|
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 July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote: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. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language.
Trump places himself in very distinguished company when he elects to attack the press and label them the peoples' enemy. I'm continually amazed that our right-leaning friends would sooner join in the carnage, than recognize the history that's slowly repeating before them.
|
On July 03 2018 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I like a federal jobs guarantee more than a minimum wage, but I don't trust our elected officials not to turn it into conscripted labor.
As for minimum wage it doesn't cause businesses to close, but if it does, good. The business shouldn't exist anyway.
I agree. If your business model requires you to have to pay the bare minimum to a majority of your employees you shouldn't be in business or need to revise your model. Also huge businesses like Walmart are essentially getting huge government assistance in the form of their employees forced to get government benefits because they can't support themselves on their wage while the owners rake in personal wealth of billions.
|
On July 03 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote: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. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language. I bet her name was on a list of Democratic senators currently in office. If I published that list, am I also the cause to that effect? (Also, noted that people disagree with me on what qualifies as inciting acts of violence. That is why I'm currently opposed in the argument, by the way)
So if say Hillary published a list of republicans who are for seperating children from their families, and one of them happened to get murdered, you wouldn't come here and accuse "the left" of "inciting violence" ?
|
On July 03 2018 09:25 xDaunt wrote:
Theoretical is the wrong term. Guaranteed jobs programs have a history of not working particularly well. There is no replacement for the market.
It would not replace the market, but supplement it. Sort of like how the market is heavily regulated by buffer stocks for price stability. 
|
On July 03 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: why don’t we restrict the amount of cheap labor coming into the US so as to create upwards pressure on low paying jobs?
By prosecuting the largest employers of undocumented workers and appropriating their businesses to the people? Sure.
|
|
|
On July 03 2018 09:57 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote: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. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language. I bet her name was on a list of Democratic senators currently in office. If I published that list, am I also the cause to that effect? (Also, noted that people disagree with me on what qualifies as inciting acts of violence. That is why I'm currently opposed in the argument, by the way) So if say Hillary published a list of republicans who are for seperating children from their families, and one of them happened to get murdered, you wouldn't come here and accuse "the left" of "inciting violence" ?
What's she going to do, publish the names and addresses of ICE agents? Hillary could list off the ten Republicans most responsible for defeating Obamacare's individual mandate, and one could end up killed, and I wouldn't accuse her of inciting violence. But I imagine the whole point of asking me is that you're only going to believe me if I give the answer you're expecting, so what's the use?
|
On July 03 2018 09:43 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote: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. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language. Trump places himself in very distinguished company when he elects to attack the press and label them the peoples' enemy. I'm continually amazed that our right-leaning friends would sooner join in the carnage, than recognize the history that's slowly repeating before them.
Oh they recognize it. That's why they are joining in. At some point we have to realise many people aren't as stupid as they conveniently appear. I remember a few days back P6 had a nice quote about Kennedy's naivety in his statement on passing Citizens United, and I had to laugh a bit. The man's a SCOTUS justice, naive doesn't quite work.
|
On July 03 2018 09:57 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote: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. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language. I bet her name was on a list of Democratic senators currently in office. If I published that list, am I also the cause to that effect? (Also, noted that people disagree with me on what qualifies as inciting acts of violence. That is why I'm currently opposed in the argument, by the way) So if say Hillary published a list of republicans who are for seperating children from their families, and one of them happened to get murdered, you wouldn't come here and accuse "the left" of "inciting violence" ?
Not sure how everyone continually forgets the fact just last year a left-wing lunatic shot a couple of congressmen at a baseball field. Did any conservative in this thread blame "left-wing rhetoric" instead of the shooter?
Wasn't there a story about a day or two ago related to the FCC commissioner having a threat against him, but no one blamed lefty rhetoric? There's an actual record here.
***
Also for the record, if anyone is referring to the Giffords shooting, they should be reminded that there has never been a shred of evidence that the shooter even supported Palin or cared two whits about her. The NYT even had to publish an embarrassing correction last time they tried to pass it off on her.
|
|
|
On July 03 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 09:31 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 03 2018 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I like a federal jobs guarantee more than a minimum wage, but I don't trust our elected officials not to turn it into conscripted labor.
