|
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 October 27 2018 05:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We've already had people shooting politicians and threatening other actions against them before this. And nothing has changed. So yes, very unrealistic to think anything but words will come of this. Trump will play to it his next rally blaming dems and dems will double down on rhetoric that won't get them any more votes than they'd already get. This nation is slowly burning. Some are just trying to speed it up.
Oh, one thing's changed, it's now considered another 'weapon' in the political attack box. 'Oh look how evil the other side is', with a mealy-mouthed side comment about how 'all this terrible stuff has to stop, DOESN'T IT, CNN??????' or equivalent. I think the Democrats are a little more aware of where this is inevitably going, they seem to put out more of the 'violence needs to stop' rhetoric, but neither side is willing to do what's actually necessary to calm things down, which is to start cooperating with each other.
|
NPR has not posted a single picture of the man and only used his name once in their entire article about him. But he is all over cable news because they love eyeballs, not keeping people informed. I doubt that will change without the goverment forcing the discussion.
|
On October 27 2018 06:58 micronesia wrote:
I am concerned by the fact that his identity is getting plastered everywhere just like a mass shooting perpetrator. Not surprised, but concerned. It would be nice if committing mass violence or domestic terrorism did not result in you becoming a celebrity.
I wish publications would start out by posting all of the worst, most cringey things they could dig up on the guy.
"into furry stuff from the ripe age of 13, he was famous in middle school for reading hentai in class. he never actually ended up making any friends until working at a strip club at age 24"
|
On an anecdotal and somewhat lighthearted note, for the past few months I've walked by a ton of "protect our state's Constitution! Vote no on all amendments!" signs in white on red backing that screamed GOP to me.
I just went to vote early (my area has amazing early voting opportunities, fortunately) and the sample (Democrat) ballot I was handed voted against them all and when I read them every amendment is conservative (lower taxes/voter ID law/alter how we staff election boards/etc.). I can't decide if they were intentionally making the sign with GOP colors to trick voters who identify with them or not. Either way, I got a good chuckle out of it.
|
On October 27 2018 07:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On an anecdotal and somewhat lighthearted note, for the past few months I've walked by a ton of "protect our state's Constitution! Vote no on all amendments!" signs in white on red backing that screamed GOP to me.
I just went to vote early (my area has amazing early voting opportunities, fortunately) and the sample (Democrat) ballot I was handed voted against them all and when I read them every amendment is conservative (lower taxes/voter ID law/alter how we staff election boards/etc.). I can't decide if they were intentionally making the sign with GOP colors to trick voters who identify with them or not. Either way, I got a good chuckle out of it.
It always baffles me how people can think we reached some sort of pinnacle of human thought hundreds of years ago. We make so many other advances in ethics, science, philosophy and whatnot, but the constitution was 100% perfect. So perfect that it has a few amendments. But once we got those out of the way, now it is 110% perfect.
I think it also relates to one of my common critiques of conservatism: an unfounded reverence for authority/precedent.
|
On October 27 2018 07:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On an anecdotal and somewhat lighthearted note, for the past few months I've walked by a ton of "protect our state's Constitution! Vote no on all amendments!" signs in white on red backing that screamed GOP to me.
I just went to vote early (my area has amazing early voting opportunities, fortunately) and the sample (Democrat) ballot I was handed voted against them all and when I read them every amendment is conservative (lower taxes/voter ID law/alter how we staff election boards/etc.). I can't decide if they were intentionally making the sign with GOP colors to trick voters who identify with them or not. Either way, I got a good chuckle out of it.
Part of the issue with using political party coloring(red/blue) for signing is that they show better on white and then, congrats, you have the colors of the flag. Also, only using 2 colors looks kinda cheap. Almost all the signs by me are all red/white/blue except for a guy named Greenleaf, who has white/green signs.
|
On October 27 2018 07:06 Plansix wrote:
NPR has not posted a single picture of the man and only used his name once in their entire article about him. But he is all over cable news because they love eyeballs, not keeping people informed. I doubt that will change without the goverment forcing the discussion.
are you advocating for censorship here?
|
I think people are advocating for a shift in media priorities, such that mass killers and terrorists aren't turned into heroes for another would-be murderer to idolize.
|
plansix implied the governmen needs to get involved though
|
On October 27 2018 08:35 IgnE wrote:
plansix implied the governmen needs to get involved though
I feel like curbing the growing number of mass murderers through idolization would fall under a matter of national security.
|
On October 27 2018 08:35 IgnE wrote:
plansix implied the governmen needs to get involved though
The fairness doctrine existed for decades and prevented the bile that is Rush Limbaugh from making millions making one set of Americans hate another set of Americans. Entire news networks devoted to promoting a single political party 24 hours a day is a blight on our nation.
We might not need a return of the fairness doctrine, but congress’s hands off, unlimited money into politics approach is one of the causes of rot in this county. Turning schools shooters and terrorists into celebrates is one of the many discussions congress should be having with these networks in open hearings.
What broadcast news looks like in this country should be an active and ongoing discussion between the news networks and our elected officials. And I mean broadcast news, not written news.
|
Heres a list of luminaries on the right who said that the bombs were a false flag hoax. Looks like a great crowd.
