|
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 |
On April 18 2018 03:15 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2018 01:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 18 2018 01:10 Plansix wrote:
So Maggie Haberman won a Pulitzer for her reporting this year, which is great because she did a good job. Apparently in response to this people decided harassing her son online the way to go, because some people are human garbage. Which is standard for these days, but I really question if this shit is sustainable. Being a reporter for the NYT should not require people to fear their children being targeted for harassment or worse. At least not the level and regularity we see today. And the only reason that people are able to find these kids is because they exist someplace on internet. And keeping all kids off of social media isn’t a viable solution to the problem either. What is the solution? Crackdown on threatening behaviour online? You cant impose on how others behave online. You also cant impose that the victim dont use social media. The solution here is that the user of social media grow thick skin.
That's a pretty shitty solution though. Why is the solution to "people are assholes to other people" not something that focuses on people stopping being assholes, but apparently that the people just need to ignore the assholes?
I mean, that is obviously the strategy to take as an individual, because it is the only option you have.
But as a society mandating that solution is rather idiotic. Don't blame the victims for the behaviour of assholes, blame the assholes. And thus try to prevent the assholes from being assholes, don't try to force the victims to be less sensitive of assholes.
|
On April 18 2018 03:15 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2018 01:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 18 2018 01:10 Plansix wrote:
So Maggie Haberman won a Pulitzer for her reporting this year, which is great because she did a good job. Apparently in response to this people decided harassing her son online the way to go, because some people are human garbage. Which is standard for these days, but I really question if this shit is sustainable. Being a reporter for the NYT should not require people to fear their children being targeted for harassment or worse. At least not the level and regularity we see today. And the only reason that people are able to find these kids is because they exist someplace on internet. And keeping all kids off of social media isn’t a viable solution to the problem either. What is the solution? Crackdown on threatening behaviour online? You cant impose on how others behave online. You also cant impose that the victim dont use social media. The solution here is that the user of social media grow thick skin.
Of course you can impose rules on people online. You just don't want to. Fairly big difference
|
My solution offers less compromise since it falls within the individual.
If you try to impose rules on others: How do we set those rules and who sets those rules? Will the person setting those rules be completely impartial? To what degree do we moderate posters?
Is it worth the compromise of other posters if there's a much simpler alternative available?
Edit: I realized that I posted in US pol thread and not the Dota2 gen. I concede all points. Carry on.
|
I think you suggested the easiest solution for people who want the internet to be a place where actions rarely results in consequences. So it is an environment where the school bully can follow their victim home and continue to bully them online.
|
On April 18 2018 03:15 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2018 01:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 18 2018 01:10 Plansix wrote:
So Maggie Haberman won a Pulitzer for her reporting this year, which is great because she did a good job. Apparently in response to this people decided harassing her son online the way to go, because some people are human garbage. Which is standard for these days, but I really question if this shit is sustainable. Being a reporter for the NYT should not require people to fear their children being targeted for harassment or worse. At least not the level and regularity we see today. And the only reason that people are able to find these kids is because they exist someplace on internet. And keeping all kids off of social media isn’t a viable solution to the problem either. What is the solution? Crackdown on threatening behaviour online? You cant impose on how others behave online. You also cant impose that the victim dont use social media. The solution here is that the user of social media grow thick skin.
1) Yes you can.
2) Agreed you can't.
3) Wut.
I'm literally not sure if you are serious.
"Thick skin" doesn't mean brushing off death threats.
That sort of behavior is something that should be legally punishable. Telling people to kill themselves online, and you giving them actual deaththreats are the sorts of things that go way past a bit of rage and people being thin-skinned. Those are absolutely things that can be made illegal with actual repercussions, and should be.
|
On April 18 2018 05:08 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2018 03:15 Emnjay808 wrote:On April 18 2018 01:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 18 2018 01:10 Plansix wrote:
So Maggie Haberman won a Pulitzer for her reporting this year, which is great because she did a good job. Apparently in response to this people decided harassing her son online the way to go, because some people are human garbage. Which is standard for these days, but I really question if this shit is sustainable. Being a reporter for the NYT should not require people to fear their children being targeted for harassment or worse. At least not the level and regularity we see today. And the only reason that people are able to find these kids is because they exist someplace on internet. And keeping all kids off of social media isn’t a viable solution to the problem either. What is the solution? Crackdown on threatening behaviour online? You cant impose on how others behave online. You also cant impose that the victim dont use social media. The solution here is that the user of social media grow thick skin. 1) Yes you can. 2) Agreed you can't. 3) Wut. I'm literally not sure if you are serious. "Thick skin" doesn't mean brushing off death threats. That sort of behavior is something that should be legally punishable. Telling people to kill themselves online, and you giving them actual deaththreats are the sorts of things that go way past a bit of rage and people being thin-skinned. Those are absolutely things that can be made illegal with actual repercussions, and should be.
