|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On February 03 2017 06:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:15 Nevuk wrote:I thought the alt-right referred to self-identified white nationalists who idealize an authoritarian figurehead. This is as opposed to self-identified white nationalists who idealize a fascist authoritarian. They're not strictly the same, as Trump hardly seems like a fascist currently. He's an authoritarian which can be just as bad, though. Am I wildly off on what the alt-right is here? Genuinely asking, because that's how I've seen them self-present. They may seem similar to nazis, but there are genuine political differences between the two. On February 03 2017 06:06 xDaunt wrote:
Hang on a second. I really want to be clear on this. Do all of you liberals and democrats not consider yourselves to be part of political Left? Particularly you Europeans? As an actual leftist, the difference between most "liberal" American democrats and a Republican to me is mainly that the republican is a lot more honest about their stated goals, but both want almost the exact same things economically. Socially I don't really care too much, as none of it directly affects me. Yes, I'm dark skinned enough to have been asked which parent was the nigger growing up (I have a lot of very obviously visible Cherokee blood), but that's not really anything either political party can do anything about, it's a type of cultural issue that takes both sides working together to solve. It depends upon how you define "Alt Right." If you go by the broad, Breitbart definition, then you're talking about a very large group of people who are all on the Right politically, but fall outside of traditional conservatism. I am "Alt Right" under this definition. If you adopt the more restrictive definition that requires adherence to identitarianism (particularly racial identitarianism), then you're talking about a much smaller group of people (and I don't fall into this category).
Is the difference basically that one group (non-breitbart) will say "white christian values" while the other group says "christian values"? I still disagree with the latter, but I can understand why people would ascribe to that view much better than I can the more racially tinged version. It's not exactly a religious argument either, from my understanding, moreso a cultural one, an easy shorthand for traditional american culture because there's so few historical commonalities in the average american's history besides Christianity (there have always been non-christians, a far lesser number).
Both groups seem to post in Breitbart's comment section, but the comment section on news websites is typically a pretty poor source to judge what the writers actually believe in.
On February 03 2017 06:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +President Donald Trump pledged to repeal a decades-old provision of tax law that prevents pastors from endorsing candidates, recommitting to a campaign promise during a speech at his first National Prayer Breakfast in which he veered into politics and pop culture and even used a mild profanity.
“I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and openly without fear of retribution,” Trump said during the event, referring to a 1954 measure pushed by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson. “I will do that, remember.”
Religious leaders have long complained that the Johnson Amendment restricts their free speech. Trump would need an act of Congress to repeal the law.
Trump’s address to faith leaders came as the administration cracks down on U.S. policy for admitting refugees and after Trump nominated a justice for the Supreme Court, Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch, that he has promised is opposed to abortion. The speech was unconventional from the start, as Trump used his opening comments to joke about the politics of the Senate chaplain and television ratings for "The Apprentice," the reality show the president starred in and produced.
SourceGoing to have to say that I'm pretty strongly opposed to this on principle. But we have social conservatives so such is life.
I feel like it's probably a bad strategy in the long run for churches to engage in this. Would accelerate the already extreme growth of atheism fairly rapidly - a fairly large amount of liberals do still consider themselves to be Christian, regardless of the "godless liberal" label, and preaching at them that it's wrong to vote for their candidate will result in them choosing not to go to church.
|
On February 03 2017 06:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 06:06 xDaunt wrote:
Hang on a second. I really want to be clear on this. Do all of you liberals and democrats not consider yourselves to be part of political Left? Particularly you Europeans? I fancy the idea that my ideas and opinions can't be reduced to a general, dismissive "the left". I am sure you appreciate that we consider your ideas in all their nuances and subtlelty instead of just talking about you by just refering to "the far right". Being from the nation that started this left right nonsense I would hope you would be able to appreciate that its not a generalization but a relative term to place someone on the political spectrum in reference to ones peers. That it doesn't apply the same for every society in every country but instead is relative based on the realm that the conversation is happening around. This being the Us politics thread that means that the spectrum would revolve around the US's relative spectrum of political leanings. Theres a reason why we all adopted it from the french.
