Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6456
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:23 am UTC

Yablo wrote:Okay. So it was sarcasm. Got it.
I absolutely do believe in freedom to speak one's mind. It would be nice if everything everyone had to say was pleasant, and everyone could get along, but that's not how it works. I don't care for the dismissive way you're characterizing my comments, but you should have the right to do so. It's not going to hurt my feelings. I would like to believe anyone reasonable would read this exchange and see both sides for what they are.
And absolutely, down with violence against Nazis, but not just Nazis. Down with violence in general.

There's plenty of legal and constitutional things that can be done to Nazis(and other ilk) that do not violate the 1st and 4th Amendment. For example, we can claim "stand our ground" when a Nazi gets into an altercation. Alternately, the cops can pull them over for every and any minor infraction. If you police them until 1 in 5 nazis are behind bars, then the rest of the Nazis will know their place. Once they been to jail, make sure that hate crimes are felonies, and broadly applicable. That way the convicted felons can't vote. We can also have Congress legislate behavior requirements when Nazis apply for welfare/benefits.

There are other things that can be done that are also legal, but I think counterproductive. Examples include, screaming conflicting commands at Nazis, and escalating encounters until you are justified in killing them. It works, but it promotes bad stereotypes like Nazis should be shot on sight because they are demonic thugs. Contrary to popular belief, Nazis aren't ubermensch, and fall rapidly after being shot/beaten up.

If we go too far in our zeal to be tough on Nazis, we can slowly implement reforms. First, we have the institutions police themselves. Then if we are still brutalizing Nazis too much, then we can do some research, like a 10 year study on the cost/benefit of the "tough on Nazi" policy. You wouldn't want to be branded as soft on Nazis, would you? And then maybe an independent commission, followed by some commutation of sentences. (But only for the Nazis with good behavior.) Lastly, we'll take the survivors, and maybe apologize to them and hand them a 20$ check for the trouble.
Last edited by sardia on Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:35 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1993
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:33 am UTC

Yablo wrote:I don't care for the dismissive way you're characterizing my comments, but you should have the right to do so. It's not going to hurt my feelings. I would like to believe anyone reasonable would read this exchange and see both sides for what they are.
That's fair. I don't care for your extremely comfortable white moderate point of view.

Also, what's this about your feelings? Like I'm glad you're feeling great today. Happy Easter btw.

Pfhorrest wrote:Actions should be dictated by general principles regardless of who the people in question are.
Yes. I think it would be great if Americans had a principle that said: "if you want to organize and spread the beliefs of a group that thinks minorities are less than human, we won't let you".
NieXS wrote:Oh god that smiley ruined it.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Mutex wrote:Enjoy the shoe!

iamspen
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby iamspen » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:54 am UTC

I still don't understand why we're assuming the legal status of Nazi-punching and the morals and ethics of Nazi-punching aren't mutually exclusive things. Like I can cheer hooray when Nazis get punched and still think it shouldn't be legal to punch Nazis. Those aren't sentiments that necessarily have to stand apart from one another. I can support your right to be a rancid shitstain on the filthy public bathroom floor of society and also think you rightly deserve to have your face smashed in for it.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4888
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:12 am UTC

Because those two things together paint the rather odd picture that you would like to see people punch Nazis in the face and then get arrested for it and possibly face civil suits from the Nazis which you would like to see the Nazis win despite that you liked that someone punched them in the face.

Which gets even weirder if you are the one contemplating Nazi-punching yourself, because then that fleshes out to you wanting to punch a Nazi and get arrested for it. Why do you want to get arrested? Or at least, why do you want the people doing the thing you want them to do to get arrested? That's what things being illegal fleshes out to: people who do them get punished. If you want something to be illegal, you want people who do it to be punished. And that's a weird thing to want of people doing something that you want them to be doing.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6238
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:28 am UTC

It's not seeking to get arrested, it's accepting the possibility. If they cover their face and plan their get away, then they are hoping to not get caught. If they are willing to accept jail time in order to stop someone from spreading hate, then more power to them.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4888
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:09 am UTC

But wanting it to be illegal doesn't only mean accepting the possibility and doing it anyway, but wanting the possibility to get arrested. Like, if you want to punch a Nazi, it seems like you would prefer certainty of getting away with it (legally at least), which would mean wanting it to be legal to do so. If instead of that you want it to be illegal, then you would rather there be a possibility that you get arrested than no such possibility. That's weird.

