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

[Bonnot OG]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Do you think Antifa has the right to prevent  people who who are not in the looney white supremacist camp from expressing their views in public? 

 

 

 

Lets just say this, all conservatives perpetuate white supremacy. I have no issue with conservatives being shut down as well. Especially the Milo's and Coulter's of the world, those that are there just to spread their bigoted propaganda, be abusive and or out marginalized people and harass them and show their followers how to do the same.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

He does have 10 AGs threatening him with legal action if he doesn't rescind it.  Although that is abating, or at least down to nine.  If Congress does actually pass something - especially if it has significant GOP support - then yeah I think he signs it.

There's also Trump's "Obama did it and so I have to overturn it" rule. The fact that Obamacare still stands and is likely driving him crazy. Of course, it could all come down to how well the suit fits the person arguing to keep DACA to Trump in person or what Fox News has to say about it on any particular day.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/kelly-cutting-trump-off-from-omarosa-breitbart-reports.html

Kelly Reportedly Trying to Cut Trump Off From Omarosa, Breitbart

[Altherion]

The normally liberal Salon has an interesting article on identity politics. It's pretty long and I don't agree with everything it says, but it does state several interesting points which are rarely found in the mainstream media. For example:

Quote

Not only politics, but economics is taken out of the equation. It’s astonishing, even after living under the principles of neoliberalism for around 40 years, how few liberals, even activists, are able to define our economic system with any sense of accuracy. They keep acting as if the fight is still on between the old New Deal liberalism (laissez-faire economics slightly moderated by some half-hearted welfare programs) and a right that wants to shred those welfare mechanisms. In fact, both parties are committed to slightly different versions of neoliberalism, and their transformation proceeded apace with the rise of identity politics. Politics was freed to take its course, because culture became the site of contestation, and this meant an unobstructed opportunity to redefine economics to the benefit of the elites.

There's also this idea which is very nearly self-evident, but fairly controversial:

Quote

Identity politics always breeds its equal and opposite reaction. Identity politics is in fact the father, or the Great Mother, of white nationalism, rather than white nationalism being an independent force that has arisen from quite different sources. At root, both share the same particularistic, extralegal, extra-constitutional, anti-democratic, metaphysical, folkish impulse. Whenever a misguided movement tries to alter people’s thoughts and intentions, rather than limiting itself to people’s performance and action in the transparent democratic arena, then totalitarianism is the necessary result. Even when we dream of an anarchist utopia, we do not try to alter people’s souls, we aim to alter economic arrangements in such a way as to allow people the maximum possible room for freedom. We cannot be readers and interpreters of people’s hearts and minds; such a venture has no business in politics.

Liberals have been on a relentless mission to transform people’s souls — to rid them of impure ideas about race and sexuality — for exactly the period of time that neoliberalism has deprived them of actual power to do anything about class inequality. The neo-Nazis are latecomers to this game; they have only recently adopted the cultural techniques that have already been mastered by the liberals.

When Richard Spencer, an originator of the term “alt-right,” discusses race as destiny, he is no different than liberals who have been articulating every aspect of identity, split into narrower and narrower niches, in precisely the same terms. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, who has been trying to lend a respectable veneer to racism for more than 30 years, suddenly finds his thought in sync with the “alt-right,” his ideas gaining traction because he can now ask his audiences, “Isn’t what we white nationalists seek exactly what every other race wants in America?” And he’s right, on that score, because separatism, or the privileging of biological destiny, is a notion popularized by liberal identity politics.

This obviously isn't well received by the commenters at Salon (who, as far as I can tell, are spewing the usual drivel regarding intersectionality and the like), but it's still remarkable that Salon would publish it -- identity politics is a significant fraction of their bread and butter stories.

[Martell Spy]

Trump Drafted an Angry Screed Explaining Comey Firing. Now Mueller Has it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/02/trump_aides_stopped_him_from_sending_angry_screed_firing_fbi_chief_james.html

Mueller's been trolling Trump all week with various leaks. I'm not sure what all got posted, so I'll put this one up.

 

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, Sword of Doom said:

Lets just say this, all conservatives perpetuate white supremacy. I have no issue with conservatives being shut down as well. Especially the Milo's and Coulter's of the world, those that are there just to spread their bigoted propaganda, be abusive and or out marginalized people and harass them and show their followers how to do the same.

