In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. — The head of the Republican National Committee implored leaders of his sharply divided party on Friday to rally behind their eventual presidential nominee, suggesting that they ignore Donald J. Trump’s assault on the nominating process.
Reince Priebus, the committee’s chairman, did not mention Mr. Trump by name when addressing the group’s members at the party’s spring meeting here, but he devoted much of his speech to the tensions created by the Republican front-runner.
“Now I know our candidates are going to say some things to attract attention,” Mr. Priebus said, in a barely veiled reference to Mr. Trump’s attacks on what he has called “a rigged” and “corrupt” nominating process.
“That’s part of politics,” Mr. Priebus said. “But we all need to get behind the nominee.”
Mr. Trump is not the nominee yet, but his considerable advantage in delegates and lead in overall votes has prompted some mainstream Republicans to come to terms with the likelihood that he is the favorite, however unthinkable it may once have been, to become their standard-bearer this fall.
Yet the lingering split between those Republicans willing to accept Mr. Trump, however reluctantly, and those ferociously opposed to his nomination was on vivid display at the beachside resort where the party gathered.
While Mr. Priebus was speaking to state chairmen and chairwomen and committee members in a second-floor ballroom, officials from the best-funded anti-Trump group were briefing reporters a floor below about its efforts to deny Mr. Trump delegates in the remaining contests and keep him from clinching a majority before the party’s convention in Cleveland in July.
More to the point, Katie Packer, the chairwoman of the group, Our Principles PAC, rejected Mr. Priebus’s implicit suggestion that Mr. Trump was worthy of carrying the party’s banner.
On April 23 2016 05:43 Liquid`Drone wrote: Mohdoo, the main thing I am getting from your long, elaboratory post is even more endorsement of a might makes right attitude. You're not distancing yourself from the rape of nanjing - you're justifying it further. (it's easier to conquer a people if you truly break their spirit, thus making permanent conquest more likely).
Honestly, you don't even have to answer. I just want you to take some time to ponder on the extended consequences of your stated opinions, and see whether you actually support the logical conclusion of them. I don't want to be condescending, but I really hope that you haven't done this before. From my reading of your posts, in your opinion, the Japanese and German mistakes in world war 2 were losing the war - not starting it. Extending your argument to individuals, the mistake Josef Fritzl made was getting caught, not imprisoning and raping his daughter for 24 years. You're arguing for a completely amoral society, one where 'power' should enable anyone to do anything they want to anyone with less 'power'. And I just don't understand how you can justify this.
I know this is a bit late but it seems to me like this is mohdoo's train of logic:
groups act only according to self interested cost/benefit analysis, not because of moral principles/outrage (jackson was allowed to kill the indians because there were not sufficiently bad social consequences, see also crimea)
therefore groups dont plunder, rape, and genocide when the costs are too great (technically non-action, but perhaps the irrational actions of the serbs in bosnia/kosovo is an example) or do when the costs are not too great (rwanda/sudan ??)
the costs are too great when other sufficiently powerful groups intervene/resist. why do they intervene or resist? purely because of cost/benefit analysis of course (kosovo makes perfect sense in this schema right?)
qed why demonize actions based on simple cost/benefit analyses
Advocates for the seizure and sale of U.S. parks and public lands are training their sights on marine coastal areas with a new bill that would give state governors unprecedented power over America’s coastal national parks.
The bill, introduced by Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA), would give governors veto power over fishery management decisions in national parks and, in particular, would enable the governor’s political appointees to undo planned no-fishing zones that would help restore the health of reefs, fish, and other marine species.
Critics argue that the legislation, S. 2807, would undermine established, science-based wildlife management plans, degrade the conservation protections afforded through America’s National Park System, and is part of a broader anti-park policy agenda that some members of Congress have been seeking to advance.
