|
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 |
Northern Ireland23942 Posts
On March 12 2025 03:32 Gorsameth wrote:
yes, thank you for literally posting a piece that says miss pronouning someone is not a crime and that it requires an immense amount of direct targeted harassment. And if you do that shit to anyone with any random topic, not just their gender identity, you're likely to face the same consequences.
That isn't the counter argument you think it is.
I imagine if I went to like, England or summat, and people insisted on calling me ‘Paddy’ in work, despite me requesting not to, over a prolonged period, I’d have a case.
Paddy being a name, but also slang for an Irishman, and crucially, not being my name, which is Stewart. I don’t consider myself Irish either for the record but anyway.
That doesn’t make it illegal to call someone Paddy, or an Irishman like. It’s also not illegal to be a dick in your free time.
It is illegal, however to be a dick in general in certain environments, or to harass folk along identity lines. And even before the legality threshold it’s also against policy in most companies I’d assume
|
On March 12 2025 03:26 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 02:34 BlackJack wrote:
@WombaT, I think wokeism is on the decline. I've often given credit to the left for their willingness to reverse course instead of doubling down which is not something we would see by people on the right as we're currently witnessing as Trump crashes the economy. The woke discourse is 1) This isn't happening anywhere. 2) ok if it is happening then it's not a big deal. 3) Ok if it is a big deal then it's not wokeism so your grievance is invalid. I’m actually not sure it really has declined, culturally anyway. Institutionally it was never that prevalent, state policy wise it wasn’t that widespread. There is some rollback in some few locales where excess was a thing, and I’d agree a fair few politicians have reversed course in terms of action, as well as rhetoric. I think this is pretty consistent with what I, and others have been saying. Or put another way, now ‘wokeism’, for your moderate types or some of the left whose concern is excess at the expense of common sense, now has to compete for attention versus what Trump and the GOP are actually doing, every day. And it just can’t punch through that shitshow. I’m sure the same sort of ‘woke madness’ is happening somewhere. Which again is broadly the point many of us have made. It’s a narrative that requires a shitload of disparate, often trivial stories from all over the nation to be weaved together into a wave of wokeness. The second one stops being fed that diet, or just stops paying attention, or in this case (IMO) it just gets buried under a slew of current executive/federal policy, it disappears from view. Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 02:51 BlackJack wrote:On March 11 2025 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
1. What you wrote sounds extremely vague, and I don't know of anything like that happening in the United States. Do you? What bills were proposed to make misgendering someone a hate crime? I'm pretty sure Jordan Peterson's rise to fame was from arguing against a bill in Canada that would make it a hate crime to intentionally misgender someone. I'm guessing you already knew that Geiko said this was happening in Canada/United States and you changed it to just asking for evidence this was happening in United States. I think our first amendment interpretations make it impossible for this to happen in the United States but I'm sure many people would like for it to happen. Didn’t (IIRC) Bill C-16 or whatever it was called not actually do that? Or at least we haven’t seen it invoked in actual prosecutions since? Going off memory, I may be wrong. I know Peterson is full of shit today, but he seemed earnest on principle there, even if he was mistaken. Which I can’t recall. That Peterson rose to international prominence for opposing a Canadian bill that may (or may not) have even done what he said is anti-wokeism in a nutshell. Hey maybe DPB is being disingenuous, maybe he’s plain old forgotten. Peterson’s initial rise was that long ago that it wasn’t anti-woke back then, but other buzzwords that I’ve genuinely forgotten. I wouldn’t mind a refresher actually!
Neither; I just wanted to stay on topic - U.S. politics, not the politics of other countries 
|
United States42016 Posts
On March 12 2025 03:29 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 03:10 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2025 02:51 BlackJack wrote:On March 11 2025 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
1. What you wrote sounds extremely vague, and I don't know of anything like that happening in the United States. Do you? What bills were proposed to make misgendering someone a hate crime? I'm pretty sure Jordan Peterson's rise to fame was from arguing against a bill in Canada that would make it a hate crime to intentionally misgender someone. I'm guessing you already knew that Geiko said this was happening in Canada/United States and you changed it to just asking for evidence this was happening in United States. I think our first amendment interpretations make it impossible for this to happen in the United States but I'm sure many people would like for it to happen. Thank you for proving our point. You don't know what your talking about but heard a thing from someone else so surely this must be real. Bill C-16 protects gender identity from discrimination, so you can't fire someone based on what they identify as, just like you can't fire someone for their age, race, sex, religion or disability. protects it from advocating genocide and public incitement of hate. Note that miss naming someone is not an incitement of hate and utterly does not fall under this. and adds sentencing guidelines for said hate crimes. The bill doesn't even talk about pronouns. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explainedShow nested quote +“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” Cossman says. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”
If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?
