U.S. Politics: There's Identity Politics, On Many Sides

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

Well, if you want to put an UNREASONABLE interpretation on my words, then I MUST be saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to to support both Free Speech and Protectionist Tarriffs and/or Anti-Trust laws at the same time.

A more reasonable interpretation, in the context of the discussion, is that I am saying that I cannot force others, such as those in this forum, to share my ideological assumptions, such as the IMMENSE importance of Freedom of Speech.   If you guys don't care, then you don't care; and we must agree to disagree.

Unreasonable?

I think it's unreasonable for you to balk at somebody taking objection to a statement you made that by it's own text left little in the way of qualification.

You're the one that basically wrote:
"Either you believe in classical liberal values or you don't."

At no point in what you wrote could one glean any suggestion that there was a middle ground. Your phrasing of that statement was one of an "either or" proposition. That you wrote something that didn't reflect your actual views on the matter and was interpreted by others according to its ordinary plain text is your fault, not the fault of the readers.

When I called you on that proposition, you chose to speak of "straw man" rather than issuing a clarification. I have no problem with you issuing said clarification, as I myself have written stuff that didn't always quite come off as to what I meant, particularly in an online debate.

The reason I pressed you on this question is because I believe a number of good things came out of classical liberalism. However, I don't think it got everything right, or in the alternative, assertions made in the name of classical liberalism aren't correct or are very questionable. So when you implied that accepting the tenets of classical liberalism was an "either or" propostion, I took umbrage at that statement, as I believe it presents a very false choice.

If you believe that it was a false choice as well, you could have so clarified.

[Zorral]

The conclusion to the alt-right internet article is the crux of the entire 'free / political" speech paradox:

 

Quote

 

We don’t know whether the alt-right will be able to bring its dream of a second internet to fruition, but its complaints about censorship have underscored an essential truth: Control of the internet is effectively centralized among a few massive companies, something these tech giants may not want you to be aware of. However distasteful its views, the alt-right has smartly framed its battle in terms of “free speech.” This argument has currency elsewhere on the right, too. President Trump is fond of calling out Amazon, perhaps chiefly because of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ ownership of the Washington Post. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson said on his show earlier this month that “Google should be regulated like the public utility it is, to make sure it doesn’t further distort the free flow of information to the rest of us.” Former Trump aide and Breitbart executive chairman Steve Bannon has also argued that tech platforms should be regulated like utilities. Combined with Democrats making antitrust regulation a central tenet of their new policy platform, the internet’s gatekeepers could soon be put on notice as never before.

It would be hard not to spot the irony if one of the most significant threats to big tech’s monopolistic power ends up being caused by hate groups. Gab’s Sanduja believes that Apple and Google shutting out his company from their app marketplaces prevents it from accessing 70 to 75 percent of its potential U.S. market. Even if you agree with banning Gab, the power of a handful of companies to banish anyone from the internet should give you pause. And it is one reason why the arguments of alt-tech advocates may find more and more friendly ears in Silicon Valley, where many entrepreneurs increasingly worry they can’t compete.

It’s also hard not to see this conundrum as big tech’s fault from the start. In a way, the alt-right is calling out the essential tension of the major internet companies, which espouse “don’t be evil” philosophies and want to “bring the world closer together,” yet also owe their popularity (and profits) to an internet where seemingly anything goes, until they say it doesn’t. Banning Nazis may be a perfectly defensible stance, but given the inconsistent transparency and enforcement of community guidelines from tech companies, it also has the whiff of the arbitrary.

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Lew Theobald said:

.After you made your leap, you asked for clarification and I gave it.

That is all you needed to say.

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

The original "compelling justification" for hard-money restrictions had nothing to do with whether the public could recognize ads or not, or might be influenced by them.

Of course it didn't.  What I meant is your statement in-context clearly implies there should not be any cap on individual expenditures and contributions towards campaigns ("who cares how much is spent on them?").

23 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

It was (allegedly) to do with preventing quid-pro-quo corruption (bribery) and/or the appearance of same.

Yep, specifically, the majority ruled in Buckley:

Quote

So long as persons and groups eschew expenditures that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, they are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate and his views.

Since you continue to fail to address the fact the Hillary movie clearly advocated the defeat of a clearly identified candidate, I'm left to assume you disagree with the court and believe all campaign finance restrictions are unconstitutional.

26 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

You seem to REALLY REALLY REALLY want argue with me over whether hard money restrictions are "effective" or "constitutional".

I really don't.  If you'd simply have the fortitude to state the underlying basis of your argument - that hard money restrictions aren't constitutional - I would have simply said "ok, we fundamentally disagree" and move on.  You seem to want to champion classical liberalism - that's what a classical liberal would believe, right?

And I certainly don't want to debate the efficacy of campaign finance law.  That's a very difficult and nuanced question to answer despite scholars devoting quite a bit of research to the subject over the years.  Considering you have a habit of not even admitting to what you're arguing, I don't think it'd be a very fruitful discussion.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Morpheus said:

Racist Keebler just announced the DACA decision, 6 months wind down as reported. In addition to stroking Trump, he actually said of people under DACA protection, "they took er jerbs!"

