US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6357

On December 03 2016 06:59 xDaunt wrote:

Good. China can eat a dick. Trump needs to rearrange our relationship with them to get us on more equal footing.

On December 03 2016 07:39 Falling wrote:
Small Sub groups can matter a lot depending on the main groups' relationship to them. Jordan Peterson's students in psychology were looking to see if there were identifiable traits from people on the left and right end of the spectrum. They found on the left that the trait agreeableness was quite high. However, they found two distinct groups that they categorized as left authoritarian and left egalitarian. Left egalitarian had high verbal cognitive ability. However, left authoritarian (those attacking free speech) had quite low verbal cognitive ability, but a high disgust sensitivity... which is the trait they share in common with right wing fundamentalists that are out there trying to ban books and movies. In addition, there was actually a significant amount of anxiety disorders withing left authoritarians.

Peterson suggested the problem came when left egalitarians see that left authoritarians were under stress, and assuming the authoritarians were the same as them, and swoop in to defend and covered for their truly authoritarian ideas with better words, creating a more nuanced view that the authoritarians did not actually believe. In other words, the egalitarian and the authoritarian values are in conflict, but being high in trait agreeableness (compassion) the egalitarian can have difficulty recognizing the left authoritarian is not one of them and not on their side.

While Peterson did not cover this, I think in the same way, there are a number of racists... erm sorry 'race realists' that are running under the banner of free speech, but whose values are in direct conflict with actual free speech advocates on the right.

If the main group in either the left or right do not recognize the problems within their ranks, I think great trouble will come of it.

On December 03 2016 07:39 Falling wrote:
Small Sub groups can matter a lot depending on the main groups' relationship to them. Jordan Peterson's students in psychology were looking to see if there were identifiable traits from people on the left and right end of the spectrum. They found on the left that the trait agreeableness was quite high. However, they found two distinct groups that they categorized as left authoritarian and left egalitarian. Left egalitarian had high verbal cognitive ability. However, left authoritarian (those attacking free speech) had quite low verbal cognitive ability, but a high disgust sensitivity... which is the trait they share in common with right wing fundamentalists that are out there trying to ban books and movies. In addition, there was actually a significant amount of anxiety disorders withing left authoritarians.

Peterson suggested the problem came when left egalitarians see that left authoritarians were under stress, and assuming the authoritarians were the same as them, and swoop in to defend and covered for their truly authoritarian ideas with better words, creating a more nuanced view that the authoritarians did not actually believe. In other words, the egalitarian and the authoritarian values are in conflict, but being high in trait agreeableness (compassion) the egalitarian just see the distress and can have difficulty recognizing the left authoritarian is not one of them and not on their side.

While Peterson did not cover this, I think in the same way, there are a number of racists... erm sorry 'race realists' that are running under the banner of free speech, but whose values are in direct conflict with actual free speech advocates on the right.

If the main group in either the left or right do not recognize the problems within their ranks, I think great trouble will come of it.

(Incidentally, those on the right tended to score low on trait agreeableness, but high on trait conscientious.)

On December 03 2016 07:39 Falling wrote:
Small Sub groups can matter a lot depending on the main groups' relationship to them. Jordan Peterson's students in psychology were looking to see if there were identifiable traits from people on the left and right end of the spectrum. They found on the left that the trait agreeableness was quite high. However, they found two distinct groups that they categorized as left authoritarian and left egalitarian. Left egalitarian had high verbal cognitive ability. However, left authoritarian (those attacking free speech) had quite low verbal cognitive ability, but a high disgust sensitivity... which is the trait they share in common with right wing fundamentalists that are out there trying to ban books and movies. In addition, there was actually a significant amount of anxiety disorders withing left authoritarians.

Peterson suggested the problem came when left egalitarians see that left authoritarians were under stress, and assuming the authoritarians were the same as them, and swoop in to defend and covered for their truly authoritarian ideas with better words, creating a more nuanced view that the authoritarians did not actually believe. In other words, the egalitarian and the authoritarian values are in conflict, but being high in trait agreeableness (compassion) the egalitarian just see the distress and can have difficulty recognizing the left authoritarian is not one of them and not on their side.

While Peterson did not cover this, I think in the same way, there are a number of racists... erm sorry 'race realists' that are running under the banner of free speech, but whose values are in direct conflict with actual free speech advocates on the right.

