|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 14 2021 07:07 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 07:01 Nouar wrote:On January 14 2021 06:56 Grumbels wrote:On January 14 2021 06:30 Nevuk wrote:On January 14 2021 06:20 Starlightsun wrote:On January 14 2021 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 14 2021 05:04 Starlightsun wrote:
I'm worried about the threatened armed protests at the state's capitols. Hopefully DC will be locked down with a concerted effort but all the rest feels like wildcards at this point. Especially places with lax gun laws and lots of Trump supporters (high overlap I would think). It just takes one person with explosives or high capacity magazines to wreck carnage. Fortunately for Oregon, dealing with right wing terrorists is like Canadians shoveling snow at this point. Won’t be long until we add right wing violence to our school drills Man that is scary  . Luckily we don't have that in Hawaii but there's a surprising amount of trumpers coming out of the woodwork. On the local news they said our capitol building is one of the most open and least secure in the country. Pretty much every state has been warned to have the national guard called up and standing by for the next week for their first sessions (from the 17th-20th iirc). Which is the actual military (albeit less trained than active duty) rather than the poorly trained wannabes that many US cops tend to be (the capitol guard should be the best of the best, and well, you saw how that went). Which is the right call, it's safer for everyone involved: they have stricter rules of engagement, are less likely to kill, and this is something that they have been trained for (defensive perimeters against large numbers of hostiles - cops rarely get involved in things where they expect to be outnumbered). There are a bunch of somewhat amusing photos scattered around of them in the morning at the US capitol buildings. They're all sleeping or resting in most of the pictures, but I assume they're all taking shifts. It's far more than could ever be overwhelmed by a crowd. (Many representatives have posted pictures of the guards all along the hallways of the building). This is such idiotic security theater. The attack on the capitol happened because they announced a huge demonstration and then the police let them in. There wasn't any need for an army to occupy Washington as deterrence. What do they think it does? Show strength? If the French army was seen lounging leasurely in official places and pictures were taken, heads would roll (figuratively speaking). At least get them chairs, beds, or put them in gymnasiums, park them somewhere please ? Not just dumped right in the middle... And if they are on duty, behave accordingly... This should be an eyesore for every military out there. Someone said earlier than the best should protect the capitol, I don't necessarily agree. The best units are sent where it's needed. Not on guard duty. You can have a core cluster of extremely trained professionnals, of course, but these experts do not train themselves to guard doors. They would quit faster than you could train them, it's not realistic. We have a specific military unit exactly for this purpose in Denmark. Livgarden. They protect the royal and particular important buildings, they are required to always have loaded weapons when they are on duty and need zero authorisation to use lethal force if they deem it necessary. ...and yes this also include the soldiers that are basically just standing guard as glorified tourist attractions. I was honestly shocked about how lax the security at Capitol was.
We also have the "Garde Républicaine". They are however, far from being the most proficient experts we have. Just normal military (well, Gendarmerie), not special ops.
To another post, yes, they may be the National Guard, however, give them quarters and don't let them lie in the halls...
|
On January 14 2021 07:10 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 07:07 Jek wrote:On January 14 2021 07:01 Nouar wrote:On January 14 2021 06:56 Grumbels wrote:On January 14 2021 06:30 Nevuk wrote:On January 14 2021 06:20 Starlightsun wrote:On January 14 2021 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 14 2021 05:04 Starlightsun wrote:
I'm worried about the threatened armed protests at the state's capitols. Hopefully DC will be locked down with a concerted effort but all the rest feels like wildcards at this point. Especially places with lax gun laws and lots of Trump supporters (high overlap I would think). It just takes one person with explosives or high capacity magazines to wreck carnage. Fortunately for Oregon, dealing with right wing terrorists is like Canadians shoveling snow at this point. Won’t be long until we add right wing violence to our school drills Man that is scary . Luckily we don't have that in Hawaii but there's a surprising amount of trumpers coming out of the woodwork. On the local news they said our capitol building is one of the most open and least secure in the country. Pretty much every state has been warned to have the national guard called up and standing by for the next week for their first sessions (from the 17th-20th iirc). Which is the actual military (albeit less trained than active duty) rather than the poorly trained wannabes that many US cops tend to be (the capitol guard should be the best of the best, and well, you saw how that went). Which is the right call, it's safer for everyone involved: they have stricter rules of engagement, are less likely to kill, and this is something that they have been trained for (defensive perimeters against large numbers of hostiles - cops rarely get involved in things where they expect to be outnumbered). There are a bunch of somewhat amusing photos scattered around of them in the morning at the US capitol buildings. They're all sleeping or resting in most of the pictures, but I assume they're all taking shifts. It's far more than could ever be overwhelmed by a crowd. (Many representatives have posted pictures of the guards all along the hallways of the building). https://twitter.com/WCVB/status/1349365845496094722 This is such idiotic security theater. The attack on the capitol happened because they announced a huge demonstration and then the police let them in. There wasn't any need for an army to occupy Washington as deterrence. What do they think it does? Show strength? If the French army was seen lounging leasurely in official places and pictures were taken, heads would roll (figuratively speaking). At least get them chairs, beds, or put them in gymnasiums, park them somewhere please ? Not just dumped right in the middle... And if they are on duty, behave accordingly... This should be an eyesore for every military out there. Someone said earlier than the best should protect the capitol, I don't necessarily agree. The best units are sent where it's needed. Not on guard duty. You can have a core cluster of extremely trained professionnals, of course, but these experts do not train themselves to guard doors. They would quit faster than you could train them, it's not realistic. We have a specific military unit exactly for this purpose in Denmark. Livgarden. They protect the royal and particular important buildings, they are required to always have loaded weapons when they are on duty and need zero authorisation to use lethal force if they deem it necessary. ...and yes this also include the soldiers that are basically just standing guard as glorified tourist attractions. I was honestly shocked about how lax the security at Capitol was. We also have the "Garde Républicaine". They are however, far from being the most proficient experts we have. Just normal military (well, Gendarmerie), not special ops. To another post, yes, they may be the National Guard, however, give them quarters and don't let them lie in the halls...
More than likely they are working on something. This was a last minute thing and the last thing you want is encampments on the hill with a bunch of military. Either way you slice this cake, it's still a bad PR look for the US.