If you want to punch Nazis (or want other people to punch Nazis) -- or in general, if you want to do something or want something to be done -- then it seems like you would prefer it not be illegal to do so. You might go ahead and do so (or applaud others who do) even if it is illegal, but to not just go ahead through the risk, but actively want the risk, is just bizarre. And that's what simultaneously wanting to punch Nazis but wanting it to be illegal to do so entails.

It's much weirder than the opposite arrangement, of wanting it to be legal to do something yet not wanting people to do it anyway. Which is what people (good not-Nazi-sympathizer people like here at least) who are defending Nazis' right to speak are doing: saying the Nazis really shouldn't speak, but if they do anyway, they shouldn't be punished for it.

A position on Nazis speaking that's analogous to iamspen's position on Nazi-punching would be wanting Nazis to speak (or being a Nazi and wanting to speak yourself), but also wanting it to be illegal to speak like a Nazi. Doesn't that seem like a weird thing to want?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6238
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:37 am UTC

Vigilante justice should be illegal, but if the government is unwilling to go after someone who is terrorizing a community then there is nothing morally wrong with that community fighting back. Plus, morality is gray but law is well-defined; there are going to be conflicts, and there will always be times when breaking the law is acceptable.

If the police stopped Nazis from spreading their message, then there would no reason to punch them and I wouldn't support it.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1873
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:26 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:China doesn't have free speech and so they can squish all propaganda campaigns like ants. Hell, many people in China aren't aware of Tiananmen Square.

... and just in time to illustrate the point, here's something from China:

Kim Jong-un wife’s fashion sense a hit with China’s public

Ri Sol-ju, the mysterious young wife of the totalitarian leader and a former star singer, was filmed by state television in at least three different outfits during their two-day stay in Beijing.

William Tang Tat-chi, a Hong Kong fashion designer, said the style was “subtle” but not conservative.

The Beijing visit was a rare public appearance by Ri in a diplomatic setting as she has mainly been seen at domestic events.

The visit to China was the first overseas trip by both Kim and Ri since the North Korean leader came to power in 2011 and came ahead of a planned summit with US President Donald Trump.

Many Chinese internet users praised Ri’s looks and compared her style to that of Peng Liyuan, China’s first lady ...
China blocks mention of Kim Jong-un's wife after comparisons with Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan

Comments on social media said Ri Sol-ju was prettier and better dressed than Ms Peng

Mentions of North Korea's first lady, Ri Sol-ju, have been removed from Chinese social media after she travelled to Beijing with her husband for a surprise visit.

One user said Ms Ri had "a powerful presence" in addition to being prettier and better dressed than Ms Peng.

Others compared Ms Ri's looks to those of popular South Korean and Chinese actresses.

Mentions of Ms Ri's name were later blocked on Weibo and comments on online news reports were removed.


:roll:
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

elasto
Posts: 3555
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:51 pm UTC

While true, it ignores the ingenuity of Chinese netizens:

(Spoilered for length and OT'ness)

Spoiler:
After Liu Xiaobo’s death on July 13, Chinese censors knew they had to work quickly. After all, Liu had been a prominent activist for democracy while alive, an integral figure in the Tiananmen Square protests — who just so happened to pass away while serving his sentence for dissenting against the Chinese Communist Party.

...

