Jump to content

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


all swedes are racist

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

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. 

Well said.  I have no problem trusting an oath from an Atheist or an Agnostic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Sure, man.  You'd rather I behave badly.   But that wasn't the question.  Assume I'm an atheist, and I'm running for office.  Why would I tell the public that I'm an atheist? 

No, that's not what I said. In the case of a guy like Trump, I'd agree with your point. It would be an improvement if he modified his behavior in order to avoid judgement from an all-powerful being. That said, it would just be better overall if he were a moral person, absent of any religious concerns.

At this point in history there's only really one reason why you wouldn't divulge the fact that you're an atheist, and that's that a significant percentage of the voting public believes in God, and does not trust those who don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Oh the irony.....

It's like he's intentionally saying things that directly contradict prior positions. I know if you talk a lot there's just a law of averages about conflicting statements, but the degree to which he does this has to be way beyond random.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 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.

I honestly have no idea what you think this refutes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

58 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

If I lived in Ancient Greece, it would be up to me whether to believe in Zeus or not.  There were plenty who chose not to do so; and in many cases, no doubt they made this choice because it was convenient for them to reassure themselves that moral precepts had no binding validity.  

Anyhow, who says I don't believe in Zeus?  I never stated my religion.

You raise a good point, and one which can test each of our hypothesis. My assumption was based on my belief that your religious 'choice' would b determined by your time/place/family more than your free will, and therefore an Abrahamic religion. You rightfully point out that I had no basis (other than my hypothesis) for that belief. So, let's put us both to the test: do you believe in Zeus, or are you rather of an Abrahamic faith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

It's like he's intentionally saying things that directly contradict prior positions. I know if you talk a lot there's just a law of averages about conflicting statements, but the degree to which he does this has to be way beyond random.

I think it's one of three things. He either (i) doesn't remember what he previously said about POWs, (ii) doesn't care about what he said and is perfectly fine being a hypocrite or (iii) he's straight up trolling. 

53 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I prefer heroes that weren't captured or went Missing In Action, or who received multiple deferments for bullshit physical conditions.

Does it matter which side they got captured on though? 

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Well said.  I have no problem trusting an oath from an Atheist or an Agnostic.

Sadly many Americans do. One non-Trump thing that really pissed me off during the 2016 campaign was when Dr. Ben Carson said that people who aren't Christians, and especially people aren't religious, are incapable of being moral people. 

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

Well yes.  That's exactly why suspected atheist politicians claim to be religious.  I say "suspected" because of course no-one can prove that they are lying.  Unless God knows. 

But that doesn't speak well for the people who wouldn't vote for someone who isn't religious. That is an intense level of unchecked bigotry.

Also, if there is a God, I serious doubt that he would care. That would make God.....small. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tywin,

Sadly many Americans do. One non-Trump thing that really pissed me off during the 2016 campaign was when Dr. Ben Carson said that people who aren't Christians, and especially people aren't religious, are incapable of being moral people.

What a complete load of crap.  Hell, this idea that you need fear of God for someone to be truely moral adds weight to the argument that those of us who are religious cannot be truely altruistic, because we always have skin in the game.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Bernie Sanders’s plan moves America closer to single-payer
How Sanders has changed the health care debate.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/15/16304082/bernie-sanders-single-payer-medicare

Secret Police
ICE agents dressed in plainclothes staked out a courthouse in Brooklyn and refused to identify themselves.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/plainclothes_ice_agents_in_brooklyn_refused_to_identify_themselves.html

Republicans Are Seriously Getting Optimistic About Passing Obamacare Repeal Again

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/15/obamacare_repeal_s_fortunes_are_rising_yet_again.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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.

Well there have been repeated discussions on this forum about whether students etc getting together to stop someone they don't want speaking at their university from doing so impacts on their free speech, and while I certainly don't think it does there seemed to be a great level of concern for the free speech of people like Milo from some. To be fair, others like ME focused their criticism on it being bad tactics which I disagree with and find utterly callous to potential victims of his speech but isn't focusing on his rights. For that first group of people, I would have thought the head of the CIA trying to control who can give a speech at a university would have been a much greater issue than the people that are actually at that university.

That was the logic of my question. If you think one is bad, I have no idea how you could be ok with the other. Well, other than the obvious reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

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

My point, before I ran it through my humour algorithm,  was that a government official, in trying to persuade Harvard not to grant Chelsea Manning a fellowship,  could be construed as a violation of her right of free association. Institutions of higher learning tend to be much more susceptible to government  pressure in the last few years. I wish they would stand up more for those that paid a  price to disseminate needed information. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Well there have been repeated discussions on this forum about whether students etc getting together to stop someone they don't want speaking at their university from doing so impacts on their free speech, and while I certainly don't think it does there seemed to be a great level of concern for the free speech of people like Milo from some. To be fair, others like ME focused their criticism on it being bad tactics which I disagree with and find utterly callous to potential victims of his speech but isn't focusing on his rights. For that first group of people, I would have thought the head of the CIA trying to control who can give a speech at a university would have been a much greater issue than the people that are actually at that university.