 

No, all conservatives do to not perpetuate white supremacy and nor are they all white . Your argument  is nothing but a sweeping generation founded  on a very faulty and inaccurate premise which uses  extreme examples that are not representative of conservatism.   I think you really need to read up on Conservatism.

 

 

 

[Swordfish]

37 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

My main concern on the whole issue of exceptions is that they can be expanded to included other groups. 

Sure.

 

22 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Lets just say this, all conservatives perpetuate white supremacy. I have no issue with conservatives being shut down as well. Especially the Milo's and Coulter's of the world, those that are there just to spread their bigoted propaganda, be abusive and or out marginalized people and harass them and show their followers how to do the same.

This is exactly the kind of frightening attitude that makes it so important to avoid taking restrictions on free speech lightly.

 

[James Arryn]

58 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Lets just say this, all conservatives perpetuate white supremacy. I have no issue with conservatives being shut down as well. Especially the Milo's and Coulter's of the world, those that are there just to spread their bigoted propaganda, be abusive and or out marginalized people and harass them and show their followers how to do the same.

...and this is why we can't have nice things.

[Inigima]

Antifascists generally pop up in response to overt fascism and go back to normal life afterward. The Mitt Romneys of the world need not worry.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

What does that have to do with anything?  

Regardless of who should or should not get sued (in the event a tort is committed), the government should not have the right to restrict the speech of the persons involved.  Because, thank god, we have a First Amendment that says the government cannot do that.

You are missing my point.  Corporations can only take the actions they are allowed to take by statute because corporations (while persons as legal fictions) are not really people and do not possess individual liberties.  They can't vote or serve on juries because they are not real people.  They lack the ability to undetake those actions despite the fact that an agent from the corporation could vote for it and serve on a jury for it.  Again, corporations have only the ability to take actions allowed to them by Statute.  Therefore, if the State that allows for a given corporation's creation writes into its statute that "corporations may not undertake or pay for political speech" that organization would not legally be able to undertake or pay for political speech.

Because corporations are creatures of law they are limited.  The SCOTUS in allowing the rights of shareholders to flow through to corporations has screwed all that up.  They've mudded the waters between what is an action or power of the Corporation and what is an action or right of the individual shareholders.

Citizens United is a terrible decision.

[Bonnot OG]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 

No, all conservative do to not perpetuate white supremacy. Your argument  is nothing but a sweeping generation founded  on a very faulty and inaccurate premised which uses  extreme examples that are not representative of conservatism.  I think you really need to read up on Conservatism.

 

 

 

Yes, every one of them perpetuates it. They support politicians that push through policies that directly impact the marginalized. Or they are the politicians drafting up policies that directly impact the marginalized. 

[GAROVORKIN]

11 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Yes, every one of them perpetuates it. They support politicians that push through policies that directly impact the marginalized. Or they are the politicians drafting up policies that directly impact the marginalized. 

You are aware that not all Conservatives are white ? There are African American, Latino, and Asian Conservatives . While it is true that.  Conservatives do favor  smaller government and less spending  in some cases  that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I do agree  that the  The conservative approach is not with some serious fallings, It does cut programs with coming. up with viable alternative .    Big government programs are not without  their problems too,   because of their size, red tape , inefficiency and waste, they can end up not property serving the needs of those they are intended for .

[OldGimletEye]

On 9/2/2017 at 2:14 PM, Lew Theobald said:

The constitution says nothing about people.  It simply forbids laws restricting freedom of speech.

That said, corporations are not robots.  They are an avenue through which people organize for various purposes, including speech.  As a member of the public, the vast majority of information that reaches my ears, reaches my ears through the avenue of corporate speech.

Giving the government the power to regulate corporate speech essentially means giving the government enormous power to decide what information does or does not reach my ears.

Oddly, a huge amount of the agitation in favor of regulating corporate speech comes to my ears through corporate channels.  I have to wonder.  Who benefits?

You know, I consider my to be a pretty strong civil libertarian. And, I’m probably even a bit of a knee jerk civil libertarian, after watching the shennigans of the George W. Bush administration on that front.

At times, I’ve kind of have pushed back on the idea of free speech restrictions.

But, at no point, would I advocate an absolutist stance on free speech. That’s because an absolutist stance is not intellectually defensible. It just isn’t.

It doesn’t take much thought to think of examples where there would need to be some regulation of speech. Accordingly, when discussing these issues, one needs a much bigger intellectual tool box than just plain old free speech absolutism. 