|
On January 14 2021 06:53 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2021 09:25 Danglars wrote:On January 13 2021 03:33 Nouar wrote:On January 13 2021 02:42 Danglars wrote:On January 13 2021 01:52 Nouar wrote:In a blow for Trump and republicans in general, as he was a large donor, Sheldon Adelson died today. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/12/sheldon-adelson-casino-magnate-trump-donor-dies-aged-87As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. He donated millions of dollars for Holocaust museums and a Jewish schools. He was quite the philanthropist. It’s a blow to the millions he helped, his wife, and his children. He selflessly paid employees during COVID shutdowns. And all people can think about is political disagreement. Yeah, I hope everybody speaking ill of the recently dead is called out for the absolute ghouls that they are. So, in your view then, if, let's say Jeff Bezos, dies today, he's gonna be a hero in your mind ? After all the bullshit he's done, the working conditions at Amazon etc ? His foundation did some good things, but... Let's see... Amazing, he did pay his employees during the shutdowns ! Good ! (I wouldn't call it "selfless" though, just "humane". It's a drop in a lake for him, as if you gave 20 bucks to a homeless guy) He was also one of the worst offenders for decades in denying employees to unionize, which usually allows them to fight better for their rights instead of being at the mercy of their boss' mood. He directly spent a whole lot more than what he spent during the shutdowns, to have states outlaw collective bargaining, to deny his employees rights. Such a wonderful, selfless boss, always thinking about his workforce, right ? Yeah. Great (depending on your views), he fought against cannabis legalization because his son died of it and he considered it a gateway to harder drugs. Oops, should we forget he made his fortune with casinos/gambling, a business that is rigged against players and exploits addiction to squeeze the money out of people ? Spending millions to know the better ways to make people waste money again, by studying cognitive patterns and addictive behaviour. Splendid ! Wonderful, he donated to create hospitals (oops, in illegal settlements where Israel didn't have the right to build). Cool, jewish schools and holocaust museums. I don't have anything against that, it's cool. He did good things to send jewish youngsters in Israel for visits, that's also good. The issue is that looking at his extreme views, I'm not sure if all those things are not proselytism, which I'm less fond of. Against a state for palestinians, against international agreements, he weaponized the israeli-american council to serve his views. THEN you have the political actions in the USA or Israel, where republicans going to primaries had nearly no choice but to cosy to him to have a chance, and then he held them. I hate that shit, it's called corruption and influence trafficking, even if Citizen United more or less legalized it (it's like, 99% legal as long as you don't "coordinate". Fuck PACs). For example to get states to forbid collective bargaining by unions. Largest backer of Trump (we kinda know about that guy) and Netanyahu (an extreme right-wing bastard), etc etc. I could care less about the Republican and Trump funding, but I definitely weigh how he got his wealth, and what are his aims in weaponizing it. In my view, it definitely skews a LOT more towards bad than good. So yeah, good, he spent a few hundred millions to somewhat good causes (let's round to 500M$, 3% of his wealth, which is less % of my net worth than I donated in the last 5 years alone, praise me when I'm dead). Ok let's be honest, it's probably more as I didn't do a full-on research on his returns of course, just the more visible stuff. I'm not sure he followed up on a 200M annual pledge since 2008 to israeli causes for example. And the rest.... Bah. Outside of the 500M+ in the last 10 years to gain influence in politics, it's stuff like Freedom's Watch, advocating to continue the war in Irak, etc etc. To compare, Bill & Melinda Gates are at 45B in donations, with the rest of their fortunes to be donated when they die. You will most definitely NOT find Sheldon Adelson in the "Giving Pledge" list. I am not desecrating him, I just hate wonderful eulogies for people who did a little good and a lot of bad. It doesn't cancel out. I just said that I (me, myself), am not going to miss him, and it's a blow to the funding of the republican party. Call me a ghoul if that makes you feel better. Do note that he donated mostly to causes that served jews. Only a little was spent on stuff like medical research through a smaller foundation, that serve everyone. You will call me a great globalist, but I'm not fond of communautarism. It would also be good of you to remember that I am not a democrat nor an american, and that Adelson was not tied to a party until 12/15years ago. I could care less about a party. I care about what people say and do, and fight for. It would also be good of you to even read my fucking post, I mean, it was three lines, hardly a wall of text, unlike this one. I'll quote to you : As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. Did that mention anything political in why I didn't like him ? No. The closest would be the illegal settlements, and that's more human rights and international law than politics. Everyone deserves some respect, even if its the respect of silence since you can't say anything good about them, when they die. Anything less puts you at a realm barely human. Seriously. The totality of someone's character is not how you feel about Israel-Palestine, trade unionism, "too little spent on philanthropy compared to my ideal," political support of candidates, or whatever other political views you think are too far from mainstream. Come at him in a couple days if you think he's scum of the earth. I basically disagree with almost every sentence of criticism you put in here. But even if I think you're ignorant or morally twisted or whatever life experience and thought process gave rise to these opinions you hold, I can respect you if you observe a modicum of politeness when someone dies. Trump, for all his faults, did himself well when RBG died to give a universally positive speech, so don't act at a level beneath even his corrupt moral character. Even his ideological opposite, donating to causes I think trend towards destruction of good and loss of life, and all the other vitriol I could summon to describe him, George Soros, deserves quiet reflection should I find nothing good to say in the wake of his (eventual) death. I hope someday you argue yourself out of the immediate everything-bad-he-did at news of someone prominent dying, for the sake of politeness and a politics that doesn't live in the gutter of the street. "Barely human" ? I'm living my life humanely, by not exploiting my next-of-kin. My opinion of someone doesn't change when he dies, it is not a special event that should forgive everything. People who did good should be celebrated, people who did wrong should bear the cost. I did not insult him, I did not denigrate him, I simply summarized what are the highlights that stand out to me from his life, and told that I, for one, would not miss him. Sorry for not being a hypocrit. Did you compare what Trump said about RBG and what I said about Adelson ? You can think what you will of RBG, in your view she may be responsible for thousands of unborn deaths due to her position against abortion, as Adelson is, in my eyes, complicit in the deaths of a lot of people due to his positions (palestinians, gamblers, what you want). But the difference lies somewhere else. Trump is the top elected official of the nation, and has to observe decorum. This is the only time in his presidency when I was impressed by the restraint he showed. The rest of the time was spent mocking the disabled. I do not have to observe that decorum, nor provide public statement. I can provide my honest opinion, unbound by these shackles. Don't you believe the living deserve as much respect as the dead ? I'd rather someone keeps on living, but I'm going to be consistent in my opinion of them, alive, or dead. You can be sure I'm going to denigrate the hell out of Jean-Marie Le Pen after he dies, for the piece of shit he's been all his life, as I do while he is still alive. I'm just not going to shout it to his family. Don't tell me Adelson's wife and children as going to read my post, please. Death is only the end of life (it might be the start of another for some), but it's just a natural event that happens when the time comes. It does not magically erase the bullshit one has done, sorry. Obligatory godwin : would you have mourned Hitler ? Will you Khameini, Putin ? And about Soros ? Show nested quote +As of May 2020, he had a net worth of $8.3 billion,[12][13] having donated more than $32 billion to the Open Society Foundations,[14] of which $15 billion have already been distributed, representing 64% of his original fortune, making him the "most generous giver" (in terms of percentage of net worth) according to Forbes.[15] Show nested quote +Open Society Foundations (OSF), formerly the Open Society Institute, is an international grantmaking network founded by business magnate George Soros.[2] Open Society Foundations financially support civil society groups around the world, with a stated aim of advancing justice, education, public health and independent media. Even if that's a whole lot more than Adelson, and was not provided exclusively to a specific community, he still made his money from hedge funds and short-selling/buying during crises, which still makes him an asshole in my view, as this means others get the short end of the stick and are sent into poverty. Even Trump's businesses are less malevolent to me though some of his behaviour is shitty, as top-class buildings at least don't affect most regular people and don't result in deaths. (Trump's father preyed on the weak and poor though).
