U.S. Politics: Leaving On A Jet Plane

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

This is a little later:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/parler-website-back-201539015.html

But still unavailable.

And their personal data will be totally secure there.

[GrimTuesday]

Mike Pillow says that he wants Dominion to sue him. I think Ol' Mike might be back on crack. Someone should probably call his dealers so they they can hold another dealer-client intervention.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

if you can have her as a guest? I don't honestly know that much about Weiss other than she was horrible at NYT and engaged in a lot of bullshit things. 

Mostly, I think that unless you're engaging actual political entities you don't need these people at all. They provide no value and only provide cover for more extremist viewpoints.

 

Weiss is a center left writer with some conservative views and she shits on the far left a lot. 

Do you need these entities? Not in a life or death kind of way, but like I've said I think it's a dangerous path to embark on if you're arguing censorship to that degree. You can't just bring on voices that agree with you while blacklisting opposing views. That's not journalism, and if the shoe was on the other foot I think a lot of people here would be hollowing. 

1 hour ago, Ser Reptitious said:

I'm confused. Did you mean to say "can't"? 

Anyway, I think it'd be amusing to interview her, but only ask her questions that are not even remotely related to "cancel culture". 

Yeah, sorry.

[GrimTuesday]

2 hours ago, Ser Reptitious said:

I'm confused. Did you mean to say "can't"? 

Anyway, I think it'd be amusing to interview her, but only ask her questions that are not even remotely related to "cancel culture". 

I mean, you could probably get an entire series of podcasts about all the atrocities committed  by Israel that she has excused over the years.

The thing about Bari Weiss is that she is an fine example of the failure of America, someone who comes from wealth and privilege who got a job not based on merit but rather on connections, and then proceeds to use that platform to perpetuate that system that has elevated her while keeping the poors down in the dirt and excuses the evils of abusive countries because she agrees with them. All the while cloaking it in the comfortable liberalism that typifies the "center left" which as the great Phil Ochs said, boils down to being "ten degrees to the left of center in the good times, and being ten degrees to the right of center whenever it involves them personally". Of course, then when that platform they did nothing to deserve it taken away from them, they cry and talk about how they are being oppressed even though they will never hurt for employment and can probably get another job in a few days based on their connections.

Fuck Bari Weiss and all her ilk.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Weiss is a center left writer with some conservative views and she shits on the far left a lot. 

Do you need these entities? Not in a life or death kind of way, but like I've said I think it's a dangerous path to embark on if you're arguing censorship to that degree. You can't just bring on voices that agree with you while blacklisting opposing views. That's not journalism, and if the shoe was on the other foot I think a lot of people here would be hollowing. 

I am 100% fine with blacklisting opposing views when those opposing views are things like 'should jews exist? Eh' and 'should Democracy exist? Eh'. Go look up the fun paradox of tolerance for a while and get back to me. 

I don't really care about Bari Weiss one way or another, honestly. But to be clear, I'm not advocating censorship at all. Censorship is the government blocking the ability of people to speak. I am advocating that corporations choose not to facilitate this both-sides bullshit and stop fomenting lies, and, well, insurrection. If these people want to put together their own megaphone, let them try it. 

But otherwise, they need to get the fuck on board with actually living in a society.

[Ormond]

20 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I was going to say, "You want the good news or the weird news?" As a Canadian, I approve of President Trump honoring my country in this way. Alex will be right there next to fuckin' Harry S. Truman, son!!!

America, you sexy bitch, congratulations on the greatest President ever!

 

Trebek did become a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1998, but I would bet Trump didn't realize he was born and raised and began his broadcasting career in Canada.

[Kalbear]

I'm all for Trump and Shapiro and Bari Weiss and whoever the fuck else you want appearing on Public access at like 4:30 AM with some curtains and shit. Let them do that all they want!

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Trebek did become a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1998, but I would bet Trump didn't realize he was born and raised in Canada.

There are a lot of people on that list that weren't born in the United States.

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've said I think it's a dangerous path to embark on if you're arguing censorship to that degree.

I don't think anyone here has mentioned censorship once.  I've watched Maher for 25 years now, although certainly not religiously.  The point is he bears significant responsibility for propagating the type of craziness that's been brought to bear, and he should own that.  Instead of whining about the first amendment just like the crazy racist fuckwads - or worse yet pretending his exposure of these people has produced anything of merit. 

As that article Week cited yesterday mentioned, it's long past time he got the fuck over his 80s bad boy comic image and realized these people and their ideas do not deserve to be treated legitimately.  Instead, he's consistently given the impression that this is all theater and after the show they're all gonna go back to Hef's mansion, get high and have a good chuckle at all us plebs.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

20 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Trebek did become a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1998, but I would bet Trump didn't realize he was born and raised and began his broadcasting career in Canada.

He actually held dual citizenship, which the United States does not recognize.

As long as his statue is wearing a Team Canada hockey jersey, it's all good.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

58 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

I am 100% fine with blacklisting opposing views when those opposing views are things like 'should jews exist? Eh' and 'should Democracy exist? Eh'. Go look up the fun paradox of tolerance for a while and get back to me. 

Someone saying Jews shouldn't exist implies a genocide, and yes they should be blacklisted. But what about someone who calls for the abolishment of Catholicism because of the criminal activity of the church? That's more of a grey area, wouldn't you say?

As for "should democracy exist?", I've actually heard debates along those lines and they can be important philosophical conversations to have when done correctly. 

Quote

I don't really care about Bari Weiss one way or another, honestly.

Nor do I. I used her as an example because her name was cited and it shows how once you go down this path, there's a decent chance it becomes intoxicating and then you need to ask at what point it will or won't stop. 

