|
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 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism.
I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating.
So when a white male shoots up a black church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? If a muslim guy shoots up a club yelling alahu akhbar, then you want to understand where it is coming from (outside propaganda) and stop it dead in it's tracks. It's not pretty but it has to be done. These ideologies fester easily within the borders of the US because the constitution gives some powerful rights. Outside the border however, none of it really applies so we have to take advantage of that before it gets worse.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I wonder how long it's going to be until Trump has his first major row with Russia. Between Iran, China, and Ukraine, I give it about a year before there starts to be a major policy conflict. And it seems that both sides are pretty damn through with any possible "reset" of relations.
|
On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism. I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating. So when a white male shoots up a church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad?
the proposed system of trump will not do anything to prevent it from getting in.
and it'll never be prominent, and it already infiltrates some. it's an idea, you can stop the spread of people, but stopping the spread of the idea is much harder.
part of the complaint is that the measures trump is taking tend to make the virus spread more easily, rather than making it harder for it to spread. you may disagree on that point of fact; but for those who consider to that to be true, then it would maek sense ot oppose the trump policy.
there's also the issue of balancing the cost of countermeasures, including social costs, with the actual damage caused by the virus.
|
On February 03 2017 08:16 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism. I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating. So when a white male shoots up a church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? the proposed system of trump will not do anything to prevent it from getting in. and it'll never be prominent, and it already infiltrates some. it's an idea, you can stop the spread of people, but stopping the spread of the idea is much harder. part of the complaint is that the measures trump is taking tend to make the virus spread more easily, rather than making it harder for it to spread. you may disagree on that point of fact; but for those who consider to that to be true, then it would maek sense ot oppose the trump policy. there's also the issue of balancing the cost of countermeasures, including social costs, with the actual damage caused by the virus.
That's true. Even with closed borders the actual virus (ideas) is still there and probably even more prominent. It doesn't really matter though because their propaganda is plenty strong already with drone strikes and raids killing civilians. I hate the bullshit argument that this feeds into war of civilizations narrative. That narrative has always existed and it can't really get much worse. Anyways, we really we need more intelligence to further discuss this topic. Obama made it seem like ISIS was a jv team and is a non factor. Trump is making it seem like it's the number one threat facing the planet. Difficult to know unless we have security clearances and receive some intelligence briefings on the subject.
|
On February 03 2017 08:24 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 08:16 zlefin wrote:On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism. I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating. So when a white male shoots up a church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? the proposed system of trump will not do anything to prevent it from getting in. and it'll never be prominent, and it already infiltrates some. it's an idea, you can stop the spread of people, but stopping the spread of the idea is much harder. part of the complaint is that the measures trump is taking tend to make the virus spread more easily, rather than making it harder for it to spread. you may disagree on that point of fact; but for those who consider to that to be true, then it would maek sense ot oppose the trump policy. there's also the issue of balancing the cost of countermeasures, including social costs, with the actual damage caused by the virus. That's true. Even with closed borders the actual virus (ideas) are still there and probably even more prominent. It doesn't really matter though because their propaganda is plenty strong already with drone strikes and raids killing civilians. I hate the bullshit argument that this feeds into war of civilizations narrative. That narrative has always existed and it can't really get much worse. Anyways, we really we need more intelligence to further discuss this topic. Obama made it seem like ISIS was a jv team and is a non factor. Trump is making it seem like it's the number one threat facing the planet. Difficult to know unless we have security clearances and receive some intelligence briefings on the subject.
There's enough public information to make substantial conclusions on the scope of the threat.
there's also several other sources of radicalization than ISIS, though it is the most prominent one at the moment; some people will simpyl latch on to any cause, and could end up going to any of them, despite the considerable ideological differences between them.
as to bad arguments, we're talking about people who radicalize or self-radicalize based on onlin posts and discussions, so we're not dealing with high quality people here so much (actually we somewhat are, it's complicated, but not gonna get into that now)
|
On February 03 2017 07:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 04:20 Danglars wrote: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 HolmesA 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: Show nested quote +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.