This legislation fits largely within the realm of Bundy-style seizing and selling of public land. The National Park System makes wildlife and land management decisions based on conservation science, towards the goal of preserving the natural resources, systems, and processes of the park system for the enjoyment of all Americans. States often prioritize development and extraction over conservation, which can compromise the ecological integrity of publicly-owned lands like national parks and can have serious implications for wildlife.
The bill is similar to land-based bills introduced by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), and Sen. Marco Rubio, which would give control of energy development on most public lands to the states, though the legislation would exempt national parks. A common argument among land seizure proponents is that seizures would not apply to national parks. This bill, S. 2807, clearly shows that national parks are at risk from the land seizure movement as well.
One target of Rubio and Cassidy's bill is Biscayne National Park, the largest marine national park in America, located just south of Miami. Biscayne National Park is home to over 600 species of both freshwater and saltwater fish, one of the largest coral reefs in the world, mangrove forests, and nearly 10,000 years of human history. The bill would undo a planned no-fishing zone in the park that came from a recently-approved National Park Service management plan to protect coral growth, as well as snapper, grouper, and other declining fish populations.
Advocates for the seizure and sale of U.S. parks and public lands are training their sights on marine coastal areas with a new bill that would give state governors unprecedented power over America’s coastal national parks.
The bill, introduced by Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA), would give governors veto power over fishery management decisions in national parks and, in particular, would enable the governor’s political appointees to undo planned no-fishing zones that would help restore the health of reefs, fish, and other marine species.
Critics argue that the legislation, S. 2807, would undermine established, science-based wildlife management plans, degrade the conservation protections afforded through America’s National Park System, and is part of a broader anti-park policy agenda that some members of Congress have been seeking to advance.
This legislation fits largely within the realm of Bundy-style seizing and selling of public land. The National Park System makes wildlife and land management decisions based on conservation science, towards the goal of preserving the natural resources, systems, and processes of the park system for the enjoyment of all Americans. States often prioritize development and extraction over conservation, which can compromise the ecological integrity of publicly-owned lands like national parks and can have serious implications for wildlife.
The bill is similar to land-based bills introduced by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), and Sen. Marco Rubio, which would give control of energy development on most public lands to the states, though the legislation would exempt national parks. A common argument among land seizure proponents is that seizures would not apply to national parks. This bill, S. 2807, clearly shows that national parks are at risk from the land seizure movement as well.
One target of Rubio and Cassidy's bill is Biscayne National Park, the largest marine national park in America, located just south of Miami. Biscayne National Park is home to over 600 species of both freshwater and saltwater fish, one of the largest coral reefs in the world, mangrove forests, and nearly 10,000 years of human history. The bill would undo a planned no-fishing zone in the park that came from a recently-approved National Park Service management plan to protect coral growth, as well as snapper, grouper, and other declining fish populations.
On April 24 2016 04:53 Kickstart wrote: What needs to happen for the reasons for protest to be corrected and mended? Could you be as specific as possible? Almost any BLM advocate I've listened to has dealt in generalities, but has not put forth specific policies or changes that should be implemented. "Not getting shot by cops" and "not being discriminated against" are some possible valid concerns, but again they are quite vague. If you want society to take heed and listen, you aught to come to the table with some ideas, and not benign sound bites.
To give you an idea of the 'vagueness' I mean, see this as one example (plenty can be found).Though to be fair he is clearly very right wing and he does say some silly things, but his questions are still mostly valid, especially starting at 18:18 and how the activist eventually leaves when unable to asnwer:+ Show Spoiler +
when Dio blasted at the end it really threw me off and I laughed for a good while. good song tho~
EDIT: Upon further investigation the guy might not be the best character to have used, but since it sort of illustrates my point I'll just leave it and hope that people discuss the questions I put forth and not the moderators or anyone else's character. And if you feel there is some source that perfectly answers the questions I posited, please do link them in response and I promise I will read/watch it.