It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.
If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.
“It could happen,” Brown says. “Is it likely to happen? I don’t think so. But, my opinion on whether or not that's likely has a lot to do with the particular case that you're looking at.”
“The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.”
Isn't repeatedly calling someone the wrong name to offend them just bullying? And aren't they saying that there are a bunch of steps between bullying and it getting bad enough that it becomes a legal harassment cases and a bunch more steps between disregarding a judge's order to stop harassing people and being found in contempt for which one of the sanctions available to a judge is jail time?
How would it even get to that point unless the person was trying to go to jail? And by that token can't you also argue jail time is a potential outcome of just about anything?
Like it feels like your article is saying the opposite of your point, that when asked if you could potentially go to jail they're stressing that the answer is not really except in the case that you deliberately try to go to jail as hard as possible in which case yes, I guess, in the same way that you can for anything.
|
Northern Ireland23942 Posts
This feels pretty worrying as developments go. Luckily there are few other worrying ones these days…
CNN - Judge temporarily blocks effort to deport Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia student protests
I think regardless of one’s opinion around cause, or indeed methods of this man in question, there are really serious whiffs of someone up the chain trying to expedite this particular case and circumvent due process. The latter, seemingly only being upheld because those lower down are making it a point to stick to.
The second, broader and perhaps even more pertinent point is this administration, quite openly launching an attack on free speech on college campuses. Under the auspices of a very deliberately vague conception of ‘illegal protests’.
Are some the folks who spent the past decade complaining that the left were destroying freedom of speech in colleges going to be as fervent in their opposition to these developments? I mean, they really care about freedom of speech right? Right?
|
On March 12 2025 04:16 WombaT wrote:This feels pretty worrying as developments go. Luckily there are few other worrying ones these days… CNN - Judge temporarily blocks effort to deport Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia student protestsI think regardless of one’s opinion around cause, or indeed methods of this man in question, there are really serious whiffs of someone up the chain trying to expedite this particular case and circumvent due process. The latter, seemingly only being upheld because those lower down are making it a point to stick to. The second, broader and perhaps even more pertinent point is this administration, quite openly launching an attack on free speech on college campuses. Under the auspices of a very deliberately vague conception of ‘illegal protests’. Are some the folks who spent the past decade complaining that the left were destroying freedom of speech in colleges going to be as fervent in their opposition to these developments? I mean, they really care about freedom of speech right? Right? When I read that apparently when his wife went to the detention center he was supposed to be at he wasn't there my initial take was that they wanted to throw him out the country asap so make it harder for him to fight back against his deportation.
Seems I wasn't wrong. When you know the law is probably against you, you try to outrun the law.
The government isn't supposed to work like that...
|
Ontario just suspended their 25% export tax surcharge on electricity. Smart move. It is rough that the Ontario Premier took it this far.
Earlier the Premier was encouraging Danielle Smith to put an export tax on Alberta's oil. What a super dumb move that would be. Fortunately, Ms. Smith possesses more than 1 ml of common sense. For US Americans I guess it'd be an ounce? 😀
Canada shoulda started negotiating right from the start. They should've promised additions to their military... Promised to work with the USA to protect the Arctic.. etc.
Canada should've worked with JD Vance's complaint about their military and doubled their military budget. That , of course , would require an open parliament. Lol.
|
On March 12 2025 04:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Ontario just suspended their 25% export tax surcharge on electricity. Smart move. It is rough that the Ontario Premier took it this far.
Earlier the Premier was encouraging Danielle Smith to put an export tax on Alberta's oil. What a super dumb move that would be. Fortunately, Ms. Smith possesses for than 1 ml of common sense. For US Americans I guess it's be ounce? 😀
Canada shoulda started negotiating right from the start. They should've promised additions to their military... Promised to work with the USA to protect the Arctic.. etc.