In Hawaii they are. Where are u from?
|
On April 18 2018 05:31 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2018 05:08 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On April 18 2018 03:15 Emnjay808 wrote:On April 18 2018 01:17 Jockmcplop wrote:On April 18 2018 01:10 Plansix wrote:
So Maggie Haberman won a Pulitzer for her reporting this year, which is great because she did a good job. Apparently in response to this people decided harassing her son online the way to go, because some people are human garbage. Which is standard for these days, but I really question if this shit is sustainable. Being a reporter for the NYT should not require people to fear their children being targeted for harassment or worse. At least not the level and regularity we see today. And the only reason that people are able to find these kids is because they exist someplace on internet. And keeping all kids off of social media isn’t a viable solution to the problem either. What is the solution? Crackdown on threatening behaviour online? You cant impose on how others behave online. You also cant impose that the victim dont use social media. The solution here is that the user of social media grow thick skin. 1) Yes you can. 2) Agreed you can't. 3) Wut. I'm literally not sure if you are serious. "Thick skin" doesn't mean brushing off death threats. That sort of behavior is something that should be legally punishable. Telling people to kill themselves online, and you giving them actual deaththreats are the sorts of things that go way past a bit of rage and people being thin-skinned. Those are absolutely things that can be made illegal with actual repercussions, and should be. In Hawaii they are. Where are u from?
South Africa, so getting any law for something like this actually enforced is not too realistic.
And that's good to hear, but why argue that it can't be done if Hawaii literally... does it?
|
Oh I guess there is no problem then, and Im arguing for nothing. 
|
And the majority leadership shuts down another bill that would pass the Senate, but likely die in the House. This dance of killing bills that have the votes to pass is a leading reason why nothing happens in government. Bills are not even allowed to fail in the other chamber. Especially if they are passed with votes from democrats.
|
I gotta say that it is pretty weird how dictatorial your democracy seems to be organized.
|
On April 18 2018 07:08 Simberto wrote:
I gotta say that it is pretty weird how dictatorial your democracy seems to be organized.
Where other governments are organized in a way to promote cooperation and punish governments that cannot gather a majority support the US prides itself on doing nothing when it can't agree or get along.
|
They could push that to the floor, but Republicans are chicken shit and don't want to override Lord Turtle. The Speaker and Senate majority leader only have so much power because party leadership punishes people who step out of line and the congress members go along with it.
And again, that would involve siding with Democrats. And only people who are leaving the Senate do that.
|
In Germany, a law apparently needs the support of 5% of the members of parliament to get discussed and voted on. I don't know if there are mechanics to prevent parliament from being spammed to hard. I assume that there are.
|
On April 18 2018 05:48 Emnjay808 wrote:Oh I guess there is no problem then, and Im arguing for nothing.
That describes much of the world wide web, lol.
I guess Congress is curtailing the use of force abroad by the executive department. The law that was passed in 2001 after 9/11 was for authorizing military force against terrorist entities abroad, but was over-used extensively to justify incursions in places as far as the Philippines, Niger, & Somalia. Now I guess the reach of that bill is being trimmed slightly to require the submission of a report to the Senate Foreign Relations committee to justify further military action. It seems like there is more power in the Congressional branch of government these days & less in the executive branch.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/jenna-lifhits/will-congress-re-establish-oversight-over-the-presidents-use-of-force-abroad
|
I’ll believe it when I see it. Congress should have put a sunset clause on the post 9/11 force authorizion. But it was easier to just give up power to the executive branch.
|
On April 18 2018 08:21 Plansix wrote:
I’ll believe it when I see it. Congress should have put a sunset clause on the post 9/11 force authorizion. But it was easier to just give up power to the executive branch.
or just done their job and given it a more recent update. they've had plenty of time to do so.
congress needs to stop abdicating its responsibility; and voters need to stop encouraging that.
|
On April 18 2018 07:58 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2018 05:48 Emnjay808 wrote:Oh I guess there is no problem then, and Im arguing for nothing. That describes much of the world wide web, lol. I guess Congress is curtailing the use of force abroad by the executive department. The law that was passed in 2001 after 9/11 was for authorizing military force against terrorist entities abroad, but was over-used extensively to justify incursions in places as far as the Philippines, Niger, & Somalia. Now I guess the reach of that bill is being trimmed slightly to require the submission of a report to the Senate Foreign Relations committee to justify further military action. It seems like there is more power in the Congressional branch of government these days & less in the executive branch. https://www.weeklystandard.com/jenna-lifhits/will-congress-re-establish-oversight-over-the-presidents-use-of-force-abroad
Idk if you are aware, but this discussion about an updated AUMF has been going on for a VERY long time. Over a decade at this point, I think. Anyways, Congress has always chosen to do nothing every time someone brings up updating the 2001 AUMF, so I don't expect any actual change to happen now.
|
Pompeo nomination seems to be in trouble.
|
On April 18 2018 07:08 Simberto wrote:
I gotta say that it is pretty weird how dictatorial your democracy seems to be organized.
The US system isn't dictatorial, it's just built like a proper democracy; it works on cooperation. Lots of different systems are in place to keep things working... but they rely on good faith actors in those positions doing what the position requires.
Instead, the current climate has become so hyper partisan that the people in those positions won't use them unless it also benefits their party.
I hope the Democrats haven't been so affected that their next administration is the same way, whenever it eventually comes.
|
That’s great news. The guy is terrifyingly awful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