Ok, the fuck is that case. How does that shit happen? Apparently there were multiple adult people involved there that thought that sending a thirteen-year-old to juvenile detention is a reasonable reaction to him disrupting school by burping loudly. (And some weird stuff about illegal clothing and "gang attire")
How do you come to that kind of a conclusion? Where do you find those people? They are supposed to be teachers. Their job is to be able to deal with children. If you as a teacher think that getting a police officer to arrest your students because they are disrupting your class is necessary, you are bad at your job and should feel bad.
|
On February 03 2017 08:35 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 07:05 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 04:20 Danglars wrote: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 HolmesA 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. Ok, the fuck is that case. How does that shit happen? Apparently there were multiple adult people involved there that thought that sending a thirteen-year-old to juvenile detention is a reasonable reaction to him disrupting school by burping loudly. (And some weird stuff about illegal clothing and "gang attire") How do you come to that kind of a conclusion? Where do you find those people? They are supposed to be teachers. Their job is to be able to deal with children. If you as a teacher think that getting a police officer to arrest your students because they are disrupting your class is necessary, you are bad at your job and should feel bad.
short answer: idiots.
longer answer: law of large numbers: 300million+ people in a nation, there's gonna be a few really dumb things that happen.
that's why there are appeals systems and such for error correction, cuz dumb things happen.
haven't looked at this case at all to say, but the general rules hold.
also because some people go bureaucrat follow rules to the letter, and don't make exceptions well. (whcih is not necessarily bad as a policy, cuz a lot of people aren't good at figuring out the right cases for which to make an exception, sometimes higher-ups need to be the ones to make the exception.)
addendum: I haven't read the case, sometimes it's the case that when you read the actual case in detail for things like this, the situation is a lot more complicated and there's some decent reasoning behind it that gets omitted in the terse summaries people hear and complain about.
PS some of it is also an outgrowth of litigousness adn litigation standards, and liability fears limiting the availabilty of alternative means of handling a disruptive student. (similar issues affect a lot of other interactions with students as well)
|
On February 03 2017 08:40 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 08:35 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2017 07:05 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 04:20 Danglars wrote: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 HolmesA 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. Ok, the fuck is that case. How does that shit happen? Apparently there were multiple adult people involved there that thought that sending a thirteen-year-old to juvenile detention is a reasonable reaction to him disrupting school by burping loudly. (And some weird stuff about illegal clothing and "gang attire") How do you come to that kind of a conclusion? Where do you find those people? They are supposed to be teachers. Their job is to be able to deal with children. If you as a teacher think that getting a police officer to arrest your students because they are disrupting your class is necessary, you are bad at your job and should feel bad. short answer: idiots. longer answer: law of large numbers: 300million+ people in a nation, there's gonna be a few really dumb things that happen. that's why there are appeals systems and such for error correction, cuz dumb things happen. haven't looked at this case at all to say, but the general rules hold. also because some people go bureaucrat follow rules to the letter, and don't make exceptions well. (whcih is not necessarily bad as a policy, cuz a lot of people aren't good at figuring out the right cases for which to make an exception, sometimes higher-ups need to be the ones to make the exception.) addendum: I haven't read the case, sometimes it's the case that when you read the actual case in detail for things like this, the situation is a lot more complicated and there's some decent reasoning behind it that gets omitted in the terse summaries people hear and complain about.
From what i read, the case itself is about whether that kind of behaviour is lawful or not, the mother of the boy sued.
But still, i am studying to get into education currently, and i am just baffled by the absurd incompetence of that teacher who thinks that that is a good idea of how to deal with students. I can imagine a few situations where i would call the cops on a student. But all of them involve real crimes, like beating up other students or things like that. Calling the cops because you are incapable of dealing with your class is just screaming "I am bad at my job and i have no idea what i am doing!"
