|
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 |
The sovereign nation of ticklish has a trade deficit with pretty much everything except his job.
|
On July 03 2018 00:59 xDaunt wrote:
It's not about protecting certain industries so much as it is about leveling the playing field. The critical thing to understand is that what exists now is not free trade. I'm not against free trade. I'm very much for it. However, I'm not in favor of the current system in which the US is effectively subsidizing many foreign industries through de facto toleration of foreign protectionism.
So if we were to look at what successful outcome for an American trade war might look like, it would be a combination of 1) reduced trade imbalances, and 2) more equal trade agreements with foreign countries.
So like the trade surplus and the free trade agreement you already had with Canada?
And if you really want completely free trade and no subsidizing of industries, I hope that includes letting US industries collapse as well.
|
On July 03 2018 00:59 xDaunt wrote:
It's not about protecting certain industries so much as it is about leveling the playing field. The critical thing to understand is that what exists now is not free trade. I'm not against free trade. I'm very much for it. However, I'm not in favor of the current system in which the US is effectively subsidizing many foreign industries through de facto toleration of foreign protectionism.
So if we were to look at what successful outcome for an American trade war might look like, it would be a combination of 1) reduced trade imbalances, and 2) more equal trade agreements with foreign countries.
I ask for your thoughts, and instead I got more political slogans instead of substance. You cannot be both for free trade, yet want to legislate against free trade.
How exactly is USA subsidising British industries for instance?. How is US tolerating British foreign protectionism? For 1) why are you so focused on trade imbalances? Why do you think this is a goal in and of itself? For 2) what trade agreements do you view as unfavourable? What about trade agreements you view as favourable to USA? Should those be changed to be neutral?
|
On July 03 2018 01:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
The sovereign nation of ticklish has a trade deficit with pretty much everything except his job.
The nation of Ticklish need to do more shopping at the company store so that it has as trade deficits with as few entities as possible, even if the store's goods are more expensive.
|
Can someone explain to me the argument behind why a trade surplus is inherently bad? Doesn’t it just mean that the country with a surplus produces more than the other? If that’s the case, it would seem that a surplus is the natural consequence.
|
On July 02 2018 13:47 xDaunt wrote:Given that we're somewhat back on the topic of the motivation for Republicans to support Trump, let's put a bow on the conversation that we had a couple days ago about the Never Trumpers. This article from the American Spectator has been making the rounds over the past few days and is on point. Here it is with a little commentary: Show nested quote +With the installation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and a yet-to-be-named reliable replacement for the unreliable Anthony Kennedy, Donald Trump will have confirmed himself as the most consequential conservative president of the modern era (or a close second to Reagan if you’re nostalgic). This will be complete vindication for Trump supporters, which means it’s really the end for the so-called Never Trump conservatives. Of course, there have been so many humiliating defeats for that crowd that we are spoiled for choice. What was your favorite blunder, or blown prediction, which marked their ignominious end? This first line deserves some emphasis. Trump has been a more conservative president than either of the Bush's that preceded him. It's not just about the Supreme Court nominations, either. Trump has been thoroughly conservative across the board with the exception of his trade policy, depending upon how you want to look at it. This track record alone makes the Never Trumpers look hilariously foolish in retrospect, to the extent that they deserved any respect at all. Show nested quote +For some, it must have been in March when Bill Kristol, longtime editor of the conservative magazine the Weekly Standard, showed up in New Hampshire telling people he would run against President Trump in 2020. Or in April when the conservative website RedState was taken over and purged of writers who were “insufficiently supportive” of the president. Some go back to October 2017 when a Twitter spat broke out between Stephen Hayes and Brit Hume of Fox News over the Weekly Standard’s anti-Trump editorials. With the death last week of Charles Krauthammer, the revered neocon commentator and prominent Trump skeptic, the eclipse of the neocon intellectuals is complete.
One thing’s for sure: it wasn’t really a war so much as a rout. The Never Trump intellectual crowd has no momentum and no popular following these days. Consider the trajectory of their would-be leader Kristol, who appears to be indulging in a personal fantasy by putting himself forward as a candidate, as his rapport with GOP voters includes trying to run Evan McMullin in Utah to throw the 2016 election to Hillary Clinton. When that stunt failed, Kristol personally insulted the pro-Trump writer Michael Anton for his influential essay “The Flight 93 election.” Then Kristol’s commentator gig with Fox was not renewed, and he was soon accusing Tucker Carlson of “ethno-nationalism” and “racism.” Overshadowing all of these breaks was Kristol’s personal history of being the conservative’s answer to Bob Shrum, a political “pro” who was always very wrong about politics.
Of course, Kristol was not alone in his contempt for Trump — he was only the most vocal and unhinged. Alongside him were other conservatives like Jennifer Rubin and George Will and Michael Gerson at the Washington Post; Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal; David Brooks and Ross Douthat at the New York Times; Jonah Goldberg and David French at National Review; Ramesh Ponnuru at Bloomberg; and Erick Erickson at RedState. A number of others, people like David Frum and Ana Navarro, committed political seppuku early and endorsed Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, the careers of most of these people have been curtailed dramatically. Anyone who despised the Bush-era neocons should be absolutely thrilled with Trump's arrival on the scene. Show nested quote +What happened? If these intellectuals were so influential in the conservative movement, then why has their apostasy garnered so little attention? A Ramesh Ponnuru editorial in Bloomberg blurted out this truth: “In 2016 we found out that conservative elites didn’t speak for Republican voters.” This split between the party’s base and its donor class (as well as the donor-funded intellectuals) was years in the making, but it became obvious once Trump became the nominee. Then the truth became obvious and damning: the Never Trumpers represented no one but themselves.