And it’s why I’ve never bothered to quote what the first amendment actually says. And I think you know or you should know that simply quoting that amendment, asserting an absolute stance, on free speech is nonsense.

And the fact of the matter is that the Court has had to develop a rather intricate and complex doctrine regarding free speech issues because again free speech absolutism is simply unworkable.

Now certainly you must know, when talking about regulating corporations on speech, I'd have no intention of regulating companies who happen to be in the news business. They can write and publish as much as they want.

At the core of the "corporation as person" concept is the issue of spending money as speech concept. In prior post, I've already noted the analytical and probably intractable problem of the "giving money as speech" concept. If it is a viable concept, then I want a refund for the taxes I've paid to the government because I certainly do not endorse the statements or actions of people like George W. Bush or Trump.

And then if you maintain that a reason for free speech is to search for truth, then there is an argument that allowing unlimited spending skews, delays, or inhibits the search for truth.

I'm typically very, very leery of regulating the content of speech, particular in public spaces like the internet, the newspapers, the streets, and public forums. That’s because I think it’s generally desirable to hear a wide range of views in order to learn about public issues. And I think even allowing opinion that is on the fringe is desirable, if we don’t want to chill speech we might want to hear. And then of course I’m mindful enough of history to know what might have been on the fringe in one era became mainstream in another. So I’m very leery about regulating the content of speech (though, again, I’m not an absolutist on this. Place and context matter here).And then of course, I want to protect people's right to express their conscience and because I think rights to self expression are important. The point of free speech, in my view, is largely to give everyone a fair chance to express their views.

The point thought shouldn’t be to allow one or a few parties to hog up all the oxygen in the room so nobody else gets heard. And that is exactly what the “spending money as speech” concept may do. When we are talking about one sides ability to simply dominate a dispute, not because of the quality of its ideas, but simply because it has more money or resources, then I believe more regulation is appropriate.

And I think it's a bit of stretch to just say that the people who speak for corporations are speaking for their share holders, particularly if were talking about publicly owned corporations. Fact is that the people that presume to speak for a corporation typically are a small of group people like the CEO or the corporate board. It's rarely the shareholders. In fact, a good many of the shareholders may not even know really that they are shareholders as their owners ship of stock comes through an indirect route because they own mutual funds, ETFs, or through a pension fund.

So I am really skeptical of the idea that for profit companies are an association of individuals whose views need strong constitutional protection as a corporate body, when it’s not apparent to me at all that the few people that presume to speak for corporations do really speak for the share holders.

[Bonnot OG]

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Sure.

 

This is exactly the kind of frightening attitude that makes it so important to avoid taking restrictions on free speech lightly.

 

Are you truly that ignorant of what Milo is and has done or attempted to do? Fuck his free speech when he hides behind it and free speech absolutists like yourself fall victim to his bullshit which allows him to put people in danger thanks to his abusive behavior that he pushes his bigotry with.

How is outing trans students or DACA students and inciting harassment of them an act of free speech?

It's wonderful to see people think the rights of bigots matter more than the existence and rights of those their bigotry impacts. 

So glad the privileged help perpetuate bigotry with their free speech fetishism / absolutism.

If private citizens shut down bigots, people whine. If people want an authoritative body to protect those that bigots are targeting, people whine. It is a lose lose situation for the marginalized and privileged white straight cis people have no issue giving them a platform. 

[OldGimletEye]

On 9/2/2017 at 7:53 PM, Lew Theobald said:

Shareholders, CEOs and employees of corporations can also speak, collectively or individually.  And the government cannot restrict their speech because the First Amendment says you cannot do that.   Nor can the government attempt to get around this, by creating the "legal fiction" that the actions of people are not in fact the actions of a "legal fiction" that the government created.

I think this might turn upon what kind of association we’re talking about. If it is an association organized expressly for political purposes or advocacy purposes I’d be more inclined to protect it under the First Amendment, as I’d be more inclined to believe that the associations public statements reflect the views of its members.

But, when we are talking about for profit corporations, I believe it’s a bit of a stretch to say the CEO or his direct subordinates are truly expressing the political views of the shareholders and all the employees.

And please don’t quote to me what th First Amendment says. I know what it says. But, your free speech absolutist stance here doesn’t hold an ounce of water and you know it.

