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.
On June 15 2020 06:10 iamthedave wrote: I often find Conservatives - smart Conservatives since that's the question - are so because they're more data-focused people than 'emotional' focused people.
Left-leaning thought takes into account the lived experience of people (or tries to) and considers that a valid explanation for all kinds of data, and so concludes that making that lived experience better to some degree will aid with x y and z.
Right-leaning thought often looks at the hard data, says this is what IS, ergo we act based on that. If x % of black men are in prison for violent crimes compared to y % of the population, that says that it is only right and proper for the police to be harsher when dealing with those people because a much higher proportional % of them are criminals.
If you listen to talks by the more touted right-wing intellectuals, they spit out statistics like a machine gun. Jordan Peterson loves his statistics. You hear a little less of it on the left.
Right and left-wing at the more elevated level tends to be different kinds of intellectualism.
If data was a part of it, they would support strongly expanding food stamps across the board. Same with other net positive programs.
On June 15 2020 06:10 iamthedave wrote: I often find Conservatives - smart Conservatives since that's the question - are so because they're more data-focused people than 'emotional' focused people.
Left-leaning thought takes into account the lived experience of people (or tries to) and considers that a valid explanation for all kinds of data, and so concludes that making that lived experience better to some degree will aid with x y and z.
Right-leaning thought often looks at the hard data, says this is what IS, ergo we act based on that. If x % of black men are in prison for violent crimes compared to y % of the population, that says that it is only right and proper for the police to be harsher when dealing with those people because a much higher proportional % of them are criminals.
If you listen to talks by the more touted right-wing intellectuals, they spit out statistics like a machine gun. Jordan Peterson loves his statistics. You hear a little less of it on the left.
Right and left-wing at the more elevated level tends to be different kinds of intellectualism.
If data was a part of it, they would support strongly expanding food stamps across the board. Same with other net positive programs.
Well then you start getting into ethics. Conservatives don't like the government and generally feel anything run by the government is a bad idea. More intellectual conservatives especially don't like it. So expanding food stamps requires expanding the government, ergo...
The conclusion isn't certain. I'm sure lots of them are pro expansion and lots aren't.
As for politics... the Republican party is only dubiously conservative. As many people have pointed out many times, the party is massively hypocritical and often has no intention of pushing the things it whines about loudly. By that I mean the entity of the GOP is hard to pin down with a specific ideology because it acts in wildly inconsistent ways compared to the values it espouses.
There have been some studies that have found that conservatives tend to have a larger amygdala. The assumption based on THAT was that they likely have a more profound fear response. That's just the assumption, though.
The truth is that we don't know what makes someone more or less likely to be conservative or liberal, just some correlations.
There are also studies where conservatives have lower iq, etc. but they're generally tiny differences (like, within the margin of error of 1-2 iq points) or get disproven later. The differences between groups as far as performance tend to be fairly small.
Statistics can be (and generally are) cherry picked by either side.
You can also listen to 538, who drop more statistics than Shapiro because they're a stats site. Doesn't Peterson still claim he's not a conservative?
On June 15 2020 06:10 iamthedave wrote: I often find Conservatives - smart Conservatives since that's the question - are so because they're more data-focused people than 'emotional' focused people.
Left-leaning thought takes into account the lived experience of people (or tries to) and considers that a valid explanation for all kinds of data, and so concludes that making that lived experience better to some degree will aid with x y and z.
Right-leaning thought often looks at the hard data, says this is what IS, ergo we act based on that. If x % of black men are in prison for violent crimes compared to y % of the population, that says that it is only right and proper for the police to be harsher when dealing with those people because a much higher proportional % of them are criminals.
If you listen to talks by the more touted right-wing intellectuals, they spit out statistics like a machine gun. Jordan Peterson loves his statistics. You hear a little less of it on the left.
Right and left-wing at the more elevated level tends to be different kinds of intellectualism.
If data was a part of it, they would support strongly expanding food stamps across the board. Same with other net positive programs.
Well then you start getting into ethics. Conservatives don't like the government and generally feel anything run by the government is a bad idea. More intellectual conservatives especially don't like it. So expanding food stamps requires expanding the government, ergo...
The conclusion isn't certain. I'm sure lots of them are pro expansion and lots aren't.
As for politics... the Republican party is only dubiously conservative. As many people have pointed out many times, the party is massively hypocritical and often has no intention of pushing the things it whines about loudly. By that I mean the entity of the GOP is hard to pin down with a specific ideology because it acts in wildly inconsistent ways compared to the values it espouses.
So if it becomes an ethics issue, it wasn't a data issue to begin with. If someone says "Yes, I understand food stamps are a net positive to government revenue, but I don't like the idea of hand outs" it is explicitly dismissing the value of data in favor of ayn rand bullshit
I've always found it weird he's considered as a conservative, because, other than his weird views on "cultural marxism" with the big issues he has on post-modernism, he seems to be quite progressive on alot of fronts. Granted, his issues with the free speech bill might've been a weird hill to die on, but his concerns were legitimate, albeit perhaps a bit ignorant (since he's not proficient at legislation). Not that I know more about it, but his views on it seemed to make kind of sense to me. Also, he seems to attract alot of people from the alt right, especially young men who seem to be lost in this world, and has become some sort of father figure to them. There's a reason "12 rules for life" is such a big hit, it literally holds all those people with existential angst by the hands to tell them what to do to be at least a tad more happy and successful.
Someone else who fills kind of the same role, but is WAY less controversial is Simon Sinek, who laments the boomer generation for providing inadequate support for their children growing up in this rapidly changing, ruthless, instant-gratification, everybody gets a medal (participation is note worthy) culture.
On June 14 2020 05:34 Erasme wrote: At the same point, if you're willing to endure 4 more years of trump just to fuck with people like mohdoo, then more power to you. You'll reap what you sow. And people like me will continue on watching the US burn.
For the simple case that 4 more years of Trump is better for the country, and actually country unity, than the alternative of insulting Americans and then demanding their conformity. At least he’s not saying people hate him because they’ve also hate black people and don’t want women to vote. Trump can only dream to cause that kind of division.
You’ll notice there’s very little pushback from the left at Mohdoo’s depraved rants on social cons and how they’re dehumanizing blacks and disenfranchising women. So actually, if this is the alternative, Trump is clearly the better option. And for the rest, advance your political theory to account for people that disagree with you that aren’t also evil. It’s a fucked up political dialogue that makes Trump the more uniting option.
It's funny you say that. I don't see the left wanting to take away liberties from people. Barring that second amendment that is unique in the world and brings so many issues, including the population getting killed (you know ? children playing with plastic weapons getting shot at by cops, people reaching for their papers in their pockets AS ASKED and getting shot by cops, mass shootings in schools, etc).
Contrarily, I see conservatives wanting to restrict or deny others' rights. For example, getting a cake, attending a public service, having an abortion (agree about a cutoff date except in case of health risk though), after a rape or not, marrying, getting treated when ill, voting after serving a sentence, voting at all... How ? By allowing people to deny services to anyone they don't like, or just forbidding people to do things others have a right to. Freedom of religion and beliefs is conveniently used to deny other freedoms. What would stop me from creating a religion whose belief is that I cannot be in contact with straight white people, open a shop and refuse to serve them ? Nothing. (in fact there are already recognised "joke" religions made for the purpose of laughing about stupid laws, see Pastafarianism and their headgear) They are also usually very restrictive in their reading of the constitution. They are all for unborn life, but ONLY for citizens. The lives of foreigners, who fucking cares ?
The regulation of businesses that is so loathed by conservatives and libertarians are mostly because of those with money using that money to bend perceptions. Setting regulations so that the country or its inhabitants health is not destroyed (additives in food, sugar in drinks or food, addictive substances, fracking polluting drinking water), or just plainly swindling people (forbidding farmers to (re)use seeds or just use custom ones, planned obsolescence), is needed to protect the rights of people over those of companies.
You cannot say in good faith that Trump is better for country unity when literally all he does is designating other people/ethnic groups/immigrants/the libs! as scapegoats and hate targets. It's his whole life ! You also can't believe things would get better for country unity, even with Trump gone, if the Senate stays republican, as McConnell already said that he would not bring any law to a democratic president's desk. That's country unity for you ?
The liberals actually just want the right to live their little lives without actively denying things to others. But they rightfully complain when they are denied it. Is it so hard to understand ? Nobody would annoy religious people, or bar them from leading their lives. The right is usually talking about snowflakes, while having their feelings hurt because "omg I cannot for the life of me make a cake for a gay wedding !!". Only exception being maybe 2A for other reasons since it has an impact on other people's life.
You said it yourself. You don't see yourself taking away rights, except for second amendment rights. You see others taking away rights to buy a cake, I see the baker freely selling all cakes, just not custom made-to-order cake works of art in defiance of his freedom of religious conscience. You see taking away abortion rights of the mother, I see a second, smaller human whose rights shouldn't be so carelessly disregarded. If you offer a public service, maybe that shouldn't extend to an artist forced to accept commissions for neo-nazi works, pro-ISIS screeds, and the rest. In my opinion, that transgresses on the artist's liberties, and not so much the person soliciting a public service. But these things you've probably heard before if you've spent enough time in politics.