Youve said that this was all a part of trumps plan to raise funds via tariffs. Why would anything that theyve done mattered? Which is it?
|
On March 12 2025 04:49 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 04:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Ontario just suspended their 25% export tax surcharge on electricity. Smart move. It is rough that the Ontario Premier took it this far.
Earlier the Premier was encouraging Danielle Smith to put an export tax on Alberta's oil. What a super dumb move that would be. Fortunately, Ms. Smith possesses for than 1 ml of common sense. For US Americans I guess it's be ounce? 😀
Canada shoulda started negotiating right from the start. They should've promised additions to their military... Promised to work with the USA to protect the Arctic.. etc. Youve said that this was all a part of trumps plan to raise funds via tariffs. Why would anything that theyve done mattered? Which is it?
If you negotiate like Danielle Smith or Francois Legault or Claudia Sheinbaum you can make the best of a bad situation. Pull off shit like Doug Ford's media tour and you turn a fire into an inferno.
I called it... this was easy to see.
Canada must double it's military budget as soon as the optics make it seem plausible.
Anyhow , Doug Ford made a good move today.
Marcellus Wallace was right: "fuck pride"
|
Northern Ireland23942 Posts
On March 12 2025 04:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 04:49 Sadist wrote:On March 12 2025 04:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Ontario just suspended their 25% export tax surcharge on electricity. Smart move. It is rough that the Ontario Premier took it this far.
Earlier the Premier was encouraging Danielle Smith to put an export tax on Alberta's oil. What a super dumb move that would be. Fortunately, Ms. Smith possesses for than 1 ml of common sense. For US Americans I guess it's be ounce? 😀
Canada shoulda started negotiating right from the start. They should've promised additions to their military... Promised to work with the USA to protect the Arctic.. etc. Youve said that this was all a part of trumps plan to raise funds via tariffs. Why would anything that theyve done mattered? Which is it? If you negotiate like Danielle Smith or Francois Legault or Claudia Sheinbaum you can make the best of a bad situation. Pull off shit like Doug Ford's media tour and you turn a fire into an inferno. I called it... this was easy to see. Canada must double it's military budget as soon as the optics make it seem plausible. Anyhow , Doug Ford made a good move today.
Double its military to do what?
|
On March 12 2025 04:57 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 04:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 12 2025 04:49 Sadist wrote:On March 12 2025 04:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Ontario just suspended their 25% export tax surcharge on electricity. Smart move. It is rough that the Ontario Premier took it this far.
Earlier the Premier was encouraging Danielle Smith to put an export tax on Alberta's oil. What a super dumb move that would be. Fortunately, Ms. Smith possesses for than 1 ml of common sense. For US Americans I guess it's be ounce? 😀
Canada shoulda started negotiating right from the start. They should've promised additions to their military... Promised to work with the USA to protect the Arctic.. etc. Youve said that this was all a part of trumps plan to raise funds via tariffs. Why would anything that theyve done mattered? Which is it? If you negotiate like Danielle Smith or Francois Legault or Claudia Sheinbaum you can make the best of a bad situation. Pull off shit like Doug Ford's media tour and you turn a fire into an inferno. I called it... this was easy to see. Canada must double it's military budget as soon as the optics make it seem plausible. Anyhow , Doug Ford made a good move today. Double its military to do what?
We've been over this before. Protect the Arctic. Contribute in a meaningful way within NATO. Hit the 2% target like many other nations chose to do.
|
On March 12 2025 04:16 WombaT wrote:This feels pretty worrying as developments go. Luckily there are few other worrying ones these days… CNN - Judge temporarily blocks effort to deport Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia student protestsI think regardless of one’s opinion around cause, or indeed methods of this man in question, there are really serious whiffs of someone up the chain trying to expedite this particular case and circumvent due process. The latter, seemingly only being upheld because those lower down are making it a point to stick to. The second, broader and perhaps even more pertinent point is this administration, quite openly launching an attack on free speech on college campuses. Under the auspices of a very deliberately vague conception of ‘illegal protests’. Are some the folks who spent the past decade complaining that the left were destroying freedom of speech in colleges going to be as fervent in their opposition to these developments? I mean, they really care about freedom of speech right? Right?