Serious issues arise when, inside a country, the values defining what is "left" and what is "right" begin to change, though. That's what is happening in France, and I'd guess in most of the Western countries.
(or we could see politics as a 2 or 3-axis scale instead of a single-axis one, and everything would be much simpler)
|
Also just a fun aside... Breitbart published 6 or 7 stories on the Quebec Mosque attack, but 0 of them identify the correct shooter as the only shooter. Basically they dropped the story the moment the shooter was properly identified.
As did pretty much the entire right. We all know how differently this would have been handled if the shooter was Muslim (or even just had a middle eastern name) regardless of even if it was some dude slept with a chick he was into and he went crazy for that and posted about ISIS for the first and only time on the way to do it.
I mean you can see it right there in the stuff they said while they thought it was a Muslim shooter.
|
On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal.
Citation needed. Best I could find is naming a magazine edited by the man and a website founded by the man (Bokhari & Yiannopoulos article) as a media-empire centerpiece when it talked on a sub-head "The Intellectuals." Aka where intellectuals of the movement congregated, in the author's opinion. Please, find the original sources not Salon or ThinkProgress hit pieces.
I'd hate to go down this road and question whether StealthBlue "has a brain" and is "dishonest and worthy of dismissal" given his love of ThinkProgress and TPM. Finally, his popularity on college campuses and many invites from college Republican groups, the wider appeal beyond the alt right speaks in his favor. Like Obama became senator and president, despite being associated with radical racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and being advanced in his early political moves by noted domestic terrorist William Ayers.
|
Unfortunately having two or three axes may be too conceptually difficult for people in the U.S. because of how deeply ingrained in the current system "us" and "them" is.
|
On February 03 2017 06:42 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:29 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 06:15 Nevuk wrote:I thought the alt-right referred to self-identified white nationalists who idealize an authoritarian figurehead. This is as opposed to self-identified white nationalists who idealize a fascist authoritarian. They're not strictly the same, as Trump hardly seems like a fascist currently. He's an authoritarian which can be just as bad, though. Am I wildly off on what the alt-right is here? Genuinely asking, because that's how I've seen them self-present. They may seem similar to nazis, but there are genuine political differences between the two. On February 03 2017 06:06 xDaunt wrote:
Hang on a second. I really want to be clear on this. Do all of you liberals and democrats not consider yourselves to be part of political Left? Particularly you Europeans? As an actual leftist, the difference between most "liberal" American democrats and a Republican to me is mainly that the republican is a lot more honest about their stated goals, but both want almost the exact same things economically. Socially I don't really care too much, as none of it directly affects me. Yes, I'm dark skinned enough to have been asked which parent was the nigger growing up (I have a lot of very obviously visible Cherokee blood), but that's not really anything either political party can do anything about, it's a type of cultural issue that takes both sides working together to solve. It depends upon how you define "Alt Right." If you go by the broad, Breitbart definition, then you're talking about a very large group of people who are all on the Right politically, but fall outside of traditional conservatism. I am "Alt Right" under this definition. If you adopt the more restrictive definition that requires adherence to identitarianism (particularly racial identitarianism), then you're talking about a much smaller group of people (and I don't fall into this category). Is the difference basically that one group (non-breitbart) will say "white christian values" while the other group says "christian values"? I still disagree with the latter, but I can understand why people would ascribe to that view much better than I can the more racially tinged version. It's not exactly a religious argument either, from my understanding, moreso a cultural one, an easy shorthand for traditional american culture because there's so few historical commonalities in the average american's history besides Christianity (there have always been non-christians, a far lesser number). Both groups seem to post in Breitbart's comment section, but the comment section on news websites is typically a pretty poor source to judge what the writers actually believe in. Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:29 LegalLord wrote:President Donald Trump pledged to repeal a decades-old provision of tax law that prevents pastors from endorsing candidates, recommitting to a campaign promise during a speech at his first National Prayer Breakfast in which he veered into politics and pop culture and even used a mild profanity.
