US Politics Mega-thread - Page 10045

On March 12 2018 05:59 A3th3r wrote:
The US continues to be in Afghanistan, five years in, seemingly for no other reason than to give American youths a foreign place to have adventurous & dangerous experiences & fight & maybe die there. This is not a good reason to be in a state of wartime vigilance.

On March 12 2018 07:16 a_flayer wrote:

I was reading this today: https://fair.org/home/they-put-lethal-weapons-into-the-hands-of-13-year-olds/

Militarism in the US is a frightening thing.

Over the past decade, Massachusetts has been one of the states at the forefront of the pro-marijuana movement. But one of the state’s rising political stars is not on board.

“This one is a tough one for me, because my views do not exactly line up with my own state, and it’s something that I’m struggling with,” Rep. Joe Kennedy III said in a podcast interview this week with Vox.com’s Ezra Klein.

Even as he has seen his national profile continue to rise, the 37-year-old Democratic congressman has taken heat from the left over his opposition to marijuana legalization (including for medical purposes), which has become increasingly popular both within his party and across the country. After he was tagged to deliver his party’s response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address in January, pro-marijuana outlets scoured Kennedy’s voting history in the House and found that he was among the few Democratic representatives who consistently voted against even mildly pro-marijuana bills — even measures that many Republicans supported.

“I don’t think marijuana should be legalized,” Kennedy flatly told Boston magazine in 2016, two months before the Massachusetts voters approved a referendum to do just that.

In his interview with Klein, the congressman cited some of the unintended consequences of decriminalizing and legalizing the drug. Recalling his days working as a state prosecutor when Massachusetts voted in 2008 to decriminalize marijuana, Kennedy said the decision affected the ability of police officers to search and seize other illegal items, such as guns, from vehicles.

“If you smelled [marijuana] in a car, you could search a car,” Kennedy said. “When it became decriminalized, you couldn’t do that.”

On March 12 2018 07:21 Doodsmack wrote:
So Trump's rally yesterday confirmed again that he's an old-fashioned flaming racist. Any denial of this fact is intellectual dishonesty. There's too many correlations for a half intelligent person to deny.

On March 12 2018 12:05 ChristianS wrote:

For the sake of discussion, would you mind enumerating some of the parts that you think prove his racism beyond the point of intellectually honest denial? I heard he called Maxine Waters "low IQ," anything else?

On March 12 2018 12:45 Ayaz2810 wrote:


Pretty easy to find.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

On March 12 2018 12:48 Sermokala wrote:

Did you miss the "for the sake of discussion would you mind enumerating"?

On March 12 2018 13:18 Ayaz2810 wrote:


Is that a fancy way of saying "Google it for me so I don't have to"? Why write out what someone else was already nice enough to write out?

On March 12 2018 12:45 Ayaz2810 wrote:


Pretty easy to find.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

On March 12 2018 10:31 Plansix wrote:
https://twitter.com/Eugene_Scott/status/972098736825487361

This is a good, but depressing read.

On March 12 2018 05:59 A3th3r wrote:


tl;dr Universities are good. Duhh

The US continues to be in Afghanistan, five years in, seemingly for no other reason than to give American youths a foreign place to have adventurous & dangerous experiences & fight & maybe die there. This is not a good reason to be in a state of wartime vigilance. That being said, if by some amazing miracle they are able to put in a representative democratic & functioning government in there that would be an incredibly impressive achievement. I would imagine that oil is a factor in that decision. However, as of now, the US has the highest oil production rate due to the oil fields in Texas, Saskatchewan, North Dakota, & South Dakota, so that is not as huge of a draw as maybe it used to be.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/a-war-without-an-objective-6000-days-in/

On March 12 2018 13:18 Ayaz2810 wrote:


Is that a fancy way of saying "Google it for me so I don't have to"? Why write out what someone else was already nice enough to write out?