Introvert and I frequently made the point that people will be singing a different tune on the censorship of speech once Trump is back in office. Well... well... well...
Sure it's no big deal when it was Canada freezing the bank accounts of trucker protestors or the Brazilian Supreme court justice is threatening to jail Twitter staff for not complying with his censorship orders... But now it's serious because the right is doing it.
My response is that it's atrocious. I think most people here would agree that it's atrocious. But I also suspect that if the left were in power and they tried to deport Musk for being an outside agitator in our politics they would be fully supportive to the point of giddiness over the idea.
|
Northern Ireland23942 Posts
On March 12 2025 05:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 04:57 WombaT wrote:On March 12 2025 04:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 12 2025 04:49 Sadist wrote:On March 12 2025 04:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Ontario just suspended their 25% export tax surcharge on electricity. Smart move. It is rough that the Ontario Premier took it this far.
Earlier the Premier was encouraging Danielle Smith to put an export tax on Alberta's oil. What a super dumb move that would be. Fortunately, Ms. Smith possesses for than 1 ml of common sense. For US Americans I guess it's be ounce? 😀
Canada shoulda started negotiating right from the start. They should've promised additions to their military... Promised to work with the USA to protect the Arctic.. etc. Youve said that this was all a part of trumps plan to raise funds via tariffs. Why would anything that theyve done mattered? Which is it? If you negotiate like Danielle Smith or Francois Legault or Claudia Sheinbaum you can make the best of a bad situation. Pull off shit like Doug Ford's media tour and you turn a fire into an inferno. I called it... this was easy to see. Canada must double it's military budget as soon as the optics make it seem plausible. Anyhow , Doug Ford made a good move today. Double its military to do what? We've been over this before. Protect the Arctic. Contribute in a meaningful way within NATO. Hit the 2% target like many other nations chose to do.
Why bump your spend to hit a target, when it seemingly didn’t matter anyway for those who did raise their spend?
This is Trump diplomacy in action baby!
Ok so you want us to raise our defence spending, likely purchase a lot of your stuff, as part of a collective security arrangement?
Didn’t you just pull the rug and circumvent all the European members of said alliance, even though they did what you asked?
|
On March 12 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 04:16 WombaT wrote:This feels pretty worrying as developments go. Luckily there are few other worrying ones these days… CNN - Judge temporarily blocks effort to deport Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia student protestsI think regardless of one’s opinion around cause, or indeed methods of this man in question, there are really serious whiffs of someone up the chain trying to expedite this particular case and circumvent due process. The latter, seemingly only being upheld because those lower down are making it a point to stick to. The second, broader and perhaps even more pertinent point is this administration, quite openly launching an attack on free speech on college campuses. Under the auspices of a very deliberately vague conception of ‘illegal protests’. Are some the folks who spent the past decade complaining that the left were destroying freedom of speech in colleges going to be as fervent in their opposition to these developments? I mean, they really care about freedom of speech right? Right? Introvert and I frequently made the point that people will be singing a different tune on the censorship of speech once Trump is back in office. Well... well... well... Sure it's no big deal when it was Canada freezing the bank accounts of trucker protestors or the Brazilian Supreme court justice is threatening to jail Twitter staff for not complying with his censorship orders... But now it's serious because the right is doing it. My response is that it's atrocious. I think most people here would agree that it's atrocious. But I also suspect that if the left were in power and they tried to deport Musk for being an outside agitator in our politics they would be fully supportive to the point of giddiness over the idea. I don't know about the trucker protest but Brazil was people refusing to comply with legal court orders. One of the consequences of that is potential jail.
Trying to expedite a deportation because you want to deny a green card holder his ability to pursue his legal options is not the same thing.
The twitter case had nothing to do with free speech, it was a company refusing to follow countries laws while still operating in said country.
Your comparing apples to oranges. As per usual.
|
On March 12 2025 05:10 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 05:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 12 2025 04:57 WombaT wrote:On March 12 2025 04:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 12 2025 04:49 Sadist wrote:On March 12 2025 04:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Ontario just suspended their 25% export tax surcharge on electricity. Smart move. It is rough that the Ontario Premier took it this far.