You’ve pivoted twice from the issue of observing solemnity on the day of somebody’s death (you’d prefer to argue if he should be celebrated when I say to withhold such public judgements for a short time), so I have to take your reticence as something between misgivings or admission. Maybe you’d be down to insult the bride at a wedding, but maybe then you wouldn’t offer “The occasion didn’t matter, and waiting would’ve meant I approve of what she said or did.” My questions of humanity are directed at the viciousness and inhumanity at not allowing humans, in all their complexity, a small time period of relief when they leave this life. It’s either an internal moral problem, or never being taught basic rules of politeness as a child, or just being politically obsessed. Like, if you’re already in favor of harassing his kids, I already know the moral character just won’t be there for what to say on the day of someone’s death, but that’s a much worse example. I don’t know the cause, but I condemn the behavior and hope for a future when your moral tirades observe some kind of sensible limit. Anyways, further discussion in that direction isn’t likely of interest to the thread. You probably already know I have a much higher opinion of Adelson’s life work than you, but an equal or dimmer view of somebody like Soros, yet I won’t use Soros’s death as opportunity to mount my soap box to talk about his effect on the planet. I also observed silence on RBG’s death. I wish more who can’t think of positive things to say on a major figures death would wait and save the recapitulation for a couple days later or after the funeral, not because it means you respect them, but out of respect for shared humanity only.
|
Using someone's death to share your negative opinion of them is a little bit 'Westboro Baptist' for my liking.
|
On January 14 2021 07:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 06:53 Nouar wrote:On January 13 2021 09:25 Danglars wrote:On January 13 2021 03:33 Nouar wrote:On January 13 2021 02:42 Danglars wrote:On January 13 2021 01:52 Nouar wrote:In a blow for Trump and republicans in general, as he was a large donor, Sheldon Adelson died today. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/12/sheldon-adelson-casino-magnate-trump-donor-dies-aged-87As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. He donated millions of dollars for Holocaust museums and a Jewish schools. He was quite the philanthropist. It’s a blow to the millions he helped, his wife, and his children. He selflessly paid employees during COVID shutdowns. And all people can think about is political disagreement. Yeah, I hope everybody speaking ill of the recently dead is called out for the absolute ghouls that they are. So, in your view then, if, let's say Jeff Bezos, dies today, he's gonna be a hero in your mind ? After all the bullshit he's done, the working conditions at Amazon etc ? His foundation did some good things, but... Let's see... Amazing, he did pay his employees during the shutdowns ! Good ! (I wouldn't call it "selfless" though, just "humane". It's a drop in a lake for him, as if you gave 20 bucks to a homeless guy) He was also one of the worst offenders for decades in denying employees to unionize, which usually allows them to fight better for their rights instead of being at the mercy of their boss' mood. He directly spent a whole lot more than what he spent during the shutdowns, to have states outlaw collective bargaining, to deny his employees rights. Such a wonderful, selfless boss, always thinking about his workforce, right ? Yeah. Great (depending on your views), he fought against cannabis legalization because his son died of it and he considered it a gateway to harder drugs. Oops, should we forget he made his fortune with casinos/gambling, a business that is rigged against players and exploits addiction to squeeze the money out of people ? Spending millions to know the better ways to make people waste money again, by studying cognitive patterns and addictive behaviour. Splendid ! Wonderful, he donated to create hospitals (oops, in illegal settlements where Israel didn't have the right to build). Cool, jewish schools and holocaust museums. I don't have anything against that, it's cool. He did good things to send jewish youngsters in Israel for visits, that's also good. The issue is that looking at his extreme views, I'm not sure if all those things are not proselytism, which I'm less fond of. Against a state for palestinians, against international agreements, he weaponized the israeli-american council to serve his views. THEN you have the political actions in the USA or Israel, where republicans going to primaries had nearly no choice but to cosy to him to have a chance, and then he held them. I hate that shit, it's called corruption and influence trafficking, even if Citizen United more or less legalized it (it's like, 99% legal as long as you don't "coordinate". Fuck PACs). For example to get states to forbid collective bargaining by unions. Largest backer of Trump (we kinda know about that guy) and Netanyahu (an extreme right-wing bastard), etc etc. I could care less about the Republican and Trump funding, but I definitely weigh how he got his wealth, and what are his aims in weaponizing it. In my view, it definitely skews a LOT more towards bad than good. So yeah, good, he spent a few hundred millions to somewhat good causes (let's round to 500M$, 3% of his wealth, which is less % of my net worth than I donated in the last 5 years alone, praise me when I'm dead). Ok let's be honest, it's probably more as I didn't do a full-on research on his returns of course, just the more visible stuff. I'm not sure he followed up on a 200M annual pledge since 2008 to israeli causes for example. And the rest.... Bah. Outside of the 500M+ in the last 10 years to gain influence in politics, it's stuff like Freedom's Watch, advocating to continue the war in Irak, etc etc. To compare, Bill & Melinda Gates are at 45B in donations, with the rest of their fortunes to be donated when they die. You will most definitely NOT find Sheldon Adelson in the "Giving Pledge" list. I am not desecrating him, I just hate wonderful eulogies for people who did a little good and a lot of bad. It doesn't cancel out. I just said that I (me, myself), am not going to miss him, and it's a blow to the funding of the republican party. Call me a ghoul if that makes you feel better. Do note that he donated mostly to causes that served jews. Only a little was spent on stuff like medical research through a smaller foundation, that serve everyone. You will call me a great globalist, but I'm not fond of communautarism. It would also be good of you to remember that I am not a democrat nor an american, and that Adelson was not tied to a party until 12/15years ago. I could care less about a party. I care about what people say and do, and fight for. It would also be good of you to even read my fucking post, I mean, it was three lines, hardly a wall of text, unlike this one. I'll quote to you : As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. Did that mention anything political in why I didn't like him ? No. The closest would be the illegal settlements, and that's more human rights and international law than politics. Everyone deserves some respect, even if its the respect of silence since you can't say anything good about them, when they die. Anything less puts you at a realm barely human. Seriously. The totality of someone's character is not how you feel about Israel-Palestine, trade unionism, "too little spent on philanthropy compared to my ideal," political support of candidates, or whatever other political views you think are too far from mainstream. Come at him in a couple days if you think he's scum of the earth. I basically disagree with almost every sentence of criticism you put in here. But even if I think you're ignorant or morally twisted or whatever life experience and thought process gave rise to these opinions you hold, I can respect you if you observe a modicum of politeness when someone dies. Trump, for all his faults, did himself well when RBG died to give a universally positive speech, so don't act at a level beneath even his corrupt moral character. Even his ideological opposite, donating to causes I think trend towards destruction of good and loss of life, and all the other vitriol I could summon to describe him, George Soros, deserves quiet reflection should I find nothing good to say in the wake of his (eventual) death. I hope someday you argue yourself out of the immediate everything-bad-he-did at news of someone prominent dying, for the sake of politeness and a politics that doesn't live in the gutter of the street. "Barely human" ? I'm living my life humanely, by not exploiting my next-of-kin. My opinion of someone doesn't change when he dies, it is not a special event that should forgive everything. People who did good should be celebrated, people who did wrong should bear the cost. I did not insult him, I did not denigrate him, I simply summarized what are the highlights that stand out to me from his life, and told that I, for one, would not miss him. Sorry for not being a hypocrit. Did you compare what Trump said about RBG and what I said about Adelson ? You can think what you will of RBG, in your view she may be responsible for thousands of unborn deaths due to her position against abortion, as Adelson is, in my eyes, complicit in the deaths of a lot of people due to his positions (palestinians, gamblers, what you want). But the difference lies somewhere else. Trump is the top elected official of the nation, and has to observe decorum. This is the only time in his presidency when I was impressed by the restraint he showed. The rest of the time was spent mocking the disabled. I do not have to observe that decorum, nor provide public statement. I can provide my honest opinion, unbound by these shackles. Don't you believe the living deserve as much respect as the dead ? I'd rather someone keeps on living, but I'm going to be consistent in my opinion of them, alive, or dead. You can be sure I'm going to denigrate the hell out of Jean-Marie Le Pen after he dies, for the piece of shit he's been all his life, as I do while he is still alive. I'm just not going to shout it to his family. Don't tell me Adelson's wife and children as going to read my post, please. Death is only the end of life (it might be the start of another for some), but it's just a natural event that happens when the time comes. It does not magically erase the bullshit one has done, sorry. Obligatory godwin : would you have mourned Hitler ? Will you Khameini, Putin ? And about Soros ? As of May 2020, he had a net worth of $8.3 billion,[12][13] having donated more than $32 billion to the Open Society Foundations,[14] of which $15 billion have already been distributed, representing 64% of his original fortune, making him the "most generous giver" (in terms of percentage of net worth) according to Forbes.[15] Open Society Foundations (OSF), formerly the Open Society Institute, is an international grantmaking network founded by business magnate George Soros.[2] Open Society Foundations financially support civil society groups around the world, with a stated aim of advancing justice, education, public health and independent media. Even if that's a whole lot more than Adelson, and was not provided exclusively to a specific community, he still made his money from hedge funds and short-selling/buying during crises, which still makes him an asshole in my view, as this means others get the short end of the stick and are sent into poverty. Even Trump's businesses are less malevolent to me though some of his behaviour is shitty, as top-class buildings at least don't affect most regular people and don't result in deaths. (Trump's father preyed on the weak and poor though). You’ve pivoted twice from the issue of observing solemnity on the day of somebody’s death (you’d prefer to argue if he should be celebrated when I say to withhold such public judgements for a short time), so I have to take your reticence as something between misgivings or admission. Maybe you’d be down to insult the bride at a wedding, but maybe then you wouldn’t offer “The occasion didn’t matter, and waiting would’ve meant I approve of what she said or did.” My questions of humanity are directed at the viciousness and inhumanity at not allowing humans, in all their complexity, a small time period of relief when they leave this life. It’s either an internal moral problem, or never being taught basic rules of politeness as a child, or just being politically obsessed. Like, if you’re already in favor of harassing his kids, I already know the moral character just won’t be there for what to say on the day of someone’s death, but that’s a much worse example. I don’t know the cause, but I condemn the behavior and hope for a future when your moral tirades observe some kind of sensible limit. Anyways, further discussion in that direction isn’t likely of interest to the thread. You probably already know I have a much higher opinion of Adelson’s life work than you, but an equal or dimmer view of somebody like Soros, yet I won’t use Soros’s death as opportunity to mount my soap box to talk about his effect on the planet. I also observed silence on RBG’s death. I wish more who can’t think of positive things to say on a major figures death would wait and save the recapitulation for a couple days later or after the funeral, not because it means you respect them, but out of respect for shared humanity only.