“I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and openly without fear of retribution,” Trump said during the event, referring to a 1954 measure pushed by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson. “I will do that, remember.”
Religious leaders have long complained that the Johnson Amendment restricts their free speech. Trump would need an act of Congress to repeal the law.
Trump’s address to faith leaders came as the administration cracks down on U.S. policy for admitting refugees and after Trump nominated a justice for the Supreme Court, Appeals Court Judge Neil Gorsuch, that he has promised is opposed to abortion. The speech was unconventional from the start, as Trump used his opening comments to joke about the politics of the Senate chaplain and television ratings for "The Apprentice," the reality show the president starred in and produced.
SourceGoing to have to say that I'm pretty strongly opposed to this on principle. But we have social conservatives so such is life. I feel like it's probably a bad strategy in the long run for churches to engage in this. Would accelerate the already extreme growth of atheism fairly rapidly - a fairly large amount of liberals do still consider themselves to be Christian, regardless of the "godless liberal" label, and preaching at them that it's wrong to vote for their candidate will result in them choosing not to go to church.
It could also spectacularly backfire. The Church of Scientology has pretty huge pockets and they've stayed out of politics for the most part so far (as far as I know), but this would open up a direct line of using their influence. Same with the Mormons who, as we saw in 2016, don't always share Republican views.
|
On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Also just a fun aside... Breitbart published 6 or 7 stories on the Quebec Mosque attack, but 0 of them identify the correct shooter as the only shooter. Basically they dropped the story the moment the shooter was properly identified. As did pretty much the entire right. We all know how differently this would have been handled if the shooter was Muslim (or even just had a middle eastern name) regardless of even if it was some dude slept with a chick he was into and he went crazy for that and posted about ISIS for the first and only time on the way to do it. I mean you can see it right there in the stuff they said while they thought it was a Muslim shooter.
I'm still pretty damn shocked that there was no apology from Mr. Alternative Facts tbh... but then again they're making a point of never apologizing, ever, no matter what you did... so not sure what I expected
|
On February 03 2017 01:51 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 01:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 01:26 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On February 03 2017 01:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
xDaunt reminds me (in this thread) of the old white men who want to return America back to the 50s and 60s. And some people in here have a solid head on their shoulders, but seem to miss the point at some junction when discussing politics. As of last month, reality has changed. The last year showed us that what we think we know about politics, means nothing. We are living in unprecedented times within America (within the last 30). Therefore, we must be open to all sorts of things happening that probably seemed taboo not too long ago. You can't use rational and sound logic. You are not dealing with it. In order to provoke change or discussion, your tactics and methods of communicating must change. i dont see how your communication skills are better id say from what youve demonstrated here they seem worse I lurk. Rarely do I engage in the topics because they move too fast. By the time I've responded, the thread is moved and I'm not inclined to go back 5+ pages to make a point. If you would like a more succinct demonstration, then I'll be more than happy to oblige after my appointment. fair enough; if youd like to demonstrate your communication skills, all id like you to do is to link a past discussion in which youve changed somebodys mind about something.
While not a thread on TL, here is one example Facebook micro discussion on Visa/GCH
|
On February 03 2017 06:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Why can't both be true? Richard Spencer coined the term "Alt Right" and was one of its intellectual founders. However, he is also part of the white nationalism crowd and has attracted criticism from other Alt Right members for doing stupid shit like nazi salutes at rallies. That's not how the article framed it. This framing would be "Richard Spencer, one of the true racists, was also an influential in the creation of the alt-right", and then "but he has been disavowed since." or "and he unfortunately continues to tarnish the name of the movement". What was there was "Here are some of the intellectuals of the alt-right, x y z and Richard Spencer. There is also a fringe group among the alt-right who are truly racist and we look down on them." The implication from the framing of the article is that Richard Spencer isn't one of them, since the same movement cannot both regard someone highly as a founder and an intellectual and look down on them for their ideas.