Since July 13, Weibo has blocked all mentions of the name “Liu Xiaobo,” the phrase “R.I.P.,” and even the candle emoticon. Searches for his name on many other sites would turn up empty. But at the same time, seemingly at random, came an influx of posts mentioning a certain “Wang Xiaobo” and another “Teacher Liu” — which were both, of course, cryptic nicknames for the late Nobel laureate.

“Wang Xiaobo” simply switches out Liu’s last name. But “Teacher Liu” has a more ingenious derivation. Since Liu is the fourth most common Chinese last name and Chinese students address their teachers with the prefix “Teacher,” it’s the rough equivalent of giving someone the English pseudonym “Mr. Smith.” This poses a problem for censors, as the epithet makes it quite difficult to algorithmically discern whether or not a user was referring to their grade-school math teacher or the controversial Teacher Liu.

It may seem like a convoluted system of doublespeak to some, but for Chinese netizens, this is the norm — and always has been. Much of Chinese Internet lingo involves codewords, and the corpus of codewords is constantly changing to accommodate new topics and avoid smarter, stricter censors.


There are homophonic codewords:

One of the most infamous homophonic codewords on the Chinese Internet is “river crab,” or “héxiè” (河蟹). Created as a mockery of former president Hu Jintao’s “harmonious society” initiative which sought to silence dissent, river crab is a near-homophone for harmony, or “héxié” (和諧). At first, netizens made fun of how the government censors would now “harmonize” dissidents on the Internet by taking down their content. Eventually, being “harmonized” evolved into being “river-crabbed” as a precaution against the government censors, and was quickly adopted by many Chinese online communities.


And logographic codewords:

For instance, “eye-field” is a codeword used in many circles in lieu of the word “freedom.” The connection between the two phrases may not be immediately apparent, as in Chinese, they don’t sound the same at all — “eye-field” is “mùtián,” while freedom is “zìyóu.” But the connection becomes more salient when we examine what these respective words look like: the characters for “eye-field” are 目田, while the characters for freedom are 自由. The two sets of characters look remarkably similar and are only differentiated by one stroke each.

This codeword was created by Chinese World of Warcraft players after they realized that many words had been blocked from the in-game chat, even potentially innocent ones like “freedom.”


Censor-breaking could even be an automated process:

A 2015 Georgia Tech study, “Algorithmically Bypassing Censorship on Sina Weibo with Nondeterministic Homophone Substitutions,” plays with the concept of homophonic codewords by creating an algorithm that generated homophones for blocked terms by choosing random characters with similar sounds. Though the authors did not use codewords pre-established by the Internet community, they wanted to see if A) these randomly generated substitute words could bypass censors and B) whether native Chinese speakers would be able to pick up on the intended meaning of these substitutes anyway.

Their results showed that compared to a control group of Weibo posts that contain unaltered blockwords, their posts with homophonic substitutions were more likely to be published and stayed posted longer before being taken down. They also found that native Chinese speakers were able to discern the correct meanings of their homophonic substitutes 99.51% of the time, even though these substitutes were randomly generated by a phonetic algorithm and not part of any pre-existing lexicon.


It's actually a fascinating topic, and it's why all attempts at censorship are doomed to fail. A much longer article can be found here

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby emceng » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:37 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
natraj wrote:yablo has voiced explicit support for trump's wall, his muslim ban, for increasing police powers, further arming cops, has constantly equivocated about nazis, i could probably find more but that would require wading into the cesspit that is his posts.

like okay he doesn't support steel tariffs great have a cookie for not supporting trump 500%. he supports the racist parts of trump's agenda, he supports racism. i have no idea what hypothetical antiracist policies he claims to support but i do know that the actual policies he's already said he supports are racist af.

I hope you're honestly confused about my beliefs, and if so, I welcome the opportunity to clarify. If, on the other hand, you're just going out of your way to be a dick, please do let me know so I at least know where we stand.

  • A wall along the southern border is not racist. It is a matter of national security, sovereignty, and the rule of law.