In my view, my liberty stops where others start. This is what it's like in my country, for anything happening outside of my home. So, when you decide to open a business that is catering to the public, you should be ready to serve everyone having *legal* views. You are deflecting when comparing with extremists, as neo-nazi and isis actively seek to discriminate against others for whatever reasons. I don't see gays discriminating against anyone or advocating for anyone dying or having less rights. They are only advocating for them to NOT be discriminated against.
Considering a baker as an artist is... questionable. They are artisans for sure. Would you argue that someone making a custom wooden door is also an artist ? That a mason/architect is an artist ? I am not going to go deeper on that topic since you got banned for it as you say later in the post. It's just that, for me, religious liberty as defined in the constitution is about "free exercice of a religion". Well, you are freely exercising any religion in this country, nobody is forbidding you in the privacy of your home to practice the religion you want, or to attend service, or even to wear attributes from your religion. To me, having religious freedom/beliefs extended to things like "no I can't hire a gay, it hurt my religious beliefs" or "no, I won't bake a cake" stems from YOUR decision to do something related to other communities, and thus, respecting them as well. I do not agree with this reading of the 1st amendment extended to vague beliefs on conscience. The same for mayors who refuse to hold gay weddings. By swearing to uphold the laws, or opening a business, or whatever, since X is legal, you took the decision to get out of your comfort zone and deal with other communities, so your freedoms gets restricted to cater for others' freedom. (and again, religious conscience is not in the 1st amendment, it talks about "the free exercise of".
For abortion, again, it's pretty rich to care about unborn life, but to not care about the life of citizens, the life of innocent foreigners that can be bombed alongside culprits, or just refugees (sending some back when you know there is a high chance they die ? Gross, but that's what happens with blanket bans.). I hate hypocrisy. I care about all life. (let's not even start about "all lives matter", it's a fake slogan from people afraid of... i don't even know what.) It's also pretty rich to force a woman to live with a baby she had after a rape, etc etc. It is a very complicated issue, and hard in any case, so there is a stance to take. I took mine after examining my conscience : I am pro-abortion as long as the baby is not viable (around 22 weeks, a bit less than 4 months), or with exceptions and counseling, maybe a bit later in specific cases (woman not aware she was pregnant, rape, health issues, stuff like that).
Both extreme sides of the argument : aborting just before birth (who's for that ? 0.1% of the population? It's fear mongering from the right), and against abortion at all (especially for religious reasons), I abhor. Nothing stops you from doing what YOU want, but don't force it on others without even looking at their situation.
I ask you, Nouar, if you have developed opinions on anything socially related. Ok, now I'm going to say if you know of people with slightly different opinions than you, that you also afford being good people. Alright, now you and them think black people are less than human. You're in that rich tradition. Alright, you also wish women couldn't vote. I didn't ask whether or not you think it's valid, but nonetheless it's true about you. You want to accept that about yourself? Can you tell me, yes, I and my buds are ideological descendents of the dehumanization of blacks and disenfranchisement of women? Maybe you even get a little angry at those accusations, eh?
I was born in a medium-range (white) family, in one of the countries with the best standard of living in the world. In this, I am fortunate. My parents were moderately religious, it started up being forced on me when I was a child, but there was no issue with me leaving religion after having thought about it, and living with my own set of values emanated from my experiences, in France or abroad. I am aware of the horrific things France has done in its past, from slavery to colonialism to dirty wars, to hard or soft influence abroad still happening. However I am pretty happy with what we are doing currently. It's mostly tame and helpful, for good reasons and based on defense agreements and help requests.
I have indeed developed opinions on what social issues I encountered, but I can't pretend knowing everything. However, the first thing I do is putting myself in others' shoes. And a good deal of my family (especially the ones from my mom's first wedding -which in itself was a very complicated topic for her since religion forbade divorcing even if your husband was hurting you. He ended up suiciding a few years after she finally left, and also forbade remarrying even as a widow. It took 30years for her to get closure on that topic after meeting an understanding priest-) are deeply religious and conservatives. So I know exactly what and how they think. I still think some of their beliefs are egotistic, hypocritical and racist. Even coming from there. And it is impossible to even start talking about this with them.
I did accept that about myself, and I am at least listening to the experiences of various parts of the population (black, metis, gays, activists, born in france, abroad, or just foreigners from everywhere, Africa, Maghreb, Asia... sikhs, muslims, catholics, buddhists, I don't care). Most of them deserve better. Extremists from all sides can go to hell.
I could see around 20% of the population holding these beliefs, but I am utterly disgusted when 45+% of the voting population can internally cope with voting for a guy that is against all their beliefs, just for purely technical reasons (we'll get judges, no abortion, and no immigrants whoohoooo). Hypocrisy and opportunism.
It costs you, personnally, NOTHING, to allow women abortions, or to allow two men to marry, or to allow a fit transgender from entering the army. So why not ? Why refuse it to others ? (2ndA can cost other people life for example, so another matter entirely. Recreational cannabis though, as long as you can't drive under influence, can it affect you ? No. So why not ?)
That's one aspect of Trump. I picked out those things from Mohdoo's post for criticism, and you didn't even mention them. You never brought them up. You see, when you ignore all the bad things about Trump-alternatives, he looks worse than reality.
I didn't mention them because Mohdoo's recent extremist views are NOT what you're up against ni this election. All progressives and slightly extreme candidates lost their primary, and Biden is the candidate. Biden, the centrist, who clearly declared several times that he was willing to work with republicans. This is why I didn't react on that, since you're simply overreacting.
The left is not monolithic, it's reflecting a very broad range of people and sensitivities, and that is usually its problem. It's the same in France : a crazy like Melenchon, or an insidiously dangerous lady like Le Pen, would never get 45+% of the vote. The american left behaves the same. However, I am appaled of the right this time, since even after his behaviour has been exposed (it was known for a long time...), the level of support is still mostly the same for Trump, even when traditional values of the republican party are reversed ? And I am disgusted by people like Cruz or Graham after their 180°.
I'm not at this moment accusing you of deliberately turning a blind eye, just that you demonstrate less empathy towards the messages directed at people unlike you and who have worldviews much different than yours. So, when you patently refuse to look at both sides, you're empowered to call Trump disuniting and saying hurtful things about foreigners or the rest. What's so hard to understand at looking at both sides of that statement? Here we have Trump sending stupid tweets at a man that was pushed over by police, or taking 5+ days to release a statement regarding George Floyd & protests while doing a stupid press op ... and here we have a nice progressive ranting about how social conservatives believe bad things about black people, women, gays, what-have-you. So are you going to accept his religion's statement of original sin? I argue that's an obvious worse alternative ... Trump for all his flaws won't dig into your heart and pronounce you guilty of sin throughout history.
I am looking at both sides, and as I said before, I see one side wanting the same rights, and the other denying them, sometimes with loopholes. If you were the one discriminated against for your birth, how would you feel ? Would you not fight for your freedom ? You're not guilty of sin throughout history, since during that history, you FOUGHT for that freedom, that independance, and your beloved constitution. However you (not you personnally, I mean currently the Republicans) embody the ones denying rights to others, fighting so that others are restricted. I am not proud of the dark side of French history. I do not, cannot complain when it is shoved in my face. However it is not all my responsibility to repair everything that has been done. However I can help fix some things, by understanding the other, and not dissing him in the gutter.
What is currently being said about social conservatives, from my point of view, from what I observe, is something that has been earned. Actively, *currently* denying others their liberty means that I should be held to account on these points.
So the proof is out there to look into the alternatives and wonder what kind of shitty ideology requires attacking people for the evil in their hearts before asking them to reject Trump and go to the other side. Kinda disunifying to go out there like that, and argue history shows your cultural opinions are shit and stem from a shitty tradition known for shitty things.
Maybe it wouldn't have gotten to that point if requests were answered politely and legally, not by stealthily maneuvering to let the least amount of people vote for example, or passing laws circumventing RoevWade and trying to close abortion centers, etc. I see no one trying to close churchs or forcing people to get abortions ? (If it was up to me, I would severely watch televangelists though, a nice bunch of swindlers. But hey, there's probably a right to get swindled in the constitution :-D)
But no, everytime, a fight was needed to achieve something due to the skewed power balance. Sorry that they also have feelings, dozens of years of being denied tend to do that to people. Now they are saying mean things. Unforgivable ! They should continue to ask nicely so that you vote for them (did it happen before ? No... It wouldn't this time either... would it ? Have you seen it anywhere in the polls these past 3 years? No, wouldn't happen.)
Later, maybe you'll have the first atom of a thought to why Trump is losing in the polls but not fully out of the race yet.
He's not out of the race because of the electoral college. He lost the popular vote, like Bush did. There is already a higher threshold to reach for democrats to get a president, and you wonder why these people feel disenfranchised ? Again, you should put yourself in their shoes as well as yours. And the Senate... Ahahahah.
Do also remember that the slaves took no part in the establishment of the constitution, so they live with rules that they took no part in deciding, and that are designed against them (indicentally or not, it's another question).