The law case itself isn't that interesting to me. (I didn't really get far in it because it got boring after the description of the background) I am just disgusted at that teacher. We need better people in education than that.
|
On February 03 2017 08:48 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 08:40 zlefin wrote:On February 03 2017 08:35 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2017 07:05 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 04:20 Danglars wrote: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 HolmesA 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. Ok, the fuck is that case. How does that shit happen? Apparently there were multiple adult people involved there that thought that sending a thirteen-year-old to juvenile detention is a reasonable reaction to him disrupting school by burping loudly. (And some weird stuff about illegal clothing and "gang attire") How do you come to that kind of a conclusion? Where do you find those people? They are supposed to be teachers. Their job is to be able to deal with children. If you as a teacher think that getting a police officer to arrest your students because they are disrupting your class is necessary, you are bad at your job and should feel bad. short answer: idiots. longer answer: law of large numbers: 300million+ people in a nation, there's gonna be a few really dumb things that happen. that's why there are appeals systems and such for error correction, cuz dumb things happen. haven't looked at this case at all to say, but the general rules hold. also because some people go bureaucrat follow rules to the letter, and don't make exceptions well. (whcih is not necessarily bad as a policy, cuz a lot of people aren't good at figuring out the right cases for which to make an exception, sometimes higher-ups need to be the ones to make the exception.) addendum: I haven't read the case, sometimes it's the case that when you read the actual case in detail for things like this, the situation is a lot more complicated and there's some decent reasoning behind it that gets omitted in the terse summaries people hear and complain about. From what i read, the case itself is about whether that kind of behaviour is lawful or not, the mother of the boy sued. But still, i am studying to get into education currently, and i am just baffled by the absurd incompetence of that teacher who thinks that that is a good idea of how to deal with students. I can imagine a few situations where i would call the cops on a student. But all of them involve real crimes, like beating up other students or things like that. Calling the cops because you are incapable of dealing with your class is just screaming "I am bad at my job and i have no idea what i am doing!" The law case itself isn't that interesting to me. (I didn't really get far in it because it got boring after the description of the background) I am just disgusted at that teacher. We need better people in education than that.
what would you have the teacher do instead?
it also doesn't look like it's the teachers idea of how to deal with students, so much as an outgrowth of policy decisions which mandated her action once she was unable to get the student to stop on her own.
and the officer was an in-school assignee from what I read; that is they are assigned to the school all day for dealing with issues.
|
On February 03 2017 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 07:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:56 Mohdoo wrote: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. Would you say that this hive mind dynamic is empowering? I imagine a big component in people surrendering themselves and their inner sense of morality to the hive is because they then identify as this powerful thing. They stop being Mohdoo and start being "the military". Did you ever get that feeling? Not to say you experienced it, but that there were people who felt motivated to "trade themselves in" for a new identity as a part of this strong collective?
I never felt that because of where I was stationed and what my occupation was while in the military. But I had a friend who was a grunt/infantry and the shit he showed me, disturbing. He had no problems with it at all. Maybe because he was always kinda weird, or because like you said, he "traded himself in."
It would definitely be easy to not be held responsible for doing something reprehensible if you were "only following orders." But where does your humanity kick in?
|
On February 03 2017 08:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 03 2017 07:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:56 Mohdoo wrote: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. Would you say that this hive mind dynamic is empowering? I imagine a big component in people surrendering themselves and their inner sense of morality to the hive is because they then identify as this powerful thing. They stop being Mohdoo and start being "the military". Did you ever get that feeling? Not to say you experienced it, but that there were people who felt motivated to "trade themselves in" for a new identity as a part of this strong collective? I never felt that because of where I was stationed and what my occupation was while in the military. But I had a friend who was a grunt/infantry and the shit he showed me, disturbing. He had no problems with it at all. Maybe because he was always kinda weird, or because like you said, he "traded himself in." It would definitely be easy to not be held responsible for doing something reprehensible if you were "only following orders." But where does your humanity kick in?
The real issue is that you're damned if you do, but damned if you don't in these situations. Under the UCMJ you can be charged for disobeying a direct order. However, if you were ordered to do something that was ethically wrong then it's also your responsibility not to follow such an order. This leaves a vast gray area where what you find ethical and what the military finds ethical can be different.
|
On February 03 2017 06:56 Trainrunnef wrote:
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.
