Jump to content

US politics: Donny, you're out of your element


IheartIheartTesla

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Somewhat related:  Ben reading the comments attached to political articles about the Trump/Sweden fiasco.  The conservative posters are absolutely convinced that Sweden is a hotbed of crime and that the liberal media is covering the truth up. 

I've noticed a growing trend by "right wing" posters all over the interwebs to the label the "left" as violent, intolerant, and dangerous. It's almost surreal how easily the USA has been split into two, and how easily the common folk have been manipulate to view one another as the enemy. This will not end well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Einheri said:

That said, I can’t help but think that the we on the left would normally have been more sympathetic/less harsh towards a person – even if we have to take a hard stand against his statements – if that person was someone who taken advantage of sexually back when he was still in his early teens, and who now might be trying to normalize his past experiences as a form of coping mechanism, but we  are now making an exception because it’s the hated Milo Yiannopoulos.

I wasn't aware that the left was being overly harsh about the pedophilia revelations specifically, but rather it has been expressing disgust that this is what crossed the line for the conservatives who were more than happy to help him spread his non-child sex abuse hate speech.   It's the right that's shut him out over this.

How do you think the left should be reacting?   This is a case where he's both victim and victimizer.   I guess I'm just unclear as to what you believe an appropriately sympathetic response from the left would be about this, especially because you agree that we have to take a hard line on his statements, which is what's generally happening.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

All of them stay because the conditions are calibrated to be marginally better than what they'd have back home. It's a brilliant setup from the perspective of the capitalists: this not only gets them effectively third world labor in their native country, but also the opportunity to piously say things like "We're not taking any jobs away from Americans because no Americans want to do these jobs."

Which is ultimately why Trump is only going to do enough to make it appear to his anti-immigrant base that he's cleaned things up.

Slavery-lite remains a backbone of the economy. It was ever thus.

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Somewhat related:  Ben reading the comments attached to political articles about the Trump/Sweden fiasco.  The conservative posters are absolutely convinced that Sweden is a hotbed of crime and that the liberal media is covering the truth up. 

How do you prove to them otherwise? The only way is for one of their own to go and see first hand that things are not as they think and for them to say so loudly and often. But why would such a person do that? And even if you could find such a person and they decided to tell the truth the rabid base is merely likely to turn on that person. They have already turned on their own for lesser perceived sins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I wasn't aware that the left was being overly harsh about the pedophilia revelations specifically, but rather it has been expressing disgust that this is what crossed the line for the conservatives who were more than happy to help him spread his non-child sex abuse hate speech.   It's the right that's shut him out over this.

How do you think the left should be reacting?   This is a case where he's both victim and victimizer.   I guess I'm just unclear as to what you believe an appropriately sympathetic response from the left would be about this, especially because you agree that we have to take a hard line on his statements, which is what's generally happening.  

I dunno, but I feel like we can criticize the Right for cuddling up to Milo and his extreme views, and Milo for his statement on the Drunken Peasants, but still express some sympathy towards him for what happened to him when he was a teenager, and point out that victims of abuse often try to trivialize/normalize what happened to them as a way of coping with it. The impression I’m getting is that there isn’t really a whole lot of focus on the victim part across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I wasn't aware that the left was being overly harsh about the pedophilia revelations specifically, but rather it has been expressing disgust that this is what crossed the line for the conservatives who were more than happy to help him spread his non-child sex abuse hate speech.   It's the right that's shut him out over this.

How do you think the left should be reacting?   This is a case where he's both victim and victimizer.   I guess I'm just unclear as to what you believe an appropriately sympathetic response from the left would be about this, especially because you agree that we have to take a hard line on his statements, which is what's generally happening.  

Well if the post somewhat upthread is correct that Milo is advocating for relations between adult / older men and teenage boys between 15 and 19, that is a somewhat different moral issue than being relaxed about paedophilia. Given age of consent can be younger than 15 in developed liberal democracies and it is 15 in many US states it's hard for socially liberal-minded people to severely criticise Milo for his stance. 1/2 age +7 suggests a socially acceptable sexual encounter for a 15 - year old should be with someone no more than, err 15. But I'm sure most people would think under 20 is fair. But those are just social norms, legally when the AoC is 15 the 15-year old can have sex with a 50-year old and the law can't touch the relationship, unless there is some position of authority/trust involved, like student/teacher situations. Hell, in Riverdale the show is trying to make a student (boy) teacher (woman) romance a sympathetic situation.

Not at all surprising that the right would condemn adult/teen sexual relationships even when AoC is not in play and it has probably severely harmed Milo on the right. But as sketchy as it is (IMO) there is definitely legal and moral grey in that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Einheri said:

I dunno, but I feel like we can criticize the Right for cuddling up to Milo and his extreme views, and Milo for his statement on the Drunken Peasants, but still express some sympathy towards him for what happened to him when he was a teenager, and point out that victims of abuse often try to trivialize/normalize what happened to them as a way of coping with it. The impression I’m getting is that there isn’t really a whole lot of focus on the victim part across the board.