National security? How exactly? Of the 9/11 attackers, how many crossed our southern border? What about the shoe bomber, Ft. Hood attacker, or Lax Vegas shooter? What terrorists are crossing that border? Who are you keeping out that is such a threat?
As for sovereignty - how is it that 194 countries in the world get by without border walls, but the USA is so special it needs one?
There is also nothing about the rule of law in having a wall. Maybe you can argue you're preventing crime. Know what else would do that? Increasing gun control. Decreasing poverty, by maybe spending $50 billion dollars on domestic programs instead of a wall.
The wall will do two things - attempt to keep brown people out, and waste an enormous amount of money.

  • I don't support a "Muslim ban," and Trump's travel ban on countries which are known to harbor terrorists with strong anti-American beliefs is not a "Muslim ban." Every Muslim I've ever met has been a great person, and I have a great respect for their religion.

  • Ok, except you're basically saying Trump lied his ass off repeatedly when he talked about instituting a Muslim ban. The intentions matter, and banning certain countries due to their Muslim population is discrimination, which Trump has repeatedly endorsed.

  • I truly believe the vast majority of police officers are good people and deserve to be respected. They need the power, ability, and tools to do their jobs and protect law-abiding people.

  • What additional powers do they need exactly? They can murder minorities with impunity, they have been armed to the teeth with military weaponry, and are being given new technology to track citizens via license plates and online.


  • I apologize if you feel anything I've said about Nazis is ambiguous. I firmly stand against all the hatred and evil the Nazi party and any white nationalist wannabes have created and perpetuated. I also firmly support the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of every American, Nazi or otherwise.

  • Do you draw any lines against free speech? Is shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater ok? What about advocating for someone to commit a crime? What about specifically targeting an individual, and exhorting people to commit crimes against them - harassment, vandalism, or murder? What about advocating for the murder of an entire race?
    When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

    User avatar
    Soupspoon
    You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
    Posts: 3576
    Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
    Location: 53-1

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby Soupspoon » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:39 pm UTC

    elasto wrote:While true, it ignores the ingenuity of Chinese netizens:

    (Spoilered for length and OT'ness)

    […]


    7h47z 50 1337!

    speising
    Posts: 2272
    Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
    Location: wien

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby speising » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:47 pm UTC

    ok i'd just like to say that
    emceng wrote:shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater
    is not speech. speech in the sense of "freedom of speech" is the voicing of an opinion, not just any vocal statement. in fact, speech doesn't even have to be vocal.

    User avatar
    Sableagle
    Ormurinn's Alt
    Posts: 1873
    Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
    Location: The wrong side of the mirror
    Contact:

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby Sableagle » Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:14 pm UTC

    Alright, then, here's your example of someone speaking perhaps a little too freely:

    Jessica Ennis-Hill receives rape threats over Ched Evans stance

    South Yorkshire police are investigating rape threats sent to Olympic gold medallist Dame Jessica Ennis-Hill after she said she would request the removal of her name from a stand at Sheffield United if it offers a new contract to convicted rapist Ched Evans.

    Ennis-Hill received the abuse on Twitter, with one tweet, sent from the handle @RickieLambert07 reading: “Jessica Ennis-Hill is a stupid cunt. Saying she will remove her name if Ched Evens [sic] is signed. I hope he rapes her.” Both the tweet and account were then deleted.

    After the troll was called “scum” for his threat, he replied: “Freedom of speech mate … I’ll say what I want when I want!”.

    Another Twitter user, going by the handle @CoreyOC21, sent a message to Ennis-Hill which read: “Hope Ched Evans gets you you little slut.”


    There you go, thoroughly disgusting behaviour by bipedal dogshit. What do you reckon, Yablo? Should Richie "Arsehole McShithead" Lambert be free to say that kind of thing and, to whatever extent, advocate and encourage sexual violence?

