|
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 September 19 2018 17:04 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 12:19 Saryph wrote:
So apparently part of the problem is people have been spamming her address and phone number on twitter, and she has had to go into hiding. She's been receiving death threats and has two teenage daughters to take into consideration. I can see why she hesitated with this a few months ago, and it is a pretty sad truth about situations such as these.
Like clockwork. Question the dear leader, be ready to get beat up by the brownshirts. Say anything implying that women may possibly have a right to their own body, and watch the scum come out of the caves. But please, make sure that all of this makes live a living hell for the women who dare to accuse powerful men of abuse. They might be making this up, just to have this incredibly fun experience and all the wonderful gains, like being threatened by mobs of fascists. Better make sure to protect those poor and helpless powerful men.
"If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”
Maybe such behavior should always be wrong, rather than when it's politically convenient?
|
On September 19 2018 17:33 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 17:04 Simberto wrote:On September 19 2018 12:19 Saryph wrote:So apparently part of the problem is people have been spamming her address and phone number on twitter, and she has had to go into hiding. She's been receiving death threats and has two teenage daughters to take into consideration. I can see why she hesitated with this a few months ago, and it is a pretty sad truth about situations such as these. https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1042185796596453377 Like clockwork. Question the dear leader, be ready to get beat up by the brownshirts. Say anything implying that women may possibly have a right to their own body, and watch the scum come out of the caves. But please, make sure that all of this makes live a living hell for the women who dare to accuse powerful men of abuse. They might be making this up, just to have this incredibly fun experience and all the wonderful gains, like being threatened by mobs of fascists. Better make sure to protect those poor and helpless powerful men. "If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” Wonder how much you cared then. Anybody here boycotting NBC for ignoring the Harvey Weinstein story? Anyone..? Oh also, I spoke with that Republican congressional candidate who was nearly stabbed last week and he told me that he hasn't yet received your flowers in the mail.
Simberto is German, so I doubt he watches NBC. I don't think it counts as a boycott.
But either way, what is your point? People stabbing congressmen is bad. People posting death threats to victims of abuse is also bad. No need to make light of the latter just because it doesn't match your politics. Can we have Danglars and introvert back? They actually have a moral compass.
E: you edited out the last bit. Guess that was one too many whataboutisms for even you?
|
On September 19 2018 17:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 17:33 PeTraSoHot wrote:On September 19 2018 17:04 Simberto wrote:On September 19 2018 12:19 Saryph wrote:So apparently part of the problem is people have been spamming her address and phone number on twitter, and she has had to go into hiding. She's been receiving death threats and has two teenage daughters to take into consideration. I can see why she hesitated with this a few months ago, and it is a pretty sad truth about situations such as these. https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1042185796596453377 Like clockwork. Question the dear leader, be ready to get beat up by the brownshirts. Say anything implying that women may possibly have a right to their own body, and watch the scum come out of the caves. But please, make sure that all of this makes live a living hell for the women who dare to accuse powerful men of abuse. They might be making this up, just to have this incredibly fun experience and all the wonderful gains, like being threatened by mobs of fascists. Better make sure to protect those poor and helpless powerful men. "If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” Wonder how much you cared then. Anybody here boycotting NBC for ignoring the Harvey Weinstein story? Anyone..? Oh also, I spoke with that Republican congressional candidate who was nearly stabbed last week and he told me that he hasn't yet received your flowers in the mail. Simberto is German, so I doubt he watches NBC. I don't think it counts as a boycott. But either way, what is your point? People stabbing congressmen is bad. People posting death threats to victims of abuse is also bad. No need to make light of the latter just because it doesn't match your politics. Can we have Danglars and introvert back? They actually have a moral compass. E: you edited out the last bit. Guess that was one too many whataboutisms for even you?
Just trying to not get banned again.
Whataboutism is a dumb word that was introduced.. a year ago? How did we ever communicate with one another before we had that word. Most people using it seem to use it as a way to gloss over any notion that consistency matters. What is wrong with saying "What about this other example?" Please speak in plain English so that I can understand you; slogans and made-up political lingo are not productive.