Thinking about it, immigration reform is the most important item. This includes ending illegal immigration and revising the legal immigration system. I also want to see what Trump can do economic policy-wise in terms of fixing trade imbalances and encouraging domestic investment. Beyond those two things, I'm most interested in seeing how and whether Trump is able to reign in the federal bureaucracy.
|
On February 03 2017 08:50 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 08:48 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2017 08:40 zlefin wrote:On February 03 2017 08:35 Simberto wrote:On February 03 2017 07:05 Danglars wrote:On February 02 2017 04:20 Danglars wrote: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 HolmesA 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. Ok, the fuck is that case. How does that shit happen? Apparently there were multiple adult people involved there that thought that sending a thirteen-year-old to juvenile detention is a reasonable reaction to him disrupting school by burping loudly. (And some weird stuff about illegal clothing and "gang attire") How do you come to that kind of a conclusion? Where do you find those people? They are supposed to be teachers. Their job is to be able to deal with children. If you as a teacher think that getting a police officer to arrest your students because they are disrupting your class is necessary, you are bad at your job and should feel bad. short answer: idiots. longer answer: law of large numbers: 300million+ people in a nation, there's gonna be a few really dumb things that happen. that's why there are appeals systems and such for error correction, cuz dumb things happen. haven't looked at this case at all to say, but the general rules hold. also because some people go bureaucrat follow rules to the letter, and don't make exceptions well. (whcih is not necessarily bad as a policy, cuz a lot of people aren't good at figuring out the right cases for which to make an exception, sometimes higher-ups need to be the ones to make the exception.) addendum: I haven't read the case, sometimes it's the case that when you read the actual case in detail for things like this, the situation is a lot more complicated and there's some decent reasoning behind it that gets omitted in the terse summaries people hear and complain about. From what i read, the case itself is about whether that kind of behaviour is lawful or not, the mother of the boy sued. But still, i am studying to get into education currently, and i am just baffled by the absurd incompetence of that teacher who thinks that that is a good idea of how to deal with students. I can imagine a few situations where i would call the cops on a student. But all of them involve real crimes, like beating up other students or things like that. Calling the cops because you are incapable of dealing with your class is just screaming "I am bad at my job and i have no idea what i am doing!" The law case itself isn't that interesting to me. (I didn't really get far in it because it got boring after the description of the background) I am just disgusted at that teacher. We need better people in education than that. what would you have the teacher do instead?
I really hope you're not serious. How about any other method of discipline besides calling the cops?
|
On February 03 2017 08:59 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 08:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 03 2017 07:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:56 Mohdoo wrote: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. Would you say that this hive mind dynamic is empowering? I imagine a big component in people surrendering themselves and their inner sense of morality to the hive is because they then identify as this powerful thing. They stop being Mohdoo and start being "the military". Did you ever get that feeling? Not to say you experienced it, but that there were people who felt motivated to "trade themselves in" for a new identity as a part of this strong collective? I never felt that because of where I was stationed and what my occupation was while in the military. But I had a friend who was a grunt/infantry and the shit he showed me, disturbing. He had no problems with it at all. Maybe because he was always kinda weird, or because like you said, he "traded himself in." It would definitely be easy to not be held responsible for doing something reprehensible if you were "only following orders." But where does your humanity kick in? The real issue is that you're damned if you do, but damned if you don't in these situations. Under the UCMJ you can be charged for disobeying a direct order. However, if you were ordered to do something that was ethically wrong then it's also your responsibility not to follow such an order. This leaves a vast gray area where what you find ethical and what the military finds ethical can be different.
Exactly. I would rather spend a few years in Leavenworth than carry that burden of knowing I did something humanely wrong because I was ordered to. You are responsible for your own actions, no matter what. Look at what happened in Fallujah. That's probably the best example that's rather recent.
|
On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism. I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating. So when a white male shoots up a black church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? If a muslim guy shoots up a club yelling alahu akhbar, then you want to understand where it is coming from (outside propaganda) and stop it dead in it's tracks. It's not pretty but it has to be done. These ideologies fester easily within the borders of the US because the constitution gives some powerful rights. Outside the border however, none of it really applies so we have to take advantage of that before it gets worse.
Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count?
|
On February 03 2017 08:10 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 06:47 Danglars 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. 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. His website was mentioned as a watering hole for intellectuals and a magazine he edited was likewise praised. Nowhere in that section was he highlighted as an intellectual, compared to clear highlights of intellectuals like Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, Steve Sailer, Jack Donovan. You've answered my question: you don't have a citation for him being called an intellectual, it's a guilt by association argument, like calling Obama racist because of Wright or a radical terrorist because of Ayers. To be honest, some of the cited luminaries are wacko and I'm prepared to agree with you on aspects of that article being brainless people or easily-dismissed intellectual arguments. Just save the tar and feathers for more than the racist water cooler. Please just remember, "[where you work] should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right" is your opinion not mine. I'll hold you to that if you think everybody on the left side of the aisle smells like roses and there isn't a Mother Jones for every Infowars and Slate for every Breitbart. On February 03 2017 06:56 Trainrunnef wrote:
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. Border wall (fence/hitech/heavily patrolled/whatever--a stop to illegal immigration at the southern border), conservative justice nomination, Obamacare full repeal & replace. I have more but I wouldn't put the rest even on the same shelf as those. I won't run down because we'll probably have current events begging for the principles in light of actual legislation or proposed legislation within a month or two. I'm confused, "manage to participate so much" isn't limited by the number of people, it's limited by time invested reading and writing. Do you mean why we stand out to you given the number of people or something? Specifically referencing the fact that neither of you (as well as some other conservative posters) haven't given up posting out of frustration. I phrased it strangely, my bad.
Yeah well ignore the trolls find the pleasant people (civil people?) to disagree with. But I've taken more time off than xDaunt, more really time off internet when life gets busy, four months banned last year and two weeks this year. All this is not even close to fun coffee shop conversations in real life, particularly in the Bush & Obama years a bit less so now. Oh, and it helps being in a surrounding culture where you're guaranteed ninety percent of the people surrounding you voted differently and hold different axioms.
|
On February 03 2017 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 07:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote: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. Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism. I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating. So when a white male shoots up a black church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? If a muslim guy shoots up a club yelling alahu akhbar, then you want to understand where it is coming from (outside propaganda) and stop it dead in it's tracks. It's not pretty but it has to be done. These ideologies fester easily within the borders of the US because the constitution gives some powerful rights. Outside the border however, none of it really applies so we have to take advantage of that before it gets worse. Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count?
How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive.
|
On February 03 2017 05:33 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 05:17 ChristianS wrote:
Jesus Christ, so xDaunt spent the last ten pages or so arguing that the right has far fewer violent extremists than the left*, that the left just wants to end conversations, and that calling people racist, sexist, and xenophobic is anti-free speech.
For starters we just had an entire election in which we were perpetually told the right can't be generalized by their more extreme supporters. Looking at the fucking meme monsters of 8chan calling themselves Nazis and worshipping Donald Trump as Fuhrer we were supposed to say "oh, well, you know, not everybody on the right is like that, some of them are just upset about outsourcing or something." Now an unknown number of possibly-students at Berkeley start some riots and we're supposed to write off the entire left?
If we're gonna start holding political leaders responsible for the actions of some of their worse supporters Donald Trump has a fucking lot to answer for. If we're not, then stop trying to generalize the entire left by some stupid fuckers that punched somebody at a protest or something. The left doesn't want to shut down conversation, which is why they're doing so much talking right now.
Almost unrelated, but calling someone's position "racist," if used correctly, is supposed to be a substantive criticism of their position. The position conflicts with a generally agreed-upon belief that different races are equal and should be treated equally. Considering how many stupid fucking names conservatives have come up with for liberals over the years to marginalize them (Feminazi, blame-America-firster, SJW to name a few), this self-righteousness about branding opponents to marginalize them rings awfully hollow to me. Hell, that's basically Trump's signature move.