As for minimum wage it doesn't cause businesses to close, but if it does, good. The business shouldn't exist anyway. Yeah who wants those jobs to exist...... A full time or near-to-it job that does not make enough to pay rent, in a country with next to no safety net, only serves to slightly slow down rot and put a bandaid over a still festering wound. Now you make it to 40 off of dead-end labour rather than 37. Fucking marvelous. If the jobs that weren't enough didn't exist at all and the population of the US wasn't so politically complacent / understood how bullshit the bootstrap rhetoric was, people might actually press their representatives to start making serious change. And maybe not elect people actively sabotaging the minimal safety nets that do exist. Not directed at you specifically, but I live in South Africa and I have a family member who can get proper, full-time psychiatric care without emptying the collective bank. A job that can keep you alive while sharing a 1-room apartment between two people means nothing when you get sick. It means nothing if you want a child. It means nothing if literally anything goes wrong, which it will. The situation is the US is seriously fucked, and having a few more minimum wage jobs where people get to keep an extra 10% of nothing they're paid isn't gonna improve the situation in a meaningful way, if at all. A lot of the restaurant jobs that were lost paid quite well.Here people tip at least 15% an up to 25% of the tab. The server then keeps a large % of those tips. But also "tips" out to the rest of the staff. The servers makes minimum wage the rest of the staff typically maker more. It was not uncommon for a server to make 30-50 dollars a hour. These are hard incomes for people to replace.
Sooo businesses where their servers were making ~$30-$50/hr shut down because it had to pay them a minimum wage of ~$13-15/hr? You don't see the absurdity in that?
|
On July 03 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:
A lot of the restaurant jobs that were lost paid quite well.Here people tip at least 15% an up to 25% of the tab. The server then keeps a large % of those tips. But also "tips" out to the rest of the staff. The servers makes minimum wage the rest of the staff typically maker more.
It was not uncommon for a server to make 30-50 dollars a hour. These are hard incomes for people to replace.
Good example of why simply raising the minimum wage doesn't work. Instead, with a FJG, you can decide that if a private sector restaurant gig will pay more- you can transition from the JG.
|
On July 03 2018 10:08 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 09:57 hunts wrote:On July 03 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 04:19 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 03:59 Kyadytim wrote:[quote] 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. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language. I bet her name was on a list of Democratic senators currently in office. If I published that list, am I also the cause to that effect? (Also, noted that people disagree with me on what qualifies as inciting acts of violence. That is why I'm currently opposed in the argument, by the way) So if say Hillary published a list of republicans who are for seperating children from their families, and one of them happened to get murdered, you wouldn't come here and accuse "the left" of "inciting violence" ? Not sure how everyone continually forgets the fact just last year a left-wing lunatic shot a couple of congressmen at a baseball field. Did any conservative in this thread blame "left-wing rhetoric" instead of the shooter? Wasn't there a story about a day or two ago related to the FCC commissioner having a threat against him, but no one blamed lefty rhetoric? There's an actual record here. *** Also for the record, if anyone is referring to the Giffords shooting, they should be reminded that there has never been a shred of evidence that the shooter even supported Palin or cared two whits about her. The NYT even had to publish an embarrassing correction last time they tried to pass it off on her.
It’s like two posters drawing lines between Trumps rhetoric and the shooting. Not really sure how “everyone” forgot. Especially when I brought up the shooting you are referencing less than a week ago.
|
On July 03 2018 10:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:08 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2018 09:57 hunts wrote:On July 03 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 04:19 Danglars wrote:[quote] 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. [quote] [quote] 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. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language. I bet her name was on a list of Democratic senators currently in office. If I published that list, am I also the cause to that effect? (Also, noted that people disagree with me on what qualifies as inciting acts of violence. That is why I'm currently opposed in the argument, by the way) So if say Hillary published a list of republicans who are for seperating children from their families, and one of them happened to get murdered, you wouldn't come here and accuse "the left" of "inciting violence" ? Not sure how everyone continually forgets the fact just last year a left-wing lunatic shot a couple of congressmen at a baseball field. Did any conservative in this thread blame "left-wing rhetoric" instead of the shooter? Wasn't there a story about a day or two ago related to the FCC commissioner having a threat against him, but no one blamed lefty rhetoric? There's an actual record here. *** Also for the record, if anyone is referring to the Giffords shooting, they should be reminded that there has never been a shred of evidence that the shooter even supported Palin or cared two whits about her. The NYT even had to publish an embarrassing correction last time they tried to pass it off on her. It’s like two posters drawing lines between Trumps rhetoric and the shooting. Not really sure how “everyone” forgot. Especially when I brought up the shooting you are referencing less than a week ago.
It's a dash of hyperbole, Danglars mentioned it just last page. But everyone is always asking if posters are going to be consistent on this topic, and they forget that so far, the conservatives have been. We don't actually have to play "what if?"
|
On July 03 2018 09:43 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote: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. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language. Trump places himself in very distinguished company when he elects to attack the press and label them the peoples' enemy. I'm continually amazed that our right-leaning friends would sooner join in the carnage, than recognize the history that's slowly repeating before them.
many people would much rather be bad without admitting it, than admit that they did a bad thing. the sad truth of people's massive capacity for rationalizing away their sins.
|
|
|
On July 03 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 09:31 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 03 2018 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I like a federal jobs guarantee more than a minimum wage, but I don't trust our elected officials not to turn it into conscripted labor.