My point is that it would be nice if people also cared about violence and violent threats at times when it isn't politically favorable to do so.
|
On September 19 2018 18:04 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 17:38 Acrofales wrote:On September 19 2018 17:33 PeTraSoHot wrote:On September 19 2018 17:04 Simberto wrote:On September 19 2018 12:19 Saryph wrote:So apparently part of the problem is people have been spamming her address and phone number on twitter, and she has had to go into hiding. She's been receiving death threats and has two teenage daughters to take into consideration. I can see why she hesitated with this a few months ago, and it is a pretty sad truth about situations such as these. https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1042185796596453377 Like clockwork. Question the dear leader, be ready to get beat up by the brownshirts. Say anything implying that women may possibly have a right to their own body, and watch the scum come out of the caves. But please, make sure that all of this makes live a living hell for the women who dare to accuse powerful men of abuse. They might be making this up, just to have this incredibly fun experience and all the wonderful gains, like being threatened by mobs of fascists. Better make sure to protect those poor and helpless powerful men. "If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” Wonder how much you cared then. Anybody here boycotting NBC for ignoring the Harvey Weinstein story? Anyone..? Oh also, I spoke with that Republican congressional candidate who was nearly stabbed last week and he told me that he hasn't yet received your flowers in the mail. Simberto is German, so I doubt he watches NBC. I don't think it counts as a boycott. But either way, what is your point? People stabbing congressmen is bad. People posting death threats to victims of abuse is also bad. No need to make light of the latter just because it doesn't match your politics. Can we have Danglars and introvert back? They actually have a moral compass. E: you edited out the last bit. Guess that was one too many whataboutisms for even you? Just trying to not get banned again. Whataboutism is a dumb word that was introduced.. a year ago? How did we ever communicate with one another before we had that word. Most people using it seem to use it as a way to gloss over any notion that consistency matters. What is wrong with saying "What about this other example?" Please speak in plain English so that I can understand you; slogans and made-up political lingo are not productive. My point is that it would be nice if people also cared about violence and violent threats at times when it isn't politically favorable to do so.
Whataboutism is not a word made up a year ago. Usage of it started with regards to the soviet union. And it means the strategy of deflection. Instead of talking about a bad thing you did, you say "But what about...."
If party a did a bad thing, and party b did a bad thing, that does not mean that the bad thing is okay. And the goal of whataboutism is not to actually get consistency of any sort, it is to constantly deflect and never talk about the bad thing you did.
And for the record, I am similarly not a fan of the Clinton stuff, and think that it is pretty disgusting. It just happened before i was politically active, because i was too young at that point.
Which brings us exactly to the reason why that is whataboutism. Why should we be talking about bad stuff that someone that was president 20 years ago did, instead of the thing relevant right now, which is not Clinton. It is Kavanaugh and the rightwing thugs mentioned above. Try arguing without using deflection. Talk about the thing we are currently talking about, not "x bad thing someone to the left of you did that is kind of similar in some way, but has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand"
Edit: And yes, i do indeed not watch NPR. Not for any reason of choice, but simply because i am not very exposed to it.
|
On September 19 2018 18:33 Simberto wrote:
Which brings us exactly to the reason why that is whataboutism. Why should we be talking about bad stuff that someone that was president 20 years ago did, instead of the thing relevant right now, which is not Clinton. It is Kavanaugh and the rightwing thugs mentioned above. Try arguing without using deflection. Talk about the thing we are currently talking about, not "x bad thing someone to the left of you did that is kind of similar in some way, but has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand"
Perhaps the topic was unclear.
On September 19 2018 17:04 Simberto wrote:
Like clockwork. Question the dear leader, be ready to get beat up by the brownshirts. Say anything implying that women may possibly have a right to their own body, and watch the scum come out of the caves.
But please, make sure that all of this makes live a living hell for the women who dare to accuse powerful men of abuse. They might be making this up, just to have this incredibly fun experience and all the wonderful gains, like being threatened by mobs of fascists. Better make sure to protect those poor and helpless powerful men.
I understood the topic to be "Protect women from being abused by powerful men!"
You intended for the topic to be "Protect Kavanaugh's accuser from right-wing trolls!"
I've apparently misunderstood you. No need to go around accusing me of soviet psychological tactics.
On September 19 2018 18:33 Simberto wrote:
And for the record, I am similarly not a fan of the Clinton stuff, and think that it is pretty disgusting. It just happened before i was politically active, because i was too young at that point.
Yes, I know. Every democrat was disgusted by the Clinton stuff the moment Hillary lost the election and not a second sooner.
|
Petra, I understand your perceived logic of whataboutisms. It’s not that we don’t get it. It’s this...
Person A is outraged about thing X for reason Z.
—>
Person A is not outraged about thing Y.