*citation very needed I'm going out on a limb and will say xDaunt is being "awfully hollow" on purpose to have fun? He doesn't seem like a guy who doesn't realize that himself and labeling half of this thread as "regressive Left" in particular is more than enough proof for me that he's doing it on purpose and just having a laugh 
Honestly, sometimes I think the biggest reason liberals lost this election is because they're far more likely than the Trumpists to make the mistake of arguing in good faith. A lot of the Trump worship is actually directly focused on his "nimble navigator" qualities - everything he says is supposedly calculated to have this or that effect five steps down the line. When that's what his supporters like him for, it's no surprise that it turns out most of them didn't actually give a shit about Hillary's emails or getting money from corporations or anything. Trump's already made some of the same fuckups on computer security and refuses to divest from companies that would create much bigger and more straightforward CoIs than Hillary ever had, but it doesn't matter, that was all just a fucking smokescreen anyway.
Like, liberals tried to make the case sometimes that Trump could be tied to the ugliness of the alt right, but it was a good faith argument. Then Trumpists see some violence at a liberal protest and it's just "see what the liberals are doing, they're the real fascists." There's no point explaining that those few instances aren't representative of the entire movement or that fascism and violent protest are completely unrelated concepts, because they don't believe what they're saying anyway. They just wanted to flip the script on liberals and use their own criticism (in this case "fascist") against them. By spending any time taking their argument seriously enough to rebut, you've already let them win.
The "fake news" bullshit is case in point. Liberals complained about actual fake news, i.e. Moroccan lie factories that exploit Facebook's trending algorithms and credulous readers to get clicks. Then a few liberals extended the description to sites of questionable journalistic integrity which are nonetheless not usually outright lie factories so much as spin factories (e.g. Breitbart, or even Fox). There was discussion about where to draw the line on "fake news" - whether it could be merged with the years-old liberal crusade against Fox News, or whether this was a new problem w.r.t. sketchy internet sources just making shit up. So far everyone seemed to be arguing in good faith.
Then the administration starts using it for regular investigative reporting, or even obviously factual reporting like the inauguration crowd size shit. There's no way they actually believe the shit is fake. Most of it has already been proven true, and they probably knew it was at the time. They don't care, their whole fucking cult of personality is built around lying to people to manipulate them into doing what you want them to do.
Occasionally I get that vibe from xDaunt as well. To the extent it's true, there's just no point in talking to him while he's doing that. No good is borne of a discussion where one side is earnestly trying to get the heart of the matter and the other is just saying whatever they can to gain points.
|
On February 03 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 03:29 RuiBarbO wrote:On February 03 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:03 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 01:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Why on earth would a university invite Milo? To give a lecture about online harassment, misoginy and hatred?
It's not like the guy ever did anything else.. Because Milo is a legitimate emerging media star and one of the most important counter-cultural figures of his generation. Whether you agree with him or hate his message is irrelevant. It's not that i disagree with him. It's that he has absolutely nothing to offer but hate and meanness. If people are into that, it's fine and i have no problem in him trolling at Breitbart and making biggoted alt right kids happy, but what was he supposed to talk about in a university? How to launch harassment campaigns on twitter? I mean, since when being a popular fascist is enough to give lectures in one of the most respected universities in america? With those criterias, they could invite david duke too, stormfront is doing great. Have you considered the possibility that you really don't understand Milo's message and that distilling it down to "hate and meanness" is incorrect? I have and the answer is no, although i am quite sure that some people struggle to distinguish deep thought and the mysogynic and racist bullshit speech from a sexually insecure young male talking to other secually insecure young males. Because let's be clear, that's all there is to Milo. I love this answer because it perfectly illustrates how ill-equipped that the Left presently is to deal with the ongoing assault from the Alt Right and its sympathizers like Milo. When I talk about the Regressive Left doubling down on its tactics in response to Trump, et al., Biff's statement above is precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to. It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point to the "hate and meanness" of the Right. I feel like I see this a lot in this thread, where people respond to posts by placing the poster into the camp