The stupid shit that Richard Spencer did to which I was referring happened after that article was written.
|
On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Also just a fun aside... Breitbart published 6 or 7 stories on the Quebec Mosque attack, but 0 of them identify the correct shooter as the only shooter. Basically they dropped the story the moment the shooter was properly identified. As did pretty much the entire right. We all know how differently this would have been handled if the shooter was Muslim (or even just had a middle eastern name) regardless of even if it was some dude slept with a chick he was into and he went crazy for that and posted about ISIS for the first and only time on the way to do it. I mean you can see it right there in the stuff they said while they thought it was a Muslim shooter.
I've seen you mention this hypocrisy multiple times. Keep in mind white nationalism is innate to the country, it isn't being imported. Muslim extremism is similar to christian extremism, but it is still a largely external problem. This is an important distinction because one is easy to prevent with stringent immigration, the other is very hard and requires generations of cultural shifts.
|
On February 03 2017 06:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Citation needed. Best I could find is naming a magazine edited by the man and a website founded by the man (Bokhari & Yiannopoulos article) as a media-empire centerpiece when it talked on a sub-head "The Intellectuals." Aka where intellectuals of the movement congregated, in the author's opinion. Please, find the original sources not Salon or ThinkProgress hit pieces. I'd hate to go down this road and question whether StealthBlue "has a brain" and is "dishonest and worthy of dismissal" given his love of ThinkProgress and TPM. Finally, his popularity on college campuses and many invites from college Republican groups, the wider appeal beyond the alt right speaks in his favor. Like Obama became senator and president, despite being associated with radical racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and being advanced in his early political moves by noted domestic terrorist William Ayers.
It's a Breitbart article that xDaunt linked before called "an establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right". There is a section called "the intellectuals" there, where Richard Spencer is mentioned because of the website AlternativeRight.com, and then true racists are mentioned as something to look down upon. Sorry, were you trying to dismiss me because of my leftist sources? Remember, that's a bad thing, freedom of speech blblbl.
|
On February 03 2017 06:25 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:15 oBlade wrote:On February 03 2017 06:00 Logo wrote:I think xDaunt is trying to point out a difference in the scope of what the - I'll call them this since you already did - "extremists" are doing, how mainstream and acceptable what they're doing is and what real effects they have. One side seems to keep rioting whereas the people on the other side that would supposedly be morally equivalent... you just called "meme monsters."
White Supremacists have caused quite a bit of violence over the years so I don't know what this sort of dismissiveness is based on. Mainly, it's society that's dismissed white supremacists. That's why you had to say "over the years," yes? Where are they today in comparison to antifa and all the other revolutionary factions? I mean we had the guy in Canada 4 (?) days ago... I'm not sure this is the best time to argue this
I am not arguing that right-wing violence doesn't exist, which it looks like you were trying to disprove with a counterexample. Or were you trying to say that because something happened recently, it's common?
What I am saying is that nobody wants to listen to white supremacist spokesmen (They only get mainstream airtime because of ratings via controversy) and nobody supports white supremacist violence, which is rare in general and seems rare compared to violence from the left wing. That's why it's always a psycho lone wolf. These assholes can't find even one other person that they could talk to and convince to go along with them that wouldn't immediately tell authorities. Or when they do it's an undercover cop. Meanwhile for the political white supremacists, who just can't be violent (whether you believe them when they say they don't want to be or not), we're talking about state KKK chapters of like hundreds of people, thought of by wider society as clowns, watched by the law like hawks.
Compare that with mobs that keep spontaneously assemble at college campuses and in the street and attack people. What can drive what we must assume are well-meaning people to do this en masse? The reason is everyone is taught, rightfully so, that racial supremacy was one of the great issues of history, and everyone who missed it wants the struggle to still be going on so they can be part of winning it. It's a psychological thing for the group. So the other side are all Nazis. And whatever we do, the other side is worse in principle because they're on the right. This is why Google can celebrate Yuri Kochiyama, why Obama can release the FALN guy, why the Women's March can feature Donna Hylton, leftist violence is whitewashed historically and it's whitewashed now including by the media because of the belief in the "right side of history." This affects a lot of people and that's why right now I'm more worried about them now and going forwards. Which is, again, so there's no twisting this, not to say that I support any violence of neo-Nazis, or think it's okay, or think it's not an issue at all.
