EPTYou said, "it sounds to me to be a direction away from that of justice and towards thought crime." oBlade, what you should be doing, if you really do want to have a reasonable discussion on this, is explaining why Farvacola is wrong, not trying to get him to explain how much further than what he said he is willing to go. Proving he's wrong is going to be a tall order so I could see why you are trying to go elsewhere, but based on the conversation so far he has no reason to continue the discussion with you given what you've offered.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1220
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
micronesia
United States24581 Posts
You said, "it sounds to me to be a direction away from that of justice and towards thought crime." oBlade, what you should be doing, if you really do want to have a reasonable discussion on this, is explaining why Farvacola is wrong, not trying to get him to explain how much further than what he said he is willing to go. Proving he's wrong is going to be a tall order so I could see why you are trying to go elsewhere, but based on the conversation so far he has no reason to continue the discussion with you given what you've offered. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
On March 17 2019 02:21 oBlade wrote: It seemed vague and abstract so I wanted to get to the tangible parts of what you were saying, not trying to put words in your mouth but narrow the boundaries a little. Since you're dismissing the idea of thought crime, I'll take that to mean that I wouldn't be as culpable as the public figure for the same speech owing to my having such a smaller audience. In which case, again, how is this justice (Forget whether this is a legal issue, you've brought up culpability, this is treading on moral ground)? If the speech is really so powerful that it could drive someone to kill, why would the public figure and I be held to different standards? You say it's an open question but you're not putting the finger on any problem or offering even the most superficially brainstormed solutions. If the person is culpable as you seem to want to say (but maybe only have enough footing to make the weaker claim that it's an open question), but there's nothing anyone can do about it, it's functionally different from not being culpable at all and it seems the issue would therefore be moot. Because we can't apparently conclude or derive anything from it. Right? If you don't know, I'm asking you to please try and think of something. Will this just boil down to ban them from social media? In which case we have to wait until after a tragedy to do anything, right. For example you wouldn't have wanted to preemptively shut down 8chan in the event someone reading it might have committed an atrocity in the future, and say that all the thousands of posters there each were to share in an infinitesimal culpability for it? You're focusing too much on procedural, specific punishments, like limiting or restricting an incitor's access to public forums, shutting down particular public forums, and the like. That's a very small (and potentially "whack a mole" irrelevant with regard to how the internet works) piece of the puzzle in terms of figuring out how we collectively go about assigning values to the ways individuals express themselves in both public and private spaces. Before the internet and digital interconnectivity, the contexts in which individuals shared ideas through speech acts were limited and each had its own relatively bright line indicia of reliability, authority, and sincerity. For better or for worse, the extent to which average people could rely on the written words contained in the book of a well-known author, the spoken words of the local majority party raconteur, and the news stories delivered by local newspeople, to name a few of those limited contexts, adhered to a fairly stable, uniform framework of presentation, complete with predictable consequences that attached to particular kinds of speech that society collectively determines to be deserving of moral condemnation. Don't say fuck on air or you'll get in trouble, and don't tell a man at a local political meeting that you'll rape and kill his wife without expecting a punch to the face that'll likely go unpunished or only slapped on the wrist. Those rules don't apply in the same way to internet speech for obvious reasons; the identity of the speaker can be difficult to pin down, who listens/reads and against what backdrop constantly shifts, and local/regional/national norms at play in the background are at least somewhat obscured, to name a few. Nevertheless, and this is where the meat of any good dispute should be chewed, we need to work on updating our "saying 'this' is wrong and here's why" language to better reflect and address just how easy it is for someone to say hateful things without that accompanying framework of presentation to facilitate collective condemnation. Someone who consistently advocates for ideas that are utilized by someone in service of hateful violence doesn't need to be banned, put in jail, or fined in order for collective society to get better at telling them that saying that shit is wrong. This game of "I'll say what I want, sprinkle in some half-assed signs that might suggest I'm joking, and then scream thought crimes when folks judge me a hateful fuck" needs to come to an end somehow. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42021 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 16 2019 12:49 Mohdoo wrote: I just loathe the idea that "I must use this word because I really want people to get worked up". He is openly admitting he thinks that the language used by certain parts of the right is justified, regardless of the consequences. It really just isn't. He is validating this guy's thoughts by saying "and on that topic, you know OUR invasion..?" I've been thinking a lot on this subject. Trump uses the words invasion, as do others. It appears to me and others to be an appropriate way to describe the illegal immigration of tens of thousands across the southern border. The capacity of the United States to set and enforce its immigration laws is described as racist and pitiless. This is one pillar of the argument that the rhetoric of the right should be abandoned because it's harshness will provoke crazies to violence. The second point I want people like Mohdoo and micronesia to consider is how divisive their language is. A lot of us on the right think a border wall with harsh enforcement (and visa overstays, and eVerify) is the only way to maintain the nation's sovereignty and nationhood. It strikes at core traditions like the rule of law and the power of democratic government. The size and scale of the problem justifies impassioned rhetoric to provoke consideration of the issue. But these attempts now fall under encouraging far right terrorism/white nationalist terrorism. What possible effect can that have but further embittering the divide? Try going around red counties telling people that they are partially responsible for terrorist violence by their speech. That's the rhetorical effect dividing the country. But, you say, this kind of speech is justified because it really does encourage anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant violence. Simply put, that's the same logical underpinning to support divisive speech by its need that the right uses. It doesn't matter that blaming people on the right for violence by crazies is nuclear-level dividing of the country, to some, because it's justified. This feeds the next wave of division. Everyone that puts the guilt from mass murder on my doorstep for my speech is pathetic and disgusting in my view. I judge that you're doing a better job of dividing the country than Trump could hope for on his best day. The consequences of continuing down this line will not end well for your brand of politics and political hopefuls. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21391 Posts
On March 17 2019 05:24 Danglars wrote: Fine i'll say it.I've been thinking a lot on this subject. Trump uses the words invasion, as do others. It appears to me and others to be an appropriate way to describe the illegal immigration of tens of thousands across the southern border. The capacity of the United States to set and enforce its immigration laws is described as racist and pitiless. This is one pillar of the argument that the rhetoric of the right should be abandoned because it's harshness will provoke crazies to violence. The second point I want people like Mohdoo and micronesia to consider is how divisive their language is. A lot of us on the right think a border wall with harsh enforcement (and visa overstays, and eVerify) is the only way to maintain the nation's sovereignty and nationhood. It strikes at core traditions like the rule of law and the power of democratic government. The size and scale of the problem justifies impassioned rhetoric to provoke consideration of the issue. But these attempts now fall under encouraging far right terrorism/white nationalist terrorism. What possible effect can that have but further embittering the divide? Try going around red counties telling people that they are partially responsible for terrorist violence by their speech. That's the rhetorical effect dividing the country. But, you say, this kind of speech is justified because it really does encourage anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant violence. Simply put, that's the same logical underpinning to support divisive speech by its need that the right uses. It doesn't matter that blaming people on the right for violence by crazies is nuclear-level dividing of the country, to some, because it's justified. This feeds the next wave of division. Everyone that puts the guilt from mass murder on my doorstep for my speech is pathetic and disgusting in my view. I judge that you're doing a better job of dividing the country than Trump could hope for on his best day. The consequences of continuing down this line will not end well for your brand of politics and political hopefuls. This is what I imagine the defence of a white nationalist for his violent rhetoric to read like. An invasion of the oppressed and destitute who flee oppression and poverty that must be kept out with harsh punishment to protect our way of life. just sickening. Edit: And if you feel personally attacked by that just consider that if your own personal beliefs sound so close to a white nationalist maybe your on the wrong side. | ||
|
brian
United States9610 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8940 Posts
To espouse such ignorance, as Danglars has just demonstrated, shows a willfulness of stubbornness. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4663 Posts
