Monahorns]

Your approach is how the Left justifies forcing its will on conservative states. It's how the European Union justifies screwing with socially conservative nations. They frame their opponent's actions as "authoritarian" or "a threat to democracy," and suddenly they can talk themselves into crapping on their opponent's right to govern themselves. I'm not a fan.

The Left does these things on the positivism and positive law, which argues for much of what you are arguing. It says the state dictates the rules and has a right to do so. It links government laws to "positives" like democracy and public health.

The only way to fight against positivism is with the philosophy of natural law and natural rights. States don't have the right to violates natural rights. Natural rights aren't a right to health or a right to a livable wage. Those are positive "rights" formulation out of General Will type of theory. The state determines what is good for the people and then gives it to them good and hard.

 

[Monahorns]

Yet, my approach isn't the one that is agreeing with the left, yours is. The left is cheering this on. I didn't say Australia can't do what they want. I just don't have a problem with someone breaking a few rules when they're trying to screw him over when he's trying to make a living. The guy had natural immunity from having Covid and this is a completely irrational approach by Australia. The guy is no threat to the Australian people.

Yes. Tyranny needs to be fought with actual scientific/medical truth and logic. It shouldn't be accepted.

 

[Monahorns]

The bar owner, patrons, and particularly the guy making the video are correct and should be supported.

 

[Garmel]

The bar owner, patrons, and particularly the guy making the video are correct and should be supported.

Guys like Deez don't seem to understand disobeying nonsense like this is what caused the civil rights movement to flourish. If everybody obeyed the rules blacks would still be sitting at the back of the bus.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Defending totalitarian measures isn't exactly being principled. States rights isn't an apt comparison here, bub. You're talking about leftists wanting to cause permanent change to a state vs someone who just wants to play ball and win some money. Would I have an issue with a foreign player dicking around New York's Covid rules? Absolutely not. When you try to take someone's ability to make a living due to rules that don't actually affect anything I don't have a problem with rule breaking.

LOL. It's amazing how open borders you've become.

Again, I'm defending the sovereignty, not the measures. And since when does someone have a right to make a living anywhere he wants? He doesn't. That's why having a border isn't inhumane and barring Latin Americans who want to make a living in the United States isn't a violation of their rights.

If Australia actually had something of substance I would agree with them but there isn't anything here.

Part of sovereignty is not having to explain and justify yourself to someone who isn't within your jurisdiction, so it's not the merits of the vaccine mandate that are the issue. I agree with you on the merits.

The Pope (and most of the Western world) thinks the death penalty is horrifically immoral and an abuse of human rights. Under your logic, we should just not impose the death penalty on anyone who's a Catholic and certainly not on anyone who's not an American. Fortunately, that's not how it works. Instead, if the Vatican and Europe don't want to have the death penalty, they don't have to have it. If we want it, we can have it even if they think it's terrible. I prefer that world.

How about the Australian people who are breaking the rules by having "illegal" protests against their government. Are they in the wrong since they aren't following the rules?

Completely different scenario. The Australian people live in Australia. They are citizens of Australia. They actually are losing freedom and rights. They can protest. They can engage in civil disobedience. It's their country. A Serbian tennis player can mind his own business and play tennis somewhere else.

Deez, you've talked about having an Amazon Fire Stick and a VPN. Sounds to me you're not above ignoring rules you don't like either.

And if Amazon wants to come after me, they have every right to do so, and I'll have to submit to the nation's authority (through its courts) if they do. I can't just say, "geographical content restrictions are unfair and unjust!" (By the way, I'm making a joke here, but this is actually a real liberty issue in places like China that block the internet.)

Guys like Deez don't seem to understand disobeying nonsense like this is what caused the civil rights movement to flourish. If everybody obeyed the rules blacks would still be sitting at the back of the bus.

Two points on this. First, the civil rights leaders were Americans protesting state actions that actually restricted them in their home states. Different scenario. Second, the civil rights leaders were not the lawless ones. The law had been on their side since the Reconstruction Amendments. The Jim Crow advocates were the lawless ones.

 

[Garmel]

LOL. It's amazing how open borders you've become.

Again, I'm defending the sovereignty, not the measures. And since when does someone have a right to make a living anywhere he wants? He doesn't. That's why having a border isn't inhumane and barring Latin Americans who want to make a living in the United States isn't a violation of their rights.



Part of sovereignty is not having to explain and justify yourself to someone who isn't within your jurisdiction, so it's not the merits of the vaccine mandate that are the issue. I agree with you on the merits.

The Pope (and most of the Western world) thinks the death penalty is horrifically immoral and an abuse of human rights. Under your logic, we should just not impose the death penalty on anyone who's a Catholic and certainly not on anyone who's not an American. Fortunately, that's not how it works. Instead, if the Vatican and Europe don't want to have the death penalty, they don't have to have it. If we want it, we can have it even if they think it's terrible. I prefer that world.



Completely different scenario. The Australian people live in Australia. They are citizens of Australia. They actually are losing freedom and rights. They can protest. They can engage in civil disobedience. It's their country. A Serbian tennis player can mind his own business and play tennis somewhere else.



And if Amazon wants to come after me, they have every right to do so, and I'll have to submit to the nation's authority (through its courts) if they do. I can't just say, "geographical content restrictions are unfair and unjust!" (By the way, I'm making a joke here, but this is actually a real liberty issue in places like China that block the internet.)



Two points on this. First, the civil rights leaders were Americans protesting state actions that actually restricted them in their home states. Different scenario. Second, the civil rights leaders were not the lawless ones. The law had been on their side since the Reconstruction Amendments. The Jim Crow advocates were the lawless ones.

Then we agree. The Australian government was full of **** but they do have a right to do what they want. The difference is I won't support tyranny. You'll excuse it. Okay, which Reconstruction Amendments outlawed segregation?

 

[Mr. Deez]

The difference is I won't support tyranny. You'll excuse it.

Again, I'm opposed to the vaccine mandate. I'm not excusing anything.

Okay, which Reconstruction Amendments outlawed segregation?

14th. Segregation (certainly by public institutions) denied people the equal protection of the laws. That's why it's illegal now.

 

[OUBubba]

Zero rational reason to not let him play.

Did he fake his "positive" test so that he'd have "immunity" and be eligible to travel there? He's dug his own hole by stupid behavior.

 

[OUBubba]

Tyranny. LOL

 

[Garmel]

Did he fake his "positive" test so that he'd have "immunity" and be eligible to travel there? He's dug his own hole by stupid behavior.

No, he actually had it.

 

[Garmel]

Tyranny. LOL

Big surprise. lol

 

[OUBubba]

No, he actually had it.

Or did he. It's not that simple. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/tennis/novak-djokovic-covid-australian-open-25921328

 

[Garmel]

Again, I'm opposed to the vaccine mandate. I'm not excusing anything.



14th. Segregation (certainly by public institutions) denied people the equal protection of the laws. That's why it's illegal now.

Then don't stick up for **** that is wrong. "That's their rules" is giving credence to ******* idiocy.

If it was protected by the 14th 1) Segregation would/could have been overturned by the courts 2) The Courts unfortunately ruled previously that "separate but equal" was constitutional. You're dead wrong.

We needed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to end it.

 

[OUBubba]

Then don't stick up for **** that is wrong. "That's their rules" is giving credence to ******* idiocy.

If it was protected by the 14th 1) It would/could have been overturned by the courts 2) The Courts unfortunately ruled previously that "separate but equal" was constitutional. You're dead wrong.

We needed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to end it.

Australia is another, you know, continent. They can require whatever they want. If you want to play in their tournament you need to comply.