I think most decent people can agree that this action is incredibly immoral, but I don’t understand it from a political context. The people who support it would by and large be with Trump et al. no matter what, and it put a handful of Senate seats in play that should have been safe for Republicans.

[Bonnot OG]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think most decent people can agree that this action is incredibly immoral, but I don’t understand it from a political context. The people who support it would by and large be with Trump et al. no matter what, and it put a handful of Senate seats in play that should have been safe for Republicans.

Trump is a racist, he's a white supremacist. That's all there is to it. 

[Morpheus]

The line now is that Trump is a stalwart defender of the Constitution, pulling back Obama's overreaching of executive power because congress must create immigration law. What will they say the next time Trump attacks judges for stopping the Muslim Ban which he clearly thinks falls under the President's wide ranging privilege to dictate immigration law?

[LongRider]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

1. There were no women involved.

2. Everyone knows that one of the perks of being VP is that you can "accidentally" shoot your friend in the face.

When the Chaney incident happened I remember listening to Al Franken's radio show and he talked to guest that researched gun violence and iirc he discussed the intersection of men, women, guns and alcohol. 

He thought there could have been hard feelings between Cheney and his victim that could have had included a woman.

After listening to that show I did try to find out more about Al's guest but my weak Google fu found nothing.

 I do think that there is more to the incident than what was told to the public so I haven't ruled out the possibility.  

[OldGimletEye]

9 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

The line now is that Trump is a stalwart defender of the Constitution, pulling back Obama's overreaching of executive power because congress must create immigration law. What will they say the next time Trump attacks judges for stopping the Muslim Ban which he clearly thinks falls under the President's wide ranging privilege to dictate immigration law?

And lets not forget about pardoning people that go around violating other people's 14th and 4th Amendment rights, since Trump is now the big defender of the constitution.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Shutting down some "free" political speech 

https://slate.com/technology/2017/08/the-alt-right-wants-to-build-its-own-internet.html

An informative and long article -- here's a grab from it:

There's much more.

That'll go well.  Talk about creating an echo chamber.

[Morpheus]

Sarah Huckabee Sanders just Indicated that Trump is not interested in a DACA fix unless it is part of comprehensive immigration reform including the border wall. That idea has also been floated by some R congressmen, they are willing to hold these people hostage to fund their monstrosity.

[Zorral]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That'll go well.  Talk about creating an echo chamber.

However, there are many highly skilled and experienced google engineers and other digital techs who share this ideology of hatreds, from women to democracy, and they are backed by this nation's only Russian style vastly wealthy oligarchy.  People didn't think either Reagan or Trump could be elected POTUS.  Is there anything such males love more than a secret club (think Dubya and Skull & Bones and so on)?  People will clamor to join.

 

[Bonnot OG]

18 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Sarah Huckabee Sanders just Indicated that Trump is not interested in a DACA fix unless it is part of comprehensive immigration reform including the border wall. That idea has also been floated by some R congressmen, they are willing to hold these people hosatage to fund their monstrosity.

They truly are scum. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, Zorral said:

However, there are many highly skilled and experienced google engineers and other digital techs who share this ideology of hatreds, from women to democracy, and they are backed by this nation's only Russian style vastly wealthy oligarchy.  People didn't think either Reagan or Trump could be elected POTUS.  Is there anything such males love more than a secret club (think Dubya and Skull & Bones and so on)?  People will clamor to join.

 

It is a frightening move, no question about it.  

[Bonnot OG]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/man-wearing-make-america-great-again-tshirt-arrested-new-jersey-pepper-spray-hate-rally-442689533.html

This happened 2 minutes down the road from me.

[all swedes are racist]

5 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Well, this could get interesting.  Popcorn please!

 

 

 

meh, hard to see this as anything other than russian equivalent some fox news dickhead spouting off

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Shutting down some "free" political speech 

https://slate.com/technology/2017/08/the-alt-right-wants-to-build-its-own-internet.html

An informative and long article -- here's a grab from it:

There's much more.

lmao a few days ago pewtube-- a "censorship free alternative to youtube"-- pulled down their five most watched videos for espousing communist views

[Zorral]

6 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

meh, hard to see this as anything other than russian equivalent some fox news dickhead spouting off

lmao a few days ago pewtube-- a "censorship free alternative to youtube"-- pulled down their five most watched videos for espousing communist views

Ya, that's the perplexing irony and dilemma in these matters -- Youtube, google, fb, amazon -- they OWN the internet and can deny it to anyone and everyone.

[Morpheus]

 

21 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

They truly are scum. 

Amazing to watch the progression from lies to truth:

-This is a moral and legal issue

-Well, these people are a drain on the economy, they take jobs, they are a threat to Americans.

-President Trump feels that Dreamers are part of the larger issue of immigration reform and he probably won't sign off on any DACA only fix.

-GIVE US TEH MONEYS FOR TEH BORDER WALL OR THE DREAMERS SUFFER!!!

[Kalbear]

Well, that's not surprising - officials worried that Trump did not understand full ramifications of DACA rescinding. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Really, that was on Sanders? I thought it was a mixture of relentless attacks by the right wing media (Sanders did not create the Benghazi witch hunt), and the Clintons' tendency to skate on thin ice legally, or being in pretty close proximity to scandals like whitewater.