You don't seem to understand the issue: if a disenfrenchised minority could already solve their problems in society by perfectly structured policy adaptations they wouldn't be the disenfrenchised minority. Your whole argument leads to the failure that only humans with succesful representation get basic human rights (like not getting shot in the streets for having the wrong skin colour). We as a society should strive to include and not marginalize, empower and not discard.
And your whole argument boils down to "nothing can be done this is just how it is". See both can do this. I ask for specifics and you come up with "its institutionalized". Yes, I, and most reasonable people will grant you that. The question is what to do about it. I don't particularly disagree with you on much to be honest, my main point is that both sides are boiling things down to identity politics and that it isn't helpful when either side does it.
I am asking for clarity and conversation, which to me is the most empowering and liberating thing of all. This particular group has a voice, people have heard them, and many of the policy positions they have put forth are being talked about. Be it the militarization issue, or the over policing of certain areas, the things are being discussed. This seems a good thing to me, yet the complaint seems to be that this isn't good enough. My question is simply well what is good enough, is it that everyone agrees with their position and we adopt every policy they put forth? Again, what needs to happen?
No, my argument is disenfrenchised minorities should protest and draw attention to their problems until society recognizes them and improves to accomodate them. Institutionalized racism can not be solved by the targeted races behaving different, but by the institutions getting pressured and enough public scrunity.
The issue is not a lack of phantastic solutions on how not to shoot unarmed (except for their skin pigmentation of course) black kids, but lacking will to implement anything resembling a dignified police force, trained in nonescalation and not doubling as a revenue generator.
You make it about victims solving their own issues, instead of shifting the responsibilities to the actual perpetrators. That is the enraging part of your argument. It is the entire job of the police force to be a just moderator of public society. And if they fail at their job so hard as they do in the US it is their responsibility to come up with modifications of their conduct that fixes the issue.
Edit: on the question "what is good enough?" I think we should morale inform this: is society fair to them, are they treated just and dignified? That should be the target for "good enough".
On April 24 2016 04:53 JW_DTLA wrote: Very few people actually defend "political correctness". The term is usually a straw man for conservatives who want to apply group prejudice without feeling bad. So when I hear it, I try to think of which definition of political correctness the conservative is attacking. I can think of three functional definitions of PC:
1) Don't use racial epithets - White people often complain they can't use the N-word. 2) Don't apply actions of some in a group to others based on group membership - White people like tarnishing blacks/Muslims with actions of some in those groups. 3) General resentment of liberal arguments against conservative positions - this is the original definition of politically correct from the 70s, where liberals would argue down conservative positions.
Definition number (2) is by the most important and most discussed. Lots of people want to use group attributes to tarnish individuals. This is a natural human instinct from back in the cave man days. Being politically correct involves resisting this temptation.
People like Sam Harris, who have made valid criticisms of Islam as an ideology, the 'regressives' have went all out completely misrepresenting his views and what he has said.
Sam Harris has claimed to be misrepresented at least three times more often than he has been... He's a professional troll, the fact that his first book got a following is a disgrace given what it contains, and his fanboys are the closest thing to a cult I've seen in the atheist community. I'm perfectly comfortable with my PC position of strongly disliking him.
On the general topic of political correctness, I think the attack is misplaced. I don't think political correctness is a problem, I think being wrong while trying to be politically correct is. On a recent example, I don't think the problem with criticizing Halloween costumes because they're offensive is that we're trying to be nice, I think it's that we're wrong. Halloween costumes are not offensive. And I think using examples where peope have been wrong while trying to be politically correct to criticize political correctness as a notion in its entirety is a politically motivated move.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, a key source of financing for conservative Republican causes along with his brother, said Democrat Hillary Clinton might make a better president than the candidates in the Republican field.
Koch, in an interview to air on Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” program, said that in some respects Bill Clinton had been a better president than George W. Bush, who Koch said had increased government spending. Then when asked if Hillary Clinton would be a better president than the Republicans currently running, he said, “It’s possible, it’s possible.”