For you to complain about getting the finger pointed at you is also pretty rich. Look at these people, and why they are doing it. They represent a majority that cannot get a say ! You represent the minority that is firmly grabbing the power.
Let me take one well-known example : There are currently, out of 9 justices, FOUR of them appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. And one of them should have been appointed by another president, but the Senate decided otherwise, again skewing the rules. You cannot at the same time tell these people that they should not be feeling bad, and believe in the justice system, when the justice system is not appointed by the majority...There IS a huge discrepancy there. And you expect them to just take it and shut up, when they are not listened to in their own country ? Yeah, maybe for a few years, but after decades ? centuries ?
And you won't have to call 60 million Americans racist for voting for him, or be mystified for why he isn't obviously the worse choice. I'm saying this in good faith: The non-Trump has a wing that has to insult people unlike them to make themselves feel better about opposing them, both in unity and in leadership.
That wing is not going to be into power, the candidates from those lost in the primary. Irrelevant. However, Trump is happily representing and catering to the worst part of the republican electorate.
And people that can't bring themselves to encounter the kind of people that argue like Mohdoo, and examine it faithfully, deserve to be uninformed about this political moment and translate their ignorance into grandiose declarations on denying rights. And Mohdoo doesn't receive a lot of pushback from the left for having to paint the "other" as some kind of moral jackal to oppose them.
I am not supporting any revolution, nor what Mohdoo is becoming these days. My policy is getting everyone involved and working together to achieve something. However I can understand when one side has been asking for equality for years and keeps being forcefully denied. So I am more sympathetic to that side, yes. The Obama presidency wasn't even very left-wing...
Yes, yes, you have some opinions on who isn't allowed to live their little lives as bakers, or artists, or preachers, so it's actually your choice as to what "little lives" the state allows to be lived. You pick and choose, and I'm afraid the Little Sisters of the Poor are back in court about their rights, after first being forced to sue for them in the Obama era. Sorry that their rights weren't part of "the right to live their little lives" but too far towards "actively denying things to others."
I had a quick look at that, and while I find normal that every health insurance plan should provide something that is legal to get, I don't understand how the little sisters were impacted ? Were they acting as health insurance ? Or is it about their workers in the homes they manage ? I can't understand how they would act as health insurance, and if they act as employers and are using a third-party to provide the health insurance coverage, well I definitely think they should allow their employees everything legal, despite their own beliefs, and not force those beliefs unto their employees. Having existing exemptions under the grandfather rule for a lot of corporations looks bullshit though. I find the resolution satisfactory, though it's yet another level in the administrative "mille-feuilles".
That's the troublesome things about rights; they frequently intersect other ones, and you're actively denying rights to some because you don't like the way they intersect with others. Sometimes that's even denying the freedom to have a vote about the issue that's intractable, like judges are better able to settle societal questions than elected representatives!
I'd have no issue with elected representatives if they were actually representative ? What do you feel about McConnell that said he wouldn't bring any legislation to a dutifully elected democrat president ? Would you still vote for him if it was in your state ? That's actively denying the freedom to have a vote.
All this ends with complex interactions. I'm very happy with my defense of rights and liberties for all, and go on--buy the cake in the window or go to the baker down the street, that's freedom too--including times when everyone can't just have it the way they want it. (Note: I was banned from this thread for ~4 months for arguing forcefully in favor of the Colorado baker's religious liberty in custom designed cakes (florists too), so I will not continue in that mode given past adjudication of subjective bans. The moderators are free to elaborate if anything has changed in this regards, to open it up again)
What about a pharmacist denying morning-after pills ? Or doctors refusing to treat transgenders, or the mayor refusing to marry gays ? If the baker has that freedom, should they have it too ? (well, "art".........) Ok let's avoid talking about due to what happened previously.
"My liberty stops where others' start". That's my way. Or we can't live together. And on that topic, it is impossible to say Trump can bring people together more than Biden, since in his mind, the decisive factor to push or diss someone is himself. He does not hold these beliefs you do, it's only opportunistic since he is completely amoral and devoid of shame or repentance, and won't ever be able to bridge people together.
On June 15 2020 06:54 Uldridge wrote: I've always found it weird he's considered as a conservative, because, other than his weird views on "cultural marxism" with the big issues he has on post-modernism, he seems to be quite progressive on alot of fronts. Granted, his issues with the free speech bill might've been a weird hill to die on, but his concerns were legitimate, albeit perhaps a bit ignorant (since he's not proficient at legislation). Not that I know more about it, but his views on it seemed to make kind of sense to me. Also, he seems to attract alot of people from the alt right, especially young men who seem to be lost in this world, and has become some sort of father figure to them. There's a reason "12 rules for life" is such a big hit, it literally holds all those people with existential angst by the hands to tell them what to do to be at least a tad more happy and successful.
Someone else who fills kind of the same role, but is WAY less controversial is Simon Sinek, who laments the boomer generation for providing inadequate support for their children growing up in this rapidly changing, ruthless, instant-gratification, everybody gets a medal (participation is note worthy) culture.
Peterson is problematic as a phenomenon. Not necessarily him as a person, but how he became a sort of lightning rod for malcontents whose sole unifying thing is ‘hating SJWs’ or whatever one wants to call them.
The circulation of ideas is really distorted in this digital age. Hyperbole is king, so we end up with this weird situation where Peterson is a useful therapist for all these disaffected young men, because he was made a symbol of completely unrealistic fears about the left taking over all these spaces.
I’m quite familiar with Peterson, much more so than many of his fans who only seem to be concerned with talking about communism taking over or whatever. He’s definitely a conservative on a lot, and also calls himself one (although self-defined labels can be woefully inaccurate).
In a rather roundabout way, for whatever reason it seems the only thing to mobilise these disparate disaffected young men is the presence of some external force, be it a real foe or extremely exaggerated, be it feminism or some other boogeyman.
It’s a pity because I feel those voices do need some outlets and having their issues addressed, but it only comes to the forefront with this kind of antagonistic mindset.
Peterson's rise in popularity is more of a symptom of our times than him actually being Earth-shatteringly insightful. He is very articulate in telling people how they can feel better about their lives though, and I'm not saying it's necessarily bad what he's selling (clean up your room!)
On June 15 2020 05:43 Nevuk wrote: He also tried to auction off the gun he used (I think he may have eventually found a private seller after ebay kept banning the sale). Zimmerman is just a piece of shit. I do agree with Danglars that it doesn't really have much to do with him, other than some of the mudslinging that got thrown around during the trial between the parties about Martin.
He may not have technically violated the law to a degree a jury would find guilty due to the stand your ground law, but the law that let him do that is heinous, and should be either totally repealed or heavily amended.
It reminds me of qualified immunity, which is why cops get off even in instances where morality screams they shouldn't. There's a lot of movement on that topic :
The house has introduced a bill to kill it sponsored by Amash and Pressley (Libertarian fmr GOP and Progressive).
Judges also appear to be banding together to limit use of Qualified Immunity. There are at least 3 high profile cases where judges have overturned it recently.
The biggest was one that preceded the Michael Brown shooting. 5 WV cops shot an already handcuffed and four-times tased black man 22 times. He had a knife, but it wasn't in his hand (officers thought it was). He didn't verbally respond to commands to drop the knife.
Court of Appeals Obama/Bush appointee overturned all the lower courts, on this set of grounds :
[...]we previously held that a jury could find that the officers violated Jones’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force[...]
[...] although armed, was incapacitated at the time he was shot. Because it was clearly established that officers may not shoot a secured or incapacitated person, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. [...] we reverse the grant of summary judgment to the officers on qualified immunity grounds, as a reasonable jury could find that Jones was both secured and incapacitated in the final moments before his death. [...] Before the ink dried on this opinion, the FBI opened an investigation into yet another death of a black man at the hands of police, this time George Floyd in Minneapolis. This has to stop. To award qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage in this case would signal absolute immunity for fear-based use of deadly force, which we cannot accept. The district court’s grant of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is reversed, and the dismissal of that claim is hereby vacated.
I saw this too, and can't remember if I linked it in this thread. Qualified immunity is too broad, and is ripe for legislative and judicial reform (judicial because the original argument from the constitution is extremely suspect).
There are currently eight qualified immunity cases now pending before the Supreme Court. The facts of the cases are varied. They range from the shooting of a 10-year-old boy when police pursued an unarmed suspect into a yard where children were playing, to the apparently needless destruction of a house with tear gas grenades when police were given the house keys to look for a suspect after the homeowner had told police the suspect was not there, to other cases involving deaths and profound injuries stemming from police misconduct.
On June 15 2020 07:41 Uldridge wrote: Peterson's rise in popularity is more of a symptom of our times than him actually being Earth-shatteringly insightful. He is very articulate in telling people how they can feel better about their lives though, and I'm not saying it's necessarily bad what he's selling (clean up your room!)
Oh the message isn’t, I’m merely saying why is the guy saying nothing new ending up with such a platform?
In a wider sense it seems the conservative-minded seem to need some external force to rail against before looking at already existing problems.
The net result isn’t always bad, I’m sure many people have benefitted from 12 Rules, but why can’t that occur in a vacuum?