    Footnote: Ched Evans has since had his rape conviction overturned, on the grounds that the 19-year-old he found unconscious in his friend's bad and shagged without asking permission had previously had a drunken threesome with two other guys and hadn't reported that as rape. That's not quite how I thought consent worked, but I am not a judge.
    Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

    User avatar
    Pfhorrest
    Posts: 4888
    Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
    Contact:

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:02 pm UTC

    Thesh wrote:Vigilante justice should be illegal, but if the government is unwilling to go after someone who is terrorizing a community then there is nothing morally wrong with that community fighting back.

    It seems like what you'd most prefer then is for vigilante justice to not be illegal in such circumstances, even if it is illegal generally.
    Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

    User avatar
    CorruptUser
    Posts: 10154
    Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby CorruptUser » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:56 pm UTC

    elasto wrote:
    It's actually a fascinating topic, and it's why all attempts at censorship are doomed to fail. A much longer article can be found here


    But you don't need to maintain complete control of info, you just need to slow it down or make it seem like some points of view are less popular than they are. For example, 10 years ago at least, you could always find anti-Putin books, but they were always in the back shelves and for every one of those shelves there were 10 puff pieces on display.

    Same with countering propaganda. If people want to eat Russian schlock, RT is right there online for the gorging. But how much worse would it be if RT was given the legitimacy of CNN by being on cable as well?
    Last edited by CorruptUser on Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:06 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

    User avatar
    eran_rathan
    Mostly Wrong
    Posts: 1810
    Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
    Location: in your ceiling, judging you

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby eran_rathan » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:58 pm UTC

    Thesh wrote:Vigilante justice should be illegal, but if the government is unwilling to go after someone who is terrorizing a community then there is nothing morally wrong with that community fighting back. Plus, morality is gray but law is well-defined; there are going to be conflicts, and there will always be times when breaking the law is acceptable.

    If the police stopped Nazis from spreading their message, then there would no reason to punch them and I wouldn't support it.


    The law is may be well-defined, but its rarely clear - that's why we have lawyers (and multiple layers to our so-called justice system).

    eta: so you'd support First Amendment curtailments and vigilante justice? Or am i misreading that?
    "Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
    "Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
    nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

    User avatar
    Thesh
    Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
    Posts: 6238
    Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
    Location: Colorado

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby Thesh » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:05 pm UTC

    Pfhorrest wrote:
    Thesh wrote:Vigilante justice should be illegal, but if the government is unwilling to go after someone who is terrorizing a community then there is nothing morally wrong with that community fighting back.

    It seems like what you'd most prefer then is for vigilante justice to not be illegal in such circumstances, even if it is illegal generally.


    It's not that vigilante justice that should be legal, it's that if the law is not protecting the people then it is morally justified for the people go outside the law to protect themselves. The ideal solution should be to ensure that the law protects the people in the first place, so that there is no moral justification for vigilante justice.
    Summum ius, summa iniuria.

    User avatar
    CorruptUser
    Posts: 10154
    Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby CorruptUser » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:08 pm UTC

    Curious. In the 80s, the police were NOT protecting the NYC subways. So the Bernie Geotz case, do you side more with Geotz or the teens?

    User avatar
    Thesh
    Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
    Posts: 6238
    Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
    Location: Colorado

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby Thesh » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:23 pm UTC

    I don't know the details, but the fact that there is not a cop in your immediate vicinity justifies self-defense, not vigilante justice (which deadly force in self-defense is only allowed in response to immediate threats of deadly force). If, for example, the mafia is harassing your community and the police are in their pockets so that you have no legal recourse, then vigilante justice can be morally justified.
    Summum ius, summa iniuria.

