|
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. |
United States42632 Posts
On September 16 2017 00:55 NewSunshine wrote:
Surely he doesn't mean actually turning off the internet. Has someone told him that doing that in this day and age would actually be much more harmful than anything a handful of terrorists can manage?
If it's so dangerous then why do we allow Bill Gates to wield that kind of power without accountability? It's irresponsible.
|
Does he mean proactive like announcing all their most promising leads to the world before they've had a chance to act on them?
|
|
|
After President Donald Trump pardoned former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, opponents of the decision have tried to fight it. Now, the very judge who convicted Arpaio is indicating she may not scratch her decision after all.
Those arguing against the pardon typically claim it would be letting a government official off the hook for violating people’s constitutional rights, which inherently weakens the Constitution, and the court’s ability to protect it. Judge Susan Bolton addressed the issue from a different angle. Instead of discussing whether she should dismiss the conviction, she focused on whether she could.
In an order on Thursday, Judge Bolton wrote that while Arapaio did receive a pardon, she might not be able to legally toss the conviction because he hasn’t been sentenced yet. Her reasoning is that without sentencing, there’s not final judgment in the case, and you can’t vacate a judgment that doesn’t exist yet. Bolton wrote than when the government submitted a motion supporting eliminating Arpaio’s conviction, the legal precedent they cited only refers to cases where a judgment was already in place.
Not only that, Bolton cited Supreme Court case that said, “a pardon is in no sense an overturning of a judgment of conviction by some other tribunal; it is an executive action that mitigates or sets aside punishment for a crime.” Basically, the pardon can protect Arpaio from punishment, but it can’t necessarily change an existing verdict from the court. Similarly, a Ninth Circuit case that Bolton mentioned says that someone who receives a pardon is “not entitled to erasure of the record of his conviction.”
Judge Bolton gave the government until September 21 to file an additional brief to provide a legal basis for why the pardon should result in Arpaio’s conviction being expunged, instead of just eliminating any punishment.
lawnewz.com
|
On September 16 2017 00:31 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On September 15 2017 16:46 Aquanim wrote:On September 15 2017 15:46 Danglars wrote:On September 15 2017 15:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 15 2017 15:27 Danglars wrote:On September 15 2017 10:12 Slaughter wrote:
Is Danglers really getting his panties in a twist because they covered a statue in a shroud? Not even damaging it?
Remind me who the easily triggered snowflakes are again? Out: The statue thing is about neonazis and the confederacy. In: So BLM puts a black shroud on a founding father, what of it? The slippery slope and attendant slippery standards is the rule, not the exception. Some of the statues are about neonazis and the confederacy, some are about the white washing and hero worship of historical figures, both happen to be rooted in white supremacy. You sound pleased BLM took a black shroud over the statue of Thomas Jefferson. They charged he was a racist and rapist. Slippery slope bro. And if liking Thomas Jefferson is born out of white supremacy, you're getting to the point where white supremacy is the reason you stubbed your toe this morning. A casual inspection of Jefferson's Wikipedia page says nothing about him being a rapist. However, it does indicate that the charge of racism has sufficient basis to be at least credible, which is the more relevant charge with respect to "white supremacy" anyway. Given that, I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to say that "white supremacy" plays a non-zero part in the reason why Jefferson has the amount of respect which he does. Postscript 1: Personally I don't really consider "founding father" to be a particularly virtuous title inherently, it's just a statement of historical fact. I'm not an American, though, so I imagine at least some of you feel differently. Postscript 2: I'm explicitly not saying that Jefferson isn't worthy of respect, I'm saying that he might have some amount less if not for "white supremacism" and analogous concepts. So you're saying people should shroud the nation's founders because racism is nonzero white supremacy? Surely you're doing this ironically to make fun of people that actually believe that? The logical leap of nonzero racism to white supremacy to a credible charge is worthy of BLM and Antifa. Statues of the nation's founders doesn't imply virtue. They made a nation that has endured for 200 years. You make a statue to honor their good deeds and not to whitewash their bad. Human beings are complex creatures. You imply everybody else thinks people are all good. Also, it's a little telling you can't relate to a nation's founders being honored by that nation's citizens ... Australia must fucking suck for you. They're asking for an acknowledgement of that white supremacy, which seems like a not unreasonable thing to ask for. I don't see putting a shroud on a statue as a particularly unreasonable thing to do to illustrate a point. You apparently do, for reasons that aren't clear to me. Show nested quote +Statues of the nation's founders doesn't imply virtue. They made a nation that has endured for 200 years. You make a statue to honor their good deeds and not to whitewash their bad. Does this mean you have no objection to putting something on the statue to contextualise it? Show nested quote +Human beings are complex creatures. You imply everybody else thinks people are all good. Also, it's a little telling you can't relate to a nation's founders being honored by that nation's citizens ... Australia must fucking suck for you. I honestly have no idea what you're getting at with the personal crack about Australia. The rest of this is you taking a tilt at something I did not say.