Pretty much every source I've read on this acknowledges Milo as a victim.  But why would the left (or anyone) focus on that aspect of this beyond simple acknowledgement that some victims try to normalize their abuse (which I've also seen pointed out, and that's the justification he's using himself), especially in the kind of news articles reporting on this?    I guess are you looking for like a long form biography piece on Milo that humanizes him, looking at potentially formative events like this, explaining how he became an abusive troll piece of shit or something?  I'm sure that will be in the Atlantic next month.

26 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well if the post somewhat upthread is correct that Milo is advocating for relations between adult / older men and teenage boys between 15 and 19, that is a somewhat different moral issue than being relaxed about paedophilia. Given age of consent can be younger than 15 in developed liberal democracies and it is 15 in many US states it's hard for socially liberal-minded people to severely criticise Milo for his stance. 1/2 age +7 suggests a socially acceptable sexual encounter for a 15 - year old should be with someone no more than, err 15. But I'm sure most people would think under 20 is fair. But those are just social norms, legally when the AoC is 15 the 15-year old can have sex with a 50-year old and the law can't touch the relationship, unless there is some position of authority/trust involved, like student/teacher situations. Hell, in Riverdale the show is trying to make a student (boy) teacher (woman) romance a sympathetic situation.

Not at all surprising that the right would condemn adult/teen sexual relationships even when AoC is not in play and it has probably severely harmed Milo on the right. But as sketchy as it is (IMO) there is definitely legal and moral grey in that position.

I'm sorry, I'm a little unclear how this relates to what I'd written.  Milo was specifically discussing 13 year old boys with men mid 20's and older.  I'm not questioning why anyone, right or left, would be against sex with kids and teens.   I was pointing out that the left has been expressing disgust that it took something like advocating sex with 13 year olds to stop the right from giving him a hate-speech platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I was surprised to hear a story this evening about how many people US border patrol agents have shot and killed, across the Mexican border. They've shot ten and killed six, and none of the agents have had any kind of discipline applied against them. And the Mexicans who have been killed have been told they have no US constitutional right to sue the US government or the agents.  One of these cases went before the SCOTUS on Tuesday, that of a 15 year old boy in Nogales, Mexico, who had been fooling around with friends in the zone between fences, running up to the US fence and touching it, and then running back. A US border agent, standing in Texas, shot and killed the boy. The facts seem pretty straightforward, since the events occurred beside a bridge with cameras, and people on the bridge took video with their cell phones.

The US government chose not to take any action against the guard and the Obama administration refused to extradite him to Mexico.

You can read the story and hear the interview here: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.3991263/a-free-killing-zone-u-s-top-court-hears-case-of-teen-shot-dead-in-mexico-by-american-border-agent-1.3991266

I listened to the same show last night. My thoughts were is it not considered an act of war for a government agent to intentionally  shoot and kill someone across an international boundary? Either way a horrible incident and I hope it is resolved properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Pretty much every source I've read on this acknowledges Milo as a victim.  But why would the left (or anyone) focus on that aspect of this beyond simple acknowledgement that some victims try to normalize their abuse (which I've also seen pointed out, and that's the justification he's using himself), especially in the kind of news articles reporting on this?    I guess are you looking for like a long form biography piece on Milo that humanizes him, looking at potentially formative events like this, explaining how he became an abusive troll piece of shit or something?  I'm sure that will be in the Atlantic next month.

I'm sorry, I'm a little unclear how this relates to what I'd written.  Milo was specifically discussing 13 year old boys with men mid 20's and older.  I'm not questioning why anyone, right or left, would be against sex with kids and teens.   I was pointing out that the left has been expressing disgust that it took something like advocating sex with 13 year olds to stop the right from giving him a hate-speech platform.

Perhaps I misinterpreted something. 13 is sure getting down there if that's where Milo went.

But as to your main point. I wonder why the left is so aghast that it took matters pertaining to homosexual sex between adults and teens for the right to reject him? So far his hate speech has been squarely and deliberately directed to topics on which most of the right agree with him, so why would they be rejecting that rhetoric?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, maarsen said:

I listened to the same show last night. My thoughts were is it not considered an act of war for a government agent to intentionally  shoot and kill someone across an international boundary? Either way a horrible incident and I hope it is resolved properly.

It's just far too easy for people to see killing another person as being a right and proper action. Whether it's hate, fear or something else that motivates action that leads to fatality, killing just seems to come far too easy to too many people for my liking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Pretty much every source I've read on this acknowledges Milo as a victim.  But why would the left (or anyone) focus on that aspect of this beyond simple acknowledgement that some victims try to normalize their abuse (which I've also seen pointed out, and that's the justification he's using himself), especially in the kind of news articles reporting on this?    I guess are you looking for like a long form biography piece on Milo that humanizes him, looking at potentially formative events like this, explaining how he became an abusive troll piece of shit or something?  I'm sure that will be in the Atlantic next month.