Most conservatives would recognize this, particularly if pressed about questions of national security. Most would agree for instance there is no right to give classified information to an enemy under the First Amendment.

And again the money as speech concept is a problematic proposition.

[GAROVORKIN]

24 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Are you truly that ignorant of what Milo is and has done or attempted to do? Fuck his free speech when he hides behind it and free speech absolutists like yourself fall victim to his bullshit which allows him to put people in danger thanks to his abusive behavior that he pushes his bigotry with.

How is outing trans students or DACA students and inciting harassment of them an act of free speech?

It's wonderful to see people think the rights of bigots matter more than the existence and rights of those their bigotry impacts. 

So glad the privileged help perpetuate bigotry with their free speech fetishism / absolutism.

If private citizens shut down bigots, people whine. If people want an authoritative body to protect those that bigots are targeting, people whine. It is a lose lose situation for the marginalized and privileged white straight cis people have no issue giving them a platform. 

Do you really want to live in Oceana ? Because that's the end game of what you propose.  

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I never took a "free speech absolutist stance".  And you know it.

So now the argument has changed.   The "corporations don't have free speech" argument was not going so well.

So now you are switching to the idea that the government should have the right to dictate how wealthy people spend their money.  The corporate thing was just a red herring, I guess.  It's money that's the issue.

I'd love to live in a perfect world, where everyone had an equal amount of money, and an equal right to propagate their views, but it's never going to happen.  Don't listen to perfect world fantasies.   If you give the government that kind of power you want to give them, that power will be abused.

Power is power and someone always has it. I'd rather it be in the hands of something everyone has a theoretical say in (the state) than at the bottom-line-whims of shareholders or some random bazillionaire.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Sword of Doom said:

If people want an authoritative body to protect those that bigots are targeting, people whine.

Point of clarification: which "authoritative body" are we talking about here? Do you know who is currently the chief of law enforcement in our country? It's that noted champion of civil rights and paragon of equality, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. If you give him the power to impose additional restrictions on speech, do you think he will use it to go after Milo and company or do you think his definitions of who is the aggressor and who is being wrong are somewhat different from yours?

[OldGimletEye]

On 9/2/2017 at 9:31 PM, Lew Theobald said:

Why are we talking about free speech absolutism?  We are not talking about whether or not a corporation can scream fire in a crowded theater.

Except here is what you decided to write:

Quote

The constitution says nothing about people.  It simply forbids laws restricting freedom of speech.

and:

Quote

Shareholders, CEOs and employees of corporations can also speak, collectively or individually.  And the government cannot restrict their speech because the First Amendment says you cannot do that. 

Why did you write this, if you know damn well the court has rarely followed the text of the statue.

 

On 9/2/2017 at 9:31 PM, Lew Theobald said:

As I recall, this was about whether a corporation could broadcast a movie ("Hillary:  The Movie") which was an unflattering portrait of Hillary Clinton.

But the court holding went beyond that. It overturned Austin v. Michigan which upheld regulations on corporate spending.
 

On 9/2/2017 at 9:31 PM, Lew Theobald said:

Well, yes, in some cases there might be restrictions, given a sufficiently "compelling" reason under First Amendment case-law.  What does this have to do with my claim that corporate speech is (and should be) protected by the First Amendment?  IIRC, even the dissent in Citizens United agreed with that proposition, to at least some extent.

Perhaps it should to some extent. The question here is whether it should be given the same degree of protection as a regular person. And for me another question is whether a for profit corporation should be given the same degree of protection as an association that is expressly founded for the purpose of political advocacy.

And then there is the question of how much money should they be allowed to spend.

On 9/2/2017 at 9:31 PM, Lew Theobald said:

So it's okay for mega-corporations to speak, when they are part of the established media?  But when other corporations try to get a word in edgewise during the last 30 days of an election they should be shut down?  Why?

Yes because the media has a special role in the dissemination of information.  And also, visibility is usually a lot more visible. So if they are spewing bullshit, like say Fox News, then usually that will be on people’s radar. It’s not like companies that are less visible with their politicking and hide in the shadows.
 

Quote

When a person uses another person's money (such as corporate funds) to finance (say) a movie, there could certainly be legal issues about whether he was authorized to use that money for that purpose.  Such issues are not necessarily unique to corporate finance.  For instance,  if probate court appoints me executor of my dead grandmother's estate, and instead of preserving the assets for the sake of the beneficiaries, I instead try to make an anti-Hillary movie, and pay to have it broadcast, there might well be legal issues about whether I was justified in using the money for that purpose.  But if the cops step in, it should be because I stole a million dollars from my dead grandmother, not because the government does not want the wrong people saying the wrong things during the last 30 days of an election.