ABC said Koch, who along brother David leads an influential political organization called Freedom Partners, has been displeased so far with the tone of the Republican presidential race, in which billionaire Donald Trump leads U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Ohio Governor John Kasich.
Asked if he could support Clinton over the Republicans, Koch responded, “We would have to believe her actions would be quite different than her rhetoric. Let me put it that way.”
While many conservatives have questioned Trump’s commitment to their agenda, a spokesman for the Koch brothers said last month that they would not use any of their money to block him from winning the Republican nomination.
On April 24 2016 04:53 JW_DTLA wrote: Very few people actually defend "political correctness". The term is usually a straw man for conservatives who want to apply group prejudice without feeling bad. So when I hear it, I try to think of which definition of political correctness the conservative is attacking. I can think of three functional definitions of PC:
1) Don't use racial epithets - White people often complain they can't use the N-word. 2) Don't apply actions of some in a group to others based on group membership - White people like tarnishing blacks/Muslims with actions of some in those groups. 3) General resentment of liberal arguments against conservative positions - this is the original definition of politically correct from the 70s, where liberals would argue down conservative positions.
Definition number (2) is by the most important and most discussed. Lots of people want to use group attributes to tarnish individuals. This is a natural human instinct from back in the cave man days. Being politically correct involves resisting this temptation.
People like Sam Harris, who have made valid criticisms of Islam as an ideology, the 'regressives' have went all out completely misrepresenting his views and what he has said.
Sam Harris has claimed to be misrepresented at least three times more often than he has been... He's a professional troll, the fact that his first book got a following is a disgrace given what it contains, and his fanboys are the closest thing to a cult I've seen in the atheist community. I'm perfectly comfortable with my PC position of strongly disliking him.
On the general topic of political correctness, I think the attack is misplaced. I don't think political correctness is a problem, I think being wrong while trying to be politically correct is. On a recent example, I don't think the problem with criticizing Halloween costumes because they're offensive is that we're trying to be nice, I think it's that we're wrong. Halloween costumes are not offensive. And I think using examples where peope have been wrong while trying to be politically correct to criticize political correctness as a notion in its entirety is a politically motivated move.
Some costumes can be really offensive, not sure if you meant that to sound like Halloween costumes can't be offensive? Otherwise, I generally agree.
EDIT: Wonder why Koch would think she might not be being honest with her rhetoric? lol.
On April 24 2016 01:02 Kickstart wrote: Again, this entire thing annoys me to no end as someone who identifies as a classical liberal. The entire idea of liberalism is to oppose totalitarianism, to hold up the ideals of liberty and equality, and to fight for these things in the marketplace of ideas. Yet there are people who claim to be liberals who have become very totalitarian in the way they conduct themselves, and would rather shut down the dissemination of ideas than foster it.
Well the term liberal is extremely problematic. I agree and I disagree with your statement, for in the intention, those classical liberal are completely betraying what was supposed to be an emancipatory movement. That being said, when it comes to the recipe, they do have a point. The problem is that the recipe that were in a certain context emancipatory (fighting the oppressive power of the king), are in today's context an instrument of the right (because the power is held by the private sector: oligarchs and multinational corporations).
Once the context is completely changed, as it has several times since the birth of the liberal movement, the roots and the side of such ideas change dramatically. Liberalism started in the 17th century, and promoted the individual rights against the arbitrary of the monarchs and the princes.
With the birth of the modern state, in late XVIIIth century, the liberals have been the progressive part of the bourgeoisie; in France they would have been the left, with the "ultras" being the right and wanting the restoration of the monarchy (I simplify).
With the birth of socialism, marxism, social democracy and all the worker movement in the late XIXth century, liberals have increasingly represented the right wing, and fought against the claims of the working class that was struggling for the protection of the law against the oppressive forces of wild capitalism. The nuance is that while social democrats are liberals who updated what was no longer enough to protect people against the new threat of unregulated capitalism, marxists are against liberalism altogether (and that's one of the reasons things have gone so bad with them).
