Jump to content

u.s. politics: molotov cocktail through the overton window


all swedes are racist

Recommended Posts

I'm curious why we have a Constitution, why don't these religious Presidents just govern by opening random pages of the new Testament?

Its ridiculous to attest atheists are not bound by anything. Just look at the distribution of criminals in the US and you'll find not many of them being atheists. Why is that, when these atheists are apparently some sort of Constitution ignoring mobsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, karaddin said:

Two of you had a go at him for that comment that wasn't directed at anyone on these forums, how about how lay off and cut some slack for the very real concerns about the direction of the country? Less condemning/telling those that oppose fascists to chill and more actual caring about the fascists might help with the anger levels

There are two separate issues that have cropped up in the last two days issues with actual free speech implications, yet when it's a female black journalist that the white house tries to get fired (there may have been some discussion of this last thread?) or the CIA flipping out over Chelsea Manning having a meaningless title that accidentally honours her for one day speaking at Harvard suddenly there doesn't seem to be much concern? Have people just not seen this, or does free speech only concern you when it's Nazis being shouted down by fellow citizens rather than powerful institutions of the state reaching out against private citizens?

Just white men white menning. 

Like who knew someone could get pissed off at multiple demographics for multiple reasons? 

Who knew multiple issues could happen at once in a country of 300+ million people? 

Oh, without a doubt free speech absolutists are selective in their concerns. They are the most quiet when the people actually having their speech censored are apart of marginalized demographics. I haven't seen any of them here up in arms about Chelsea Manning having her invitation rescinded or the White House actually attacking someone's right to speech. 
 

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Like, literally the first amendment is supposed to protect you from the government using action against your speech. How the press secretary calling for someone's firing due to what shs said is any thing other than a massive violation is confusing. 

Because the woman is black. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Because the woman is black. 

So no one mentioning it here = racism? Do you see racial epithets spelled out in your Alpha-Bits? 

This particular story is a violation of how the White House should reasonably react to the Free press, no doubt. That said, it's one of many examples. And it's not even one of the more pronounced examples. Take the penning in of press at his campaign ralleys, where he would exhort the crowd to yell obscenities and throw things at the press. His very first press conference after being sworn in where he called the CNN representative fake news and told him to shut up. This is just one more log for that fire. That it didn't get mentioned here is not racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

Hadn't heard anything about the Manning thing, but as far as the Jemele Hill thing goes, of course that is unacceptable behavior by the White House. That said, it has done nothing to impede her freedom of speech. She didn't take down the Tweets and despite apologizing to her employer has continued to post about it on her Twitter feed.

Doesn't matter; the implied threat of government agents in a government setting (IE, this was at a press conference and not speaking extemporaneously) is precisely what the first amendment literally says to protect against. It is the use of government force in suppressing someone's legitimate free speech as an agent of the government which is a problem. 

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

The Trump administration has attacked numerous journalists since its' inception. If this had cost her the job, then yes, I would have an issue with this.

The only reason it did not is because her co-workers refused to work with anyone other than her. And when they threatened to bring in backups, those backups ALSO refused. 

Criticism is not the same thing as calling for someone to lose their job. Criticism might result in damages; firing absolutely does.

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Had it compelled her to shut up, I'd have an issue with this. As it stands, it's just another ham-handed and futile attempt by the Trump administration to shut up a critic publicly. It's not cool, but it's also not effective. Look at the pushback Huckabee got from the White House Press Corps seconds after she made the statement.

So the only reason it isn't a violation is because it wasn't  as effective as it could have been, and the only reason that was the case was because of her co-workers. Got it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how Chelsea Manning's free speech has been harmed?  Is there something in the First Amendment that gives one a right to be a Harvard Fellow?  

No one has stopped Manning from speaking, indeed, the tweets about the Harvard kerfluffle somewhat validate the idea that Manning was a poor choice in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

not as much as you seem to imply. at worst, these two examples help to highlight the challenges to be faced and overcome. the vermont case especially just serves to underscore that medicare-for-all need to be instituted at a federal level

No, medicare-for-all does not need to be. That is one implementation of one form of universal health care, and it is not remotely clear that it is the best solution for the US.

The problem I have with Sanders doing this is that he is using it as a litmus test for progressives, and that's hugely flawed for a number of reasons - the biggest one being that his plan fucking sucks ass. And supporting a shitty plan because you're behind the basic logic of its need is not a good idea on many levels, the biggest of which is that the smart people will not support you. Colorado's single payer program lost 80-20 because it did things like remove abortion coverage, they couldn't figure out how to pay for it and it came up with this bizarre version of voting that could cause some Colorado residents to not be able to vote for it. 

I support - and continue to support - universal health care coverage in the US. It remains one of the best predictors of social welfare in the world, it remains the single most important safety net that people have, it is a great balancer for mobility, and it is morally absolutely correct. Don't make it a litmus test to support Sanders and his poorly thought out, aspirational plan full of holes and bullshit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Doesn't matter; the implied threat of government agents in a government setting (IE, this was at a press conference and not speaking extemporaneously) is precisely what the first amendment literally says to protect against. It is the use of government force in suppressing someone's legitimate free speech as an agent of the government which is a problem. 

The only reason it did not is because her co-workers refused to work with anyone other than her. And when they threatened to bring in backups, those backups ALSO refused. 

Criticism is not the same thing as calling for someone to lose their job. Criticism might result in damages; firing absolutely does.

So the only reason it isn't a violation is because it wasn't  as effective as it could have been, and the only reason that was the case was because of her co-workers. Got it. 