    User avatar
    CorruptUser
    Posts: 10154
    Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby CorruptUser » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:09 pm UTC

    Long story short, police would not protect the subways. Bernie had been robbed twice prior, applied for gun permit but was denied, got a revolver anyway. Went on subway, 4 black kids were en route to steal from arcades (their story), saw him as a target and tried to mug him (according to witnesses; they claim begging... while holding sharper instruments). He pulled out his revolver, shot all 4, 1 permanently disabled. Initially, the media was extremely hostile to him rather than the muggers, but the new Yorkers themselves rallied behind him. The police arrested him, but it took three attempts before a jury would indict him (which is evidence the city was prejudicial against Bernie but whatever). The jury found him not guilty of everything except possession, which the judge gave him the maximum sentence. The civil trial for the permanently injured teen resulted in a multimillion judgement which Bernie paid virtually nothing on because he put everything in his sister's name. Of the other three, 1 would later be convicted of rape, another a string of robberies, while one did manage to go straight so hooray for him.

    My personal view is that yes, the teens were indeed mugging him, but he had actually gone looking for trouble, so Bernie was not entirely innocent. Related to this discussion, it was a vigilante, but the city had failed to enforce any sort of security on the subways, so morally speaking it was wrong for the city to make an example of him while they themselves had failed. So yeah, I agree with you that morally, if the state won't provide basic security, then vigilante justice should, well, not be encouraged but the state has no right to complain.

    User avatar
    Pfhorrest
    Posts: 4888
    Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
    Contact:

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:23 pm UTC

    FWIW, I am totally okay with "vigilante" justice in the right circumstances -- I care entirely about what form justice takes and not at all about who carries it out, whether they work for the state, or what not. But I'm not arguing for or against vigilante justice here just now, just addressing the "moral but shouldn't be legal" question.

    What I don't get is why someone would prefer that people carrying out righteous vigilante justice in the appropriate contexts should be punished by law for doing so. Like that Bernie guy. Without weighing on on the specifics of his case, if his actions were morally just, then he should not be punished by law for them. That seems like a total no-brainer and I don't understand anyone who thinks "yeah that was totally the right thing to do (and I hope he doesn't get caught) but if he gets caught he should totally be jailed for it".
    Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

    User avatar
    Thesh
    Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
    Posts: 6238
    Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
    Location: Colorado

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby Thesh » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:44 pm UTC

    It's more about practicality; ideally, our laws would match our morals, but morality requires reason and judgement beyond what we are capable of expressing in words. Leaving it to the discretion of the courts would lead to unequal application of the law - i.e. lynching of minorities who are accused of crimes might be ruled as justified with a racist judge and jury. Since the need for extrajudicial justice is in and of itself an artifact of a failed justice system, I don't think it is reasonable to think that the law will be applied evenly when it is morally justified. We need to draw the line somewhere, and I think it's much better to draw the line at "No extrajudicial justice is allowed".

    It's kind of like saying that an 18 year old and a 16 year old is acceptable sleeping together, but an 18 year old and a 15 year old is not - age isn't the defining factor of what is acceptable, rather than maturity, as the 15 year old in question might be more mature than the 16 year old in a given instance. However, for the sake of protecting minors, it's best to draw the line *somewhere*, and age is the best we have if we want to prevent unequal application of the law.
    Summum ius, summa iniuria.

    User avatar
    CorruptUser
    Posts: 10154
    Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby CorruptUser » Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:56 pm UTC

    But you still need a judge to use common sense. Say you set the age of consent at 17, no Romeo and Juliet laws. A 16 year old girl is a year ahead and a freshman in college, and is dating a 17 year old boy. So far both minors, legal. The boy turns 18. So now it's not legal?

    User avatar
    SecondTalon
    SexyTalon
    Posts: 26203
    Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
    Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
    Contact:

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby SecondTalon » Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:54 am UTC

    If the age of consent is 17, then it was illegal when the younger one was 16. There is no such thing as "both minors so legal" in the US. Two underage people having sex are committing statutory rape against each other because neither one could consent.