The great neo-liberal sequence that we are in is paradoxical: we have "come back" to economic liberal ideas of the early XIXth century (the classical liberal school), but again, since the context has changed so much, instead of being emancipatory against the tyrannic power of the kings, those same ideas have been used to empower the powerful and weaken the weak. So on the economy a true liberal is an absolute and total right-winger.
Ayn Rand, for example, is purely and simply a liberal extremist in a context and to an extent that it made the whole thing look like a monstrous, oppressive and inhuman ideology.
Yet, to complicate things further the ideals of liberalism applied to social policy are still completely relevant for the left (and that's actually the reason why Ayn Rand is so hard to exploit for the right). In the States, when we talk about liberals, we think of the social, in Europe about the Economics. This divided heritage is the reason why the term means the exact opposite on both sides of the Atlantic.
So when you say "liberal" as "left-wing" in the United States or as "right wing" in France (a liberal is a right winger in French political lexicon), you are simplifying to the extreme, and imo, emptying the word from its substance, while the term neo-liberal or classical liberal at least make sense, if you consider that what was once avant-garde and emancipatory is, two centuries later, extremely regressive and oppressive. If you want ideas to keep their meaning, you need to build on them; and that's precisely what social democracy is to liberalism: a way to keep the true meaning and intention, rather that sticking dogmatically into what turns progressively into the exact opposite of what it was always supposed to be.
EDIT: Wonder why Koch would think she might not be being honest with her rhetoric? lol.
Except that is not what he said at all.
go read it again.
you did? Then now you know he said he would only support her if her actions were different from her talk and not that she was currently lying.
The answer to that question he was asked would be "no".
My guess is they talked to some of these folks and found out her rhetoric behind the scenes is a bit different.
Again, your adding things from your own mind that are not even hinted at in the interview.
There really is no talking to you anymore.
The idea that these folks have shelled out millions with no expectations of influencing policy in ways contrary to her rhetoric is something that makes things somewhat of a non-starter.
EDIT: Probably doesn't help that her explanation for not releasing transcripts makes 0 sense.
Sigh, you don't even realise why people won't give a shit about anything you write anymore, do you?
Your just a mindless Hillary hater, the catholic church supporting her would most likely make you say, that shes pro child molestation... And the fucking transcrpit don't matter here FFS.... And no one gives an shit about them anyway, except some college kids and a doomed campaign.
EDIT: Wonder why Koch would think she might not be being honest with her rhetoric? lol.
Except that is not what he said at all.
go read it again.
you did? Then now you know he said he would only support her if her actions were different from her talk and not that she was currently lying.
The answer to that question he was asked would be "no".
My guess is they talked to some of these folks and found out her rhetoric behind the scenes is a bit different.
Again, your adding things from your own mind that are not even hinted at in the interview.
There really is no talking to you anymore.
The idea that these folks have shelled out millions with no expectations of influencing policy in ways contrary to her rhetoric is something that makes things somewhat of a non-starter.
EDIT: Probably doesn't help that her explanation for not releasing transcripts makes 0 sense.
He's not an idiot. He knows his image would hurt Clinton. If he was going to support Clinton, he would not hurt her campaign at this point by talking about it. He has significantly more incentive to try to add gas to the fire that Bernie has going against Clinton. If Koch was to say Clinton ain't so bad, it would help Bernie and his narrative. This is what we have already seen, using Bernie's silly attacks as an opportunity for the GOP to join in.
On April 24 2016 04:53 JW_DTLA wrote: Very few people actually defend "political correctness". The term is usually a straw man for conservatives who want to apply group prejudice without feeling bad. So when I hear it, I try to think of which definition of political correctness the conservative is attacking. I can think of three functional definitions of PC:
1) Don't use racial epithets - White people often complain they can't use the N-word. 2) Don't apply actions of some in a group to others based on group membership - White people like tarnishing blacks/Muslims with actions of some in those groups. 3) General resentment of liberal arguments against conservative positions - this is the original definition of politically correct from the 70s, where liberals would argue down conservative positions.