Would love to make a longer post about the very real crisis on the border but news events of the past few days have pushed that back again. But claiming that everyone who uses the word asylum is an honest-to-goodness asylee is incredibly naive. edit: also, while we're here "thoughts and prayers" is not an NRA phrase, it's a common phrase that's been in use by everyone for years. Look at the tweet time stamps, she realized what she said was terrible so she tried to work one of the left's favorite villains into it. And you all bought it, first take. | ||
|
brian
United States9610 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
After being told that enough times, it's only natutal some people will do something about it and actually use force. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42021 Posts
Invasion only makes sense if you view migrants as an existential threat within the whole "great replacement" narrative. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On March 17 2019 05:55 JimmiC wrote: Concern trolling is what he does. It is almost pathological at this point, maybe it was always what he did just it is so obvious down that he has been around so long. A teen decided to crack an Egg on a Right wing law maker in Australia's head. That law maker decided to punch him in the face. While this is kind of amusing. I am hoping for real change in regards to guns to show the US how they should have acted after their many many mass shootings. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/16/asia/australian-senator-fraser-anning-egg-incident/index.html I'm not entirely surprised at the guy's response. I think a lot of people would have done the same. Not a good look though. But there's a big cultural difference between most other nations in the western world and America where guns are concerned. It isn't that people aren't willing to have the conversation, but people often go crazy at the suggestion of any limitations at all, and assume any limitations at all are part of a larger drive towards totally revoking the second amendment (which some people have said they'd love to do, though I don't think many actual Democratic senators have). On March 17 2019 06:23 Introvert wrote: Trump I think almost always uses "invasion" in the same breath as talking about crime and cartels, although given he's so loose with his language, people who still want to find him justifying white nationalism will grab onto it. Doubt he knew that the terrorist used that word to be honest. I haven't read the manifesto, as I try to avoid doing so, but I'm sure the white nationalist used "means of production" and loved Candace Owens, a black woman, seriously, seems unlikely. Would love to make a longer post about the very real crisis on the border but news events of the past few days have pushed that back again. But claiming that everyone who uses the word asylum is an honest-to-goodness asylee is incredibly naive. edit: also, while we're here "thoughts and prayers" is not an NRA phrase, it's a common phrase that's been in use by everyone for years. Look at the tweet time stamps, she realized what she said was terrible so she tried to work one of the left's favorite villains into it. And you all bought it, first take. Thoughts and prayers has been dumb for years. There's nothing to buy. She's absolutely right. Trump being 'loose with his language' is an incredibly lame justification for an established pattern of saying things that sound white nationalist. How often do people say 'Man, Trump is so loose with his language, he can easily be interpreted as a hardcore left wing socialist'? | ||
|
Yurie
11692 Posts
On March 17 2019 06:38 KwarK wrote: An invasion is an attack on a country and its people that needs to be met with violence and destroyed. Even if you dispute the validity of claims for asylum and deny that the US has any kind of responsibility for the violence in Central America we're still only at economic migrants seeking to share in the American Dream. These people don't want to destroy the United States, they want to take part in it. Invasion only makes sense if you view migrants as an existential threat within the whole "great replacement" narrative. I think you have a too clear cut opinion of invasions. I would not argue that all of them should be met with violence. If the US did a full on invasion against Sweden and none of Sweden's allies wanted to join in, then I as a Swede would argue for not resisting. We would 100% lose and our infrastructure would take a massive hit, with nobody paying to replace it after being conquered. The Mongols also used that mentality with brutally sacking places to make others give up without resisting. Not resisting makes a lot of sense in many cases. Though nobody is invading the US at this time and can't see anybody doing it in the near future. So don't see how it is relevant for them. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