Adelson dedicated his life to evil. Soros started out that way, but in his old age seems to have tried to make some amends. I can understand that if you had some sort of sincere affection for Adelson, that you would be unhappy at any glee about his death. But a good question is why on earth you would feel that way. He's not directly paying you.
Adelson is this intensely political figure who was responsible for much of the financing of the conservative movement. Does he even have a pretense of good intentions?
On January 14 2021 07:28 Jockmcplop wrote:
Using someone's death to share your negative opinion of them is a little bit 'Westboro Baptist' for my liking.
Why? He's in the news, two days from now nobody will want to talk about him because it's old news. This notion that we have to be respectful to the memory of some 200 year old mummy who is about 10 degrees separate from anyone on this site makes a mockery of what it means to show respect to the deceased. Like many of these pieties that proliferate in the mainstream, it's about capturing the form of some ethical action, not the intention.
|
I don't see the problem with talking about the actions and the impact of that person's politics just because they happen to no longer be amongst the living. The impact of their politics have affected and continue to affect the living. If only Sheldon Adelson had as much respect for the living as random people have for the dead of the political elite, would the world be a better place today.
No-one here is attending and giving a speech at the funeral I presume, so I don't know why the comparisons are of such.
|
On January 14 2021 07:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 07:10 Nouar wrote:On January 14 2021 07:07 Jek wrote:On January 14 2021 07:01 Nouar wrote:On January 14 2021 06:56 Grumbels wrote:On January 14 2021 06:30 Nevuk wrote:On January 14 2021 06:20 Starlightsun wrote:On January 14 2021 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 14 2021 05:04 Starlightsun wrote:
I'm worried about the threatened armed protests at the state's capitols. Hopefully DC will be locked down with a concerted effort but all the rest feels like wildcards at this point. Especially places with lax gun laws and lots of Trump supporters (high overlap I would think). It just takes one person with explosives or high capacity magazines to wreck carnage. Fortunately for Oregon, dealing with right wing terrorists is like Canadians shoveling snow at this point. Won’t be long until we add right wing violence to our school drills Man that is scary . Luckily we don't have that in Hawaii but there's a surprising amount of trumpers coming out of the woodwork. On the local news they said our capitol building is one of the most open and least secure in the country. Pretty much every state has been warned to have the national guard called up and standing by for the next week for their first sessions (from the 17th-20th iirc). Which is the actual military (albeit less trained than active duty) rather than the poorly trained wannabes that many US cops tend to be (the capitol guard should be the best of the best, and well, you saw how that went). Which is the right call, it's safer for everyone involved: they have stricter rules of engagement, are less likely to kill, and this is something that they have been trained for (defensive perimeters against large numbers of hostiles - cops rarely get involved in things where they expect to be outnumbered). There are a bunch of somewhat amusing photos scattered around of them in the morning at the US capitol buildings. They're all sleeping or resting in most of the pictures, but I assume they're all taking shifts. It's far more than could ever be overwhelmed by a crowd. (Many representatives have posted pictures of the guards all along the hallways of the building). https://twitter.com/WCVB/status/1349365845496094722 This is such idiotic security theater. The attack on the capitol happened because they announced a huge demonstration and then the police let them in. There wasn't any need for an army to occupy Washington as deterrence. What do they think it does? Show strength? If the French army was seen lounging leasurely in official places and pictures were taken, heads would roll (figuratively speaking). At least get them chairs, beds, or put them in gymnasiums, park them somewhere please ? Not just dumped right in the middle... And if they are on duty, behave accordingly... This should be an eyesore for every military out there. Someone said earlier than the best should protect the capitol, I don't necessarily agree. The best units are sent where it's needed. Not on guard duty. You can have a core cluster of extremely trained professionnals, of course, but these experts do not train themselves to guard doors. They would quit faster than you could train them, it's not realistic. We have a specific military unit exactly for this purpose in Denmark. Livgarden. They protect the royal and particular important buildings, they are required to always have loaded weapons when they are on duty and need zero authorisation to use lethal force if they deem it necessary. ...and yes this also include the soldiers that are basically just standing guard as glorified tourist attractions. I was honestly shocked about how lax the security at Capitol was. We also have the "Garde Républicaine". They are however, far from being the most proficient experts we have. Just normal military (well, Gendarmerie), not special ops. To another post, yes, they may be the National Guard, however, give them quarters and don't let them lie in the halls... More than likely they are working on something. This was a last minute thing and the last thing you want is encampments on the hill with a bunch of military. Either way you slice this cake, it's still a bad PR look for the US. Insurgents attacked the capitol and most of the world expects something similar to happen during the inauguration. I'm pretty sure a military encampment on the hill will not make the US look worse then that.
|
On January 14 2021 07:30 Grumbels wrote:
Why? He's in the news, two days from now nobody will want to talk about him because it's old news. This notion that we have to be respectful to the memory of some 200 year old mummy who is about 10 degrees separate from anyone on this site makes a mockery of what it means to show respect to the diseased. Like many of these pieties that proliferate in the mainstream, it's about capturing the form of some ethical action, not the intention.
I guess I wouldn't want my death to be the trigger for some random on the internet to lay out everything bad I did in my life, so its a 'golden rule' thing.