—>
X and Y are functionally equivalent in the context of reason Z.
—>
Person A is inconsistent in his outrage for reason Z.
—>
Person A does not actually care about reason Z and is lying (either intentionally or unintentionally) when he says he does.
This train of logic isn’t that horrible, assuming all premises are true. But there are still huge issues with this line of thinking.
1. A lot of these premises are impossible for you to prove true. How are you going to prove that person A wasn’t outraged at Y? Because they didn’t post about it in the thread? Have you posted every single thing you’ve been outraged about? How are you going to prove X and Y are functionally equivalent to reason Z? Is reason Z defined in a way that both of you agree with? Etc.
2. The argument has nothing to actually do with reason Z and everything to do with defaming person A. These kinds of personal attacks very rarely result in meaningful discourse, because you come off as attacking your conversation partner.
3. Tying in to #2 and what others have touched on, the argument stops being about reason Z. If the argument is about reason Z being good or bad, then whether or not person A is a hypocrite or a liar should have no bearing on it; you can be both and still be correct. That’s why it’s viewed as a deflection, because it changes the topic to person A.
I hope this helps clarify why people are giving you a hard time.
|
I am not a "democrat" (As in, as member or voter of that party. I am in favor of democracy in general, just to make that abundantly clear). I am from Germany. The democrat party doesn't exist here.
Clinton shit is in no way relevant right now. I wasn't happy with Clinton as a presidential candidate either. It was just that she was in no way as bad as Trump. But that is not relevant either. Neither Bill nor Hillary are President right now. Neither of them is currently being shitty to any women. They used to in the past, and that is bad, and should definitively not be forgotten. But it is not especially relevant right now, and bringing it up serves no point other than to dilute the discussion away from the actual current problem. Clintons shit might be shitty, but it is 20 year old shit.
If you don't want to be accused of whataboutism, try the following. When someone brings up something, don't immediately and instinctively go to "But democrats did something shitty too!" Instead, talk about the specific thing that people were talking about.
And if your point was "women have always had a hard time when dealing with sexual abuse by powerful men", than i totally agree. And i am disgusted by that fact. And i am very sad that there does not seem to be an easy way of solving that. I am open to any ideas. Apparently for a large part of the population, especially if the accused is of their tribe, the instinctive reaction is "She is lying, better make her live miserable". That is something we really need to get rid off. That does not mean taking every accusation as fact. But currently the pendulum is way too far on the other side, where every accusation is instinctively seen as a lie. That only protects the abusers.
And the internet mob justice makes things a lot worse. That includes both right-wing trolls, and a bunch of way too eager "SJW" types, which are sometimes very obviously looking for a reason to be outraged. I would also be interested in how one could make this part of the internet less toxic, and less likely to stalk and harrass the people who are put into the middle of a shitstorm.
|
I was about to post that people who live in Germany can't really be Democrats. And it’s all to typical that we have returned to talismanic use of Bill Clinton as evidence that no democrat on the planet cares about issues like sexual assault. The cynical world view that all forms empathy are performance for personal or political advantage.
And of course, let us not forget that any posters on this site would need to be in their late 50s to have voted for Bill Clinton.
|
Bisutopia19351 Posts
Just curious if anyone else feels the same way. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that all we are doing at this point is discussing an allegation that may or may not be true instead of determining whether Brett Kavanaugh is the right man for the job? Suddenly the story went from his qualifications and rulings to he will be elected based on whether or not people believe he did something to that woman when he was younger. It feels like no one can risk saying, "Let's put this behind us and judge the man before us" without being flamed for insensitivity.
edit: To add, I'm not sure Kavanaugh would be my pick for the job and don't feel I have enough information to determine that.
|
On September 19 2018 21:58 BisuDagger wrote:
Just curious if anyone else feels the same way. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that all we are doing at this point is discussing an allegation that may or may not be true instead of determining whether Brett Kavanaugh is the right man for the job? Suddenly the story went from his qualifications and rulings to he will be elected based on whether or not people believe he did something to that woman when he was younger. It feels like no one can risk saying, "Let's put this behind us and judge the man before us" without being flamed for insensitivity.
edit: To add, I'm not sure Kavanaugh would be my pick for the job and don't feel I have enough information to determine that.