For most of its surveys between 1972 and 2016, the General Social Survey asked a U.S. sample to consider the following types of potential public speakers. (They asked about a few others but the following are the ones they asked most consistently.)

“…a person who believes that Blacks are genetically inferior.” (Henceforth “racist.”)
“Somebody who is against all churches and religion…” (Henceforth “antitheist.”)
“…a man who admits he is a Communist.” (Henceforth “communist.”)
“…a person who advocates doing away with elections and letting the military run the country.” (Henceforth “militarist.”)
“…a man who admits that he is a homosexual?” (Henceforth, “homosexual.”)
For each type of person, they also asked, “If such a person wanted to make a speech in your community, should he be allowed to speak, or not?”
. . .





Here’s the first interesting insight from Figure 2. As late as the 1970s & 1980s, the Left & the Right were, compared to today, relatively ambivalent about letting people, especially their ideological enemies, speak freely. Many conservatives did not wish to give freedom of speech to groups they were inclined to dislike, such as homosexuals and atheists. Liberals were less willing to give speech rights to militarists than they are today. But since then, the left and the right have become more tolerant to the free speech of many groups. Except racists. What’s unique about today’s fashion of “no platforming” racists (really, anyone deemed racist) is not that it’s new; what’s unique is that this specific type of speaker was exempt from the generally rising tide of speech toleration over the past few decades. Today’s vaguely leftist fashion of “no platforming” anyone deemed racist does not reflect a sudden, massive shift of opinion (although there’s some shift); it seems more to reflect a quite traditional tendency of aversion to despised speakers, which only now appears peculiar because most other despisable speaker types have become tolerated by most other ideological factions. The general, national puzzle, therefore, is not “Why do leftists suddenly seem so opposed to racist speakers, or speakers deemed racist?” This is a puzzle, which we’ll address next, but it’s not the over-arching puzzle. The most general puzzle is “Why have racist speakers, or speakers deemed racist, been exempt from the rising tide of speech toleration, for liberals and conservatives?” As Figure 1 shows, the relatively stable attitudes toward racist speakers are visible as nationwide averages, ignoring ideology. I won’t try to provide an answer for this question here, as clarifying the question seems worthwhile enough for the moment.

The second important fact shown in Figure 2 is that generally, on average, support for free speech increases as you move from conservatism to liberalism. To any political scientist, this should not be surprising; liberals are known to be higher in openness than conservatives, and conservatives have always been more concerned with social control (law and order). This is only interesting as a corrective for claims that have become very popular in the alt-ideological indie media world. This is understandably due to the presence of high-profile left-wing ideologues opposed to free speech—and the presence of high-profile free speech defenders who happen to lean center-right/libertarian. I think I have heard on separate occasions people such as Bret Weinstein, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan and others, all talk about how puzzling it is that liberalism/leftism used to be the camp of free speech but now they’re the camp of speech suppression. This is not really true. I think what they should say, and maybe what they mean to say, is that “a puzzling minority of vaguely leftist activists, who happen to have gained media attention, wish to suppress free speech.”
...
The third most fascinating insight from Figure 2 is where, exactly, there has been some opinion shift away from free speech in recent years. If there’s one segment of the ideological spectrum that has become the most censorious toward racists, it is not the Extreme Liberal but rather the Liberal and Slightly Liberal. In other words, it’s likely not Liberalism itself doing the work here, if Extreme Liberals are the most supportive of free speech for racists. As mentioned above, those who identify as “extremely liberal” have always been, on average, the most supportive of free speech (even for racist speakers). Historical phenomena such as the left-wing Berkely Free Speech movement of the 1960s has not been reversed by contemporary SJWs; extreme liberals carry on that tendency, the inference here is simply that SJWs are actually not extreme liberals.

On March 12 2018 22:59 Mercy13 wrote:
Certain extreme cases which have happened to make the news aside, this study makes some interesting conclusions regarding how views on free speech in America have changed over time:



Source