As for minimum wage it doesn't cause businesses to close, but if it does, good. The business shouldn't exist anyway. Yeah who wants those jobs to exist...... A full time or near-to-it job that does not make enough to pay rent, in a country with next to no safety net, only serves to slightly slow down rot and put a bandaid over a still festering wound. Now you make it to 40 off of dead-end labour rather than 37. Fucking marvelous. If the jobs that weren't enough didn't exist at all and the population of the US wasn't so politically complacent / understood how bullshit the bootstrap rhetoric was, people might actually press their representatives to start making serious change. And maybe not elect people actively sabotaging the minimal safety nets that do exist. Not directed at you specifically, but I live in South Africa and I have a family member who can get proper, full-time psychiatric care without emptying the collective bank. A job that can keep you alive while sharing a 1-room apartment between two people means nothing when you get sick. It means nothing if you want a child. It means nothing if literally anything goes wrong, which it will. The situation is the US is seriously fucked, and having a few more minimum wage jobs where people get to keep an extra 10% of nothing they're paid isn't gonna improve the situation in a meaningful way, if at all. A lot of the restaurant jobs that were lost paid quite well.Here people tip at least 15% an up to 25% of the tab. The server then keeps a large % of those tips. But also "tips" out to the rest of the staff. The servers makes minimum wage the rest of the staff typically maker more. It was not uncommon for a server to make 30-50 dollars a hour. These are hard incomes for people to replace.
If most of your earnings are in tips, the tax break on the wage isn't going to help in any appreciable way.
If people are adding 15-25% extra to every meal but you can't afford to raise your worker wages slightly, I'm skeptical.
And a few servers in prime location making over $30 an hour are hardly the norm for minimum wage work.
Overall I don't really feel like this point makes much of a difference to band-aid on a bullet-wound situation with minimum wage work.
|
On July 03 2018 10:15 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:13 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 10:08 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2018 09:57 hunts wrote:On July 03 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
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. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language. I bet her name was on a list of Democratic senators currently in office. If I published that list, am I also the cause to that effect? (Also, noted that people disagree with me on what qualifies as inciting acts of violence. That is why I'm currently opposed in the argument, by the way) So if say Hillary published a list of republicans who are for seperating children from their families, and one of them happened to get murdered, you wouldn't come here and accuse "the left" of "inciting violence" ? Not sure how everyone continually forgets the fact just last year a left-wing lunatic shot a couple of congressmen at a baseball field. Did any conservative in this thread blame "left-wing rhetoric" instead of the shooter? Wasn't there a story about a day or two ago related to the FCC commissioner having a threat against him, but no one blamed lefty rhetoric? There's an actual record here. *** Also for the record, if anyone is referring to the Giffords shooting, they should be reminded that there has never been a shred of evidence that the shooter even supported Palin or cared two whits about her. The NYT even had to publish an embarrassing correction last time they tried to pass it off on her. It’s like two posters drawing lines between Trumps rhetoric and the shooting. Not really sure how “everyone” forgot. Especially when I brought up the shooting you are referencing less than a week ago. It's a dash of hyperbole, Danglars mentioned it just last page. But everyone is always asking if posters are going to be consistent on this topic, and they forget that so far, the conservatives have been. We don't actually have to play "what if?"
You folks are no more or less consistent than anyone else. Let’s not get it twisted.
|
On July 03 2018 10:15 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:13 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 10:08 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2018 09:57 hunts wrote:On July 03 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
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. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language. I bet her name was on a list of Democratic senators currently in office. If I published that list, am I also the cause to that effect? (Also, noted that people disagree with me on what qualifies as inciting acts of violence. That is why I'm currently opposed in the argument, by the way) So if say Hillary published a list of republicans who are for seperating children from their families, and one of them happened to get murdered, you wouldn't come here and accuse "the left" of "inciting violence" ? Not sure how everyone continually forgets the fact just last year a left-wing lunatic shot a couple of congressmen at a baseball field. Did any conservative in this thread blame "left-wing rhetoric" instead of the shooter? Wasn't there a story about a day or two ago related to the FCC commissioner having a threat against him, but no one blamed lefty rhetoric? There's an actual record here. *** Also for the record, if anyone is referring to the Giffords shooting, they should be reminded that there has never been a shred of evidence that the shooter even supported Palin or cared two whits about her. The NYT even had to publish an embarrassing correction last time they tried to pass it off on her. It’s like two posters drawing lines between Trumps rhetoric and the shooting. Not really sure how “everyone” forgot. Especially when I brought up the shooting you are referencing less than a week ago. It's a dash of hyperbole, Danglars mentioned it just last page. But everyone is always asking if posters are going to be consistent on this topic, and they forget that so far, the conservatives have been. We don't actually have to play "what if?"
I remember certain people in this thread gleefully shouting about how violent and extremist the left is while pretending to be outraged when that guy was shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