If the main group in either the left or right do not recognize the problems within their ranks, I think great trouble will come of it.

(Incidentally, those on the right tended to score low on trait agreeableness, but high on trait conscientious.)

Jurors weighing a murder charge against a white South Carolina former police officer who shot and killed a fleeing black motorist last year twice told a judge on Friday they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict but asked to keep deliberating.

Jurors were deliberating for a third day in the case against ex-North Charleston patrolman Michael Slager, 35. His shooting of 50-year-old Walter Scott after an April 2015 traffic stop, captured in a bystander's cellphone video, intensified debate in the United States over racial bias by police.

The jury foreman said one member of the 12-person panel was the holdout.

"I cannot in good conscience consider a guilty verdict," that juror told state Judge Clifton Newman in a note, adding, "at the same time, my heart does not want to tell the Scott family that the man who killed their son, brother and father is innocent."

Questioned by the judge in a Charleston courtroom, the foreman stopped short of calling jurors "hopelessly deadlocked" and said further explanation of the law could be beneficial.

Jurors had first indicated they were unable to reach a consensus earlier Friday afternoon.

The judge at that point said they had a duty "to make every reasonable effort to reach a unanimous verdict" and instructed them to continue their deliberations.

Newman said he would declare a mistrial if no verdict was reached and retry the case later with a different jury.

Last year, juries twice deadlocked on a murder charge against a white former Eutawville, South Carolina, police chief accused of killing a black man in 2011 after an argument about a traffic ticket issued to the man's daughter.

Prosecutors charged Slager with murder, but jurors also had the option of finding him guilty of voluntary manslaughter if they decided Slager killed Scott in the heat of passion after provocation rather than with malice.

Or they could acquit the former officer if they believed he acted in self-defense.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration declared its support Thursday for requiring women to register for the military draft, a symbolic but significant shift that reflects the U.S. military’s evolution from a male-dominated force to one seeking to incorporate women at all levels.

President Barack Obama has been considering whether to adopt the position since last December, when Defense Secretary Ash Carter ordered the military to open all jobs to women, including the most arduous combat posts. Ned Price, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, said Obama believes women have “proven their mettle,” including in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“As old barriers for military service are being removed, the administration supports — as a logical next step — women registering for the Selective Service,” Price said, using the formal name for the military draft.

The White House emphasized that the administration remains committed to an all-volunteer military — meaning women, like men, wouldn’t be forced to serve unless there were a national emergency like a major world war. Changing the policy would require an act of Congress, and there are no signs that lawmakers plan to move swiftly to enact the change.

The Defense Department echoed Obama’s position, first reported by USA Today. Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said that Carter believes the inclusion of women in combat roles has strengthened the military’s might.

“He thinks it makes sense for women to register for Selective Service, just as men must,” Cook said.

On December 03 2016 07:23 Logo wrote:


I know, I understood that part. The point is the people who are making what he consider free-speech threatening statements are by all accounts a minority or sub-group of the entire left, much like some of the racist sub-groups of the right. But his statements connects the entire platform to those views, my follow-up is an attempt to ask if he paints the right (or alt-right) the same way, i.e judging them by the actions of a sub-group.

To be fair the part of the original statement:



Their Cause here is a bit confusing (who and what cause?). The context seems to be "Elements of the Left" and "The Civil Right Movement" respectively. Which would mean that elements of the left are delegitimizing the civil rights movement which is a cause bigger than "elements of the left". So that can be sowing confusion, but is where the statement appears to be applying ideas of a sub-group to an entire cause.

I find the left to be far more threatening on the issue of civil rights -- particularly free speech -- than the alt right.

On December 03 2016 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Great news for equality guys!

Obama administration supports requiring women to register for military draft

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/white-house-announces-support-women-military-draft/

On December 03 2016 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I have to agree that this is pretty ridiculous. Not necessarily that it's disruptive of our relationship, that may be true, it's ridiculous that it may be more disruptive than selling them weapons.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/804863098138005504

On December 03 2016 11:01 Nyxisto wrote:


Well that is how diplomacy works. Gestures and symbols can cause much more trouble than most other things. This is why you usually appoint people to political offices who are vaguely familiar with it. We are in for a few interesting years.

On December 03 2016 11:04 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm saying if selling someone weapons is less offensive than talking to them, diplomacy has got it's priorities out of wack.

I agree it's going to be an interesting few years for sure.