Looking back, it now seems self-evident that conservative pundits were preposterously out of touch. (Who isn’t amused by the poindexter pretentiousness of George Will’s bow-ties or the pseudo-scholarly piffle of Jonah Goldberg’s byline as “the inaugural holder of the Asness Chair in Applied Liberty?”). These intellectuals barely noticed the opioid crisis running through small town America; or the base’s anger regarding illegal immigration; and they were adamantly opposed to any restriction of free trade while working class frustrations mounted over NAFTA and its ilk. (This explains why J. D. Vance and his book Hillbilly Elegy was Washington’s must-read book of 2017: it provided a portrait of rural America that the political class could digest without condescending to visit such places or talk to such voters.) It turns out that conservative intellectuals, living inside the “Acela Corridor” and funded exclusively by think tanks and foundations, are poor barometers of Republican voter concerns. The big tell here has always been the illegal immigration debate. No issue more clearly laid bare the disagreements between the establishment and the base of the GOP. The major rift dates back to the W administration, and it has only gotten worse as the establishment, fueled by big donor money, has continued to push it upon an unwilling base. Show nested quote +This myopia has several causes. The first is a kind of cultural “capture” that occurs when conservatives live in blue districts and big cities too long. They become, in other words, clueless (RINOS). The second reason is more obvious: many of these people are paid to be openly hostile to Trump’s agenda. The free trade absolutists at AEI and Cato are on salary to oppose any protectionist trade policies. Likewise, hawkish interventionists such as Max Boot knew they had no professional future once Trump’s isolationist instincts became policy. Speak of the devil. This is exactly what the Flight 93 article was attacking conservative intellectuals for. Show nested quote +There is also a low-testosterone, dilettantish strain of conservatism that has overdeveloped in the “mainstream” media to create such sterile hybrids as Michael Gerson and George Will and David Brooks. Nothing sunk these so-called wise men lower in the estimation of their fellow conservatives than their blithe indifference to the Clintons’ gangsterism. While Trump threw wild verbal haymakers at Hillary at campaign rallies, these intellectuals were basically on TV announcing they would be accommodationists for the Clinton Machine’s inevitable victory. Trump’s base was fighting a war; these guys were sipping tea. The contrast in styles of conservatism was stark: it was the pugnacious billionaire against the stuffy wimps. I can't stress the importance of these comments enough. Conservatives rallied to Trump because, unlike the rest of the GOP, Trump fights. Most of you probably are too young to remember the Bush years, but little in politics made conservatives angrier than Bush's refusal to fight back and respond to the relentless barrage of unfair criticism that was thrown his way. W just took it on the chin. Repeatedly. Romney following W's class act, and it didn't get him anywhere. Though I don't like to use the term, conservatives felt somewhat collectively bullied and instinctively yearned for a champion. We got one with orange hair. Show nested quote +The greatest disconnect is religious and cultural: the Republican Party is overwhelmingly Caucasian and Christian and traditional on social issues, while its pundits skew Jewish and agnostic and libertarian. Krauthammer wanted to have it both ways, which is not unlike the hedging that Brooks and Goldberg have displayed. George Will went so far as to say: “I’m an atheist. An agnostic is someone who is not sure. I’m pretty sure. I see no evidence of God.” Meanwhile, Gerson is a liberal Episcopalian who took to the pages of the Atlantic to attack evangelicals for supporting Trump. In sum, the conservative intellectuals didn’t understand the base’s concerns about religious liberty because they hardly cared for religion — which should have disqualified them long ago. Pay careful attention to this paragraph. This is where we see conservative identity politics rear its ugly head. Show nested quote +The curious uniformity of the Never Trump crowd extends beyond them being heretics who claim to be spokesmen for the Christian base. On every important issue of the election, it was hard to find one of them who could even articulate Trump’s position, let alone support it. Tucker Carlson was one of the few to see this stupidity early and he registered his dissent well in a break-out essay: Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They’re the ones who’ve been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they’re telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don’t, they’re liberal. The sad truth was that the Never Trumpers were not safeguarding the ideas of conservatism so much as themselves. Carlson nailed the heart of the matter: “If Trump is leading a populist movement, many of his Republican critics have joined an elitist one. Deriding Trump is an act of class solidarity, visible evidence of refinement and proof that you live nowhere near a Wal-Mart.” That is why the continuing success of the Trump Presidency has been met with escalating anger and vituperation from the Never Trumpers — the news cycle is a daily reminder that they were wrong about everything. Can you be wrong about everything and still be part of the elite? Yeah, Tucker nailed it. The Never Trumpers -- so called champions of conservatism -- aren't even really all that conservative. Perhaps now you have a better understanding of why I used previously used the word "charlatans" to describe them. Oh, and notice how Tucker's career has exploded while most of the Never Trumpers' careers have gone down the toilet. The people know what the score is. Show nested quote +That is a question being asked in front of many mirrors inside many Washington mansions today. Many people mistook their policy positions for principles, and Trump has made them look foolish. What do they stand for now? What does it mean to be conservative if you’re not clear about what you’re conserving? Credit David Brooks, of all people, with waving the white flag first this April, and with some humility when he admitted that “Part of the problem is that anti-Trumpism has a tendency to be insufferably condescending.” Brooks then basically summarized the great failure of the Never Trumpers as “an epic attempt to offend 40 percent of our fellow citizens by reducing them to psychological inferiors.”
Meanwhile his former comrade, George Will, was not for surrender or appeasement. He had finally found an enemy to relish: his fellow conservatives. One measure of Will’s self-exile was the indifference his most recent column elicited, though it urged Republicans to vote against the GOP at the midterms “for their own good.” Was anyone still listening? It was Will who sagely warned the world mere days before the election: “Until the Republican Party gets right with minorities in this country, it’s never going to win another presidential election.” Not content with that spectacular blunder, Will had doubled down with attacks on Billy Graham and Vice President Mike Pence. The symbolism of such stunts, at least, was clear. As a model conservative, Will stands alone in his own estimation. And what could be more conservative than voting for liberal Democrats?