That was the logic of my question. If you think one is bad, I have no idea how you could be ok with the other. Well, other than the obvious reason.

A speech isn't the same thing as a semester long professional position.  Harvard made Manning an offer for a professional position, as a fellow, and then changed their mind.  That is bad form on their part but nothing to do with Manning's free speech.  Manning doesn't have a right to a position at Harvard and not getting that position is no infringement on speech or association.  

And as far as I can see the CIA didn't try to control anything.  One long time fellow resigned his position at Harvard and the other cancelled his speech there.  Now, that could be seen as a message to Harvard that if they wanted a fruitful relationship with the security/defense world they should reconsider Manning's offer...but it still isn't about speech but employment.

http://iop.harvard.edu/fellows

Established in 1966, the Fellows Program is a cornerstone of Institute life and the only program of its kind at Harvard University or anywhere else.  An IOP Fellowship offers the rare opportunity for professionals in politics and public service to spend a semester at Harvard sharing their experiences with students and exploring important public issues with a distinguished group of their peers. With a strong emphasis on student-Fellow interaction, Fellows lead a not-for-credit study group, participate in Institute activities, and engage in informal interchange with students and faculty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

Sure, man.  You'd rather I behave badly.   But that wasn't the question.  Assume I'm an atheist, and I'm running for office.  Why would I tell the public that I'm an atheist? 

I would tell so that I could not be accused of being a lying hypocritical liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I have already made clear I was not discussing specific religions, but merely the decision to believe that morality is not merely arbitrary, but supported by some higher force, power, karma or whatever.

"The decision to believe that... "
Well, ok, you can "choose to believe" whatever you want, but that's only a way to kill any kind of debate or discussion.

Morality is neither arbitrary nor necessarily supported by some higher force. You can choose to be wrong about that, but no one has to give a damn if you take such a silly decision. In such a case, you're only proving that it's absolutely pointless to exchange with you (which most of us already believe anyway).

Acting as a decent human being may be tied to belief in a higher power, or simply to the desire to seek a form of mutual respect upon which society can be built. What Kant called a categorical imperative:

Quote

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

In other words, simple logic and decency is enough to be a moral person.
You can also believe in humanism, though I'd say that might count as being a form of "higher power" these days. ;)

By contrast, belief in an actual higher power (/cosmic law) is a two-edged sword. It is very effective on many people, as long as their faith does not have to be tested in some way or another. Religiously educated (or "indoctrinated," depending on your perspective and encounters) people who lose faith will find it harder to fall back on simple logic and decency, since their world view depended upon a completely abstract structure to begin with.

This is why I believe so many openly religious people end up being terrible human beings. If you depend on a higher power to punish you for your misdeeds well... Let's say nothing much will hold you back from being an asshole.
And since we're all nerds here... There was just such a philosophical point in an obscure series of novels (/anime) called Juuni Kokki (the twelve kingdoms). In a magical land where emperors are given their throne by gods and the gods' agents (magical creatures called kirins) the worst villains end up being the ones who lose their belief in the power of the gods and their agents, since morality in such a society is based upon the idea of divine justice.

5 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

We are all products of our environment.  But we all have agency as well.  Your suggestion that only atheists like yourself have agency over what you choose to believe or not to believe is laughable.  It is also rather insulting to others.

You actually have some kind of point here. I guess it's true what they say about blind squirrels...

Anyway, while you do have a point on general/abstract principle, the supposition that one might choose to have faith (/choose a religion) through their own agency/personal reflection (i.e. after having an atheist education) is, at the moment, impossible to prove or disprove.
I guess it can happen, but I do not know of any study that would show us whether this is statistically significant, since at present pretty much all human societies have religious traditions on some level or the other. In other words, you'd have to find a truly secular environment to see whether it's true. That's certainly not the US at any rate.
It's an intriguing notion to be sure, and one that might merit a bit of thought. I think I've read one or two stories based on this idea (very dark and depressing stories, needless to say).

The problem is, talking about "choice" and "choosing to believe" is basically dismissing the idea that humans might act rationally and logically, i.e. base their beliefs on what they can observe and deduce. While you are fundamentally correct that people "choose to believe" whatever they want through their own agency, it only means that humans are free to be irrational agents.

Which is true, but terribly dark and depressing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Well there have been repeated discussions on this forum about whether students etc getting together to stop someone they don't want speaking at their university from doing so impacts on their free speech, and while I certainly don't think it does there seemed to be a great level of concern for the free speech of people like Milo from some. To be fair, others like ME focused their criticism on it being bad tactics which I disagree with and find utterly callous to potential victims of his speech but isn't focusing on his rights. For that first group of people, I would have thought the head of the CIA trying to control who can give a speech at a university would have been a much greater issue than the people that are actually at that university.

That was the logic of my question. If you think one is bad, I have no idea how you could be ok with the other. Well, other than the obvious reason.