So rather than look at these issues in isolation, independent of other concerns it seems to only get the lens when feminism/Marxism or whatever boogeyman is on the table.
I do actually agree that we have a generation of aimless, disenchanted young men, but their plight seems somewhat ignored unless it’s framed as something being ignored or facilitated by feminism or whatever
On June 15 2020 07:41 Uldridge wrote: Peterson's rise in popularity is more of a symptom of our times than him actually being Earth-shatteringly insightful. He is very articulate in telling people how they can feel better about their lives though, and I'm not saying it's necessarily bad what he's selling (clean up your room!)
Oh the message isn’t, I’m merely saying why is the guy saying nothing new ending up with such a platform?
In a wider sense it seems the conservative-minded seem to need some external force to rail against before looking at already existing problems.
The net result isn’t always bad, I’m sure many people have benefitted from 12 Rules, but why can’t that occur in a vacuum?
So rather than look at these issues in isolation, independent of other concerns it seems to only get the lens when feminism/Marxism or whatever boogeyman is on the table.
I do actually agree that we have a generation of aimless, disenchanted young men, but their plight seems somewhat ignored unless it’s framed as something being ignored or facilitated by feminism or whatever
Peterson's rise is a case of right place right time. He was a reasonable voice speaking out against something some sections of the right perceived as a major issue (trans identity, and rightly or wrongly pegging JP as someone speaking against it) at a time when there kind of weren't any new faces in that slot. Shapiro's star fell after he actually showed some principles and continued to hate Trump, Milo Yiannopolis basically sunk his boat by being so 'edgy' that he got banned from every platform he could use to be noticed, and all the other faces were long standing media figures.
JP nicely fit the slot of a new rightwing thinker who - as a side benefit - is actually quite intelligent and well spoken. He then used his sudden platform to make a go of it and pushed his ideas on an audience eager to hear more from him.
On June 15 2020 07:41 Uldridge wrote: Peterson's rise in popularity is more of a symptom of our times than him actually being Earth-shatteringly insightful. He is very articulate in telling people how they can feel better about their lives though, and I'm not saying it's necessarily bad what he's selling (clean up your room!)
Oh the message isn’t, I’m merely saying why is the guy saying nothing new ending up with such a platform?
In a wider sense it seems the conservative-minded seem to need some external force to rail against before looking at already existing problems.
The net result isn’t always bad, I’m sure many people have benefitted from 12 Rules, but why can’t that occur in a vacuum?
So rather than look at these issues in isolation, independent of other concerns it seems to only get the lens when feminism/Marxism or whatever boogeyman is on the table.
I do actually agree that we have a generation of aimless, disenchanted young men, but their plight seems somewhat ignored unless it’s framed as something being ignored or facilitated by feminism or whatever
Peterson's rise is a case of right place right time. He was a reasonable voice speaking out against something some sections of the right perceived as a major issue (trans identity, and rightly or wrongly pegging JP as someone speaking against it) at a time when there kind of weren't any new faces in that slot. Shapiro's star fell after he actually showed some principles and continued to hate Trump, Milo Yiannopolis basically sunk his boat by being so 'edgy' that he got banned from every platform he could use to be noticed, and all the other faces were long standing media figures.
JP nicely fit the slot of a new rightwing thinker who - as a side benefit - is actually quite intelligent and well spoken. He then used his sudden platform to make a go of it and pushed his ideas on an audience eager to hear more from him.
I think that's a good way to describe JP. He's certainly articulate and knowledgeable about many things surrounding his profession, although when he overreaches and challenges other intellectuals on topics he's not well-versed in, he appropriately gets beaten up pretty badly for devolving into word salad, giving non-answers, and asserting straight-up falsehoods.
One of my favorite examples of this is Jordan Peterson digging his own grave against Matt Dillahunty, over and over again. JP is particularly atrocious when it comes to anything related to religion (outside of anthropological impact), the supernatural, and propositional logic, and we see him make a whole bunch of ridiculous remarks in the discussion below:
1. JP claims that you can verify the supernatural by taking drugs, and is then corrected by MD that *describing* something as supernatural doesn't mean you've actually *experienced* the supernatural (then JP doubles down on his conflation)... starting at 13:40;
2. JP claims that you *cannot* stop smoking without supernatural/mystical intervention (despite us obviously having various natural ways that people have stopped smoking in the past), and then kind of walks it back by saying there does exist one natural solution "but it doesn't work very well"... at 15:00;
3. MD says that he attempts to view everything through propositional reasoning, JP responds with "that's a problem ... you can't reduce the world to a set of propositions", MD counters with "show me something that is true in the world that is not a proposition", and then JP says "That's easy" and just never gives an example... at 40:45;
4. JP asserts that we would lose "art and poetry and drama and narrative and story" if we got rid of religion at 41:30, and then he starts to really stumble into a hugely offensive and condescending No True Scotsman fallacy, that any atheist who can create or appreciate art and poetry only *thinks* they're an atheist and isn't *actually* an atheist... which then devolves further into literally telling MD that MD acts like a theist (and not an atheist) when he makes certain good decisions (like not throwing Sam Harris off the stage). Then MD starts to describe a completely secular moral system (particularly secular humanism) and they go down a rabbit hole of "well-being" and "chopping off heads" and "skepticism", with JP interrupting MD every ten seconds and committing the same strawmanning issues that he became famous for beating (when his interviewers would say "So you're saying X?"). MD finishes shutting down JP's criticisms about these things and rule-based systems with an analogy about chess supercomputers, before moving on to Q&A at around 1:03:30.
5. Despite giving wishy-washy answers for many years about his own personal religious beliefs, at 1:05:00, JP is asked a question, and his answer makes it clear that he's not a theist (so therefore, not a Christian). That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's something he's been purposely evasive of for a long time. The question was "Do you think that if all humanity had ceased to exist, that God still exist?" Instead of replying with a Yes (as a theist would) or a No (as others would), JP gives his usual equivocation a la word salad.
6. At 1:12:35, JP just randomly throws out an unsubstantiated statement that sounds like it's so much deeper than it really is (again, classic JP): "We ride on the shoulders of giants, and the meta-giant is God".
7. At 1:14:55, JP really starts to get under MD's skin when JP mistakes the Communist Soviet Union for a secular humanist country. He's shut down promptly.
8. At 1:27:55, we see a revisiting of JP's patronizing and incorrect dismissal of atheists and their lack of morality, and then MD responds with the appropriate calling out of JP's fallacies.
9. At 1:39:35, JP brings up the psychedelics/mysticism again, and MD completes the knock-out with an anecdote about Super Strawberry.
On June 14 2020 05:34 Erasme wrote: At the same point, if you're willing to endure 4 more years of trump just to fuck with people like mohdoo, then more power to you. You'll reap what you sow. And people like me will continue on watching the US burn.
For the simple case that 4 more years of Trump is better for the country, and actually country unity, than the alternative of insulting Americans and then demanding their conformity. At least he’s not saying people hate him because they’ve also hate black people and don’t want women to vote. Trump can only dream to cause that kind of division.
You’ll notice there’s very little pushback from the left at Mohdoo’s depraved rants on social cons and how they’re dehumanizing blacks and disenfranchising women. So actually, if this is the alternative, Trump is clearly the better option. And for the rest, advance your political theory to account for people that disagree with you that aren’t also evil. It’s a fucked up political dialogue that makes Trump the more uniting option.
It's funny you say that. I don't see the left wanting to take away liberties from people. Barring that second amendment that is unique in the world and brings so many issues, including the population getting killed (you know ? children playing with plastic weapons getting shot at by cops, people reaching for their papers in their pockets AS ASKED and getting shot by cops, mass shootings in schools, etc).
Contrarily, I see conservatives wanting to restrict or deny others' rights. For example, getting a cake, attending a public service, having an abortion (agree about a cutoff date except in case of health risk though), after a rape or not, marrying, getting treated when ill, voting after serving a sentence, voting at all... How ? By allowing people to deny services to anyone they don't like, or just forbidding people to do things others have a right to. Freedom of religion and beliefs is conveniently used to deny other freedoms. What would stop me from creating a religion whose belief is that I cannot be in contact with straight white people, open a shop and refuse to serve them ? Nothing. (in fact there are already recognised "joke" religions made for the purpose of laughing about stupid laws, see Pastafarianism and their headgear) They are also usually very restrictive in their reading of the constitution. They are all for unborn life, but ONLY for citizens. The lives of foreigners, who fucking cares ?
The regulation of businesses that is so loathed by conservatives and libertarians are mostly because of those with money using that money to bend perceptions. Setting regulations so that the country or its inhabitants health is not destroyed (additives in food, sugar in drinks or food, addictive substances, fracking polluting drinking water), or just plainly swindling people (forbidding farmers to (re)use seeds or just use custom ones, planned obsolescence), is needed to protect the rights of people over those of companies.
You cannot say in good faith that Trump is better for country unity when literally all he does is designating other people/ethnic groups/immigrants/the libs! as scapegoats and hate targets. It's his whole life ! You also can't believe things would get better for country unity, even with Trump gone, if the Senate stays republican, as McConnell already said that he would not bring any law to a democratic president's desk. That's country unity for you ?