It's this simple acknowledgement that I would have liked to see in the articles I've read about this and from people I'm in contact with on social media, but if your experience is different from mine, then I guess it's possible that I'm overstating this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Einheri said:

It's this simple acknowledgement that I would have liked to see in the articles I've read about this and from people I'm in contact with on social media, but if your experience is different from mine, then I guess it's possible that I'm overstating this issue.

I think it depends on what kinds of sources you're looking at.   The newspapers and straightforward articles don't always mention what you bolded beyond what Milo's said about it himself, but it comes up in some opinion and news analysis pieces.   And I do think we can expect a long form bio piece on him from one of the leftist mags in the next few months.  

ETA:

@The Anti-Targ

Quote

 

But as to your main point. I wonder why the left is so aghast that it took matters pertaining to homosexual sex between adults and teens for the right to reject him? So far his hate speech has been squarely and deliberately directed to topics on which most of the right agree with him, so why would they be rejecting that rhetoric?

 

I think that's kind of the point being made by the left.   And how it's definitely not about "free speech" at all (if it was, then ostensibly there's no bridge too far, right?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Maester Drew said:

I suspect Breitbart's readership will drop, Milo was one of the main draws to that news site.

Allegedly he hardly wrote anything himself anyway, and had an unpaid army of interns to do his work. They might find another figurehead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.regblog.org/2017/02/19/narang-stunning-triumph-cost-cost-analysis/

Quote

The reactions to President Donald Trump’s new executive order (EO), “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” reflect the broader debate over regulation.

On the one hand, those of us who support strong regulations and view them as essential to improving the lives of everyday Americans have criticized the EO as unworkable and radical. On the other hand, critics of regulation have applauded the EO for taking a step toward reducing regulation. What all sides can agree on is that the EO imposes a regulatory budget on the existing rulemaking process that is unprecedented and untested.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Somewhat related:  Ben reading the comments attached to political articles about the Trump/Sweden fiasco.  The conservative posters are absolutely convinced that Sweden is a hotbed of crime and that the liberal media is covering the truth up. 

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

How do you prove to them otherwise? The only way is for one of their own to go and see first hand that things are not as they think and for them to say so loudly and often. But why would such a person do that? And even if you could find such a person and they decided to tell the truth the rabid base is merely likely to turn on that person. They have already turned on their own for lesser perceived sins.

2 hours ago, Relic said:

I've noticed a growing trend by "right wing" posters all over the interwebs to the label the "left" as violent, intolerant, and dangerous. It's almost surreal how easily the USA has been split into two, and how easily the common folk have been manipulate to view one another as the enemy. This will not end well. 

Yeah, there's a scary picture emerging recently, and which may have consequences far beyond Trump. In the long-run, liberals and conservatives may find themselves impossible to communicate in any meaningful way, as political ideologies slowly become like religions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/february/dodd-frank-act-financial-system-safer

Quote

One of the outcomes of the 2008 financial crisis was recognizing the cascading effects that the severe financial stress or failure of a large institution can have on financial markets and the economy at large. A primary goal, therefore, of post-crisis financial reform was heightened supervision and regulation of those institutions whose sheer size or risk-taking posed the greatest threat to financial stability.

Um, look at the chart. If Jeb Hensarling's Financial Bomb Act is simply requiring banks to have a 10% leverage ratio to escape Dodd-Frank it doesn't seem it's asking all that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2604258

Quote

Question  Are state same-sex marriage policies associated with a reduction in adolescent suicide attempts?

Findings  This difference-in-differences analysis of representative data from 47 states found that same-sex marriage policies were associated with a 7% reduction in the proportion of all high school students reporting a suicide attempt within the past year. The effect was concentrated among adolescents who were sexual minorities.

Meaning  Same-sex marriage policies are associated with reduced adolescent suicide attempts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

I remember back in the day when some conservative idiots tried to cherry pick the data between 1998-2012 to argue that Global Warming wasn't thing.

Can we like say now, that was really stupid?

One of the problems with 90% of the world's population believing in an afterlife is their ability to  shrug things like this off completely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that an "apres nous le deluge" attitude is dependent on a religious stance (except maybe in the US, but the religious and other perversions rampant in the US should not be taken as the "normal" way of things); in any case most religions do not encourage such an attitude and many non-religious people have no problems adopting it if convenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I remember back in the day when some conservative idiots tried to cherry pick the data between 1998-2012 to argue that Global Warming wasn't thing.

Can we like say now, that was really stupid?

Those guys are now arguing that "we need to look at the satelite data". So no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...