In that sense, Will’s latest column was merely the fitting coda to a long career of effete snobbery — one that had led him to “leave the party” before it won the White House and march off into the wilderness. (Someday, his columns from the Trump years will be collected and they should be titled: “An Apotheosis of Narcissism.”) He would take his tea and his bow-tie elsewhere. The headmaster of the stuffy wimps would not take part in the victory of the counter-punchers. At last, like so many of his fellow Never Trumpers, he was a pundit without a party and, ultimately, without an audience. I hadn't previously seen that David Brooks piece before, but it is quite delightful. Here's how Brooks concludes the piece: Show nested quote +The main reason Trump won the presidency is that tens of millions of Americans rightly feel that their local economies are under attack, their communities are dissolving and their religious liberties are under threat. Trump understood the problems of large parts of America better than anyone else. He has been able to strengthen his grip on power over the past year because he has governed as he campaigned.
Until somebody comes up with a better defense strategy, Trump and Trumpism will dominate. Voters are willing to put up with a lot of nonsense for a president they think is basically on their side.
Just after the election, Luigi Zingales wrote a Times op-ed on how not to fight Trump, based on the Italian experience fighting Silvio Berlusconi. Don’t focus on personality or the man, Zingales advised. That will just make Trump the people’s hero against the Washington caste. Focus instead on the social problems that gave rise to Trumpism.
That is the advice we anti-Trumpers still need to learn. As for George Will, good riddance to him. He should go back to hosting dinner parties for Obama.
I only read that bolder first line but it kind of comes out swinging with a fallacy, because any other Republican President would have the same Supreme Court result as Trump. It provides no support for backing Donald Trump (really let the full name soak in and think about who it is - Donald Trump) as President.
|
On July 03 2018 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:
Can someone explain to me the argument behind why a trade surplus is inherently bad? Doesn’t it just mean that the country with a surplus produces more than the other? If that’s the case, it would seem that a surplus is the natural consequence.
I think you mean trade deficit. And people see a trade deficit as bad because they view it like a balance sheet. They see it as spending, rather than the amount of good the people of their nation are buying. Any nation with a robust economy could run a trade deficit simply because demand outstripped the local infrastructure. And it is cheaper to import the good than to spin up new production that will be shut down when the economy cooled off.
The problem in the US is that communities that were centered around industries like steel or making cars never found a way to replace that economic driver. So they slowly died out or are limping along. This is compounded by other factors, but a lot of industries died out in rural America and were never replaced. The entire region I was from was powered by textiles for the 60s through the late 80s. Then the factories moved south and finally to Mexico. A good number of those towns never recovered and limp along with substandard infrastructure built 30 years ago. Even my parents business will end with them, because all the work went to Mexico and the specialty works we did only exists because of my father's business connection.
Now if our goverment were interested in creating new jobs, they would get behind solar like they got behind the highway system and put the solar panel production in one of these rural areas. But that would involve governing, changing our power infrastructure(power plans and utilities providers are different companies and solar really messes up the balance of power between them). No one wants to do that because change is scary and its easier to just wait until it all falls apart.
|
On July 03 2018 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:
Can someone explain to me the argument behind why a trade surplus is inherently bad? Doesn’t it just mean that the country with a surplus produces more than the other? If that’s the case, it would seem that a surplus is the natural consequence.
it's not bad; it's just some bs based on not understanding how trade works.
do you want to understand the flawed logic that led some to believe a trade deficit is bad?
or do you want to understand the underlying topic more generally?
|
On July 03 2018 01:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Found out the Democratic socialists of America have a chapter near where I live. Gonna attend a meeting at some point and post about my thoughts here.
Mm that'll be fun. I wonder what increases in membership they get from Ocasio-Cortez. Happy socializing and look forward to the report back!
|
My favorite reporting about Ocasio-Cortez is the guy who tracked down her home, tried to claim she wasn’t from a working class upbringing and claimed she went to Brown, one of those “Ivy League schools”.
Her mother was a maid that worked extra hard so her daughter could attend a good school in the rich part of town and she went to BU. It is like the clown reporter didn’t even try. It is going to be fun watching the old guard of conservative Dems and Republicans lose their mind trying to attack a 28 year old bartender who knows how to meme.
|
On July 03 2018 01:21 Mohdoo wrote:
Found out the Democratic socialists of America have a chapter near where I live. Gonna attend a meeting at some point and post about my thoughts here.
My biggest question about DSA is how many times a day they have to explain the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism to newcomers because Bernie messed that up.
|
Court records show that Ramos pleaded guilty in July 2011 to criminal harassment in Anne Arundel County, where the Capital Gazette is based. A 90-day jail sentence was suspended, and Ramos was placed on 18 months' supervised probation.
Five days later, the Capital Gazette published a column headlined "Jarrod wants to be your friend," profiling the woman who said she was the victim of Ramos' harassment. The article is no longer on the newspaper's website, but it was reprinted in full in the court documents.
In the column, the woman, whose name was withheld, claimed that Ramos, a former high school classmate, tracked her down on Facebook and then harshly harassed her through email for as long as two years.
The column quoted her as saying that Ramos urged her to kill herself and that the bank where she worked put her on probation because of "an email from Ramos and a follow-up phone call in which he advised them to fire her."
The column said she was laid off a few months later and "believes, but can't prove, it was because of Ramos."
In July 2012, Ramos, representing himself, sued the Capital Gazette; Eric Hartley, a former reporter who wrote the column; and Thomas Marquardt, the newspaper's publisher at the time, in Prince George's County Circuit Court alleging defamation. He filed a longer complaint in October 2012, two months after the statute of limitations for the alleged defamation had expired, adding an allegation of invasion of privacy.