The liberals actually just want the right to live their little lives without actively denying things to others. But they rightfully complain when they are denied it. Is it so hard to understand ? Nobody would annoy religious people, or bar them from leading their lives. The right is usually talking about snowflakes, while having their feelings hurt because "omg I cannot for the life of me make a cake for a gay wedding !!". Only exception being maybe 2A for other reasons since it has an impact on other people's life.
You said it yourself. You don't see yourself taking away rights, except for second amendment rights. You see others taking away rights to buy a cake, I see the baker freely selling all cakes, just not custom made-to-order cake works of art in defiance of his freedom of religious conscience. You see taking away abortion rights of the mother, I see a second, smaller human whose rights shouldn't be so carelessly disregarded. If you offer a public service, maybe that shouldn't extend to an artist forced to accept commissions for neo-nazi works, pro-ISIS screeds, and the rest. In my opinion, that transgresses on the artist's liberties, and not so much the person soliciting a public service. But these things you've probably heard before if you've spent enough time in politics.
In my view, my liberty stops where others start. This is what it's like in my country, for anything happening outside of my home. So, when you decide to open a business that is catering to the public, you should be ready to serve everyone having *legal* views. You are deflecting when comparing with extremists, as neo-nazi and isis actively seek to discriminate against others for whatever reasons. I don't see gays discriminating against anyone or advocating for anyone dying or having less rights. They are only advocating for them to NOT be discriminated against.
Considering a baker as an artist is... questionable. They are artisans for sure. Would you argue that someone making a custom wooden door is also an artist ? That a mason/architect is an artist ? I am not going to go deeper on that topic since you got banned for it as you say later in the post. It's just that, for me, religious liberty as defined in the constitution is about "free exercice of a religion". Well, you are freely exercising any religion in this country, nobody is forbidding you in the privacy of your home to practice the religion you want, or to attend service, or even to wear attributes from your religion. To me, having religious freedom/beliefs extended to things like "no I can't hire a gay, it hurt my religious beliefs" or "no, I won't bake a cake" stems from YOUR decision to do something related to other communities, and thus, respecting them as well. I do not agree with this reading of the 1st amendment extended to vague beliefs on conscience. The same for mayors who refuse to hold gay weddings. By swearing to uphold the laws, or opening a business, or whatever, since X is legal, you took the decision to get out of your comfort zone and deal with other communities, so your freedoms gets restricted to cater for others' freedom. (and again, religious conscience is not in the 1st amendment, it talks about "the free exercise of".
For abortion, again, it's pretty rich to care about unborn life, but to not care about the life of citizens, the life of innocent foreigners that can be bombed alongside culprits, or just refugees (sending some back when you know there is a high chance they die ? Gross, but that's what happens with blanket bans.). I hate hypocrisy. I care about all life. (let's not even start about "all lives matter", it's a fake slogan from people afraid of... i don't even know what.) It's also pretty rich to force a woman to live with a baby she had after a rape, etc etc. It is a very complicated issue, and hard in any case, so there is a stance to take. I took mine after examining my conscience : I am pro-abortion as long as the baby is not viable (around 22 weeks, a bit less than 4 months), or with exceptions and counseling, maybe a bit later in specific cases (woman not aware she was pregnant, rape, health issues, stuff like that).
Both extreme sides of the argument : aborting just before birth (who's for that ? 0.1% of the population? It's fear mongering from the right), and against abortion at all (especially for religious reasons), I abhor. Nothing stops you from doing what YOU want, but don't force it on others without even looking at their situation.
I just can't abide your separations. You have individual liberties that don't get abandoned if you want to be faithful to them going into a business. I'm speaking broadly, because you can't say your religion means you can't serve black people or women, and that one is long-established. If you're using anything of artistic creativity, you have your own religious conscience as your guide. If you custom make cakes, you can refuse to bake an islamophobic cake, or one saying insulting things about your mother, or one declaring that blacks were less than human. You can't refuse to sell the cupcake in the window to someone based on their race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, but you have much greater control over the custom artistic works.
I think it's antithetical to any conception of liberty to require some commissioned mural artist to be forced to accept any commission, no matter the content, just based on some naive assumption that public services apply regardless. You have a say in the works of your hands if it's fundamentally expressive. A sandwich artist might consider their work extremely expressive, but it's a sandwich. An artist shouldn't be forced to create a work showing beastiality, Bill Clinton naked except for a cigar, or two girls one cup. If they're Muslim and feel a creation showing the prophet Muhammed is religiously unconscionable, then refuse the commission with my blessing on your religious liberty.
I find a very big red line between refusing to serve gay people, and refusing to bake a cake with the colors of the rainbow, these figurines on top, these color icings, and this mix of flavors. If you make and sell rainbow cakes, you can't refuse that product to anybody with the money to buy it. If you're a custom cake creator that dialogues on exactly what the purchaser wants and any text or pictures, you have the right to say what violates your religious/non religious beliefs.
As regards hiring decisions, you have basically no religious freedom rights to choose your hire. Employment is a big red line if you're not overtly a church or religious bookstore. Forcing the Mormon press to hire Muslims. Basically, all the weighing of rights favor the prospective employee.
As regards abortion, we have to confront the fact that more black babies are killed than born in New York City as of 2016. The raw numbers of hundreds of thousands indicate more of a choice towards abortions of convenience than rape, increasingly suggesting that the rights of the unborn human are being too callously disregarded. Give the baby up for adoption past the point of viability, with ample support from the State should private help prove inadequate. At the moment, prospective adoptive parents wait ages to adopt, and face all kinds of legal and financial struggles to accomplish it. This is unacceptable, given the murder rate of viable babies.
I really wish America had a more European view of when abortion was only allowed in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. The fact is that they don't. State laws vary, but abortion well past when most European nations would consider it illegal is allowed. It isn't some Republican invention; Republicans did not tell Virginia's Democratic governor to say regarding a proposed legislation "So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother." Not some invention of Trump or rabid Republicans, but an actual debated point, and one that prompted justified backlash.
Several states permit abortion up to the moment of the baby's birth. The Republican efforts to enact a "born-alive" bill, where the baby is delivered viably and some decision must be made if a living baby outside the mother's body is rendered aid, failed. I don't really care what your political views are, but a delivered, living baby should be afforded protections in law, and the failure to enact these is a judgement on common-sense protections for babies. Late-term abortions should be more than rare, they should be designed to deliver a living baby to loving adoptive parents, with full legal protection to the mother giving the baby up. The failure to even enact born-alive legislation is a severe judgement on the extremism of the Democratic party.
None of the aforementioned should be construed to mean that your personal opposition towards late-term abortions is not registered. It's just your comprehension on it's legal protections in the United States. I'd like to see it banned except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother, but such things are not to be in many states. The baby deserves his or her rights should he/she be able to be delivered viable at that point in time. The mother should be protected from responsibility for the baby should she not choose to take and raise it. That's easy morality. The rate at which these babies are murdered instead of adopted out is a stain on Western Civ, but particularly the US. The baby is a patient in a procedure, not the target of the procedure, like some tumor. Aim to deliver him or her healthy, like in the case of medically difficult pregnancies.
I ask you, Nouar, if you have developed opinions on anything socially related. Ok, now I'm going to say if you know of people with slightly different opinions than you, that you also afford being good people. Alright, now you and them think black people are less than human. You're in that rich tradition. Alright, you also wish women couldn't vote. I didn't ask whether or not you think it's valid, but nonetheless it's true about you. You want to accept that about yourself? Can you tell me, yes, I and my buds are ideological descendents of the dehumanization of blacks and disenfranchisement of women? Maybe you even get a little angry at those accusations, eh?
I was born in a medium-range (white) family, in one of the countries with the best standard of living in the world. In this, I am fortunate. My parents were moderately religious, it started up being forced on me when I was a child, but there was no issue with me leaving religion after having thought about it, and living with my own set of values emanated from my experiences, in France or abroad. I am aware of the horrific things France has done in its past, from slavery to colonialism to dirty wars, to hard or soft influence abroad still happening. However I am pretty happy with what we are doing currently. It's mostly tame and helpful, for good reasons and based on defense agreements and help requests.
I have indeed developed opinions on what social issues I encountered, but I can't pretend knowing everything. However, the first thing I do is putting myself in others' shoes. And a good deal of my family (especially the ones from my mom's first wedding -which in itself was a very complicated topic for her since religion forbade divorcing even if your husband was hurting you. He ended up suiciding a few years after she finally left, and also forbade remarrying even as a widow. It took 30years for her to get closure on that topic after meeting an understanding priest-) are deeply religious and conservatives. So I know exactly what and how they think. I still think some of their beliefs are egotistic, hypocritical and racist. Even coming from there. And it is impossible to even start talking about this with them.
I did accept that about myself, and I am at least listening to the experiences of various parts of the population (black, metis, gays, activists, born in france, abroad, or just foreigners from everywhere, Africa, Maghreb, Asia... sikhs, muslims, catholics, buddhists, I don't care). Most of them deserve better. Extremists from all sides can go to hell.