Earlier the Premier was encouraging Danielle Smith to put an export tax on Alberta's oil. What a super dumb move that would be. Fortunately, Ms. Smith possesses for than 1 ml of common sense. For US Americans I guess it's be ounce? 😀
Canada shoulda started negotiating right from the start. They should've promised additions to their military... Promised to work with the USA to protect the Arctic.. etc. Youve said that this was all a part of trumps plan to raise funds via tariffs. Why would anything that theyve done mattered? Which is it? If you negotiate like Danielle Smith or Francois Legault or Claudia Sheinbaum you can make the best of a bad situation. Pull off shit like Doug Ford's media tour and you turn a fire into an inferno. I called it... this was easy to see. Canada must double it's military budget as soon as the optics make it seem plausible. Anyhow , Doug Ford made a good move today. Double its military to do what? We've been over this before. Protect the Arctic. Contribute in a meaningful way within NATO. Hit the 2% target like many other nations chose to do. Why bump your spend to hit a target, when it seemingly didn’t matter anyway for those who did raise their spend? This is Trump diplomacy in action baby! Ok so you want us to raise our defence spending, likely purchase a lot of your stuff, as part of a collective security arrangement?
Do you actually hang out with any actual living, breathing US Republicans in the real world? OR do you just read about them? Republicans love everything military.
Canada's customer base IS the USA. You keep your customer base happy. To quote the brilliant 20th century philosopher Michael Jordan: "republicans buy shoes too".
Kinda sad that I'm better at keeping Republicans happy than the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Ontario.
And just so we're clear: i love republicans
|
On March 12 2025 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 04:16 WombaT wrote:This feels pretty worrying as developments go. Luckily there are few other worrying ones these days… CNN - Judge temporarily blocks effort to deport Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia student protestsI think regardless of one’s opinion around cause, or indeed methods of this man in question, there are really serious whiffs of someone up the chain trying to expedite this particular case and circumvent due process. The latter, seemingly only being upheld because those lower down are making it a point to stick to. The second, broader and perhaps even more pertinent point is this administration, quite openly launching an attack on free speech on college campuses. Under the auspices of a very deliberately vague conception of ‘illegal protests’. Are some the folks who spent the past decade complaining that the left were destroying freedom of speech in colleges going to be as fervent in their opposition to these developments? I mean, they really care about freedom of speech right? Right? Introvert and I frequently made the point that people will be singing a different tune on the censorship of speech once Trump is back in office. Well... well... well... Sure it's no big deal when it was Canada freezing the bank accounts of trucker protestors or the Brazilian Supreme court justice is threatening to jail Twitter staff for not complying with his censorship orders... But now it's serious because the right is doing it. My response is that it's atrocious. I think most people here would agree that it's atrocious. But I also suspect that if the left were in power and they tried to deport Musk for being an outside agitator in our politics they would be fully supportive to the point of giddiness over the idea. I don't know about the trucker protest but Brazil was people refusing to comply with legal court orders. One of the consequences of that is potential jail. Trying to expedite a deportation because you want to deny a green card holder his ability to pursue his legal options is not the same thing. The twitter case had nothing to do with free speech, it was a company refusing to follow countries laws while still operating in said country. Your comparing apples to oranges. As per usual.
Why does this backwards logic always make an appearance here? How is being threatened with jail for not complying with censorship rulings not a freedom of speech issue? We saw the same thing during the COVID thread with people posting ridiculous things like "Nobody is forced to get a vaccine, you can refuse and accept the consequences like losing your job."