I can understand why you would see it the way you do. I just disagree. People sin and do bad things, I personally believe that death is great equalizer, and that respecting that involves some solemnity.
|
On January 14 2021 07:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 06:53 Nouar wrote:On January 13 2021 09:25 Danglars wrote:On January 13 2021 03:33 Nouar wrote:On January 13 2021 02:42 Danglars wrote:On January 13 2021 01:52 Nouar wrote:In a blow for Trump and republicans in general, as he was a large donor, Sheldon Adelson died today. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/12/sheldon-adelson-casino-magnate-trump-donor-dies-aged-87As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. He donated millions of dollars for Holocaust museums and a Jewish schools. He was quite the philanthropist. It’s a blow to the millions he helped, his wife, and his children. He selflessly paid employees during COVID shutdowns. And all people can think about is political disagreement. Yeah, I hope everybody speaking ill of the recently dead is called out for the absolute ghouls that they are. So, in your view then, if, let's say Jeff Bezos, dies today, he's gonna be a hero in your mind ? After all the bullshit he's done, the working conditions at Amazon etc ? His foundation did some good things, but... Let's see... Amazing, he did pay his employees during the shutdowns ! Good ! (I wouldn't call it "selfless" though, just "humane". It's a drop in a lake for him, as if you gave 20 bucks to a homeless guy) He was also one of the worst offenders for decades in denying employees to unionize, which usually allows them to fight better for their rights instead of being at the mercy of their boss' mood. He directly spent a whole lot more than what he spent during the shutdowns, to have states outlaw collective bargaining, to deny his employees rights. Such a wonderful, selfless boss, always thinking about his workforce, right ? Yeah. Great (depending on your views), he fought against cannabis legalization because his son died of it and he considered it a gateway to harder drugs. Oops, should we forget he made his fortune with casinos/gambling, a business that is rigged against players and exploits addiction to squeeze the money out of people ? Spending millions to know the better ways to make people waste money again, by studying cognitive patterns and addictive behaviour. Splendid ! Wonderful, he donated to create hospitals (oops, in illegal settlements where Israel didn't have the right to build). Cool, jewish schools and holocaust museums. I don't have anything against that, it's cool. He did good things to send jewish youngsters in Israel for visits, that's also good. The issue is that looking at his extreme views, I'm not sure if all those things are not proselytism, which I'm less fond of. Against a state for palestinians, against international agreements, he weaponized the israeli-american council to serve his views. THEN you have the political actions in the USA or Israel, where republicans going to primaries had nearly no choice but to cosy to him to have a chance, and then he held them. I hate that shit, it's called corruption and influence trafficking, even if Citizen United more or less legalized it (it's like, 99% legal as long as you don't "coordinate". Fuck PACs). For example to get states to forbid collective bargaining by unions. Largest backer of Trump (we kinda know about that guy) and Netanyahu (an extreme right-wing bastard), etc etc. I could care less about the Republican and Trump funding, but I definitely weigh how he got his wealth, and what are his aims in weaponizing it. In my view, it definitely skews a LOT more towards bad than good. So yeah, good, he spent a few hundred millions to somewhat good causes (let's round to 500M$, 3% of his wealth, which is less % of my net worth than I donated in the last 5 years alone, praise me when I'm dead). Ok let's be honest, it's probably more as I didn't do a full-on research on his returns of course, just the more visible stuff. I'm not sure he followed up on a 200M annual pledge since 2008 to israeli causes for example. And the rest.... Bah. Outside of the 500M+ in the last 10 years to gain influence in politics, it's stuff like Freedom's Watch, advocating to continue the war in Irak, etc etc. To compare, Bill & Melinda Gates are at 45B in donations, with the rest of their fortunes to be donated when they die. You will most definitely NOT find Sheldon Adelson in the "Giving Pledge" list. I am not desecrating him, I just hate wonderful eulogies for people who did a little good and a lot of bad. It doesn't cancel out. I just said that I (me, myself), am not going to miss him, and it's a blow to the funding of the republican party. Call me a ghoul if that makes you feel better. Do note that he donated mostly to causes that served jews. Only a little was spent on stuff like medical research through a smaller foundation, that serve everyone. You will call me a great globalist, but I'm not fond of communautarism. It would also be good of you to remember that I am not a democrat nor an american, and that Adelson was not tied to a party until 12/15years ago. I could care less about a party. I care about what people say and do, and fight for. It would also be good of you to even read my fucking post, I mean, it was three lines, hardly a wall of text, unlike this one. I'll quote to you : As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. Did that mention anything political in why I didn't like him ? No. The closest would be the illegal settlements, and that's more human rights and international law than politics. Everyone deserves some respect, even if its the respect of silence since you can't say anything good about them, when they die. Anything less puts you at a realm barely human. Seriously. The totality of someone's character is not how you feel about Israel-Palestine, trade unionism, "too little spent on philanthropy compared to my ideal," political support of candidates, or whatever other political views you think are too far from mainstream. Come at him in a couple days if you think he's scum of the earth. I basically disagree with almost every sentence of criticism you put in here. But even if I think you're ignorant or morally twisted or whatever life experience and thought process gave rise to these opinions you hold, I can respect you if you observe a modicum of politeness when someone dies. Trump, for all his faults, did himself well when RBG died to give a universally positive speech, so don't act at a level beneath even his corrupt moral character. Even his ideological opposite, donating to causes I think trend towards destruction of good and loss of life, and all the other vitriol I could summon to describe him, George Soros, deserves quiet reflection should I find nothing good to say in the wake of his (eventual) death. I hope someday you argue yourself out of the immediate everything-bad-he-did at news of someone prominent dying, for the sake of politeness and a politics that doesn't live in the gutter of the street. "Barely human" ? I'm living my life humanely, by not exploiting my next-of-kin. My opinion of someone doesn't change when he dies, it is not a special event that should forgive everything. People who did good should be celebrated, people who did wrong should bear the cost. I did not insult him, I did not denigrate him, I simply summarized what are the highlights that stand out to me from his life, and told that I, for one, would not miss him. Sorry for not being a hypocrit. Did you compare what Trump said about RBG and what I said about Adelson ? You can think what you will of RBG, in your view she may be responsible for thousands of unborn deaths due to her position against abortion, as Adelson is, in my eyes, complicit in the deaths of a lot of people due to his positions (palestinians, gamblers, what you want). But the difference lies somewhere else. Trump is the top elected official of the nation, and has to observe decorum. This is the only time in his presidency when I was impressed by the restraint he showed. The rest of the time was spent mocking the disabled. I do not have to observe that decorum, nor provide public statement. I can provide my honest opinion, unbound by these shackles. Don't you believe the living deserve as much respect as the dead ? I'd rather someone keeps on living, but I'm going to be consistent in my opinion of them, alive, or dead. You can be sure I'm going to denigrate the hell out of Jean-Marie Le Pen after he dies, for the piece of shit he's been all his life, as I do while he is still alive. I'm just not going to shout it to his family. Don't tell me Adelson's wife and children as going to read my post, please. Death is only the end of life (it might be the start of another for some), but it's just a natural event that happens when the time comes. It does not magically erase the bullshit one has done, sorry. Obligatory godwin : would you have mourned Hitler ? Will you Khameini, Putin ? And about Soros ? As of May 2020, he had a net worth of $8.3 billion,[12][13] having donated more than $32 billion to the Open Society Foundations,[14] of which $15 billion have already been distributed, representing 64% of his original fortune, making him the "most generous giver" (in terms of percentage of net worth) according to Forbes.[15] Open Society Foundations (OSF), formerly the Open Society Institute, is an international grantmaking network founded by business magnate George Soros.[2] Open Society Foundations financially support civil society groups around the world, with a stated aim of advancing justice, education, public health and independent media. Even if that's a whole lot more than Adelson, and was not provided exclusively to a specific community, he still made his money from hedge funds and short-selling/buying during crises, which still makes him an asshole in my view, as this means others get the short end of the stick and are sent into poverty. Even Trump's businesses are less malevolent to me though some of his behaviour is shitty, as top-class buildings at least don't affect most regular people and don't result in deaths. (Trump's father preyed on the weak and poor though). You’ve pivoted twice from the issue of observing solemnity on the day of somebody’s death (you’d prefer to argue if he should be celebrated when I say to withhold such public judgements for a short time), so I have to take your reticence as something between misgivings or admission. Maybe you’d be down to insult the bride at a wedding, but maybe then you wouldn’t offer “The occasion didn’t matter, and waiting would’ve meant I approve of what she said or did.” My questions of humanity are directed at the viciousness and inhumanity at not allowing humans, in all their complexity, a small time period of relief when they leave this life. It’s either an internal moral problem, or never being taught basic rules of politeness as a child, or just being politically obsessed. Like, if you’re already in favor of harassing his kids, I already know the moral character just won’t be there for what to say on the day of someone’s death, but that’s a much worse example. I don’t know the cause, but I condemn the behavior and hope for a future when your moral tirades observe some kind of sensible limit. Anyways, further discussion in that direction isn’t likely of interest to the thread. You probably already know I have a much higher opinion of Adelson’s life work than you, but an equal or dimmer view of somebody like Soros, yet I won’t use Soros’s death as opportunity to mount my soap box to talk about his effect on the planet. I also observed silence on RBG’s death. I wish more who can’t think of positive things to say on a major figures death would wait and save the recapitulation for a couple days later or after the funeral, not because it means you respect them, but out of respect for shared humanity only.