I'm saying what you said
However, it does indicate that the charge of racism has sufficient basis to be at least credible, which is the more relevant charge with respect to "white supremacy" anyway.
Given that, I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to say that "white supremacy" plays a non-zero part in the reason why Jefferson has the amount of respect which he does.
is a totally unreasonable and foolish thing to say. You would deny important figures in a nation's founding and cover up their statues because they were insufficiently revolutionary, and call people who actually respect them for what they did somehow tinged with white supremacy. It makes me think Australia for you must be a horrid place because you can't carve out the thought that instituting a nation that stands the test of time is a logical reason to make a statue and feel a sense of pride seeing it. Fuck your nation's founders, am I right? Usually a proper education would teach you where the respect is usually sourced, and any chortling racists are so minuscule to be properly ignored.
Unless you want to go to the lengths of "Aquanim spends so much time finding white supremacy mixed in, he's probably feels a non-zero measure of support for Antifa. He should really be protested for supporting such a violent fascist hate group. Same logic.
Postscript 1: Personally I don't really consider "founding father" to be a particularly virtuous title inherently, it's just a statement of historical fact. I'm not an American, though, so I imagine at least some of you feel differently.
But you confuse statues with imputations of virtue and have ignored my attempts to explain the nature of complex human beings.
Postscript 2: I'm explicitly not saying that Jefferson isn't worthy of respect, I'm saying that he might have some amount less if not for "white supremacism" and analogous concepts.
Also foolish. If he's worthy of respect in his own right, don't say he'd be respected less if not for white supremacism. He's either worthy or not. The amount that you flit about from deserved respect to probably revered because white supremacy makes me think your real point is "I don't like Thomas Jefferson, so people that respect his achievements are probably partly doing so out of white supremacy."
And I'm getting a good laugh out of comparing "covering up a statue" with "contextualizing it." Hiding it is a sign of a psychological phobia. Marching around it with actual speech, like Jefferson owned slaves or whatnot, is contextualizing it. Much like contextualizing a speaker is protesting outside, not taping his mouth shut.
|
On September 15 2017 21:37 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 15:27 Danglars wrote:On September 15 2017 10:12 Slaughter wrote:
Is Danglers really getting his panties in a twist because they covered a statue in a shroud? Not even damaging it?
Remind me who the easily triggered snowflakes are again? Out: The statue thing is about neonazis and the confederacy. In: So BLM puts a black shroud on a founding father, what of it? The slippery slope and attendant slippery standards is the rule, not the exception. I don't recall your position on this, so I thought I'd just ask: what do you think about removing statues in general? I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) you don't like removing statues of Lee, but more broadly, when is it okay/good to remove statues? Does it just depend on how bad the historical figure (that is, is it okay to take down statues of Hitler? What about Nathan Bedford Forrest?)? Does it matter at all when the statue was erected, and by whom? Or maybe it's less about the merits of individual statues, and more about pushing against the slippery slope (e.g. "We shouldn't take down Nathan Bedford Forrest statues because if we do, soon people will be taking down statues of Washington/Jefferson").
It should be decided locally.