If the government is compelling you to do something under threat of punishment then it's an absurd thing to say you're still allowed to do it if you just accept the consequences in order to claim your personal liberty is not being effected.
|
On March 12 2025 05:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 04:16 WombaT wrote:This feels pretty worrying as developments go. Luckily there are few other worrying ones these days… CNN - Judge temporarily blocks effort to deport Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia student protestsI think regardless of one’s opinion around cause, or indeed methods of this man in question, there are really serious whiffs of someone up the chain trying to expedite this particular case and circumvent due process. The latter, seemingly only being upheld because those lower down are making it a point to stick to. The second, broader and perhaps even more pertinent point is this administration, quite openly launching an attack on free speech on college campuses. Under the auspices of a very deliberately vague conception of ‘illegal protests’. Are some the folks who spent the past decade complaining that the left were destroying freedom of speech in colleges going to be as fervent in their opposition to these developments? I mean, they really care about freedom of speech right? Right? Introvert and I frequently made the point that people will be singing a different tune on the censorship of speech once Trump is back in office. Well... well... well... Sure it's no big deal when it was Canada freezing the bank accounts of trucker protestors or the Brazilian Supreme court justice is threatening to jail Twitter staff for not complying with his censorship orders... But now it's serious because the right is doing it. My response is that it's atrocious. I think most people here would agree that it's atrocious. But I also suspect that if the left were in power and they tried to deport Musk for being an outside agitator in our politics they would be fully supportive to the point of giddiness over the idea. I don't know about the trucker protest but Brazil was people refusing to comply with legal court orders. One of the consequences of that is potential jail. Trying to expedite a deportation because you want to deny a green card holder his ability to pursue his legal options is not the same thing. The twitter case had nothing to do with free speech, it was a company refusing to follow countries laws while still operating in said country. Your comparing apples to oranges. As per usual. Why does this backwards logic always make an appearance here? How is being threatened with jail for not complying with censorship rulings not a freedom of speech issue? We saw the same thing during the COVID thread with people posting ridiculous things like "Nobody is forced to get a vaccine, you can refuse and accept the consequences like losing your job." If the government is compelling you to do something under threat of punishment then it's an absurd thing to say you're still allowed to do it if you just accept the consequences in order to claim your personal liberty is not being effected.
Every now and then its good to remind yourself as an american that your countries interpretation of freedom of speech is not an universal truth.
|
On March 12 2025 05:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 04:16 WombaT wrote:This feels pretty worrying as developments go. Luckily there are few other worrying ones these days… CNN - Judge temporarily blocks effort to deport Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia student protestsI think regardless of one’s opinion around cause, or indeed methods of this man in question, there are really serious whiffs of someone up the chain trying to expedite this particular case and circumvent due process. The latter, seemingly only being upheld because those lower down are making it a point to stick to. The second, broader and perhaps even more pertinent point is this administration, quite openly launching an attack on free speech on college campuses. Under the auspices of a very deliberately vague conception of ‘illegal protests’. Are some the folks who spent the past decade complaining that the left were destroying freedom of speech in colleges going to be as fervent in their opposition to these developments? I mean, they really care about freedom of speech right? Right? Introvert and I frequently made the point that people will be singing a different tune on the censorship of speech once Trump is back in office. Well... well... well... Sure it's no big deal when it was Canada freezing the bank accounts of trucker protestors or the Brazilian Supreme court justice is threatening to jail Twitter staff for not complying with his censorship orders... But now it's serious because the right is doing it. My response is that it's atrocious. I think most people here would agree that it's atrocious. But I also suspect that if the left were in power and they tried to deport Musk for being an outside agitator in our politics they would be fully supportive to the point of giddiness over the idea. I don't know about the trucker protest but Brazil was people refusing to comply with legal court orders. One of the consequences of that is potential jail. Trying to expedite a deportation because you want to deny a green card holder his ability to pursue his legal options is not the same thing. The twitter case had nothing to do with free speech, it was a company refusing to follow countries laws while still operating in said country. Your comparing apples to oranges. As per usual. Why does this backwards logic always make an appearance here? How is being threatened with jail for not complying with censorship rulings not a freedom of speech issue? We saw the same thing during the COVID thread with people posting ridiculous things like "Nobody is forced to get a vaccine, you can refuse and accept the consequences like losing your job." If the government is compelling you to do something under threat of punishment then it's an absurd thing to say you're still allowed to do it if you just accept the consequences in order to claim your personal liberty is not being effected. We had this discussion back in the day, people refer to that for any replies you expect me to give. I cba to rehash it yet again.