The circuit judge dismissed the complaint in 2013, saying: "There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false. It all came from a public record. It was of the result of a criminal conviction. And it cannot give rise to a defamation suit."
Ramos appealed, and in September 2015, the appeals court upheld the dismissal, writing that Ramos "never alleges that any basic fact contained in the article about his guilty plea is actually false."
"The appellant was charged with a criminal act," the court wrote. "The appellant perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant plead guilty to having perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant was punished for his criminal act. ... He does not appear to have learned his lesson."
Marquardt, the former publisher of the Capital Gazette, told the Baltimore Sun that he wasn't surprised Ramos was identified as the suspect because he began harassing the newspaper's staff shortly after the 2011 article was published. www.nbcnews.com
The Capital Gazette shooting was personal, but if you look a little deeper, the shooter's beef with the paper was that it reported facts about him. He sued it for defamation, lost because he not only failed to show that it had published any falsehoods, but in the appeal decision, the judge found that he didn't even allege that anything the offending article contained was false.
That was two and a half years ago. Its pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards journalism in this country with any individual's willingness to escalate their beef with journalists into violence.
|
On July 03 2018 03:59 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +Court records show that Ramos pleaded guilty in July 2011 to criminal harassment in Anne Arundel County, where the Capital Gazette is based. A 90-day jail sentence was suspended, and Ramos was placed on 18 months' supervised probation.
Five days later, the Capital Gazette published a column headlined "Jarrod wants to be your friend," profiling the woman who said she was the victim of Ramos' harassment. The article is no longer on the newspaper's website, but it was reprinted in full in the court documents.
In the column, the woman, whose name was withheld, claimed that Ramos, a former high school classmate, tracked her down on Facebook and then harshly harassed her through email for as long as two years.
The column quoted her as saying that Ramos urged her to kill herself and that the bank where she worked put her on probation because of "an email from Ramos and a follow-up phone call in which he advised them to fire her."
The column said she was laid off a few months later and "believes, but can't prove, it was because of Ramos."
In July 2012, Ramos, representing himself, sued the Capital Gazette; Eric Hartley, a former reporter who wrote the column; and Thomas Marquardt, the newspaper's publisher at the time, in Prince George's County Circuit Court alleging defamation. He filed a longer complaint in October 2012, two months after the statute of limitations for the alleged defamation had expired, adding an allegation of invasion of privacy.
The circuit judge dismissed the complaint in 2013, saying: "There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false. It all came from a public record. It was of the result of a criminal conviction. And it cannot give rise to a defamation suit."
Ramos appealed, and in September 2015, the appeals court upheld the dismissal, writing that Ramos "never alleges that any basic fact contained in the article about his guilty plea is actually false."
"The appellant was charged with a criminal act," the court wrote. "The appellant perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant plead guilty to having perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant was punished for his criminal act. ... He does not appear to have learned his lesson."
Marquardt, the former publisher of the Capital Gazette, told the Baltimore Sun that he wasn't surprised Ramos was identified as the suspect because he began harassing the newspaper's staff shortly after the 2011 article was published. www.nbcnews.comThe Capital Gazette shooting was personal, but if you look a little deeper, the shooter's beef with the paper was that it reported facts about him. He sued it for defamation, lost because he not only failed to show that it had published any falsehoods, but in the appeal decision, the judge found that he didn't even allege that anything the offending article contained was false. That was two and a half years ago. Its pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards journalism in this country with any individual's willingness to escalate their beef with journalists into violence.
And on the flip side, it's an entirely detestable act to place a crazy shooting up a newspaper years after they published an article at the feet of Trump. You don't want to go down this road. This is the kind of mind-bogging logic that puts the baseball shooter at the feet of anti-GOP rhetoric that makes the left the reason the shooter shot up a baseball stadium. This is where people blame you for being part of the anti-cop rhetoric that inspires leftists to assassinate police officers.
It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards GOP Congressmen in this country with any individuals to escalate their beef with the GOP into violence
It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing frequency of calling GOP members Nazis in this country with any individuals inspired to shoot Republican Congressmen
Just to re-purpose your conclusion to other acts that will be brought up, should more people adopt your logic.
You're exploring a very deep and dark pit. I'm probably not the right sympathetic voice to relay this to you, considering last month you accused me of being a threat to your very life and celebratory if you died. But all the same, I hope you get the message. The absolute narcissism of making Ramos in Annapolis, Maryland all about Trump in Washington, DC will end very badly for all parties involved.
|
Canada11350 Posts
On July 02 2018 22:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 12:36 Falling wrote:"Colourblind" is the PC way for racists too cowardly to say they're racists to identify themselves to others. That may be true for some. But it seems to me, on the whole, what many people who identify themselves as 'colorblind' are trying to say (perhaps inelegantly) is that they see people as individuals rather than classes. That they see Ben as 'my friend Ben', or 'Ben the next door neighbour' first and foremost. Not Ben, one of the Blacks. Not that they are literally blind, but the claim to colorblindess is (for many) signalling that their judgement is on content of character, not colour of skin. Whether you believe them is another thing, but from the people that I've heard using 'colourblind' unironically, I'm very confident that is what they intend it to mean. Can’t be racist against Ben if you don’t acknowledge Ben has a race. That means you’re just being an asshole to Ben, and people who look like Ben, just a coincidence, nothing to infer there. They’re racists, plain and simple.