|
On February 03 2017 06:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:42 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Why can't both be true? Richard Spencer coined the term "Alt Right" and was one of its intellectual founders. However, he is also part of the white nationalism crowd and has attracted criticism from other Alt Right members for doing stupid shit like nazi salutes at rallies. That's not how the article framed it. This framing would be "Richard Spencer, one of the true racists, was also an influential in the creation of the alt-right", and then "but he has been disavowed since." or "and he unfortunately continues to tarnish the name of the movement". What was there was "Here are some of the intellectuals of the alt-right, x y z and Richard Spencer. There is also a fringe group among the alt-right who are truly racist and we look down on them." The implication from the framing of the article is that Richard Spencer isn't one of them, since the same movement cannot both regard someone highly as a founder and an intellectual and look down on them for their ideas. The stupid shit that Richard Spencer did to which I was referring happened after that article was written.
So before march 29, 2016, it wasn't clear that Richard Spencer was an unsavory character?
|
On February 03 2017 06:12 plasmidghost wrote:
Politics in America has been hijacked by the extremists on both sides, I think we're heading for full-scale rioting. Sad thing is, I'm very left-leaning (usually) and I believe that it's going to be the losing side if things go beyond rioting since the military's almost definitely going to side with Trump
Military as a whole will follow the lawful commands given to it. There are whack-jobs in there that wouldn't mind pulling the trigger or whatever on a citizen if ordered. There will be division and there will be people who refuse to follow along. Mainly because their families might be the persons staring down a barrel.
America has been hijacked by religious views and closed mindedness. The inability to entertain differing opinions in a calm manner has led to people sticking plugs in their ears and not listening to giving discourse a chance. When this happens, they only see what their political party tells them and they go after it. Right now, I believe we're living in a pseudo 1984 and V for Vendetta kind of reality.
|
On February 03 2017 06:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:12 plasmidghost wrote:
Politics in America has been hijacked by the extremists on both sides, I think we're heading for full-scale rioting. Sad thing is, I'm very left-leaning (usually) and I believe that it's going to be the losing side if things go beyond rioting since the military's almost definitely going to side with Trump
Military as a whole will follow the lawful commands given to it. There are whack-jobs in there that wouldn't mind pulling the trigger or whatever on a citizen if ordered. There will be division and there will be people who refuse to follow along. Mainly because their families might be the persons staring down a barrel. America has been hijacked by religious views and closed mindedness. The inability to entertain differing opinions in a calm manner has led to people sticking plugs in their ears and not listening to giving discourse a chance. When this happens, they only see what their political party tells them and they go after it. Right now, I believe we're living in a pseudo 1984 and V for Vendetta kind of reality.
Its a weird dynamic. In a strange way, people feel empowered and strong by being a part of something that is unbending and absolute in its resolve. By being a mindless pawn, the feel like they are kind of surrendering their sense of self to the collective might of the military or "chain of command" or whatever stupid shit they come up with. Sad world.
|
xDaunt/Danglars
Honestly I have no idea how you guys manage to participate so much considering the number of people on this thread that hold very different view points on a million different topics. I was hoping that you would be kind enough to run down your top 5 list of things you want to have happen under the Trump presidency just so I could get a better idea of where your priorities are.
|
On February 03 2017 06:42 Nevuk wrote:
Is the difference basically that one group (non-breitbart) will say "white christian values" while the other group says "christian values"? I still disagree with the latter, but I can understand why people would ascribe to that view much better than I can the more racially tinged version. It's not exactly a religious argument either, from my understanding, moreso a cultural one, an easy shorthand for traditional american culture because there's so few historical commonalities in the average american's history besides Christianity (there have always been non-christians, a far lesser number).
Both groups seem to post in Breitbart's comment section, but the comment section on news websites is typically a pretty poor source to judge what the writers actually believe in.