But this misses the point. Seriously, if you take the money as speech concept too far, then like can I get my tax money back for supporting speech I don’t approve of. I certainly don’t approve the shit Paul Ryan says.
 

Quote

I'm not a fan of the effect that Big Money has on our electoral process.  But allowing the Government to decide what speech can or cannot be permitted during an election campaign is NOT going to make the situation better.  It is NOT going to serve the cause of truth.

You’re confusing here speech as in speaking, writing, and symbolic acts with the giving the money that happens to support speech. People can generally speak or write whatever they like about elections. The issue here is allowing corporations to spend whatever money they like and dominating the discourse and elections.

Quote

The point of free speech is to be a safeguard against tyranny.  It's not supposed to be a recipe for a perfect world.

Totally agree with this. In addition to what you mentioned here, I gave several other reasons why free speech is important. However, it doesn’t follow, that corporations should be able to just spend gobs and gobs of money without any restraint.
 

Quote

You're never going to get your perfect world where "everyone gets heard".  The rich will always shout louder than the poor, because they have more money to propagate their views.

This situation will not get better if you allow government to decide WHICH rich people (and WHICH rich corporations) should be allowed to speak in the last 30 days of the election.  

No, maybe not. But, maybe some people will take up a little less oxygen in the room, giving others a bit more of a chance to speak.

Rich people can say whatever the hell they want. The issue here is how much money they can spend.

And then of course there is the issue of rich CEO deciding how much money to spend on political campaigning and then claiming that he speaks for all the share holders and employees of the company, which just may not be the case.
 

Quote

Not unless you want to make the situation worse.  That's where we differ.  You are fantasizing about creating a perfect world by giving the government more power.  I'm trying to prevent tyranny.

Again saying speech = spending money. I don’t buy it. I’m much more protective of you know acrtual speech like speaking, writing, and symbolic acts than the amount of money a corporation can spend.

In fact, instead of preventing tyranny, you may in fact be promoting plutocracy.
 

[OldGimletEye]

On 9/2/2017 at 10:03 PM, Lew Theobald said:

I never took a "free speech absolutist stance".  And you know it.

Okay so long as you know the issue of regulating corporate speech or more particularly corporate spending of money on political advertising isn't as simple as saying the first amendment prohibits it.

On 9/2/2017 at 10:03 PM, Lew Theobald said:

So now the argument has changed.   The "corporations don't have free speech" argument was not going so well.

Well there are two issues in play here. One is the issue, at least of for profit corporations, of the idea that the corporation speaks for all its members. I think that is a dicey proposition. I mean usually it's the CEO or his direct subordinates that presume to speak for the corporation. And I really doubt he is speaking for all the shareholders or the employees.

And then yes the issue of money too. 

And corporations may have some speech rights. But, as much an actual person does? Well I don't think so. At least if were talking about for profit corporations.

On 9/2/2017 at 10:03 PM, Lew Theobald said:

So now you are switching to the idea that the government should have the right to dictate how wealthy people spend their money.  The corporate thing was just a red herring, I guess.  It's money that's the issue.

I'd love to live in a perfect world, where everyone had an equal amount of money, and an equal right to propagate their views, but it's never going to happen.  Don't listen to perfect world fantasies.   If you give the government that kind of power you want to give them, that power will be abused.

Okay this is quite frankly libertarian garbage. It's the typical libertarian,"you can't make the world a perfect utopia (which is true) so golly don't ever try cause that means there is no possible way to improve things(which isn't true)."

And as far as the government should dictate "how the wealthy spend their money".News flash, it all ready does that in a variety of context. I mean wealthy people can't go buy crack cocaine if they like.

And no, I don't think limiting the spending of money is going to take us down the road to tyranny. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Exactly.

What you seem to want to do is give power to the government, so that they can determine WHICH corporations and WHICH billionaires you should be allowed to listen to.  And you imagine somehow that this power won't be abused.

Of course it will be abused.  I'm just advocating limiting corporate speech.   Otherwise the only ones silenced are the not-super-rich.  I'd much rather have government have power, where there is some recourse, than giving carte blanche to GE or Google.