I think, when they say that, they also are meaning they aren't being an a-hole towards Ben either. Hence: 'Ben, my friend.' And again, I don't think it's a denial of ethnicity, but that ethnicity is such a small factor in why they treat someone well or poorly, that it might as well not be there, when accounting for differing treatment of other people. I believe that is the intended meaning.
|
On July 03 2018 04:20 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:07 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2018 12:36 Falling wrote:"Colourblind" is the PC way for racists too cowardly to say they're racists to identify themselves to others. That may be true for some. But it seems to me, on the whole, what many people who identify themselves as 'colorblind' are trying to say (perhaps inelegantly) is that they see people as individuals rather than classes. That they see Ben as 'my friend Ben', or 'Ben the next door neighbour' first and foremost. Not Ben, one of the Blacks. Not that they are literally blind, but the claim to colorblindess is (for many) signalling that their judgement is on content of character, not colour of skin. Whether you believe them is another thing, but from the people that I've heard using 'colourblind' unironically, I'm very confident that is what they intend it to mean. Can’t be racist against Ben if you don’t acknowledge Ben has a race. That means you’re just being an asshole to Ben, and people who look like Ben, just a coincidence, nothing to infer there. They’re racists, plain and simple. I think, when they say that, they also are meaning they aren't being an a-hole towards Ben either. Hence: 'Ben, my friend.' And again, I don't think it's a denial of ethnicity, but that ethnicity is such a small factor in why they treat someone well or poorly, that it might as well not be there, when accounting for differing treatment of other people. I believe that is the intended meaning.
But not everyone who is saying they are “colorblind” about race is being honest. That is why coded racist language, or dog whistle racism exists. You don’t see the term “Cultural Marxism” used a lot unless you traffic in anti-Semitic sections of the internet. And when they use “Cultural Marxism”, they are not talking the discussions that took place at the Frankfurt School of social theory.
|
On July 03 2018 04:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 03:59 Kyadytim wrote:Court records show that Ramos pleaded guilty in July 2011 to criminal harassment in Anne Arundel County, where the Capital Gazette is based. A 90-day jail sentence was suspended, and Ramos was placed on 18 months' supervised probation.
Five days later, the Capital Gazette published a column headlined "Jarrod wants to be your friend," profiling the woman who said she was the victim of Ramos' harassment. The article is no longer on the newspaper's website, but it was reprinted in full in the court documents.
In the column, the woman, whose name was withheld, claimed that Ramos, a former high school classmate, tracked her down on Facebook and then harshly harassed her through email for as long as two years.
The column quoted her as saying that Ramos urged her to kill herself and that the bank where she worked put her on probation because of "an email from Ramos and a follow-up phone call in which he advised them to fire her."
The column said she was laid off a few months later and "believes, but can't prove, it was because of Ramos."
In July 2012, Ramos, representing himself, sued the Capital Gazette; Eric Hartley, a former reporter who wrote the column; and Thomas Marquardt, the newspaper's publisher at the time, in Prince George's County Circuit Court alleging defamation. He filed a longer complaint in October 2012, two months after the statute of limitations for the alleged defamation had expired, adding an allegation of invasion of privacy.
The circuit judge dismissed the complaint in 2013, saying: "There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false. It all came from a public record. It was of the result of a criminal conviction. And it cannot give rise to a defamation suit."
Ramos appealed, and in September 2015, the appeals court upheld the dismissal, writing that Ramos "never alleges that any basic fact contained in the article about his guilty plea is actually false."
"The appellant was charged with a criminal act," the court wrote. "The appellant perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant plead guilty to having perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant was punished for his criminal act. ... He does not appear to have learned his lesson."
Marquardt, the former publisher of the Capital Gazette, told the Baltimore Sun that he wasn't surprised Ramos was identified as the suspect because he began harassing the newspaper's staff shortly after the 2011 article was published. www.nbcnews.comThe Capital Gazette shooting was personal, but if you look a little deeper, the shooter's beef with the paper was that it reported facts about him. He sued it for defamation, lost because he not only failed to show that it had published any falsehoods, but in the appeal decision, the judge found that he didn't even allege that anything the offending article contained was false. That was two and a half years ago. Its pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards journalism in this country with any individual's willingness to escalate their beef with journalists into violence. And on the flip side, it's an entirely detestable act to place a crazy shooting up a newspaper years after they published an article at the feet of Trump. You don't want to go down this road. This is the kind of mind-bogging logic that puts the baseball shooter at the feet of anti-GOP rhetoric that makes the left the reason the shooter shot up a baseball stadium. This is where people blame you for being part of the anti-cop rhetoric that inspires leftists to assassinate police officers. Show nested quote +It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards GOP Congressmen in this country with any individuals to escalate their beef with the GOP into violence Show nested quote +It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing frequency of calling GOP members Nazis in this country with any individuals inspired to shoot Republican Congressmen Just to re-purpose your conclusion to other acts that will be brought up, should more people adopt your logic. You're exploring a very deep and dark pit. I'm probably not the right sympathetic voice to relay this to you, considering last month you accused me of being a threat to your very life and celebratory if you died. But all the same, I hope you get the message. The absolute narcissism of making Ramos in Annapolis, Maryland all about Trump in Washington, DC will end very badly for all parties involved.
And on the other flip side, at some point you do have to start attributing responsibility to higher authorities when they use inflammatory rhetoric that encourages and potentially normalizes violence. What is that point? Ramos doesn't cross it (at least from what I've seen) but if someone directly says "I shot up the enemy of the people" does Trump share any blame at all? You extrapolate beyond individual responsibility of authorities towards some greater concept of right and left here. It actually feels a lot like with SHS, where one person kicking someone out of their restaurant for being lying scum who lies about brutalizing those they perceive as like them into some grand gesture against "the right."