Definition number (2) is by the most important and most discussed. Lots of people want to use group attributes to tarnish individuals. This is a natural human instinct from back in the cave man days. Being politically correct involves resisting this temptation.
People like Sam Harris, who have made valid criticisms of Islam as an ideology, the 'regressives' have went all out completely misrepresenting his views and what he has said.
Sam Harris has claimed to be misrepresented at least three times more often than he has been... He's a professional troll, the fact that his first book got a following is a disgrace given what it contains, and his fanboys are the closest thing to a cult I've seen in the atheist community. I'm perfectly comfortable with my PC position of strongly disliking him.
On the general topic of political correctness, I think the attack is misplaced. I don't think political correctness is a problem, I think being wrong while trying to be politically correct is. On a recent example, I don't think the problem with criticizing Halloween costumes because they're offensive is that we're trying to be nice, I think it's that we're wrong. Halloween costumes are not offensive. And I think using examples where people have been wrong while trying to be politically correct to criticize political correctness as a notion in its entirety is a politically motivated move.
Well we can disagree about Sam Harris. I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy of his. I don't really read his books or follow him on any sort of media, but I watch some interviews he does and so on. That said I know what his views are on most things because I have listened to him express them, and the misrepresentation of his views by the far left are fairly blatant. My main point is that he has relevant criticisms of Islam that get drowned out by the far left misrepresenting what he says and then attacking his character based on that. That is the thing I was initially talking about is that the discourse in general (from left/right/everyone) has degraded so much, that everyone seems more content to engage in frivolity than have serious discussion about important issues.
I agree with you about the costume thing, and the people in this thread who go on and on about how costumes can be offensive annoy me to no end. My point isn't that speech , costumes, or anything else can't be offensive, it is that offensive things are to be allowed (not banned on college campuses and what have you) and (in most cases) shouldn't lead to the kind of overreaction that they have recently. Some of the costumes they were bitching about were quite ridiculous, especially given that there could be actually offensive costumes like a nazi officer or klan uniform. I agree that there are consequences to wearing certain things or saying certain things, but the 'pc culture' and 'regressive left' that everyone keeps talking about just take it to the level of absurdity.
On April 24 2016 22:29 Velr wrote: Sigh, you don't even realise why people won't give a shit about anything you write anymore, do you?
Your just a mindless Hillary hater, the catholic church supporting her would most likely make you say, that shes pro child molestation... And the fucking transcrpit don't matter here FFS.... And no one gives an shit about them anyway, except some college kids and a doomed campaign.
Well I'm certainly not mindless, and I don't "hate" Hillary. I think she would make an excellent Republican. I disagree with her on a lot, I don't trust her (for good reason), and I think she's motivated by personal gain, but I don't mindlessly hate her.
As for the transcripts, I believe the phrase is "the cover up is worse than the crime". She probably just said a few things that would make her look bad but her excuse seriously doesn't make ANY sense.
If people can't see why her excuse not to release the transcripts doesn't hold up even to a curious glance, they aren't being honest.
Well I would say a there's quite a few Democrats who I would think make better Republicans as well. The 5 Democrats that voted for the NC bill and support Hillary come to mind. A lot has changed since then though, Hillary looks more liberal than I would give her credit for as a result of the rightward lurch the country made since 08 (and Bernie pushing her rhetoric, watch a tape from before he was having success and you'll see a very different Hillary).
I don't know if liberal is the word, I don't know what you call removing his restrictions on party fundraising so that she could continue to raise the money she's dependent on (big money donors). But she's done the worst she's accused Obama of doing regarding fundraising, and went way beyond it.
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans.
EPT