Not really. The Breitbart definition doesn't even necessarily encompass religion. It's unifying elements seem to be nationalism and populism. And the more limited definition of Alt Right isn't even necessarily strictly about race. It's generally agreed now that there are two factions to the Alt Right: the Alt White and the Alt West. The former is concerned with race whereas the latter is concerned with culture. For obvious reasons, I think that the Alt White is at a dead end politically. The Alt West, however, will likely be the popular vanguard of the Alt Right if the Alt Right goes anywhere.
|
On February 02 2017 04:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 03:59 Buckyman wrote:On February 01 2017 10:43 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
So this Neil Gorsuch fellow doesn't sound that bad. ... is that why nobody is discussing him?
Just some cursory reading but he sounds reasonable? The main controversy I see about him is his concurrence with this statement in Hobby Lobby v Sebelius the government has given us no persuasive reason to think
that Congress meant “person” in RFRA to mean anything other than its default
meaning in the Dictionary Act ( source) (RFRA = Religious Freedom Restoration Act) Meaning that corporations that can demonstrate a religious objection to a government mandate are generally exempt from that mandate. Those criticisms tend to overlook his concurring opinion, in which he explains why the corporation's owners can also sue in their own capacities to block enforcement of the same rule, finessing the controversial portion of the decision. Hell, just read a few pages of his concurring opinion to see his understanding of religion and laws meant to protect freedom of conscience (imo, much neglected in modern debate) + Show Spoiler +All of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for
ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability. The Green family members are among those who seek guidance from their faith on these questions. Understanding that is the key to understanding this case.
As the Greens explain their complaint, the ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong. No one before us disputes that the mandate compels Hobby Lobby and Mardel to underwrite payments for drugs or devices that can have the effect of destroying a fertilized human egg. No one disputes that the Greens’ religion teaches them that the use of such drugs or devices is gravely wrong.1 It is no less clear from the Greens’ uncontested allegations that Hobby Lobby and Mardel cannot comply with the mandate unless and until the Greens direct them to do so — that they are the human actors who must compel the corporations to comply with the mandate.
And it is this fact, the Greens contend, that poses their problem. As they understand it, ordering their companies to provide insurance coverage for drugs or devices whose use is inconsistent with their faith itself violates their faith, representing a degree of complicity their religion disallows. In light of the crippling penalties the mandate imposes for failing to comply with its dictates — running as high as $475 million per year — the Greens contend they confront no less than a choice between exercising their faith or saving their business.
I wanted to find a collection of funny opinions over the years from Gorsuch I saw on twitter because they reminded me of Frisbee & flatulence Scalia humor, but I can't find anymore.
Re-discovered the main one I was looking for. AM vs Holmes
A 13-year old boy was arrested and sent to juvenile detention for disrupting gym class with burping. The majority found that to be permissible, and Gorsuch disagreed:
If a seventh grader starts trading fake burps for laughs in gym class, what's a teacher to do? Order extra laps? Detention? A trip to the principal's office? Maybe. But then again, maybe that's too old school. Maybe today you call a police officer. And maybe today the officer decides that, instead of just escorting the now compliant thirteen year old to the principal's office, an arrest would be a better idea. So out come the handcuffs and off goes the child to juvenile detention. My colleagues suggest the law permits exactly this option and they offer ninety-four pages explaining why they think that's so. Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded.
The spice together with humor is reminiscent of Scalia, even if that full hide-your-head-in-a-bag mystical-aphorisms-of-the-fortune-cookie can't be fully reborn.
|
On February 03 2017 06:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:12 plasmidghost wrote:
Politics in America has been hijacked by the extremists on both sides, I think we're heading for full-scale rioting. Sad thing is, I'm very left-leaning (usually) and I believe that it's going to be the losing side if things go beyond rioting since the military's almost definitely going to side with Trump
Military as a whole will follow the lawful commands given to it. There are whack-jobs in there that wouldn't mind pulling the trigger or whatever on a citizen if ordered. There will be division and there will be people who refuse to follow along. Mainly because their families might be the persons staring down a barrel. America has been hijacked by religious views and closed mindedness. The inability to entertain differing opinions in a calm manner has led to people sticking plugs in their ears and not listening to giving discourse a chance. When this happens, they only see what their political party tells them and they go after it. Right now, I believe we're living in a pseudo 1984 and V for Vendetta kind of reality. Its a weird dynamic. In a strange way, people feel empowered and strong by being a part of something that is unbending and absolute in its resolve. By being a mindless pawn, the feel like they are kind of surrendering their sense of self to the collective might of the military or "chain of command" or whatever stupid shit they come up with. Sad world.