(considering whether general sentiment is linked to violence, as Kyadytim does, is also an entirely different kettle of fish from individual violence and responsibility, but I assume you were just treating that as a jumping-off point since it seems clear that more charged discourse inevitably will lead to more conflict of practically all sorts)
|
Canada11350 Posts
On July 03 2018 04:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 04:20 Falling wrote:On July 02 2018 22:07 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2018 12:36 Falling wrote:"Colourblind" is the PC way for racists too cowardly to say they're racists to identify themselves to others. That may be true for some. But it seems to me, on the whole, what many people who identify themselves as 'colorblind' are trying to say (perhaps inelegantly) is that they see people as individuals rather than classes. That they see Ben as 'my friend Ben', or 'Ben the next door neighbour' first and foremost. Not Ben, one of the Blacks. Not that they are literally blind, but the claim to colorblindess is (for many) signalling that their judgement is on content of character, not colour of skin. Whether you believe them is another thing, but from the people that I've heard using 'colourblind' unironically, I'm very confident that is what they intend it to mean. Can’t be racist against Ben if you don’t acknowledge Ben has a race. That means you’re just being an asshole to Ben, and people who look like Ben, just a coincidence, nothing to infer there. They’re racists, plain and simple. I think, when they say that, they also are meaning they aren't being an a-hole towards Ben either. Hence: 'Ben, my friend.' And again, I don't think it's a denial of ethnicity, but that ethnicity is such a small factor in why they treat someone well or poorly, that it might as well not be there, when accounting for differing treatment of other people. I believe that is the intended meaning. But not everyone who is saying they are “colorblind” about race is being honest. That is why coded racist language, or dog whistle racism exists. You don’t see the term “Cultural Marxism” used a lot unless you traffic in anti-Semitic sections of the internet. And when they use “Cultural Marxism”, they are not talking the discussions that took place at the Frankfurt School of social theory.
I granted that at the beginning. That may be true for some. I do think people hide behind 'colorblind' and are not being honest. People are liars, slanderers, selfish, proud and a great many other things. However, I think a good portion of people are honestly trying to express, in their own way, that they don't see other ethnicities as 'The Other' but as fellow human beings. Insofar as they are aware, anyways, and insofar as they have soul-searched. Maybe you can nail 'em for implicit bias or supporting the white system of oppression or something. But I think the majority are trying to say- they come in peace and will befriend, associate, or hire you whomever you may be based upon your character alone.
Also, white nationalism can be very NOT coded. Quite the opposite of being 'colorblind', when left to themselves, they freely express that they see race everywhere, and specifically Jewish plots everywhere. Anti-miscenation and race betrayal doesn't even make sense unless you see race everywhere.
|
On July 03 2018 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 04:19 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 03:59 Kyadytim wrote:Court records show that Ramos pleaded guilty in July 2011 to criminal harassment in Anne Arundel County, where the Capital Gazette is based. A 90-day jail sentence was suspended, and Ramos was placed on 18 months' supervised probation.
Five days later, the Capital Gazette published a column headlined "Jarrod wants to be your friend," profiling the woman who said she was the victim of Ramos' harassment. The article is no longer on the newspaper's website, but it was reprinted in full in the court documents.
In the column, the woman, whose name was withheld, claimed that Ramos, a former high school classmate, tracked her down on Facebook and then harshly harassed her through email for as long as two years.
The column quoted her as saying that Ramos urged her to kill herself and that the bank where she worked put her on probation because of "an email from Ramos and a follow-up phone call in which he advised them to fire her."
The column said she was laid off a few months later and "believes, but can't prove, it was because of Ramos."
In July 2012, Ramos, representing himself, sued the Capital Gazette; Eric Hartley, a former reporter who wrote the column; and Thomas Marquardt, the newspaper's publisher at the time, in Prince George's County Circuit Court alleging defamation. He filed a longer complaint in October 2012, two months after the statute of limitations for the alleged defamation had expired, adding an allegation of invasion of privacy.
The circuit judge dismissed the complaint in 2013, saying: "There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false. It all came from a public record. It was of the result of a criminal conviction. And it cannot give rise to a defamation suit."
Ramos appealed, and in September 2015, the appeals court upheld the dismissal, writing that Ramos "never alleges that any basic fact contained in the article about his guilty plea is actually false."
"The appellant was charged with a criminal act," the court wrote. "The appellant perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant plead guilty to having perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant was punished for his criminal act. ... He does not appear to have learned his lesson."
Marquardt, the former publisher of the Capital Gazette, told the Baltimore Sun that he wasn't surprised Ramos was identified as the suspect because he began harassing the newspaper's staff shortly after the 2011 article was published. www.nbcnews.comThe Capital Gazette shooting was personal, but if you look a little deeper, the shooter's beef with the paper was that it reported facts about him. He sued it for defamation, lost because he not only failed to show that it had published any falsehoods, but in the appeal decision, the judge found that he didn't even allege that anything the offending article contained was false. That was two and a half years ago. Its pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards journalism in this country with any individual's willingness to escalate their beef with journalists into violence. And on the flip side, it's an entirely detestable act to place a crazy shooting up a newspaper years after they published an article at the feet of Trump. You don't want to go down this road. This is the kind of mind-bogging logic that puts the baseball shooter at the feet of anti-GOP rhetoric that makes the left the reason the shooter shot up a baseball stadium. This is where people blame you for being part of the anti-cop rhetoric that inspires leftists to assassinate police officers. It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards GOP Congressmen in this country with any individuals to escalate their beef with the GOP into violence It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing frequency of calling GOP members Nazis in this country with any individuals inspired to shoot Republican Congressmen Just to re-purpose your conclusion to other acts that will be brought up, should more people adopt your logic. You're exploring a very deep and dark pit. I'm probably not the right sympathetic voice to relay this to you, considering last month you accused me of being a threat to your very life and celebratory if you died. But all the same, I hope you get the message. The absolute narcissism of making Ramos in Annapolis, Maryland all about Trump in Washington, DC will end very badly for all parties involved. And on the other flip side, at some point you do have to start attributing responsibility to higher authorities when they use inflammatory rhetoric that encourages and potentially normalizes violence. What is that point? Ramos doesn't cross it (at least from what I've seen) but if someone directly says "I shot up the enemy of the people" does Trump share any blame at all? You extrapolate beyond individual responsibility of authorities towards some greater concept of right and left here. It actually feels a lot like with SHS, where one person kicking someone out of their restaurant for being lying scum who hates people like them into some grand gesture against "the right." (considering whether general sentiment is linked to violence, as Kyadytim does, is also an entirely different kettle of fish from individual violence, but I assume you were just treating that as a jumping-off point)
You probably know enough of it yourself. Why do you say "potentially normalizes violence" instead of "it normalizes violence?" It's like you know all the "inflammatory rhetoric" is basically just your characterization of something that escalates tensions, and itself could be used against Black Lives Matter, the media, special interest groups like the SPLC, and all sorts of people and organizations. That level of fog is precisely why we do not carelessly attribute responsibility beyond the individual when he or she has a private grievance and a history of lunatic aims. The best course is to permit hateful speech is not a general incitement to violence.