Ann Coulter
James Woods
Geraldo Rivera
Candace Owens
Bill Mitchell
Rush Limbaugh
Michael Savage
Lou Dobbs
Mike Flynn Jr.
Dinesh D'Souza
Kurt Schlichter
Laura Loomer
Jacob Wohl
|
|
|
On October 27 2018 08:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2018 08:35 IgnE wrote:
plansix implied the governmen needs to get involved though The fairness doctrine existed for decades and prevented the bile that is Rush Limbaugh from making millions making one set of Americans hate another set of Americans. Entire news networks devoted to promoting a single political party 24 hours a day is a blight on our nation. We might not need a return of the fairness doctrine, but congress’s hands off, unlimited money into politics approach is one of the causes of rot in this county. Turning schools shooters and terrorists into celebrates is one of the many discussions congress should be having with these networks in open hearings. What broadcast news looks like in this country should be an active and ongoing discussion between the news networks and our elected officials. And I mean broadcast news, not written news.
I feel like even if you magically waved a wand and fixed the problem that rampant partisan journalism has caused and had the fairness doctrine, or something equally as good, back... that would only buy you like 15-20 years before you're back in the same place.
When the current younger generation(s) grow older they mostly likely aren't suddenly going to flock back to broadcast news over their current consumption habits. And once the partisanship is coming from the Internet it's going to be a lot harder to write constitutional, reasonable and efficient regulations.
Not that this means I think they should just give up or not bring this stuff up in a prominent national setting, but it seems like a really difficult thing the current younger generations are going to have to find a solution for.
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 27 2018 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:
It always baffles me how people can think we reached some sort of pinnacle of human thought hundreds of years ago. We make so many other advances in ethics, science, philosophy and whatnot, but the constitution was 100% perfect. So perfect that it has a few amendments. But once we got those out of the way, now it is 110% perfect.
I think it also relates to one of my common critiques of conservatism: an unfounded reverence for authority/precedent.
Arguably modern academic philosophy is less relevant, less logically sound, and less robust in explanatory power than the Greeks post-Aristotle or medieval Islam. It certainly has less public cache than the pre-WWII era of analytic philosophy or the resurgence of virtue ethics in the 60s-70s among the British schools. Coincidentally this intellectual regression is one of my main critiques of modern liberalism. 
With the exception of disciplines that rely heavily on quantitative measurement, claims of progress are usually either attempts at self-justification or merely noting that the discipline's sensibilities have changed in accordance with the general culture.
On October 27 2018 09:52 JimmiC wrote:
Congress could do what it did to baseball on the steroid abuse. Bring them in and say are you guys going to deal with this shit or are we?
Not really. You're comparing two vastly different circumstances. One concerns endemic PED use, which can be reliably tested, in what constituted a shadow conspiracy within a sport considered a cornerstone of American life. The other is an assumption (at best) based on a questionable interpretation of cultivation theory for a rare phenomenon with no identifiable guiding force and no overarching organizational structure like MLB to enact controls. What exactly would a Congressional hearing do to change things besides install implicit censorship (which is counteracted by partisan reporting on the internet anyway)?
On October 27 2018 10:03 Logo wrote:
I feel like even if you magically waved a wand and fixed the problem that rampant partisan journalism has caused and had the fairness doctrine, or something equally as good, back...that would only buy you like 15-20 years before you're back in the same place.
When the current younger generation(s) grow older they mostly likely aren't suddenly going to flock back to broadcast news over their current consumption habits. And once the partisanship is coming from the Internet it's going to be a lot harder to write constitutional, reasonable and efficient regulations.
Not that this means I think they should just give up or not bring this stuff up in a prominent national setting, but it seems like a really difficult thing the current younger generations are going to have to find a solution for.
Besides the question whether reinstating older protocols would actually work (the FCC Fairness Doctrine wouldn't address coverage of extremist violence at all), you still have the problem of justifying current changes to what broadcast news prioritizes and how it presents information based on the supposed reactions of a minuscule minority. And that last part is a euphemism. In addition, portraying mass murderers as doing something important doesn't constitute slander, libel, explicit politicization or any other offensive act that justifies censorship. And the rationale is so vague that it can be spun for any number of topics. Do we similarly restrain coverage on drug lords on the premise it romanticizes crime? What about coverage of terrorist groups by independent correspondents? You're sticking thumbs in a levee as new holes pop up everywhere else.
|
|
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 27 2018 11:26 JimmiC wrote:
Ideally you would have the threat of censorship and the fear of those networks losing viewership to the internet as you just suggested would happen and have them come up with their own solution from being so clearly partisan. That works for them and congress.
My point is that the justification for Congressional intervention is paper-thin. You can blow on it and it would collapse.
|
|
|
Its paper thin but I think there is at the least enough smoke you can blow up on national security and national ownership of the airwaves to institute a better set of standards. Not creating a celebrity class of terrorists and mass murderers. The FCC would go a good way to regulating things so I never learn who the terrorist of the week is.
|
On October 27 2018 08:35 IgnE wrote:
plansix implied the governmen needs to get involved though
The government can get involved without legislating or censoring anyone. Voluntary codes of conduct are a thing (in the UK at least) and industry guidelines and standards that aren't enforced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