The distinction is that people don't recognize post-death analysis as the same as talking shit at a wedding. We don't agree it is a valuable convention. You could talk all sorts of shit about Soros after he died and I wouldn't have a problem with it. You are adhering to principles you believe in, which is great. We are doing the same. When you cite the ways you have adhered to your morals that we don't share, not a lot is being said. Easy to say we all live fairly unique lives. The point at which it is appropriate to address the negative qualities of someone who died varies person to person. No one had a hard time talking shit about Bin Laden when he died. People draw that line at different places. I don't think you've effectively argued your line is more appropriate than mine or Nouar's. But we've all already pondered this idea and come to a conclusion. There isn't really any new data on the idea of where the line is drawn. It shouldn't be surprising that neither of us are convincing each other.
|
On January 14 2021 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 07:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2021 07:10 Nouar wrote:On January 14 2021 07:07 Jek wrote:On January 14 2021 07:01 Nouar wrote:On January 14 2021 06:56 Grumbels wrote:On January 14 2021 06:30 Nevuk wrote:On January 14 2021 06:20 Starlightsun wrote:On January 14 2021 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 14 2021 05:04 Starlightsun wrote:
I'm worried about the threatened armed protests at the state's capitols. Hopefully DC will be locked down with a concerted effort but all the rest feels like wildcards at this point. Especially places with lax gun laws and lots of Trump supporters (high overlap I would think). It just takes one person with explosives or high capacity magazines to wreck carnage. Fortunately for Oregon, dealing with right wing terrorists is like Canadians shoveling snow at this point. Won’t be long until we add right wing violence to our school drills Man that is scary . Luckily we don't have that in Hawaii but there's a surprising amount of trumpers coming out of the woodwork. On the local news they said our capitol building is one of the most open and least secure in the country. Pretty much every state has been warned to have the national guard called up and standing by for the next week for their first sessions (from the 17th-20th iirc). Which is the actual military (albeit less trained than active duty) rather than the poorly trained wannabes that many US cops tend to be (the capitol guard should be the best of the best, and well, you saw how that went). Which is the right call, it's safer for everyone involved: they have stricter rules of engagement, are less likely to kill, and this is something that they have been trained for (defensive perimeters against large numbers of hostiles - cops rarely get involved in things where they expect to be outnumbered). There are a bunch of somewhat amusing photos scattered around of them in the morning at the US capitol buildings. They're all sleeping or resting in most of the pictures, but I assume they're all taking shifts. It's far more than could ever be overwhelmed by a crowd. (Many representatives have posted pictures of the guards all along the hallways of the building). https://twitter.com/WCVB/status/1349365845496094722 This is such idiotic security theater. The attack on the capitol happened because they announced a huge demonstration and then the police let them in. There wasn't any need for an army to occupy Washington as deterrence. What do they think it does? Show strength? If the French army was seen lounging leasurely in official places and pictures were taken, heads would roll (figuratively speaking). At least get them chairs, beds, or put them in gymnasiums, park them somewhere please ? Not just dumped right in the middle... And if they are on duty, behave accordingly... This should be an eyesore for every military out there. Someone said earlier than the best should protect the capitol, I don't necessarily agree. The best units are sent where it's needed. Not on guard duty. You can have a core cluster of extremely trained professionnals, of course, but these experts do not train themselves to guard doors. They would quit faster than you could train them, it's not realistic. We have a specific military unit exactly for this purpose in Denmark. Livgarden. They protect the royal and particular important buildings, they are required to always have loaded weapons when they are on duty and need zero authorisation to use lethal force if they deem it necessary. ...and yes this also include the soldiers that are basically just standing guard as glorified tourist attractions. I was honestly shocked about how lax the security at Capitol was. We also have the "Garde Républicaine". They are however, far from being the most proficient experts we have. Just normal military (well, Gendarmerie), not special ops. To another post, yes, they may be the National Guard, however, give them quarters and don't let them lie in the halls... More than likely they are working on something. This was a last minute thing and the last thing you want is encampments on the hill with a bunch of military. Either way you slice this cake, it's still a bad PR look for the US. Insurgents attacked the capitol and most of the world expects something similar to happen during the inauguration. I'm pretty sure a military encampment on the hill will not make the US look worse then that.
I'm not saying it won't. Just optics during inauguration of military encampment is bad. So why not leave them inside to rush out if needed? Like I said, there's no right or wrong way about this. It is what it is.