Let me know when Trump says, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" He's smart enough to not cross the line. The count of dead journalists because Trump supporters knew he was really calling on them to take matters into their own hands is quite low. If you want threats of violence, and I don't know if you do, but those are directed at Trump and his officials just as at journalists and opposition politicians.
The "share of the blame" argument is complex, because you can regress that one back five decades. I don't think you can make the case that Trump "encourages violence" against journalists. We've had an entire American history of slurs back and forth between branches of government, media, constituencies, and all he's done is insult and give fiery speeches. Your argument basically asks the reader to separate out the many speakers about what's ruining America, and say that this one will actually be seized upon to rationalize their violence. I disagree. The tradition is old and Trump's attacks on the media are vicious but stale. If you're the kind of crazy that theorizes his gun will right the wrongs Trump supposedly points out, the issue is the crazy, not that he selected Trump instead of Schumer, the SPLC, Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates to be his springing board.
I draw the line at actual incitement to violence. Not "inflammatory rhetoric" as gets tossed around so easily these days (probably even predates the latest racist-sexist-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic tripe that gets robbed of its meaning these days). I think the history of American politics teaches that the rhetoric was never really tame from founding to today.
|
On July 03 2018 04:54 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 04:38 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 04:20 Falling wrote:On July 02 2018 22:07 KwarK wrote:On July 02 2018 12:36 Falling wrote:"Colourblind" is the PC way for racists too cowardly to say they're racists to identify themselves to others. That may be true for some. But it seems to me, on the whole, what many people who identify themselves as 'colorblind' are trying to say (perhaps inelegantly) is that they see people as individuals rather than classes. That they see Ben as 'my friend Ben', or 'Ben the next door neighbour' first and foremost. Not Ben, one of the Blacks. Not that they are literally blind, but the claim to colorblindess is (for many) signalling that their judgement is on content of character, not colour of skin. Whether you believe them is another thing, but from the people that I've heard using 'colourblind' unironically, I'm very confident that is what they intend it to mean. Can’t be racist against Ben if you don’t acknowledge Ben has a race. That means you’re just being an asshole to Ben, and people who look like Ben, just a coincidence, nothing to infer there. They’re racists, plain and simple. I think, when they say that, they also are meaning they aren't being an a-hole towards Ben either. Hence: 'Ben, my friend.' And again, I don't think it's a denial of ethnicity, but that ethnicity is such a small factor in why they treat someone well or poorly, that it might as well not be there, when accounting for differing treatment of other people. I believe that is the intended meaning. But not everyone who is saying they are “colorblind” about race is being honest. That is why coded racist language, or dog whistle racism exists. You don’t see the term “Cultural Marxism” used a lot unless you traffic in anti-Semitic sections of the internet. And when they use “Cultural Marxism”, they are not talking the discussions that took place at the Frankfurt School of social theory. I granted that at the beginning. I do think people hide behind 'colorblind' and are not being honest. People are liars, slanderers, selfish, proud and a great many other things. However, I think a good portion of people are honestly trying to express, in their own way, that they don't see other ethnicities as 'The Other' but as fellow human beings. Insofar as they are aware, anyways, and insofar as they have soul-searched. Maybe you can nail 'em for implicit bias or supporting the white system of oppression or something. But I think the majority are trying to say- they come in peace and will befriend, associate, or hire you whomever you may be based upon your character alone. Also, white nationalism can be very NOT coded. Quite the opposite of being 'colorblind', when left to themselves, they freely express that they see race everywhere, and specifically Jewish plots everywhere. Anti-miscenation and race betrayal doesn't even make sense unless you see race everywhere.
White nationalism has been adopting the language of liberal democracy for years. You hear about defending their liberal European culture. Or fears of immigrants not assimilating.
We hear these things as legitimate political concerns. But one has to ask why assimilation is a problem for the Hispanic population now? We have bordered the same Mexico for all of America’s history. What changed? Why are people suddenly so invested in the protecting “European democratic culture”? How has it come under threat? The language of white nationalism is not longer overt about race. It about coding that language into our current political discourse and giving it a foothold in main stream politics.
|
On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 04:19 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 03:59 Kyadytim wrote:Court records show that Ramos pleaded guilty in July 2011 to criminal harassment in Anne Arundel County, where the Capital Gazette is based. A 90-day jail sentence was suspended, and Ramos was placed on 18 months' supervised probation.
Five days later, the Capital Gazette published a column headlined "Jarrod wants to be your friend," profiling the woman who said she was the victim of Ramos' harassment. The article is no longer on the newspaper's website, but it was reprinted in full in the court documents.
In the column, the woman, whose name was withheld, claimed that Ramos, a former high school classmate, tracked her down on Facebook and then harshly harassed her through email for as long as two years.