I don't think you can easily separate the two considerations given the job he has to do. Any allegations form a part of determining whether or not he's the right man for the job, and its difficult to determine that until the allegation has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
|
One of the primary reasons folks are focusing on this issue deals in the fact that Republicans expedited the vetting process such that this allegation raises significant concerns in terms of whether Senators have anywhere near the full picture needed to conscientiously vote for Kavanaugh. If the powers that be who facilitated his nomination legitimately wanted folks to focus on his professional credentials (many of which stink of partinsanry unlike any modern nominee for SCOTUS, btw), they would not have have rushed him through the process in direct contravention of how Garland's nomination was handled.
|
How can we or the senators judge someone such incomplete information? The allegations made may not be sufficient for a criminal conviction, but the matter can still be investigated. There is this push to frame the allegations as something unknowable, that we will never have enough information to be 100% certain, so it shouldn’t be a factor. Personally, I don’t want to accept that framing and would like some investigation into the facts of the case. Like basic stuff, that they both attended the party in question. Interview the other guy who she claims was in the room. All of this is possible and should happen before we put this man on the Supreme Court.
|
Bisutopia19351 Posts
On September 19 2018 22:07 Plansix wrote:
How can we or the senators judge someone such incomplete information? The allegations made may not be sufficient for a criminal conviction, but the matter can still be investigated. There is this push to frame the allegations as something unknowable, that we will never have enough information to be 100% certain, so it shouldn’t be a factor. Personally, I don’t want to accept that framing and would like some investigation into the facts of the case. Like basic stuff, that they both attended the party in question. Interview the other guy who she claims was in the room. All of this is possible and should happen before we put this man on the Supreme Court.
To be clear, I am not saying we shouldn't finish investigating the allegations. But in the scenario where the allegations are resolved and senate pushes forward with him, what now? The republicans would want to get the vote asap following that result, yet we just spent weeks vetting him over one issue which steals away the important time that could have been used to judge a man over a lifetime of his choices. Since the vote would need to happen before the next election to have the benefit of the current senate do you feel that Kavanaugh has been vetted to your satisfaction by both parties on all issues not related to make an informed vote?
|
On September 19 2018 21:58 BisuDagger wrote:
Just curious if anyone else feels the same way. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that all we are doing at this point is discussing an allegation that may or may not be true instead of determining whether Brett Kavanaugh is the right man for the job? Suddenly the story went from his qualifications and rulings to he will be elected based on whether or not people believe he did something to that woman when he was younger. It feels like no one can risk saying, "Let's put this behind us and judge the man before us" without being flamed for insensitivity.
Well, how you judge the man depends somewhat on whether he did what he was accused of, and if he did whether he did them repeatedly (and other victims have not (yet) come forward) or it was a one-off fuckup. I think the democrats are as of now quite united in their low esteem of Kavanaugh, and the task at hand is to convince at least 1 republican to join them in voting against his nomination. Clearly he is a qualified lawman, so what can disqualify him is if he's a despiccable character whose depravity taints his interpretation of the law. The Democrats thought they could show he was a despiccable character with evidence of how he rubberstamped war crimes during the Bush era, but if there is evidence of that, it hasn't been publicized and doesn't appear to sway any Republicans anyway. The current best way of demonstrating that Kavanaugh is unfit to be a SC justice is by getting to the bottom of this allegation of sexual assault. And that's why we are where we are.
|
The amount of personal baggage a nominee brings along with them is a significant factor that directly interacts with that nominee's fitness; if Republicans didn't want to slog through hearings about how this guy handled prior accusations of sexual assault, they should have nominated someone who had not been accused of sexual assault, period. There are literally hundreds of die hard conservative jurists and lawyers who bring none of this baggage to the table.
|
Bisutopia19351 Posts
On September 19 2018 22:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 21:58 BisuDagger wrote:
Just curious if anyone else feels the same way. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that all we are doing at this point is discussing an allegation that may or may not be true instead of determining whether Brett Kavanaugh is the right man for the job? Suddenly the story went from his qualifications and rulings to he will be elected based on whether or not people believe he did something to that woman when he was younger. It feels like no one can risk saying, "Let's put this behind us and judge the man before us" without being flamed for insensitivity. Well, how you judge the man depends somewhat on whether he did what he was accused of, and if he did whether he did them repeatedly (and other victims have not (yet) come forward) or it was a one-off fuckup. I think the democrats are as of now quite united in their low esteem of Kavanaugh, and the task at hand is to convince at least 1 republican to join them in voting against his nomination. Clearly he is a qualified lawman, so what can disqualify him is if he's a despiccable character whose depravity taints his interpretation of the law. The Democrats thought they could show he was a despiccable character with evidence of how he rubberstamped war crimes during the Bush era, but if there is evidence of that, it hasn't been publicized and doesn't appear to sway any Republicans anyway. The current best way of demonstrating that Kavanaugh is unfit to be a SC justice is by getting to the bottom of this allegation of sexual assault. And that's why we are where we are.