It's bad enough when Trump says this shit in an isolated incident. Now he's actively empowering people who already claimed to be empowered by him. This isn't especially difficult. Though I guess it is revealing. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 17 2019 06:23 Introvert wrote: Trump I think almost always uses "invasion" in the same breath as talking about crime and cartels, although given he's so loose with his language, people who still want to find him justifying white nationalism will grab onto it. Doubt he knew that the terrorist used that word to be honest. I haven't read the manifesto, as I try to avoid doing so, but I'm sure the white nationalist used "means of production" and loved Candace Owens, a black woman, seriously, seems unlikely. Would love to make a longer post about the very real crisis on the border but news events of the past few days have pushed that back again. But claiming that everyone who uses the word asylum is an honest-to-goodness asylee is incredibly naive. edit: also, while we're here "thoughts and prayers" is not an NRA phrase, it's a common phrase that's been in use by everyone for years. Look at the tweet time stamps, she realized what she said was terrible so she tried to work one of the left's favorite villains into it. And you all bought it, first take. Trump does it with calling people dogs, saying he's done more than any other president, and other things deserving of censure. People foolish with their speech, particularly in the style of Queens (It aint good coffee, it's the best coffee in the world!), don't give the same gravity to their words. I think the media is starting to catch on, for I so rarely hear the breathtaking "Breaking News: Trump Tweets!" style of headlines. But whatever. You might have also seen the NYT piece Border at ‘Breaking Point’ as More Than 76,000 Unauthorized Migrants Cross in a Month. Breaking point, emergency, haha. I got a good chuckle seeing how close they pushed their rhetoric on a pressing problem to stop just short of confirming Trump's stance on the matter. The number of migrant families crossing the southwest border has once again broken records, with unauthorized entries nearly double what they were a year ago, suggesting that the Trump administration’s aggressive policies have not discouraged new migration to the United States. More than 76,000 migrants crossed the border without authorization in February, an 11-year high and a strong sign that stepped-up prosecutions, new controls on asylum and harsher detention policies have not reversed what remains a powerful lure for thousands of families fleeing violence and poverty. “The system is well beyond capacity, and remains at the breaking point,” Kevin K. McAleenan, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, told reporters in announcing the new data on Tuesday. The nation’s top border enforcement officer painted a picture of processing centers filled to capacity, border agents struggling to meet medical needs and thousands of exhausted members of migrant families crammed into a detention system that was not built to house them — all while newcomers continue to arrive, sometimes by the busload, at the rate of 2,200 a day. The AOC phraseology was clunky due to wanting to distinguish between the good people offering their genuine thoughts and prayers, and the bad people that use the same phrase for ill intent. She has no choice. Her supporters believe that the phrase is used in substitute for genuine policy action. All the vestiges of Christian compassion and condolence have been erased off it it in their eyes. Bless their hearts. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On March 17 2019 05:55 JimmiC wrote:A teen decided to crack an Egg on a Right wing law maker in Australia's head. That law maker decided to punch him in the face. While this is kind of amusing. I am hoping for real change in regards to guns to show the US how they should have acted after their many many mass shootings. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/16/asia/australian-senator-fraser-anning-egg-incident/index.html To be clear, this is the "right wing law maker" who claimed that the shooting in New Zealand (by an Australian) was caused by Muslim immigration within 24 hours of the event. The guy's an independent because even our fringe right-wing parties can't tolerate him, and he became a senator in the first place on a technicality. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 17 2019 05:36 Gorsameth wrote: Fine i'll say it. This is what I imagine the defence of a white nationalist for his violent rhetoric to read like. An invasion of the oppressed and destitute who flee oppression and poverty that must be kept out with harsh punishment to protect our way of life. just sickening. Edit: And if you feel personally attacked by that just consider that if your own personal beliefs sound so close to a white nationalist maybe your on the wrong side. I want anyone that thinks like you to know just how divisive calling my speech adjacent to what a white nationalist's violent rhetoric would read like, or my personal beliefs are so close to a white nationalist. You want them to reject Trump, but simultaneously say their speech encourages violent and their beliefs are close to white nationalism. I only hope you say it as loudly and frequently as you can. My coalition needs to not forget how they're viewed by people that will eventually come wanting their votes for "moderates." You can read through what you responded for and pick up what's so close to white nationalism. All I'm seeing is I have to admit complicity in mass murder and accept divisive speech without criticizing other's divisive speech to avoid the charge of white nationalism. I never knew political rhetoric would come to that, and I only hope we look back on this era as a sad time that the left went crazy and lost power. | ||
| ||