The column quoted her as saying that Ramos urged her to kill herself and that the bank where she worked put her on probation because of "an email from Ramos and a follow-up phone call in which he advised them to fire her."
The column said she was laid off a few months later and "believes, but can't prove, it was because of Ramos."
In July 2012, Ramos, representing himself, sued the Capital Gazette; Eric Hartley, a former reporter who wrote the column; and Thomas Marquardt, the newspaper's publisher at the time, in Prince George's County Circuit Court alleging defamation. He filed a longer complaint in October 2012, two months after the statute of limitations for the alleged defamation had expired, adding an allegation of invasion of privacy.
The circuit judge dismissed the complaint in 2013, saying: "There is nothing in those complaints that prove that anything that was published about you is, in fact, false. It all came from a public record. It was of the result of a criminal conviction. And it cannot give rise to a defamation suit."
Ramos appealed, and in September 2015, the appeals court upheld the dismissal, writing that Ramos "never alleges that any basic fact contained in the article about his guilty plea is actually false."
"The appellant was charged with a criminal act," the court wrote. "The appellant perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant plead guilty to having perpetrated a criminal act. The appellant was punished for his criminal act. ... He does not appear to have learned his lesson."
Marquardt, the former publisher of the Capital Gazette, told the Baltimore Sun that he wasn't surprised Ramos was identified as the suspect because he began harassing the newspaper's staff shortly after the 2011 article was published. www.nbcnews.comThe Capital Gazette shooting was personal, but if you look a little deeper, the shooter's beef with the paper was that it reported facts about him. He sued it for defamation, lost because he not only failed to show that it had published any falsehoods, but in the appeal decision, the judge found that he didn't even allege that anything the offending article contained was false. That was two and a half years ago. Its pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards journalism in this country with any individual's willingness to escalate their beef with journalists into violence. And on the flip side, it's an entirely detestable act to place a crazy shooting up a newspaper years after they published an article at the feet of Trump. You don't want to go down this road. This is the kind of mind-bogging logic that puts the baseball shooter at the feet of anti-GOP rhetoric that makes the left the reason the shooter shot up a baseball stadium. This is where people blame you for being part of the anti-cop rhetoric that inspires leftists to assassinate police officers. It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards GOP Congressmen in this country with any individuals to escalate their beef with the GOP into violence It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing frequency of calling GOP members Nazis in this country with any individuals inspired to shoot Republican Congressmen Just to re-purpose your conclusion to other acts that will be brought up, should more people adopt your logic. You're exploring a very deep and dark pit. I'm probably not the right sympathetic voice to relay this to you, considering last month you accused me of being a threat to your very life and celebratory if you died. But all the same, I hope you get the message. The absolute narcissism of making Ramos in Annapolis, Maryland all about Trump in Washington, DC will end very badly for all parties involved. And on the other flip side, at some point you do have to start attributing responsibility to higher authorities when they use inflammatory rhetoric that encourages and potentially normalizes violence. What is that point? Ramos doesn't cross it (at least from what I've seen) but if someone directly says "I shot up the enemy of the people" does Trump share any blame at all? You extrapolate beyond individual responsibility of authorities towards some greater concept of right and left here. It actually feels a lot like with SHS, where one person kicking someone out of their restaurant for being lying scum who hates people like them into some grand gesture against "the right." (considering whether general sentiment is linked to violence, as Kyadytim does, is also an entirely different kettle of fish from individual violence, but I assume you were just treating that as a jumping-off point) You probably know enough of it yourself. Why do you say "potentially normalizes violence" instead of "it normalizes violence?" It's like you know all the "inflammatory rhetoric" is basically just your characterization of something that escalates tensions, and itself could be used against Black Lives Matter, the media, special interest groups like the SPLC, and all sorts of people and organizations. That level of fog is precisely why we do not carelessly attribute responsibility beyond the individual when he or she has a private grievance and a history of lunatic aims. The best course is to permit hateful speech is not a general incitement to violence. Let me know when Trump says, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" He's smart enough to not cross the line. The count of dead journalists because Trump supporters knew he was really calling on them to take matters into their own hands is quite low. If you want threats of violence, and I don't know if you do, but those are directed at Trump and his officials just as at journalists and opposition politicians. The "share of the blame" argument is complex, because you can regress that one back five decades. I don't think you can make the case that Trump "encourages violence" against journalists. We've had an entire American history of slurs back and forth between branches of government, media, constituencies, and all he's done is insult and give fiery speeches. Your argument basically asks the reader to separate out the many speakers about what's ruining America, and say that this one will actually be seized upon to rationalize their violence. I disagree. The tradition is old and Trump's attacks on the media are vicious but stale. If you're the kind of crazy that theorizes his gun will right the wrongs Trump supposedly points out, the issue is the crazy, not that he selected Trump instead of Schumer, the SPLC, Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates to be his springing board. I draw the line at actual incitement to violence. Not "inflammatory rhetoric" as gets tossed around so easily these days (probably even predates the latest racist-sexist-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic tripe that gets robbed of its meaning these days). I think the history of American politics teaches that the rhetoric was never really tame from founding to today.
So whether speech crosses the line is an inherent property of the speech, rather than any consequentialist argument based on what the speech inspires? I think that is dangerous because it implies a large-scale unawareness on the part of the people making speech-if there are "crazies" out there on the border of snapping, *something* pushes that particular crazy over the border. To totally abdicate even personal responsibility (let alone legal responsibility) for all the crazies that follow you paves the way to dangerous precedent, as you point out. As I said before, the Ramos situation is not one of those situations, but I think Trump would absolutely pull those levers if he thought he could get away with it (witness: "I'd like to punch him in the face"). They're just smaller levers for now.
If someone cited something I posted here as motivation to kill Paul Ryan, I'd be like "shit, I feel terrible" and would say as much. I don't think Trump would even do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
