US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2579

On December 01 2015 06:03 ragz_gt wrote:
Wow going directly for Hitler. Seems like you skipped a few steps there buddy.

On December 01 2015 06:03 ragz_gt wrote:
Wow going directly for Hitler. Seems like you skipped a few steps there buddy.

On December 01 2015 06:15 Sermokala wrote:

Its not about Hitler or people being Hitler it's about the people having some sort of moral responsibility of reactionaries getting legitimacy. Ie who's fault is it that black people's socioeconomic standing keeps getting worse and if it's the rest of the population wanting to hold onto their federalism that keeps their socioeconomic standing good.

On December 01 2015 06:08 Plansix wrote:

Did you miss the part where he was responding to a post that literally references the Hitler Youth and says "You can't blame parents for letting them join, it was like boy scouts"?

Its fine to bring up Hitler if you are responding to a post that directly references him.

On December 01 2015 06:28 ragz_gt wrote:


I meant for OP (though it's kinda for both, the argument is pretty much over when Hitler is mentioned), shoulda quoted to avoid confusion.

On December 01 2015 03:43 Nyxisto wrote:


Well I think the moral responsibility lies primarily with the second guy allowing the first guy to spew his crap. This whole "white moderate" thing that also tries to attack all the black lives matter people is the real problem. The logic goes along the lines off "It's okay if you want to fight the institutions, but only as long as you don't ruin my English lawn, and as long as I get to define what racism is and where you have to stop". It's kind of a farce really, there's nothing moderate about tolerating unjust conditions.

It's kind of like when people try to shift historical war guilt away from the population and towards the evil leadership, I mean you could as well just blame a landslide for being morally guilty. The first condition for being responsible is that you can actually see that unjust stuff is happening. That is by definition something extremists can not do.

On November 30 2015 03:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Firstly, I myself wouldn't call myself a fair arbiter of what constitutes hateful rhetoric. I have a clear political bias, I willingly identify as part of the 'political left', and even though I genuinely try to interpret everything through unfiltered lenses, I think I know that all humans interpret everything based on everything they already think they know. And even though I also willingly identify as arrogant, I don't think I'm sufficiently special to not be influenced by the same principle.

I've never argued for any type of legal stifling of what you can and cannot say, merely that people should understand that their words might influence others, and that they should think about this before they speak. Isn't this, 'assume personal responsibilty for your actions', an argument that should resonate well with the 'political right'? Further, I think you'll have a very hard time finding posts of me where I am lightly calling anyone racist or homophobe. (If you can, please direct me to them, so I can either retract the statement or argue why I think it was warranted. ) In fact, I think it is really problematic when these phrases are thrown around too lightly, firstly because I think it's much better to attack a statement than to attack the person behind the statement (although, as stated, it is likely that we have different interpretations of what constitutes racist or homophobic behavior due to interpreting the world based on different lenses), secondly because when there's a dilution of the meaning of words, they lose their force and power when they actually need to be applied. The word racist is probably the best example of a word losing its power due to being used too frequently.

I'll grant you that I'm more likely to point out transgressions from political opposition.. But I mean.. Not every fight is my fight to take.

Not only have Alabama's attempts to defund Planned Parenthood Southeast been blocked by the courts, Alabama taxpayers will also have to foot the bill in the more than $51,000 in legal fees for the reproductive health organization, the Montgomery Advertiser reported, under a settlement filed in federal court Monday morning. The agreement still must be approved by a U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, according to the Montgomery Advertiser.

Republican Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley was one of a number of elected officials who sought to defund Planned Parenthood by cutting off Medicaid funding to clinics after a series of "sting" videos asserted the organization was illegally profiting off the of the sale of aborted fetal tissue. (Planned Parenthood has denied the claim that it is profiting from donation programs, and says reimbursement fees clinics receive for storage and staffing costs are legal.)

However, Thompson issued a preliminary junction last month that halted the state's move to cancel its Planned Parenthood Medicaid contract after the Planned Parenthood Southeast sued the state over the defund attempt.

Other states have faced their own legal obstacles in attempting to defund the healthcare organization. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has warned states that blocking Planned Parenthood's Medicaid funding may not be legal.

On December 01 2015 07:25 Plansix wrote:
Trump is the exception to Godwin's law in almost every way, with the exception that he wouldn't' have the power to dissolve congress if elected. But I am 100% sure he would try to inform the public that he could and convince them it was a good idea.

On December 01 2015 05:45 Plansix wrote:
Technology has also made is much easier for a small group to focus on discrediting something like BLM or PP with false or misleading information. The accessibility of services like YouTube, easy to sue video editing software and the viral nature of social media makes it easy to propagate a misleading or doctored video. And it takes several magnitudes more effort to prove the video is fake or misleading.

And our modern news networks are not helping, but feeding into the issues. The “Starbucks” war on Christmas was started by a guy doing satirical videos that are popular on facebook and snowballed into the creating the very thing he was satirizing. And people believe all of this because vetted, creditable information is so hard to come by and by its nature is slower than the viral media.

On December 01 2015 08:41 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Got photoshop, microsoft movie maker, some friends on facebook or twitter and an axe to grind? It's never been easier to make someone's life more miserable! Things can get really scary out there and I honestly don't have an answer for it other than hoping people eventually realize they've got the nuclear option and they need to be more careful with it.

On December 01 2015 08:46 Nyxisto wrote:


There actually is another solution, apply the law and some reasonable social standards on the internet and take the big companies into responsibility. I mean you can't post an exposed nipple on facebook without getting scrutinized but dressed up as a Wehrmacht soldier chanting the KKK manifesto is apparently okay. It's no wonder that everything goes to shit on the internet.

On December 01 2015 08:11 RenSC2 wrote:

Congress approval rating is 11% with 86% disapproval in Nov 2015 Gallup poll. It would not be hard for someone to make a case that congress should be temporarily suspended under Marshal Law, especially if there is an incident like 9/11 or a Reichstag Fire. Then all you need to do is continue Marshall Law indefinitely.

On December 01 2015 09:37 IgnE wrote:
Kwark shaming is to be done in the public square.

On December 01 2015 08:58 KwarK wrote:

Who exactly is Marshall Law?

I cross referenced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_(surname) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_(name) but he wasn't in there.

Are you sure you didn't mean marital law, the laws governing marriage? Or perhaps maritime law, the laws governing ships at sea?

Edit, my bad, found him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Law_(Tekken)

I think it's unlikely that Trump will declare him though.