Alright, that's really fitting to how I see this, but it almost feels like a concession from democrats: If Kavanaugh didn't do anything of depravity to this woman, then his character is moral and he is fit for the job.
|
On September 19 2018 22:21 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 22:17 Acrofales wrote:On September 19 2018 21:58 BisuDagger wrote:
Just curious if anyone else feels the same way. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that all we are doing at this point is discussing an allegation that may or may not be true instead of determining whether Brett Kavanaugh is the right man for the job? Suddenly the story went from his qualifications and rulings to he will be elected based on whether or not people believe he did something to that woman when he was younger. It feels like no one can risk saying, "Let's put this behind us and judge the man before us" without being flamed for insensitivity. Well, how you judge the man depends somewhat on whether he did what he was accused of, and if he did whether he did them repeatedly (and other victims have not (yet) come forward) or it was a one-off fuckup. I think the democrats are as of now quite united in their low esteem of Kavanaugh, and the task at hand is to convince at least 1 republican to join them in voting against his nomination. Clearly he is a qualified lawman, so what can disqualify him is if he's a despiccable character whose depravity taints his interpretation of the law. The Democrats thought they could show he was a despiccable character with evidence of how he rubberstamped war crimes during the Bush era, but if there is evidence of that, it hasn't been publicized and doesn't appear to sway any Republicans anyway. The current best way of demonstrating that Kavanaugh is unfit to be a SC justice is by getting to the bottom of this allegation of sexual assault. And that's why we are where we are. Alright, that's really fitting to how I see this, but it's almost feels like a concession from democrats: If Kavanaugh didn't do anything of depravity to this woman, then his character is moral and he is fit for the job.
Well, it's a political appointment. The Democrats feel he is unfit for the job due to many of the ways he interprets the law. But they don't have enough political power to do anything with that, and need to convince at least one Republican. If the Senate was blue, they would simply say that anybody who feels Roe vs. Wade can be undone is not fit for the job. Also, look at that dubious period of Bush's presidency and the role Kavanaugh played there. Denied. However, the Senate is red.
|
On September 19 2018 22:14 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 22:07 Plansix wrote:
How can we or the senators judge someone such incomplete information? The allegations made may not be sufficient for a criminal conviction, but the matter can still be investigated. There is this push to frame the allegations as something unknowable, that we will never have enough information to be 100% certain, so it shouldn’t be a factor. Personally, I don’t want to accept that framing and would like some investigation into the facts of the case. Like basic stuff, that they both attended the party in question. Interview the other guy who she claims was in the room. All of this is possible and should happen before we put this man on the Supreme Court. To be clear, I am not saying we shouldn't finish investigating the allegations. But in the scenario where the allegations are resolved and senate pushes forward with him, what now? The republicans would want to get the vote asap following that result, yet we just spent weeks vetting him over one issue which steals away the important time that could have been used to judge a man over a lifetime of his choices. Since the vote would need to happen before the next election to have the benefit of the current senate do you feel that Kavanaugh has been vetted to your satisfaction by both parties on all issues not related to make an informed vote?
I do not think they have enough information at this time. This process has been rushed because of the upcoming election and fears the Republicans may lose control of the senate due to a wildly unpopular president. And I also believe Republicans know that he is a bad nominee that lacked public support even before these allegations. The longer he is in the public eye, the higher the political costs of confirming him.
|
Except they couldn't care less about the long term as they already have that in the bag. They have two giants in their corner that won't be going away anytime soon. Religion, and Big Business. Win or lose they know full well they can be as partisan as all get out. Call them corrupt, who cares? Nobody on their side will because they know they won't cross over.
|
The last time they confirmed a supreme court nominee that was accused of sexual misconduct, the following election was referred to as the Year of the Woman due to the number women who ran and won. That was 1992 and the trend of most of the women in congress being democrats continues to hold true in 2018. We are already seeing a staggering number of women running due to Trump. If they charge forward with this without going through steps to investigate, it is only going to inspire a bunch of very grumpy women to run for office in 2020. Sometimes it takes a couple years for the consequences to show up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