|
On March 12 2025 05:40 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 05:33 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 04:16 WombaT wrote:This feels pretty worrying as developments go. Luckily there are few other worrying ones these days… CNN - Judge temporarily blocks effort to deport Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia student protestsI think regardless of one’s opinion around cause, or indeed methods of this man in question, there are really serious whiffs of someone up the chain trying to expedite this particular case and circumvent due process. The latter, seemingly only being upheld because those lower down are making it a point to stick to. The second, broader and perhaps even more pertinent point is this administration, quite openly launching an attack on free speech on college campuses. Under the auspices of a very deliberately vague conception of ‘illegal protests’. Are some the folks who spent the past decade complaining that the left were destroying freedom of speech in colleges going to be as fervent in their opposition to these developments? I mean, they really care about freedom of speech right? Right? Introvert and I frequently made the point that people will be singing a different tune on the censorship of speech once Trump is back in office. Well... well... well... Sure it's no big deal when it was Canada freezing the bank accounts of trucker protestors or the Brazilian Supreme court justice is threatening to jail Twitter staff for not complying with his censorship orders... But now it's serious because the right is doing it. My response is that it's atrocious. I think most people here would agree that it's atrocious. But I also suspect that if the left were in power and they tried to deport Musk for being an outside agitator in our politics they would be fully supportive to the point of giddiness over the idea. I don't know about the trucker protest but Brazil was people refusing to comply with legal court orders. One of the consequences of that is potential jail. Trying to expedite a deportation because you want to deny a green card holder his ability to pursue his legal options is not the same thing. The twitter case had nothing to do with free speech, it was a company refusing to follow countries laws while still operating in said country. Your comparing apples to oranges. As per usual. Why does this backwards logic always make an appearance here? How is being threatened with jail for not complying with censorship rulings not a freedom of speech issue? We saw the same thing during the COVID thread with people posting ridiculous things like "Nobody is forced to get a vaccine, you can refuse and accept the consequences like losing your job." If the government is compelling you to do something under threat of punishment then it's an absurd thing to say you're still allowed to do it if you just accept the consequences in order to claim your personal liberty is not being effected. Every now and then its good to remind yourself as an american that your countries interpretation of freedom of speech is not an universal truth.
Irrelevant. His statement was "The twitter case had nothing to do with free speech, it was a company refusing to follow countries laws while operating in said country."
Whether American freedom of speech is a universal truth is irrelevant. You wouldn't say someone that gets hanged for insulting Kim Jong Un has nothing to do with freedom of speech because in North Korea their laws say you can't insult the glorious leader. (I have no idea if that's true or not, just a hypothetical example.) Yes you can argue that "legally" they are allowed to hang that person but that doesn't magically negate whether it's a freedom of speech issue or even whether it's just.
|
On March 12 2025 05:48 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 05:40 Artesimo wrote:On March 12 2025 05:33 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 05:21 Gorsameth wrote:On March 12 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On March 12 2025 04:16 WombaT wrote:This feels pretty worrying as developments go. Luckily there are few other worrying ones these days… CNN - Judge temporarily blocks effort to deport Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia student protestsI think regardless of one’s opinion around cause, or indeed methods of this man in question, there are really serious whiffs of someone up the chain trying to expedite this particular case and circumvent due process. The latter, seemingly only being upheld because those lower down are making it a point to stick to. The second, broader and perhaps even more pertinent point is this administration, quite openly launching an attack on free speech on college campuses. Under the auspices of a very deliberately vague conception of ‘illegal protests’. Are some the folks who spent the past decade complaining that the left were destroying freedom of speech in colleges going to be as fervent in their opposition to these developments? I mean, they really care about freedom of speech right? Right? Introvert and I frequently made the point that people will be singing a different tune on the censorship of speech once Trump is back in office. Well... well... well... Sure it's no big deal when it was Canada freezing the bank accounts of trucker protestors or the Brazilian Supreme court justice is threatening to jail Twitter staff for not complying with his censorship orders... But now it's serious because the right is doing it. My response is that it's atrocious. I think most people here would agree that it's atrocious. But I also suspect that if the left were in power and they tried to deport Musk for being an outside agitator in our politics they would be fully supportive to the point of giddiness over the idea. I don't know about the trucker protest but Brazil was people refusing to comply with legal court orders. One of the consequences of that is potential jail. Trying to expedite a deportation because you want to deny a green card holder his ability to pursue his legal options is not the same thing. The twitter case had nothing to do with free speech, it was a company refusing to follow countries laws while still operating in said country. Your comparing apples to oranges. As per usual. Why does this backwards logic always make an appearance here? How is being threatened with jail for not complying with censorship rulings not a freedom of speech issue? We saw the same thing during the COVID thread with people posting ridiculous things like "Nobody is forced to get a vaccine, you can refuse and accept the consequences like losing your job." If the government is compelling you to do something under threat of punishment then it's an absurd thing to say you're still allowed to do it if you just accept the consequences in order to claim your personal liberty is not being effected. Every now and then its good to remind yourself as an american that your countries interpretation of freedom of speech is not an universal truth. Irrelevant. His statement was "The twitter case had nothing to do with free speech, it was a company refusing to follow countries laws while operating in said country." Whether American freedom of speech is a universal truth is irrelevant. You wouldn't say someone that gets hanged for insulting Kim Jong Un has nothing to do with freedom of speech because in North Korea their laws say you can't insult the glorious leader. (I have no idea if that's true or not, just a hypothetical example.) Yes you can argue that "legally" they are allowed to hang that person but that doesn't magically negate whether it's a freedom of speech issue or even whether it's just.