Quote

But to be clear, I'm not advocating censorship at all. Censorship is the government blocking the ability of people to speak. I am advocating that corporations choose not to facilitate this both-sides bullshit and stop fomenting lies, and, well, insurrection. If these people want to put together their own megaphone, let them try it. 

But otherwise, they need to get the fuck on board with actually living in a society.

I would say the problem here is the interviewer. I don't it was wrong for Maher to have Conway on, and that was basically what started this conversation. What was wrong is that he asked her mainly softball questions and gave little pushback to her bullshit. That's a bigger problem imo. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

. 

Nor do I. I used her as an example because her name was cited and it shows how once you go down this path, there's a decent chance it becomes intoxicating and then you need to ask at what point it will or won't stop. 

 

The irony of mentioning Weiss, is that she is someone who has used blacklisting in the past and is like the prototypical 'canceller' with the whole Finkelstein debacle.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

49 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think anyone here has mentioned censorship once.  I've watched Maher for 25 years now, although certainly not religiously.  The point is he bears significant responsibility for propagating the type of craziness that's been brought to bear, and he should own that.  Instead of whining about the first amendment just like the crazy racist fuckwads - or worse yet pretending his exposure of these people has produced anything of merit. 

As that article Week cited yesterday mentioned, it's long past time he got the fuck over his 80s bad boy comic image and realized these people and their ideas do not deserve to be treated legitimately.  Instead, he's consistently given the impression that this is all theater and after the show they're all gonna go back to Hef's mansion, get high and have a good chuckle at all us plebs.

@Week responded to my point about censorship by discussing possibly getting rid of conservative pundits on "MSM" shows. That is a form of censorship. I think that would just divide us more without achieving any real goal. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

The irony of mentioning Weiss, is that she is someone who has used blacklisting in the past and is like the prototypical 'canceller' with the whole Finkelstein debacle.  

I didn't mention her first. The point was on the spectrum of shit heels, she barely even registers, and it's only on a few issues. That's why I was saying at what point does it stop? 

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

As for "should democracy exist?", I've actually heard debates along those lines and they can be important philosophical conversations to have when done correctly. 

"Should democracy exist?" is literally an "important" debate among and advanced by fascists.

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@Week responded to my point about censorship by discussing possibly getting rid of conservative pundits on "MSM" shows. That is a form of censorship. I think that would just divide us more without achieving any real goal.

Week can certainly speak for himself but how I took that post was him mainly pointing out that the current GOP/conservatives are bereft of any worthwhile debate in the first place.  Regardless, he never mentioned censorship in it, no.  Saying Maher - and especially news shows - shouldn't have certain peddlers of hate on their shows is not a form of censorship.  As the Milo example elucidates, no one is complaining about NAMBLA not getting a platform.

[GrimTuesday]

58 minutes ago, DMC said:

There are a lot of people on that list that weren't born in the United States.

I don't think anyone here has mentioned censorship once.  I've watched Maher for 25 years now, although certainly not religiously.  The point is he bears significant responsibility for propagating the type of craziness that's been brought to bear, and he should own that.  Instead of whining about the first amendment just like the crazy racist fuckwads - or worse yet pretending his exposure of these people has produced anything of merit. 

As that article Week cited yesterday mentioned, it's long past time he got the fuck over his 80s bad boy comic image and realized these people and their ideas do not deserve to be treated legitimately.  Instead, he's consistently given the impression that this is all theater and after the show they're all gonna go back to Hef's mansion, get high and have a good chuckle at all us plebs.

Bill Maher is just advocating for his class interests and the sneering dismissal of the concerns of the poors because it doesn't affect him personally and therefore must be an example of blue hair liberal hysterics. In other words, he is a piece of shit.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Someone saying Jews shouldn't exist implies a genocide, and yes they should be blacklisted. But what about someone who calls for the abolishment of Catholicism because of the criminal activity of the church? That's more of a grey area, wouldn't you say?

How about ban Islam because of Muslims committing terrorism, or being homophobic, or misogynistic?

What you’re proposing as more of grey area is equally as bigoted.

It should also be western nationalists use religion as a disguise their xenophobia and racism.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Bill Maher is just advocating for his class interests and the sneering dismissal of the concerns of the poors because it doesn't affect him personally and therefore must be an example of blue hair liberal hysterics. In other words, he is a piece of shit.

Isn't this basically what I said?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

"Should democracy exist?" is literally an "important" debate among and advanced by fascists.

The example I had in mind was a Chinese diplomat discussing the benefits of the one party state. 

Quote

Week can certainly speak for himself but how I took that post was him mainly pointing out that the current GOP/conservatives are bereft of any worthwhile debate in the first place.  Regardless, he never mentioned censorship in it, no.  Saying Maher - and especially news shows - shouldn't have certain peddlers of hate on their shows is not a form of censorship.  As the Milo example elucidates, no one is complaining about NAMBLA not getting a platform.

Don't you see the difference between banning certain individuals and a sweeping ban of all pundits that represent the other side of the aisle? 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Don't you see the difference between banning certain individuals and a sweeping ban of all pundits that represent the other side of the aisle?

Yes.  And you've repeatedly suggested I don't even though my first response to you yesterday explicitly pointed out this distinction.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The example I had in mind was a Chinese diplomat discussing the benefits of the one party state.

I don't see how that example is relevant.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, Week said:

Threefifths compromise -- totally OK to not give suffrage to an enslaved population because we didn't give their owners AS MUCH

Wait suffrage wasn’t the issue.

The three fifth compromise curtailed slave states attempts to garner more power through saying they represented people they effectively owned.

It would have been worse in the long run terms of curbing and eventually abolishing the practice of slavery if it hadn’t been reached.