I could see around 20% of the population holding these beliefs, but I am utterly disgusted when 45+% of the voting population can internally cope with voting for a guy that is against all their beliefs, just for purely technical reasons (we'll get judges, no abortion, and no immigrants whoohoooo). Hypocrisy and opportunism.
It costs you, personnally, NOTHING, to allow women abortions, or to allow two men to marry, or to allow a fit transgender from entering the army. So why not ? Why refuse it to others ?
2ndA can cost other people life for example, so another matter entirely. Recreational cannabis though, as long as you can't drive under influence, can it affect you ? No. So why not ?)
This was more aimed at seeing your reaction to a third party laying on you the personal guilt for historical injustice. Mohdoo's views are regrettably extreme, but they bring up Democratic party very vocal ideologies. It's whether or not you, having thrust aside religious practices and traditions, lay back upon yourself the mantle of responsibility for injustice. I'm of the opinion that you aren't responsible for dehumanizing blacks or disenfranchisement of women just because your social views are maybe conservative relative to today's times.
You and I, in my view, have the right to say to some quasi-religious zealot "Screw you if you want to tie current social perspectives to past racist denial of rights, sexist denial of rights, or the rest." You can say French extension of rights, protections, and responsibilities are sufficient or woefully lacking without accepting the responsibility for past injustice. Their context in present day does not imply complicity in days of the past. Conserving current policy is viewed in context of current policy, not ideological through-lines tracing back to the 1960s and prior.
I put the question to you in hopes of eliciting a response regarding your reaction for personal identification and responsibility for the past, though I see a response to a different question. Though I'm not totally satisfied, I see enough to move on that mode.
When your mom or dad came of age, they do have the choice, in my view, to leave the religious customs and choose divorce and remarriage on their own. Whether or not the community views that as acceptable is dependent on their prejudices, and not state intervention. I'm very pessimistic about state interventions to force "black, metis, gays, activists, born in france, abroad, or just foreigners from everywhere, Africa, Maghreb, Asia... sikhs, muslims, catholics, buddhists" to change their approval/disapproval on these topics. The state only has a duty to provide a secular education and plenty of protections for those wishing to leave their inherited customs freely.
Regarding what it costs me, personally, in matters not personally concerning me: I am concerned in injustice perpetrated against my fellow citizens. George Floyd is not of my race or family, and the Minneapolis Police Department is not a police force that has any authority over me, but I still stand against the injustice committed against him by officers in that police department. The same applies to abortion: viable babies aborted in states allowing abortions past the point of viability (constantly decreasing as medical technology advances) likewise should be treated as patients in an emergency delivery procedure and given up to be raised by the masses of waiting parents, hopeful to have a child of their own. Just because the parent does not want the baby does not mean the baby is incapable of being raised by another prospective parent. Far from. The baby is not implicated in whatever failure in contraception or poor choices led to conception; it should be surrendered to others to have his or her equal shot at happiness and a fruitful life.
I'm all for any kind of civil union, whether or not it's called marriage (really something people should vote on regarding non-constitutionally-involved arrangements, but that's a very long discussion), with full rights and advantages provided to heterosexual unions by the state. The same goes for transgendered people in the military: any personally fit individual should be able to enlist and serve. I differ from Trump in this area.
I think I'll get to comparing the cons of Trump towards the best available alternative in coming paragraphs, but the question really involves what kind of changes in denial of rights, and furthering of injustices would occur should Democrats come into power. Call blacks not really black, if they demand Biden win their vote? Verbally attack people asking questions about second amendment protections? Actively deny accused individuals in colleges their due process rights, when accused of heinous crimes? The 45%+ people have an absolute right to weigh competing alternatives and come to their own decision regarding least-bad outcomes. They shouldn't be forced to stare at just one person's lack of leadership and incompetence and be forced into some "anything-but" proposal. The alternative still must beat the current, and there's much worse depths of injustice than most people around these parts reliably evaluate.
That's one aspect of Trump. I picked out those things from Mohdoo's post for criticism, and you didn't even mention them. You never brought them up. You see, when you ignore all the bad things about Trump-alternatives, he looks worse than reality.
I didn't mention them because Mohdoo's recent extremist views are NOT what you're up against ni this election. All progressives and slightly extreme candidates lost their primary, and Biden is the candidate. Biden, the centrist, who clearly declared several times that he was willing to work with republicans. This is why I didn't react on that, since you're simply overreacting.
The left is not monolithic, it's reflecting a very broad range of people and sensitivities, and that is usually its problem. It's the same in France : a crazy like Melenchon, or an insidiously dangerous lady like Le Pen, would never get 45+% of the vote. The american left behaves the same. However, I am appaled of the right this time, since even after his behaviour has been exposed (it was known for a long time...), the level of support is still mostly the same for Trump, even when traditional values of the republican party are reversed ? And I am disgusted by people like Cruz or Graham after their 180°.
I responded to Mohdoo's post, and framed things in light of his post. I know of one private dissent from his framing of the issue with social cons, and who's responsible for historical oppression, but I saw very little pushback then and I see very little pushback now. I see much of the same from Biden. He has a radical left wing faction with increasing political clout, though maybe not electoral clout at the moment, and he makes concessions and promotes viewpoints and hires extremists. I include in this Bernie Sander's foreign policy guys. Formerly, he was center-left Obamacare, now full throated endorsement of public option. Etc etc. I'm not in agreement that his moderate bona fides are part of his character. He knew what he needed to pursue to win the primary, and he did so, and it's on him.
I mostly covered the "Trump better for the country than the alternatives" or "Trump's expected direction is less dangerous for the health of today's society than Biden's" in other posts, so I don't think in depth repetition is very necessary. I expect disagreement, and much of this reduces to flinging all everyone's worst actions back at each other like a righteous judge is keeping score.
I'm not at this moment accusing you of deliberately turning a blind eye, just that you demonstrate less empathy towards the messages directed at people unlike you and who have worldviews much different than yours. So, when you patently refuse to look at both sides, you're empowered to call Trump disuniting and saying hurtful things about foreigners or the rest. What's so hard to understand at looking at both sides of that statement? Here we have Trump sending stupid tweets at a man that was pushed over by police, or taking 5+ days to release a statement regarding George Floyd & protests while doing a stupid press op ... and here we have a nice progressive ranting about how social conservatives believe bad things about black people, women, gays, what-have-you. So are you going to accept his religion's statement of original sin? I argue that's an obvious worse alternative ... Trump for all his flaws won't dig into your heart and pronounce you guilty of sin throughout history.
I am looking at both sides, and as I said before, I see one side wanting the same rights, and the other denying them, sometimes with loopholes. If you were the one discriminated against for your birth, how would you feel ? Would you not fight for your freedom ? You're not guilty of sin throughout history, since during that history, you FOUGHT for that freedom, that independance, and your beloved constitution. However you (not you personnally, I mean currently the Republicans) embody the ones denying rights to others, fighting so that others are restricted. I am not proud of the dark side of French history. I do not, cannot complain when it is shoved in my face. However it is not all my responsibility to repair everything that has been done. However I can help fix some things, by understanding the other, and not dissing him in the gutter.
What is currently being said about social conservatives, from my point of view, from what I observe, is something that has been earned. Actively, *currently* denying others their liberty means that I should be held to account on these points.
I appreciate your statement on collective guilt. I picked Mohdoo's post as an entry point simply because it's so common to assert a race is responsible for the sins of the past, and one narrow ideological position of the present must be conformed to, or they bear the mantle of injustice stretching far, far back.
I thoroughly contest that the GOP in modern times can be said to "embody the ones denying rights to others, fighting so that others are restricted." I see that as well more owned by the Democrats, who do a lot better job publicizing their acts of justice and equality, but really do much worse in extending rights to the inner city poor, or the weakest among us not quite born into the world yet, or the ideologically diverse minorities that are widely called Uncle Toms for asserting inconvenient positions. That's my perspective on that, for what it's worth.
So the proof is out there to look into the alternatives and wonder what kind of shitty ideology requires attacking people for the evil in their hearts before asking them to reject Trump and go to the other side. Kinda disunifying to go out there like that, and argue history shows your cultural opinions are shit and stem from a shitty tradition known for shitty things.
Maybe it wouldn't have gotten to that point if requests were answered politely and legally, not by stealthily maneuvering to let the least amount of people vote for example, or passing laws circumventing RoevWade and trying to close abortion centers, etc. I see no one trying to close churchs or forcing people to get abortions ? (If it was up to me, I would severely watch televangelists though, a nice bunch of swindlers. But hey, there's probably a right to get swindled in the constitution :-D)
But no, everytime, a fight was needed to achieve something due to the skewed power balance. Sorry that they also have feelings, dozens of years of being denied tend to do that to people. Now they are saying mean things. Unforgivable ! They should continue to ask nicely so that you vote for them (did it happen before ? No... It wouldn't this time either... would it ? Have you seen it anywhere in the polls these past 3 years? No, wouldn't happen.)
I don't accept for one second the rhetorical posture that someone's permitted to attack people for having black hearts, because some string of argument concludes with the attribution of evil to their name. Neither I, nor anyone else here, is forced to defend whatever cockamamie accusations someone comes up with in order to free ourselves from collective guilt or argue out from moral suspicion.