As I was in the USMC not too long ago, I can say that the hive mind, drone, lemming mentality is real. No one thinks to question the things they are ordered and simply go along with it. But there were those people who could reason and blink long enough to know that some things were just down right stupid. If martial law does happen, we'll need those same people to step forward.
|
On February 03 2017 06:39 TheNewEra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:15 Nevuk wrote:I thought the alt-right referred to self-identified white nationalists who idealize an authoritarian figurehead. This is as opposed to self-identified white nationalists who idealize a fascist authoritarian. They're not strictly the same, as Trump hardly seems like a fascist currently. He's an authoritarian which can be just as bad, though. Am I wildly off on what the alt-right is here? Genuinely asking, because that's how I've seen them self-present. They may seem similar to nazis, but there are genuine political differences between the two. On February 03 2017 06:06 xDaunt wrote:
Hang on a second. I really want to be clear on this. Do all of you liberals and democrats not consider yourselves to be part of political Left? Particularly you Europeans? As an actual leftist, the difference between most "liberal" American democrats and a Republican to me is mainly that the republican is a lot more honest about their stated goals, but both want almost the exact same things economically. Socially I don't really care too much, as none of it directly affects me. Yes, I'm dark skinned enough to have been asked which parent was the nigger growing up (I have a lot of very obviously visible Cherokee blood), but that's not really anything either political party can do anything about, it's a type of cultural issue that takes both sides working together to solve. I'm not sure if this was basically a reply to me because I talked on the last page about how we shouldn't lump alt-righters into one group with the reddit nazis who call themselves alt-righters. I agree with you. I just wanted to show that we shouldn't call everyone on one side of a spectrum left/right/alt-right whatever because there are usually big differences between the people in the groups they are lumped in.
Labels are typically counter productive but they're sort of required for the human brain to function. No one can remember every single person they interact with, so the brain basically develops heuristic patterns in order to function socially. If these are formed poorly you wind up with extreme racists, but for the most part it's a healthy, normal process to group people together. It's problematic politically when a far too large group is assigned to the same category - there are awful people who are democrats and awful people who are republicans.
If someone self identifies as one party or the other then there can be cognitive dissonance to read about a particularly gruesome person who has the same views as them. It's quite literally painful for someone who holds the same views as the quebec shooter to find out about it, and the brain will go out of it's way to block that memory. For instance, at the moment, I'm having a hard time recalling particularly egregious democrats, aside from Jim Justice (WV governor-elect). I'm sure some mass shooters have been democrats. It's hard to say whether Brietbart particularly goes out of their way to avoid reporting on the assailant because they know it will bother their readers, it bothers the writers, or it's purely an ideologically driven decision.
A lot of this is the whole dunbar's number thing, basically the human mind cannot handle more than about 150 people ever. Anyone outside of this group is generally treated as a caricature, not exactly real, and slotted into a mentally approved slot until enough details are found out. It's far more useful to have a discussion with someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum and find out what it is they actually care about than it is to purely argue with them over a stance neither of you will ever change on.
As far as "regressive left" goes, I think it likely just somewhat of an extremely vocal minority. Same goes for the more provocative alt-right people. There aren't really that many of either, but to disagree with either group if you're in their in-group is difficult because they're so damn LOUD. It's like the number of people spamming twitch chat on twitch - at most, it's an extremely small % doing the vast majority, but that's still more than enough to prevent substantive discussion from taking place and drowning out dissent. The influence of them is more problematic, but acting as though all members on either side agree with their most... unlikable... members 100% is the main issue I'm getting at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