But any comment on vandalizing the statue of the author of the Star Spangled Banner? And is covering up the statue with a tarp just a form of contextualizing it?
|
On September 16 2017 00:18 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Everyone and their mothers are applying for FEMA and government assistance down here in FL since Irma passed. A lot of people still without power. If I recall, over 10million+ in the state missing power, and there is quite a few dead people in they Keys which haven't been announced (source is a friend who is a cop in Marathon Key, and a friend who is helping rescue efforts down there with his boat). Imagine, over 10000 people stayed in the Keys still.
The crazy part is that a large part of FL is red, but yet they're all applying for assistance programs which came from Democrats. If Republicans in FL don't do a thing to help (aka removing a lot of these budgets that will help Irma survivors), they're gone within the next few years.
This is the well known 'but I didn't mean cutting my .... when I said to remove ...., I meant only for the lazy liberals'.
|
United States42632 Posts
Danglars, they didn't put a tarp over it because they had Jeffersonphobia and couldn't bear to look at it, they put a tarp over it as a form of protest. The tarp wasn't to hide the statue in the hope that everyone would somehow forget there was a statue there, it was a part of their expression, it was making a loud statement about the statue. Don't be dense.
|
On September 15 2017 23:57 KwarK wrote:
I don't see the disadvantages of properly contextualizing historical figures. It's not like we're making up bad stories about them, all we're doing is refusing to turn them into mythic heroes. For example, if someone wants to put up a memorial to the Irish next to a statue of Cromwell I'm all for it. If he didn't want people remembering him as someone who killed a bunch of Irishmen then perhaps he shouldn't have killed so many Irishmen. That's kinda on him.
As someone who taught history, I am of the opinion that we would be better off teaching history accurately and with context. The protests like this one wouldn't' seem that out of place.
|
On September 16 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote:... I'm saying what you said Show nested quote +However, it does indicate that the charge of racism has sufficient basis to be at least credible, which is the more relevant charge with respect to "white supremacy" anyway.
Given that, I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to say that "white supremacy" plays a non-zero part in the reason why Jefferson has the amount of respect which he does. is a totally unreasonable and foolish thing to say. You would deny important figures in a nation's founding and cover up their statues because they were insufficiently revolutionary, and call people who actually respect them for what they did somehow tinged with white supremacy.
I'm not suggesting that the statue should be covered up forever, and as far as I know neither were the protestors. I do not deny that those figures existed or the good things they did, and as far as I know neither do the protestors.
I would say that the people who respect them for what they did without being okay with acknowledging some of it wasn't good have an intellectual honesty problem which is related to white supremacy and racism in general.
>>>l do not think most of those people are white supremacists.<<<
(I won't make any claims about what the protestors think on that score. People do think some silly things.)
It makes me think Australia for you must be a horrid place because you can't carve out the thought that instituting a nation that stands the test of time is a logical reason to make a statue and feel a sense of pride seeing it. Fuck your nation's founders, am I right? Usually a proper education would teach you where the respect is usually sourced, and any chortling racists are so minuscule to be properly ignored.
As an Australian, I'm proud of what my nation is. I don't need some story surrounding its origins to feel proud of it. (If we're going with personal attacks...) What does that say about you and your country?
Unless you want to go to the lengths of "Aquanim spends so much time finding white supremacy mixed in, he's probably feels a non-zero measure of support for Antifa. He should really be protested for supporting such a violent fascist hate group. Same logic.
You have entirely misunderstood my point of view. See the bolded above.
But you confuse statues with imputations of virtue and have ignored my attempts to explain the nature of complex human beings.
I've ignored them because I don't need you to explain them to me.
Also foolish. If he's worthy of respect in his own right, don't say he'd be respected less if not for white supremacism. He's either worthy or not. The amount that you flit about from deserved respect to probably revered because white supremacy makes me think your real point is "I don't like Thomas Jefferson, so people that respect his achievements are probably partly doing so out of white supremacy."
Respect is not a binary concept. I have a great deal of respect for the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence. That respect is diminished a little by his (alleged, I'm not a historian) behaviour regarding slaves.