No, allegations of disenfranchisement like Stacey Abrams has claimed to friendly press with very little opposition, do not hold up when the light is applied. It's just a very convenient excuse to claim victory in defeat, and runs with a narrative helpful to her (and others) political cause. Likewise, apart from a couple laws I've seen pass by in the news (big gray area there, and debatable I'm sure), laws like requiring abortion centers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals and pass rigorous health inspections should be seen as common-sense orders to protect mother and infant from acts committed against one or either. Kermit Gosnell may be the most prolific serial killer the world has ever known, and thrived because his victims were recently born, and abortionists are an extremely privileged class and actions taken to give transparency are destroyed by demagogues for being anti-abortion. No, a thousand times no. Clinics providing abortions should be held to high standards of health and have hospital resources at the ready for what may happen. Again, Gosnell had black victims of both black immigrant mothers and black babies that should cause people with partisan talking points to pause and take note of exactly what they're defending by proxy. Shameful injustice wrapped up in a bow of evil GOP and their evil rules. May I add that this is precisely an injustice due to the power dynamics separating poor black mothers from a well-funded abortion industry and their cultural allies in major media.
Later, maybe you'll have the first atom of a thought to why Trump is losing in the polls but not fully out of the race yet.
He's not out of the race because of the electoral college. He lost the popular vote, like Bush did. There is already a higher threshold to reach for democrats to get a president, and you wonder why these people feel disenfranchised ? Again, you should put yourself in their shoes as well as yours. And the Senate... Ahahahah.
Do also remember that the slaves took no part in the establishment of the constitution, so they live with rules that they took no part in deciding, and that are designed against them (indicentally or not, it's another question).
For you to complain about getting the finger pointed at you is also pretty rich. Look at these people, and why they are doing it. They represent a majority that cannot get a say ! You represent the minority that is firmly grabbing the power.
Let me take one well-known example : There are currently, out of 9 justices, FOUR of them appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. And one of them should have been appointed by another president, but the Senate decided otherwise, again skewing the rules. You cannot at the same time tell these people that they should not be feeling bad, and believe in the justice system, when the justice system is not appointed by the majority...There IS a huge discrepancy there. And you expect them to just take it and shut up, when they are not listened to in their own country ? Yeah, maybe for a few years, but after decades ? centuries ?
He lost by a very narrow percentage. I don't really think narrow losses or victories by a small percentage is sufficient to toss out so many Americans disagreeing with who was the better candidate, or who was better for protecting the rights of all Americans. It's not like some 30% candidate won the election. I don't follow your logic in narrow popular vote loss definitely loses the right to rule.
I went hard on this topic in the UK thread when so many people were sore about the conservative majority originating from morer sparsely populated regions. The United States is a large country. It has both tons of humanity packed into metros, and states with sprawling rural areas in thousands of tiny towns dotting the map across it. I say that any well-run country must balance the needs of the highly populous urban regions, with the more sparsely populated, less populous regions. If every vote turned on which candidate could more efficiently campaign from borough to borough in New York, and hit Los Angeles and Chicago hard, you'd save a lot of time traveling across the country.
And you'd be the President of Two Coasts and a couple dozen cities, but not of a country. That's why there was a grand bargain balancing power in the electoral college. Give the more populous regions of the country relatively more power than the smaller regions, but not to the point where midwestern states and rural farmland are safely ignored, because fuck them, not enough people live there. I'd say that's a recipe to split up the country, because no Red State in the middle should voluntarily decide that they're only as important to the government of the union as the bulk number of their residents makes up the population of the whole. So, a Senate made up of 2 per state regardless of population, and a presidency weighted towards the more populous regions, but balanced by a non-proportional arithmetic to give smaller states their due. The entire loss in popular vote can be entirely fit into the exceedingly high majorities in New York and California. Maybe we should get it over with and make them the ballot casters for a new United States of America with a strictly proportional vote for the president, and see the most populous regions have ultimate say. I believe in (and I'm chuckling a little bit, considering the context and how often it's ignored) minority rights, the rights of the little guy, being not completely dominated by a bunch of big city interests.
As for the buy-in to the constitution from slaves, freed far after it's passage, I say the following: I agree with former slave Frederick Douglass in his later arguments that the constitution was ultimately a freeing document. That no nation with the constitution at its heart could abide slavery in perpetuity, and it functioned as an instrument of it's end all the time. This is probably a matter to google and decide for yourself, but there it is. Once freed, the former slaves gained access (through starts and stutters) to equal opportunity to mold and shape the constitution to their ideas. Yes, this is a generalizing, but things not mentioned earlier deserve to be said at least once, plainly.
And you won't have to call 60 million Americans racist for voting for him, or be mystified for why he isn't obviously the worse choice. I'm saying this in good faith: The non-Trump has a wing that has to insult people unlike them to make themselves feel better about opposing them, both in unity and in leadership.
That wing is not going to be into power, the candidates from those lost in the primary. Irrelevant. However, Trump is happily representing and catering to the worst part of the republican electorate.
And people that can't bring themselves to encounter the kind of people that argue like Mohdoo, and examine it faithfully, deserve to be uninformed about this political moment and translate their ignorance into grandiose declarations on denying rights. And Mohdoo doesn't receive a lot of pushback from the left for having to paint the "other" as some kind of moral jackal to oppose them.
I am not supporting any revolution, nor what Mohdoo is becoming these days. My policy is getting everyone involved and working together to achieve something. However I can understand when one side has been asking for equality for years and keeps being forcefully denied. So I am more sympathetic to that side, yes. The Obama presidency wasn't even very left-wing...
For the first point, I think Trump operates as a reality TV star and lurches around trying to get positive feedback. It's functioned at the level of gut instinct for quite a while now. Trump caters to the social conservatives and people just tired of being lied to for decades by both parties in power. Sad, but true. Anything approaching an explanation of why and how would need to reach novel length, but books like "Hillbilly Elegy" are required reading for starters.
As much as you and I don't sign on to Mohdoo's reasoning, his allies and him have ample time on networks like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and written outlets like the NYT WaPo and The Atlantic to explain to poor, white rural communities that the big issue is their white privilege, the opioid crisis ravaging their communities is barely news, and the big issue confronting America is trans bathrooms and trans athletes. Well, this contingent of people get mad at being constantly told that they're society's big racial winners, and should fund opportunities for people living in big cities.
And they're called the worst part of the Republican electorate for their troubles. Well, the people that voted Obama twice and Trump once span several hundreds of counties, and their voices are now heard. I have a ridiculously hard time seeing how they weren't politically ignored by Obama, and their rights ignored by both parties for quite some time, because their jobs and lives were passed over in overseas outsourcing. One great resource to understand the plight is Goodhart's "The Road to Somewhere," where you can have a deeper conversation with people who have a rootedness that's hard to teach to outsiders. I say this because they're entire being, when it's even observed, it wrapped up in criticism about how they shouldn't be allowed to run businesses and keep their religious beliefs, and shouldn't complain so much because they have advantageous skin color. + Show Spoiler +
The Anywheres are cosmopolitan, educated, mobile and networked. Their lives center on communities of affinity rather than locality—friends and colleagues who may be anywhere on a given day. Their attachments to place are secondary; they tend to regard national differences as quaint, borders as nuisances, divergent regulations as irrational. Their politics are liberal, whether progressive or classical. The Anywheres are generally wealthier than the Somewheres, but they include many people of moderate income, such as junior employees of government agencies, schools and nonprofits.
The Somewheres are rooted in local communities. Their jobs and weekends, their commitments and friendships and antagonisms, are part and parcel of their families, neighborhoods, clubs and congregations. Many work with their hands and on their feet. Whatever their partisan leanings, they tend to be socially conservative and patriotic and less disposed to vote with their feet.
I'm not even leveling a Mohdooian invective in your direction akin tot "woe are you, because you come from a line of people with hateful prejudices against poor people who happen to be white, or small town people who happened to have multiple generations in a trade now done mostly in China and India." It just isn't taught, and it's very easy to dismiss and ridicule people that are religious, not highly educated, not interested in moving to where more jobs are now located, and not interested in learning service and technology trades. They're kind of totems possessing mostly dark salient aspects to outsiders: religious and probably something phobic, mostly white, mostly uneducated, mostly from states that vote Republican, not articulate in written or spoken word. Oh, and when they're not ignored, high-level plans are dropped down on them like "learn to code" and their voting preferences are derided as "against their own self interest." I can think of a natural response to such a relationship from urban, educated people towards these "somewheres," and it looks like a revolt against a hypocritical system that tells them the right ways to speak and behave. It's a very classic response, and lest it be dismissed, the closest analogue today is violent protests happening alongside peaceful protests. Peaceful for all that may be achieved, violent for all the inaction against the past, ignored peaceful rallies. Toss the system trying to steal what remains of their voting power, deny the polite speech that ignored them by voting in THE most impolite speaker around, and watch as their supposed moral betters react badly ... from politically motivated investigations, to the "fake news" contagion of stories that always seem to get it wrong in ways that benefit a single political side.