|
On January 14 2021 07:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 06:53 Nouar wrote:On January 13 2021 09:25 Danglars wrote:On January 13 2021 03:33 Nouar wrote:On January 13 2021 02:42 Danglars wrote:On January 13 2021 01:52 Nouar wrote:In a blow for Trump and republicans in general, as he was a large donor, Sheldon Adelson died today. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/12/sheldon-adelson-casino-magnate-trump-donor-dies-aged-87As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. He donated millions of dollars for Holocaust museums and a Jewish schools. He was quite the philanthropist. It’s a blow to the millions he helped, his wife, and his children. He selflessly paid employees during COVID shutdowns. And all people can think about is political disagreement. Yeah, I hope everybody speaking ill of the recently dead is called out for the absolute ghouls that they are. So, in your view then, if, let's say Jeff Bezos, dies today, he's gonna be a hero in your mind ? After all the bullshit he's done, the working conditions at Amazon etc ? His foundation did some good things, but... Let's see... Amazing, he did pay his employees during the shutdowns ! Good ! (I wouldn't call it "selfless" though, just "humane". It's a drop in a lake for him, as if you gave 20 bucks to a homeless guy) He was also one of the worst offenders for decades in denying employees to unionize, which usually allows them to fight better for their rights instead of being at the mercy of their boss' mood. He directly spent a whole lot more than what he spent during the shutdowns, to have states outlaw collective bargaining, to deny his employees rights. Such a wonderful, selfless boss, always thinking about his workforce, right ? Yeah. Great (depending on your views), he fought against cannabis legalization because his son died of it and he considered it a gateway to harder drugs. Oops, should we forget he made his fortune with casinos/gambling, a business that is rigged against players and exploits addiction to squeeze the money out of people ? Spending millions to know the better ways to make people waste money again, by studying cognitive patterns and addictive behaviour. Splendid ! Wonderful, he donated to create hospitals (oops, in illegal settlements where Israel didn't have the right to build). Cool, jewish schools and holocaust museums. I don't have anything against that, it's cool. He did good things to send jewish youngsters in Israel for visits, that's also good. The issue is that looking at his extreme views, I'm not sure if all those things are not proselytism, which I'm less fond of. Against a state for palestinians, against international agreements, he weaponized the israeli-american council to serve his views. THEN you have the political actions in the USA or Israel, where republicans going to primaries had nearly no choice but to cosy to him to have a chance, and then he held them. I hate that shit, it's called corruption and influence trafficking, even if Citizen United more or less legalized it (it's like, 99% legal as long as you don't "coordinate". Fuck PACs). For example to get states to forbid collective bargaining by unions. Largest backer of Trump (we kinda know about that guy) and Netanyahu (an extreme right-wing bastard), etc etc. I could care less about the Republican and Trump funding, but I definitely weigh how he got his wealth, and what are his aims in weaponizing it. In my view, it definitely skews a LOT more towards bad than good. So yeah, good, he spent a few hundred millions to somewhat good causes (let's round to 500M$, 3% of his wealth, which is less % of my net worth than I donated in the last 5 years alone, praise me when I'm dead). Ok let's be honest, it's probably more as I didn't do a full-on research on his returns of course, just the more visible stuff. I'm not sure he followed up on a 200M annual pledge since 2008 to israeli causes for example. And the rest.... Bah. Outside of the 500M+ in the last 10 years to gain influence in politics, it's stuff like Freedom's Watch, advocating to continue the war in Irak, etc etc. To compare, Bill & Melinda Gates are at 45B in donations, with the rest of their fortunes to be donated when they die. You will most definitely NOT find Sheldon Adelson in the "Giving Pledge" list. I am not desecrating him, I just hate wonderful eulogies for people who did a little good and a lot of bad. It doesn't cancel out. I just said that I (me, myself), am not going to miss him, and it's a blow to the funding of the republican party. Call me a ghoul if that makes you feel better. Do note that he donated mostly to causes that served jews. Only a little was spent on stuff like medical research through a smaller foundation, that serve everyone. You will call me a great globalist, but I'm not fond of communautarism. It would also be good of you to remember that I am not a democrat nor an american, and that Adelson was not tied to a party until 12/15years ago. I could care less about a party. I care about what people say and do, and fight for. It would also be good of you to even read my fucking post, I mean, it was three lines, hardly a wall of text, unlike this one. I'll quote to you : As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. Did that mention anything political in why I didn't like him ? No. The closest would be the illegal settlements, and that's more human rights and international law than politics. Everyone deserves some respect, even if its the respect of silence since you can't say anything good about them, when they die. Anything less puts you at a realm barely human. Seriously. The totality of someone's character is not how you feel about Israel-Palestine, trade unionism, "too little spent on philanthropy compared to my ideal," political support of candidates, or whatever other political views you think are too far from mainstream. Come at him in a couple days if you think he's scum of the earth. I basically disagree with almost every sentence of criticism you put in here. But even if I think you're ignorant or morally twisted or whatever life experience and thought process gave rise to these opinions you hold, I can respect you if you observe a modicum of politeness when someone dies. Trump, for all his faults, did himself well when RBG died to give a universally positive speech, so don't act at a level beneath even his corrupt moral character. Even his ideological opposite, donating to causes I think trend towards destruction of good and loss of life, and all the other vitriol I could summon to describe him, George Soros, deserves quiet reflection should I find nothing good to say in the wake of his (eventual) death. I hope someday you argue yourself out of the immediate everything-bad-he-did at news of someone prominent dying, for the sake of politeness and a politics that doesn't live in the gutter of the street. "Barely human" ? I'm living my life humanely, by not exploiting my next-of-kin. My opinion of someone doesn't change when he dies, it is not a special event that should forgive everything. People who did good should be celebrated, people who did wrong should bear the cost. I did not insult him, I did not denigrate him, I simply summarized what are the highlights that stand out to me from his life, and told that I, for one, would not miss him. Sorry for not being a hypocrit. Did you compare what Trump said about RBG and what I said about Adelson ? You can think what you will of RBG, in your view she may be responsible for thousands of unborn deaths due to her position against abortion, as Adelson is, in my eyes, complicit in the deaths of a lot of people due to his positions (palestinians, gamblers, what you want). But the difference lies somewhere else. Trump is the top elected official of the nation, and has to observe decorum. This is the only time in his presidency when I was impressed by the restraint he showed. The rest of the time was spent mocking the disabled. I do not have to observe that decorum, nor provide public statement. I can provide my honest opinion, unbound by these shackles. Don't you believe the living deserve as much respect as the dead ? I'd rather someone keeps on living, but I'm going to be consistent in my opinion of them, alive, or dead. You can be sure I'm going to denigrate the hell out of Jean-Marie Le Pen after he dies, for the piece of shit he's been all his life, as I do while he is still alive. I'm just not going to shout it to his family. Don't tell me Adelson's wife and children as going to read my post, please. Death is only the end of life (it might be the start of another for some), but it's just a natural event that happens when the time comes. It does not magically erase the bullshit one has done, sorry. Obligatory godwin : would you have mourned Hitler ? Will you Khameini, Putin ? And about Soros ? As of May 2020, he had a net worth of $8.3 billion,[12][13] having donated more than $32 billion to the Open Society Foundations,[14] of which $15 billion have already been distributed, representing 64% of his original fortune, making him the "most generous giver" (in terms of percentage of net worth) according to Forbes.[15] Open Society Foundations (OSF), formerly the Open Society Institute, is an international grantmaking network founded by business magnate George Soros.[2] Open Society Foundations financially support civil society groups around the world, with a stated aim of advancing justice, education, public health and independent media. Even if that's a whole lot more than Adelson, and was not provided exclusively to a specific community, he still made his money from hedge funds and short-selling/buying during crises, which still makes him an asshole in my view, as this means others get the short end of the stick and are sent into poverty. Even Trump's businesses are less malevolent to me though some of his behaviour is shitty, as top-class buildings at least don't affect most regular people and don't result in deaths. (Trump's father preyed on the weak and poor though). You’ve pivoted twice from the issue of observing solemnity on the day of somebody’s death (you’d prefer to argue if he should be celebrated when I say to withhold such public judgements for a short time), so I have to take your reticence as something between misgivings or admission. Maybe you’d be down to insult the bride at a wedding, but maybe then you wouldn’t offer “The occasion didn’t matter, and waiting would’ve meant I approve of what she said or did.” My questions of humanity are directed at the viciousness and inhumanity at not allowing humans, in all their complexity, a small time period of relief when they leave this life. It’s either an internal moral problem, or never being taught basic rules of politeness as a child, or just being politically obsessed. Like, if you’re already in favor of harassing his kids, I already know the moral character just won’t be there for what to say on the day of someone’s death, but that’s a much worse example. I don’t know the cause, but I condemn the behavior and hope for a future when your moral tirades observe some kind of sensible limit. Anyways, further discussion in that direction isn’t likely of interest to the thread. You probably already know I have a much higher opinion of Adelson’s life work than you, but an equal or dimmer view of somebody like Soros, yet I won’t use Soros’s death as opportunity to mount my soap box to talk about his effect on the planet. I also observed silence on RBG’s death. I wish more who can’t think of positive things to say on a major figures death would wait and save the recapitulation for a couple days later or after the funeral, not because it means you respect them, but out of respect for shared humanity only.
This is a political discussion thread on a private website. You seriously expect me to not discuss the death of an important figure in the last few decades of the US and the impact he had ? It's not as if I crashed his burial to spit on his tomb ?