Yeah, I don't really feel like the Berkeley thing (or these campus protests in general) are a true violation of Free Speech in any meaningful way. I think in many cases they are mostly a troll on the speaker's part. For instance, anyone who knows Berkeley knows that there are plenty of spots within walking distance of the campus that one could rent for an event. The U.C. Theatre for example, which has a capacity of like 1400 people. The only real reason for Milo or Ann Coulter or any Right Wing sort of ideologue to schedule an event at the campus is that they know the makeup of the campus is mostly Lefty, and they are likely to draw a big crowd of protesters and the cameras that inevitably follow. So when the motivation is so obviously shallow and designed to produce this sort of reaction, I don't give the Free Speech argument much in the way of weight. There are examples of these sorts of protests where I think the argument is valid, like say the Charles Murray event at Middlebury College for instance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

A speech isn't the same thing as a semester long professional position.  Harvard made Manning an offer for a professional position, as a fellow, and then changed their mind.  That is bad form on their part but nothing to do with Manning's free speech.  Manning doesn't have a right to a position at Harvard and not getting that position is no infringement on speech or association.  

And as far as I can see the CIA didn't try to control anything.  One long time fellow resigned his position at Harvard and the other cancelled his speech there.  Now, that could be seen as a message to Harvard that if they wanted a fruitful relationship with the security/defense world they should reconsider Manning's offer...but it still isn't about speech but employment.

You clearly haven't read what a visiting fellowship is then, it's a single days speaking event that they do every year with a bunch of speakers they feel will challenge their students. It involves a speech and a significant opportunity for students to ask questions. It in no way is an endorsement of the views of the visiting fellow, nor is it a long term professional position. I don't think it was paid at all.

And you can try and paint his actions as just that of a private citizen all you want but he's the head of the CIA and he didn't try to step away from that. He was not simply acting as a private citizen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, maarsen said:

My point, before I ran it through my humour algorithm,  was that a government official, in trying to persuade Harvard not to grant Chelsea Manning a fellowship,  could be construed as a violation of her right of free association. Institutions of higher learning tend to be much more susceptible to government  pressure in the last few years. I wish they would stand up more for those that paid a  price to disseminate needed information. 

Yeah, I can see that as being problematic for sure. I suspect that this probably comes down to money at the end of the day. Is the CIA director Alumni? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, karaddin said:

You clearly haven't read what a visiting fellowship is then, it's a single days speaking event that they do every year with a bunch of speakers they feel will challenge their students. It involves a speech and a significant opportunity for students to ask questions. It in no way is an endorsement of the views of the visiting fellow, nor is it a long term professional position. I don't think it was paid at all.

And you can try and paint his actions as just that of a private citizen all you want but he's the head of the CIA and he didn't try to step away from that. He was not simply acting as a private citizen.

I actually have read what the visiting fellows program is, and it's not a single speech.  Although it's not a semester long, those are the resident fellows.

http://iop.harvard.edu/fellows/current-fellows/about-visiting-fellows-program

Each semester the Institute of Politics invites a select number of prominent political practitioners to Harvard serve as Visiting Fellows for a shorter period of time than a full academic semester of a resident fellowship. The Visiting Fellows program brings distinguished veterans of public life for a short, yet comprehensive stay; often a week. The program is designed to provide maximum contact with the University community, particularly undergraduate students. Each fellowship is individually tailored to the background of the visiting fellow, as well as his/her calendar availability.

The experience is compact and the schedule is more intense than a resident fellowship. A Visiting Fellow can expect to participate in at least three events daily.   The Fellow often will lead at least one 90-minute study group during the week-long visit.  Study groups offer the guest the opportunity to share his/her views and experiences in a meaningful way with students. 

Most events are with students (both undergraduate and graduate) and occasionally meetings are arranged with faculty from the Kennedy School and throughout Harvard.  Events are typically off-the-record discussions with a relatively small group of around 30 students. Like most Fellows’ events at the IOP, these discussions do not require much if any preparation. They are discussion based and the conversation is driven by the questions posed by the audience and the views and anecdotes presented by the Visiting Fellow.  Additionally, Fellows have the opportunity to audit one or two Harvard courses based on availability.

As with the Resident Fellows program, Visiting Fellows are assigned undergraduate students who serve as his/her guide and support team over the course of the week.  Known as “liaisons,” these students assist the Fellow in navigating schedules, preparing for presentations and counseling the fellow on the audience expectations and goals.

Visiting Fellows are provided a private office with a computer and phone for their use. There is a small staff to assist the Fellow during their stay. Visiting Fellows are provided a  modest stipend.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I actually have read what the visiting fellows program is, and it's not a single speech.  Although it's not a semester long, those are the resident fellows.

You described it as a semester long professional position, I described it as a single days speaking event involving speech and extensive Q&A. I stand by mine being a better description than your initial one. It also happens to be based on the specifics of what they invited Chelsea specifically for, rather than the program generally, per their own statement

 

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...