Didn't say it wasn't a violation, I said it was ineffectual at worst, and probably laughable at best. If you go and look at Jamele Hill's Twitter feed, you'll see that she has upped the ante here. If anything, this has had the reverse effect of her Free Speech being violated. I agree that the attempt is despicable, but in terms of outrage, it is nowhere near the worst example of this that this administration has given us. In terms of the outrage meter, it doesn't really measure up, given the outcome. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I'm not sure how Chelsea Manning's free speech has been harmed?  Is there something in the First Amendment that gives one a right to be a Harvard Fellow?  

No one has stopped Manning from speaking, indeed, the tweets about the Harvard kerfluffle somewhat validate the idea that Manning was a poor choice in the first place.

I think that becoming a Harvard fellow is covered under freedom of association.  Any attempt to suppress that harms her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, maarsen said:

I think that becoming a Harvard fellow is covered under freedom of association.  Any attempt to suppress that harms her. 

Eh. I don't see how other people choosing to boycott Harvard over their fellowship choices is wrong. This goes into the idea that criticism is censorship. Harvard has to make a choice between what relationships it has with people, and some of those choices are going to piss others off; if they choose not to associate with Harvard, that's not a violation of anyone's rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Why is it ridiculous?  What binds them?  (Other than the imperfect checks and balances).

If they were sincere, it would presumably be because they took an oath and/or made a promise to serve the people and/or to defend the Constitution, and feel they have a binding moral duty to keep their promises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, maarsen said:

I think that becoming a Harvard fellow is covered under freedom of association.  Any attempt to suppress that harms her. 

I can't tell if this is a joke.  I hope so. Or, if every American has a right to be designated a Harvard Fellow, I want my turn too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Eh. I don't see how other people choosing to boycott Harvard over their fellowship choices is wrong. This goes into the idea that criticism is censorship. Harvard has to make a choice between what relationships it has with people, and some of those choices are going to piss others off; if they choose not to associate with Harvard, that's not a violation of anyone's rights.

Agreed. If anything I think it mostly just makes Harvard look weak. Stand by your convictions if you think she's deserving of fellowship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Didn't say it wasn't a violation, I said it was ineffectual at worst, and probably laughable at best. If you go and look at Jamele Hill's Twitter feed, you'll see that she has upped the ante here. If anything, this has had the reverse effect of her Free Speech being violated. I agree that the attempt is despicable, but in terms of outrage, it is nowhere near the worst example of this that this administration has given us. In terms of the outrage meter, it doesn't really measure up, given the outcome. 

 

What was more outrageous in your viewpoint?

The press pens? Where press voluntarily went to events and got yelled at, because they got high ratings? 

His mocking the failing NYT and WaPo, which increased their readership more than it's ever been since the digital age?

I can't think of many things that the organization has done which are worse than singling out a specific employee for firing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kalbear said:

What was more outrageous in your viewpoint?

The press pens? Where press voluntarily went to events and got yelled at, because they got high ratings? 

His mocking the failing NYT and WaPo, which increased their readership more than it's ever been since the digital age?

I can't think of many things that the organization has done which are worse than singling out a specific employee for firing. 

Yeah, the pens for sure. That's some scary shit right there. That was an indirect threat of physical violence from a mob that he controlled.

I'd say it's comparable to the NYT and WaPo example. I've seen posts that have stated that Jemele Hill has gained something like 300k Twitter followers over this. Not sure if that's true or not, but this has seemed to have the exact opposite effect that the White House intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lew Theobald said:

What, exactly, is it that they feel "binds" them to this moral duty?

Their duty to other human beings, their personal morals and values, their personal wealth and success, the wealth and success of their family, their not being ostracized from human contact, etc. 

People do all sorts of things for all sorts of very well-established reasons; do you think the only 'binding' one that you can ever trust is one that promises damnation if they don't do the right thing? Because oddly we have good evidence that this doesn't work as binding, either, so why rely on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

What, exactly, is it that they feel "binds" them to this moral duty?

Empathy, compassion, guilt, shame, personal integrity, self interest, or, I don't know... any of a million combinations of all of the personal motivations that humans have developed over millions of years of evolving as social primates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Whatever dude.  That can be your line when you run for office.   Trust me, I'm the product of evolution.

Eh, I don't think your argument flies. If you're only behaving well because you believe some all-powerful, all-seeing thing is watching you 24-7, then I don't want you running the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

What, exactly, is it that they feel "binds" them to this moral duty?

Something more than self-interest?

Keeping an oath because otherwise you pay an eternal price isn't actually idealistic; it's just another level of selfish pragmatism. Keeping an oath because it's the right thing to do, or because the alternative harms others, or w/e is actually closer to an ideal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lew Theobald said:

What this misses is the fact that no-one is forced to believe in the Higher Power that gives the "ideal" validity.  People choose to have faith, that the empty words, that everyone says, are not just empty words.

Most people don't choose their faith, they have it chosen for them and are indoctrinated at an early age. Most atheists, by comparison, choose that. 

You still didn't answer my question: we have ample evidence that faith does not 'bind' people to behave well. The question of whether or not you'd admit that you're an atheist and run for office has nothing to do with your claim that you need to promise faith in order to behave well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lew Theobald said:

What this misses is the fact that no-one is forced to believe in the Higher Power that gives the "ideal" validity.  People choose to have faith, that the empty words, that everyone says, are not just empty words.

I don't see how this addresses my point. But, in any event, if religion were really about free choice we wouldn't see geographic, temporal, cultural and familial trends in the 'choices' people make. Why don't you believe in Zeus? Because of free will, or because you're not a 7th century BCE Hellene? I suspect we'd put our money on different bets there. 

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...