And I'm getting a good laugh out of comparing "covering up a statue" with "contextualizing it." Hiding it is a sign of a psychological phobia. Marching around it with actual speech, like Jefferson owned slaves or whatnot, is contextualizing it. Much like contextualizing a speaker is protesting outside, not taping his mouth shut.
Well, let's check what the protestors actually asked for:
... Jefferson's statue was "an emblem of white supremacy" that should be "re-contextualized with a plaque to include that history".
That seems fairly clear to me.
|
Am I the only one who thinks Trump shouldn't even be considering Nazis on anyone's side? If you are a Nazi, you are not on any American's side.
|
On September 16 2017 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:Am I the only one who thinks Trump shouldn't even be considering Nazis on anyone's side? If you are a Nazi, you are not on any American's side.
Well that's part of why his repeated retreat to that kind of language is so dumb; he doesn't seem to understand that saying "there's bad guys on the other side too" clearly implies that he considers Nazis on his side lol.
|
On September 16 2017 01:25 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:Am I the only one who thinks Trump shouldn't even be considering Nazis on anyone's side? If you are a Nazi, you are not on any American's side. Well that's part of why his repeated retreat to that kind of language is so dumb; he doesn't seem to understand that saying "there's bad guys on the other side too" clearly implies that he considers Nazis on his side lol.
On one hand, I think it's just being real to admit: "Yeah, Nazis are definitely the crazies on our side. We want stricter immigration control and generally are against other cultures lessening the relative impact of traditional western-christian-american culture. We think what we have is better than what blacks and hispanics have come up with. But we are not advocating for exterminating them. They vote for us, and they take our ideas 20 steps too far, but it is fair to say they are our side's crazies."
But, at the same time, the number of steps too far they go really, in my eyes, disconnects them from republicans.
It is similar to when antifa walks around with signs that say "kill all cops". Do I want every single cop wearing body cams? Do I believe cops are, as a whole, deficient? Yes and yes. But damn, let's not kill them. In that way, I don't see antifa as the extreme side of democrats. That is just so far out there that it's not even the same idea anymore.
|
Antifa hate pretty much everyone they can label an incrementalist, including Democrats, socialists, and pacifist anarchists, so your suspicion with regards to the "two sides" logic being presented is well-founded
|
On September 16 2017 01:40 farvacola wrote:
Antifa hate pretty much everyone they can label an incrementalist, including Democrats, socialists, and pacifist anarchists, so your suspicion with regards to the "two sides" logic being presented is well-founded
This seems like a caricature to be honest.
I know antifascists who are amazing people, pretty much full of love for everyone except fascists. Is Antifa a very new thing? I feel completely out of touch when i hear descriptions like this because I know many anti-fascists in the UK punk scene and they are nothing like the way they are being portrayed in the USA right now.
|
On September 16 2017 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:Am I the only one who thinks Trump shouldn't even be considering Nazis on anyone's side? If you are a Nazi, you are not on any American's side.
Under Trump's phrasing, he imagines himself on the opposite side of his stated 'other side'. That puts him on the alt-right nazi cosplay side.
|
Modern day white supremacists are just by product of SJWs/justice scammers.
If the majority of the "news" outlets out there didn't demonize white heterosexual males, they wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem.
|
United States42632 Posts
On September 16 2017 01:47 RealityIsKing wrote:
Modern day white supremacists are just by product of SJWs/justice scammers.
If the majority of the "news" outlets out there didn't demonize white heterosexual males, they wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem.
..........................................................................................................
|
On September 16 2017 01:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 01:47 RealityIsKing wrote:
Modern day white supremacists are just by product of SJWs/justice scammers.
If the majority of the "news" outlets out there didn't demonize white heterosexual males, they wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem. ..........................................................................................................
There is a lot to unpack there. The key is to remember is that he admits they are a problem, but they are victims of being told that white supremacists are bad, which is unfair.
|
United States42632 Posts
The bad news is that we've got a bunch of young men becoming actual literal Nazis. But the good news is we think we can spin this so it's actually the fault of feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