of either the Left or the Right (the implication being, it seems to me, that the poster is part of a monolithic group, and thus just parroting ideas inherited from the masses). Here xDaunt submits Biff's post as "precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to" in his critique of the "Regressive Left." From where I'm standing, all that does is dismiss whatever legitimate point he may Biff trying (effectively or not) to make by drawing him into a group someone else came up with which he does not identify with. + Show Spoiler +not to imply that Biff is exempt from doing this same thing So when xDaunt says "It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point" - I suppose you're inviting people who DO realize that there's an underlying point and STILL don't like him to respond, but why would they when you've already caricatured them, regardless of their actual political affiliation, as part of the "Regressive Left." Even if they produced something more substantive, that doesn't do much to stop you from maintaining this same line. I find it funny how so many of you get caught up in semantics. I invited Biff to give me his critique of Milo (ie I didn't presume what his critique was), and he gave me the exact cookie-cutter response that I would have expected from just about anyone on the Left. So how is it unfair for me to lump him in with them or to otherwise point out the obvious (and this is from years of watching him post around here) that Biff is on the Left politically? And more to the point, why does the label matter when my real point is about the idea held by the group whom I'm labeling? And as to your point about my being dismissive of Biff's criticism of Milo, my response is: of course I was. Garbage in, garbage out, right?Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 04:07 buhhy wrote:
You're not the only one to have noticed this. This xDaunt character is the most egregious of the bunch. Most of his responses implicitly lump the original poster into some nebulous 'Left' group. He then proceeds to insert some snide remark about the this 'Left' group as if they are all part of a group of clueless people that haven't caught on to some sort of grand message. It's almost as if he is committing the same crime he accuses the so-called 'Left' of doing - not trying to understand the other side and tarring them all with the same brush.
But rest assured, your post will go unnoticed. People will continue responding to his posts, and he continues to impose judgements on his own self-made categorisations, no real discussion occurs, and the cycle continues. And I'll say the same thing to you. Why are you so caught up in the semantics? My categorization of people is really besides the point. It's the ideas that matter. As for the bolded/underlined comment of yours above, there's a critical difference between my categorization of people and what the Left does: I'm generally not imparting any judgment upon the other side with my categorization (I will admit that "Regressive Left" is a loaded term). Saying that someone is part of "the Left" is a fairly neutral label in the way that calling someone a "racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe" is not.
You're such a hypocrite. You said he gave the same 'cookie cutter' response you'd expect from most of the left and then that it was garbage. Sure the label is neutral but then you slam the group. It's like me talking about how the Right are a bunch of assholes. The Right is just a label too, then I judged them, just as you do. You basically said the left just spews cookie-cutter garbage and then you tried to claim the moral high ground because you're deluded into thinking you don't categorize the opposition negatively.
|
Norway28561 Posts
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 definitely identify as part of the left. But we're really not a monolithic entity and statements like 'this is an example of why leftists will never etc...' are too generalizing to be accurate even if as a response to a predictable cookie cutter response from a self-identified leftist. I've seen plenty leftist critique of overblown identity politics, of negative branding which stifles freedom of expression, of the ridicule directed towards non-coastal america. I've seen leftist articles lamenting how we, leftists, are supposed to protest for the rights of nazi's to freely assemble and march together rather than protest nazi's freely assembling and matching. (Alternatively, that we should do both. )
It's kind of like when leftists accuse conservatives of not caring about rising inequality. It might not be your loudest talking point, we're probably not be in agreement regarding neither the scope of the problem nor the solutions to said problems, but just like plenty conservatives acknowledge that inequality has reached problematic heights, there are plenty leftists opposed to the demonization of trump-supporters and various other issues you've addressed.
As a sidenote, I don't really have an issue with the phrase regressive left. That phrase actually holds a specific meaning with some utility. I would however be very careful with not using it too frequently, lest you fall into the same trap you've so frequently accused leftists of - throwing around words like racist and sexist and homophobic so frequently that the words lose their poignancy. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