Who needs relief and solemnity here on TL ? His family is not present, I am not disallowing his children to mourn him, what is your issue exactly with me discussing it here, arguing that I am bringing the politics into a political discussion thread ? Your last few posts on this topic were spent insulting me, so keep your moral guidance away, please. Seriously, who are you to insinuate I've not been taught basic moral rules, when you come from a country where half of it (your party) can't give a damn to respect rules to keep your neighbor alive or allow safe medical procedures to women ?
Did I even say he deserved it ? No. I just said I wouldn't miss him, with one or two example why. I'm not wishing death on anyone. You know, my country doesn't have a death sentence anymore, and especially not a very vicious, painful death with questionable chemicals.
To me, the living deserve our humanity more than the dead. Thus I'd of course respect the mourning time of the family, thank you very much for assuming otherwise in your ignorance. However, the dead do not care anymore, and for the last time, this IS the place to discuss what he has done, especially in politics. The thread moves fast, nobody will be speaking of it in a few days.
I wish you'd extend that humanity you expect to living, distressed people all over the world, with no segregation between their nationality, religion or upbringing (do discriminate based on their acts, though, as it should be). Like... children at the border ? Their parents ? Dreamers ? Only to look at your door.
I don't really see where I've pivoted, you reacted very strongly to my initial post that only said I wouldn't miss him by calling me a inhumane ghoul (and a democrat in the follow up, lol ?), so I elaborated a bit.
Last post on the topic.
|
Quick question guys: a politician or leader of a country or big donor of a political party is the bride at a wedding. Do you think it is acceptable to talk about the politics of the bride on a random internet subforum dedicated to politics? Honest question here. Would be interested to hear your thoughts.
|
On January 14 2021 07:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Quick question guys: a politician, leader of a country, big donor of a political class is the bride at a wedding. Do you think it is acceptable to talk about the politics of the bride on a random internet forum? Honest question here. Would be interested to hear your thoughts.
I do, personally.
I see death as a different, completely separate issue with its own set of rules.
|
But why though? You think it acceptable to not subscribe to the etiquette of a wedding being applied to online conversation, so why would you think it unacceptable to not subscribe to the etiquette of a funeral to an online conversation? I genuinely cannot see the difference. Does this extend to all people, including tyrannical dictators, murderers, terrorists, Bob down the street, or just to American politicians and donors?
|
On January 14 2021 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
But why though? You think it acceptable to not subscribe to the etiquette of a wedding being applied to online conversation, so why would you think it unacceptable to not subscribe to the etiquette of a funeral to an online conversation? I genuinely cannot see the difference. Does this extend to all people, including tyrannical dictators, murderers, terrorists, Bob down the street, or just to American politicians and donors?
I don't really care about etiquette. Its not about that. Like I said before, its about what I would want upon my death. If I'm getting married i genuinely don't care what someone has to say. When I die, I'd rather not be attacked.
Its not really a political belief of mine, its more of a psychological/moral thing. Its hard to describe without misrepresenting my own position. I don't think people are bad for discussing whatever they want however they want whenever they want, but if I feel like it would be disrespectful, I won't join in.
|
When Kissinger dies I’m sure we’ll get a lot of pre-written “elderly statesmen who advised multiple presidents” hagiographies, under the guise of showing respect to the deceased. But such hagiographies are themselves intensely political, they decide how someone will be remembered in those pivotal first few days of news coverage. By limiting discussion you are making a political decision , especially since many foreign leaders aren’t given this courtesy.
|
On January 14 2021 08:28 Grumbels wrote:
When Kissinger dies I’m sure we’ll get a lot of pre-written “elderly statesmen who advised multiple presidents” hagiographies, under the guise of showing respect to the deceased. But such hagiographies are themselves intensely political, they decide how someone will be remembered in those pivotal first few days of news coverage. By limiting discussion you are making a political decision , especially since many foreign leaders aren’t given this courtesy.
This is incredibly cynical in my opinion.
If all you get from someone's death is that its an opportunity to grab the political narrative, I'm just sad for you.
To be clear, not wanting to badmouth someone upon their death is not necessarily a political thing at all.
|
On January 14 2021 08:38 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 08:28 Grumbels wrote:
When Kissinger dies I’m sure we’ll get a lot of pre-written “elderly statesmen who advised multiple presidents” hagiographies, under the guise of showing respect to the deceased. But such hagiographies are themselves intensely political, they decide how someone will be remembered in those pivotal first few days of news coverage. By limiting discussion you are making a political decision , especially since many foreign leaders aren’t given this courtesy. This is incredibly cynical in my opinion. If all you get from someone's death is that its an opportunity to grab the political narrative, I'm just sad for you. To be clear, not wanting to badmouth someone upon their death is not necessarily a political thing at all.
What political narrative is there to grab? We're just random people on an internet forum talking about politics. None of us benefit any time we make a point or anything. We aren't cosplaying as McConnell and Pelosi dueling it out. We are discussing ideas and nothing we discuss will ever manifest into anything. We have no incentive to not discuss an idea since nothing comes from it either way.
|
On January 14 2021 08:11 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
But why though? You think it acceptable to not subscribe to the etiquette of a wedding being applied to online conversation, so why would you think it unacceptable to not subscribe to the etiquette of a funeral to an online conversation? I genuinely cannot see the difference. Does this extend to all people, including tyrannical dictators, murderers, terrorists, Bob down the street, or just to American politicians and donors? I don't really care about etiquette. Its not about that. Like I said before, its about what I would want upon my death. If I'm getting married i genuinely don't care what someone has to say. When I die, I'd rather not be attacked. Its not really a political belief of mine, its more of a psychological/moral thing. Its hard to describe without misrepresenting my own position. I don't think people are bad for discussing whatever they want however they want whenever they want, but if I feel like it would be disrespectful, I won't join in.
I'm kind of the opposite, when Im dead I won't be alive to give a fuck what anyone says about me. I do respect the do unto others logic though, frankly its more than some people in this world deserve, but at least I understand it.
That being said we should be harshly critical of the power in both life and death, because they're the ones with power and glorifying them despite their misdeeds can be shitty, I mean look at how many people look up to Civil War people despite the fact that they're literal traitors who lead a war against the country they commonly claim to love.
I'd feel better about not speaking ill of the dead in the more localized context, if someone in this thread died I'd not-speak-ill-of-the-dead. When someone like Trump dies, or Rupert Murdoch, or any other powerful person? I will find it significantly less demanding to be so charitable.
|
On January 14 2021 08:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 08:38 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 14 2021 08:28 Grumbels wrote:
When Kissinger dies I’m sure we’ll get a lot of pre-written “elderly statesmen who advised multiple presidents” hagiographies, under the guise of showing respect to the deceased. But such hagiographies are themselves intensely political, they decide how someone will be remembered in those pivotal first few days of news coverage. By limiting discussion you are making a political decision , especially since many foreign leaders aren’t given this courtesy. This is incredibly cynical in my opinion. If all you get from someone's death is that its an opportunity to grab the political narrative, I'm just sad for you. To be clear, not wanting to badmouth someone upon their death is not necessarily a political thing at all. What political narrative is there to grab? We're just random people on an internet forum talking about politics. None of us benefit any time we make a point or anything. We aren't cosplaying as McConnell and Pelosi dueling it out. We are discussing ideas and nothing we discuss will ever manifest into anything. We have no incentive to not discuss an idea since nothing comes from it either way.
I dunno, I guess referring to the period just after someone dies as pivotal for news coverage just seems to be missing the point.
I'm trying to explain how I see this but I keep having to delete and start again because I sound like a prick.
Its personal. Respect for the recently deceased is a universal principle (because we all die, and we all have to deal with the deaths of those close to us) and I'm sad that it no longer seems to really apply, but i choose to still observe it and would encourage others to do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