Yes, yes, you have some opinions on who isn't allowed to live their little lives as bakers, or artists, or preachers, so it's actually your choice as to what "little lives" the state allows to be lived. You pick and choose, and I'm afraid the Little Sisters of the Poor are back in court about their rights, after first being forced to sue for them in the Obama era. Sorry that their rights weren't part of "the right to live their little lives" but too far towards "actively denying things to others."
I had a quick look at that, and while I find normal that every health insurance plan should provide something that is legal to get, I don't understand how the little sisters were impacted ? Were they acting as health insurance ? Or is it about their workers in the homes they manage ? I can't understand how they would act as health insurance, and if they act as employers and are using a third-party to provide the health insurance coverage, well I definitely think they should allow their employees everything legal, despite their own beliefs, and not force those beliefs unto their employees. Having existing exemptions under the grandfather rule for a lot of corporations looks bullshit though. I find the resolution satisfactory, though it's yet another level in the administrative "mille-feuilles".
Honestly, aged nuns should be the easy exemption from the hypothesis that liberals, at least more than conservatives, deeply care about rights and make good decisions where there are exceptions. They had to sue for their religious conscience rights. To give a comparison, many corporations lobbied for their own corporate exemptions and received them from Obama & allies drafting the bills. The Little Sisters of the Poor are not privileged enough to afford such lobbying, and had to wait until the law was passed to sue for their rights.
They won the first case, and they had to go back again for a second case. Not exactly a nice track record if liberals in America actually practiced the good they try to claim. I'm all for liberals taking different turns here, in order to remain consistent to the beliefs they want applied to them, but I don't see it. A Catholic aid group with serious religious beliefs regarding abortifacient contraceptives should have those rights respected, and any of their workers for an overtly religious entity should know their sect's teaching on the matter. There's plenty of other aid organizations out there with no major faith objections to the matter, but it was the state intervening to prevent that, and a major impediment for me believing there's a sincere respect for rights on the American liberal (progressive) side. Again, show me where it counts that it matters, or I'm gonna say Trump has behaved much better than Obama on this issue in terms of respect for rights.
That's the troublesome things about rights; they frequently intersect other ones, and you're actively denying rights to some because you don't like the way they intersect with others. Sometimes that's even denying the freedom to have a vote about the issue that's intractable, like judges are better able to settle societal questions than elected representatives!
I'd have no issue with elected representatives if they were actually representative ? What do you feel about McConnell that said he wouldn't bring any legislation to a dutifully elected democrat president ? Would you still vote for him if it was in your state ? That's actively denying the freedom to have a vote.
All this ends with complex interactions. I'm very happy with my defense of rights and liberties for all, and go on--buy the cake in the window or go to the baker down the street, that's freedom too--including times when everyone can't just have it the way they want it. (Note: I was banned from this thread for ~4 months for arguing forcefully in favor of the Colorado baker's religious liberty in custom designed cakes (florists too), so I will not continue in that mode given past adjudication of subjective bans. The moderators are free to elaborate if anything has changed in this regards, to open it up again)
What about a pharmacist denying morning-after pills ? Or doctors refusing to treat transgenders, or the mayor refusing to marry gays ? If the baker has that freedom, should they have it too ? (well, "art".........) Ok let's avoid talking about due to what happened previously.
"My liberty stops where others' start". That's my way. Or we can't live together. And on that topic, it is impossible to say Trump can bring people together more than Biden, since in his mind, the decisive factor to push or diss someone is himself. He does not hold these beliefs you do, it's only opportunistic since he is completely amoral and devoid of shame or repentance, and won't ever be able to bridge people together.
I think I've said enough about the circumstances that break the simplistic "liberty stops where others' rights begin," since I've spent much time on the most salient examples that force one to pick a side and reject the other, sometimes with lives and not liberty in the balance. I'm not really satisfied with your examination of art and artists, like maybe the thought that someone in a creative trade forced to take commissions for morally reprehensible works is only the problem of "the other." Like, most liberals in this forum don't have reason to think society, through government, will eventually cause them to repudiate their religion (or atheism) or change their line of work. So it's up to the champions of the forgotten to hold the line against injustice, until maybe times change and more people are forced to violate their conscience, or risk being canceled. It seems likely in cases like JK Rowling, where more think like her, but aren't independently wealthy enough to risk saying it in the public square. I figure the artists will eventually find more political power when more are harmed by the mob, or political organizations acting under fear of the mob. This is long enough for now, so I'll sign off.
On June 15 2020 00:59 Nevuk wrote: Didn't we go over Ngo getting caught falsifying reporting a few pages ago? Can you post a better source?
It's raw, uncommentated video. Except for personal animus on the part of this thread, there's nothing wrong with it.
CHAZ is about 6 blocks long. Knowing what a trashy propagandist Ngo is, it's actually more telling that it was just a 30 second video of some graffiti on one side of one block to upset pearl clutchers.
On June 15 2020 06:10 iamthedave wrote: I often find Conservatives - smart Conservatives since that's the question - are so because they're more data-focused people than 'emotional' focused people.
Left-leaning thought takes into account the lived experience of people (or tries to) and considers that a valid explanation for all kinds of data, and so concludes that making that lived experience better to some degree will aid with x y and z.
Right-leaning thought often looks at the hard data, says this is what IS, ergo we act based on that. If x % of black men are in prison for violent crimes compared to y % of the population, that says that it is only right and proper for the police to be harsher when dealing with those people because a much higher proportional % of them are criminals.
If you listen to talks by the more touted right-wing intellectuals, they spit out statistics like a machine gun. Jordan Peterson loves his statistics. You hear a little less of it on the left.
Right and left-wing at the more elevated level tends to be different kinds of intellectualism.
The thing about statistics is it's quite easy to spin the numbers to look like they prove whatever point you want to prove. If we take your example of X% of black vs other races' people being in prison, it doesn't actually prove that a higher proportion of black people are criminals. Even if we ignore every other possible variable and circumstance, a statistic like that could actually be interpreted in the completely opposite way -- that the harsher police treatment of black people leads to a higher arrest & incarceration rates -- and there is literally no 'rational' or 'logical' way to establish which line of thinking is correct (based on that single statistic at least). Spitting out simple statistics such as this as a way to 'prove' your point is a very good way to sound convincing and intellectual to folks who don't know better, but it is hardly more 'logical' or 'data-focused.' It's just hiding behind a smoke screen of numbers to make your arguments appear stronger and more sciency.
On June 15 2020 06:10 iamthedave wrote: I often find Conservatives - smart Conservatives since that's the question - are so because they're more data-focused people than 'emotional' focused people.
Left-leaning thought takes into account the lived experience of people (or tries to) and considers that a valid explanation for all kinds of data, and so concludes that making that lived experience better to some degree will aid with x y and z.
Right-leaning thought often looks at the hard data, says this is what IS, ergo we act based on that. If x % of black men are in prison for violent crimes compared to y % of the population, that says that it is only right and proper for the police to be harsher when dealing with those people because a much higher proportional % of them are criminals.
If you listen to talks by the more touted right-wing intellectuals, they spit out statistics like a machine gun. Jordan Peterson loves his statistics. You hear a little less of it on the left.
Right and left-wing at the more elevated level tends to be different kinds of intellectualism.
The thing about statistics is it's quite easy to spin the numbers to look like they prove whatever point you want to prove. If we take your example of X% of black vs other races' people being in prison, it doesn't actually prove that a higher proportion of black people are criminals. Even if we ignore every other possible variable and circumstance, a statistic like that could actually be interpreted in the completely opposite way -- that the harsher police treatment of black people leads to a higher arrest & incarceration rates -- and there is literally no 'rational' or 'logical' way to establish which line of thinking is correct (based on that single statistic at least). Spitting out simple statistics such as this as a way to 'prove' your point is a very good way to sound convincing and intellectual to folks who don't know better, but it is hardly more 'logical' or 'data-focused.' It's just hiding behind a smoke screen of numbers to make your arguments appear stronger and more sciency.
Absolutely. A statistic displaying a higher-than-average incarceration rate of people of colour in comparison to caucasian or other arbitrary divisions is only a statement of exactly that - that poc have a higher-than-average incarceration rate in comparison to caucasian or other arbitrary divisions. Using these numbers alone to make statements outside this exact fact is no longer discussing from fact, but extrapolating implications as a foundation to opinion.
The typical implication from the example above is that (less dogwhistly) poc typically live in poorer communities and therefore are more exposed to being recruited to crime, and (honest dogwhistly) that poc by nature are more prone to criminal activity.
Personally, to me the example implies that poc are more aggressively tracked by police and more rutlessly treated by the judiciary system due to systemic racism.
Neither mine nor the examples of dog whistles are a part of the stat facts used as an example, though.
Of course, theres a broader basis of data one could use to make extrapolations from implications based on facts be more accurate, however my point is that facts state only what they state; whatever you pull from its implications is not a part of it.
I can not confirm this, but word is that SCOTUS has found in a 6-3 that firing someone because they’re gay, lesbian, or transgender violates the plain language of Title VII.
If true, color me surprised and extremely happy. The positive implications of this decision for folks interested in progress can not be overstated.
EPT