It is, because as soon as you accept that there can be limits to freedom of speech besides the one you are used to, without immediately jumping to censorship, your argument probably falls apart. Because at that point, its the equivalent of me complaining that a german company is prosecuted for breaking US law while operating there.
|
Northern Ireland23942 Posts
On March 12 2025 05:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2025 05:10 WombaT wrote:On March 12 2025 05:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 12 2025 04:57 WombaT wrote:On March 12 2025 04:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 12 2025 04:49 Sadist wrote:On March 12 2025 04:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Ontario just suspended their 25% export tax surcharge on electricity. Smart move. It is rough that the Ontario Premier took it this far.
Earlier the Premier was encouraging Danielle Smith to put an export tax on Alberta's oil. What a super dumb move that would be. Fortunately, Ms. Smith possesses for than 1 ml of common sense. For US Americans I guess it's be ounce? 😀
Canada shoulda started negotiating right from the start. They should've promised additions to their military... Promised to work with the USA to protect the Arctic.. etc. Youve said that this was all a part of trumps plan to raise funds via tariffs. Why would anything that theyve done mattered? Which is it? If you negotiate like Danielle Smith or Francois Legault or Claudia Sheinbaum you can make the best of a bad situation. Pull off shit like Doug Ford's media tour and you turn a fire into an inferno. I called it... this was easy to see. Canada must double it's military budget as soon as the optics make it seem plausible. Anyhow , Doug Ford made a good move today. Double its military to do what? We've been over this before. Protect the Arctic. Contribute in a meaningful way within NATO. Hit the 2% target like many other nations chose to do. Why bump your spend to hit a target, when it seemingly didn’t matter anyway for those who did raise their spend? This is Trump diplomacy in action baby! Ok so you want us to raise our defence spending, likely purchase a lot of your stuff, as part of a collective security arrangement? Do you actually hang out with any actual living, breathing US Republicans in the real world? OR do you just read about them? Republicans love everything military. Canada's customer base IS the USA. You keep your customer base happy. To quote the brilliant 20th century philosopher Michael Jordan: "republicans buy shoes too". Kinda sad that I'm better at keeping Republicans happy than the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Ontario. And just so we're clear: i love republicans
Republicans buy sneakers, they don’t buy expensive military equipment. Nor do they make purchasing decisions based on if something, at some point in a complex modern supply chain might have passed through some country that annoyed them.
Many Republicans don’t like China, doesn’t stop them buying Chinese shit does it?
Your argument here is completely nonsensical. Canada has to increase defence spending, because US Republicans love the military and will like, buy Canadian? :S
Mine is completely logical, agree or disagree. ‘NATO members, get your shit together and spend more or we won’t have your back’ is a solid, hardball negotiating tack.
It COMPLETELY falls apart when people DO what you say, and you don’t have their back and fuck them over anyway.
This is fucking basic stuff. Holy shit. Unless the Trump admin do a 180 or 90 degree pivot they have basically zero leverage in making NATO related demands of their allies.
This is Trump diplomacy baby!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