    The reason it doesn't come up very often is not many DAs are willing to come down hard on the crime of two 15 year olds boinking.
    heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
    heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

    User avatar
    Sableagle
    Ormurinn's Alt
    Posts: 1873
    Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
    Location: The wrong side of the mirror
    Contact:

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby Sableagle » Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:24 am UTC

    We've had some cases of people being charged with making and distributing child pornography because they sent naked pictures of themselves when they were old enough to be charged as adults but not old enough to give themselves their own consent, too. Better not get caught masturbating before you're 18 or they really will call it "abusing yourself" and they'll charge you with child molestation, eh?

    How's that relevant to the Trump presidency? Well, he did brag about walking in on naked contestants in the changing rooms at Miss Teen USA, didn't he?
    Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

    elasto
    Posts: 3555
    Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby elasto » Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:28 pm UTC


    User avatar
    The Great Hippo
    Swans ARE SHARP
    Posts: 7103
    Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
    Location: behind you

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am UTC

    Yablo wrote:I hope you're honestly confused about my beliefs, and if so, I welcome the opportunity to clarify.
    natraj is not talking about your beliefs, but rather, the things you support. You can support a racist thing while also sincerely believing it is wholly not-racist. Indeed, it's hard to imagine that anyone (outside of like, legit card-carrying racists) would support a racist thing while also believing it is racist. This is an important distinction. If you don't make it, the dialogue is flattened: Supporting the wall either makes you intentionally racist or it isn't racist at all.

    The reality is -- unsurprisingly -- more complex.
    Yablo wrote:
    • A wall along the southern border is not racist. It is a matter of national security, sovereignty, and the rule of law.
    It's a simple and deeply ineffective solution for a complex problem (our insecure border along the Mexican border) presented with populist, anti-Mexican rhetoric ("...and Mexico will pay for it"). We're not going to secure our border by building a really big wall. I'm not even certain building this wall will increase border security by a significant amount.

    There is such a thing as a non-racist proposal to secure our borders. Trump's proposal is not that thing. Trump's proposal is part of a nativist, populist, anti-immigrant narrative. Note his rhetoric regarding 'violent crimes' committed by undocumented immigrants, despite the fact that undocumented immigrants are statistically less likely to commit violent crimes. Note how he presents the flow of undocumented immigrants into our country as a national crisis that we need to prevent, despite the fact that undocumented immigration has been decreasing for decades. The 'crisis' of immigration is largely over; nowadays, it's what we do about the people who are already here -- not the people who are trying to get in.

    You are not racist for supporting a wall between Mexico and the United States. You are not racist for supporting Trump's version of this wall. But Trump's version of this wall -- and the rhetoric which surround it -- is part of a deeply racist, nativist, anti-immigrant narrative. It's fear-mongering over an imaginary threat. The threat is a non-existent flood of violent Mexican thugs who want to murder us and steal all our jobs. We need to keep them out with a wall (which Mexico should pay for). This is textbook racism.
    Yablo wrote:
    • I don't support a "Muslim ban," and Trump's travel ban on countries which are known to harbor terrorists with strong anti-American beliefs is not a "Muslim ban." Every Muslim I've ever met has been a great person, and I have a great respect for their religion.
    While there's such a thing as a reasonable, non-racist policy regarding regulating who can and can't come into this country based on concerns regarding radicalism, Trump's policy is not that policy. Again: A flat ban on an assortment of randomly selected "Muslim countries" (nevermind countries that, at the time the policy was signed, had all failed to produce a single terrorist that acted on U.S. soil!) is a simple and deeply ineffective solution for a complex problem. It is all flash, no bang. And the flash is pretty Islamophobic.

    If you actually support saving American lives and fighting the expansion of Islamic radicalism, then you should listen to people who actually work in those fields and those parts of the world. I expect most of them will tell you the same thing: Banning immigrants from these countries (immigrants who could help us better understand the nature of Islamic radicalism, and form the bridges we need to curtail it) is a stupid, childish move that will likely end up invigorating radical Islam, and thereby only cost more lives while increasing human suffering.

    If you actually want to address the threat of Islamic radicalism, the last thing you want to do is alienate all the people who come from countries who have to deal with it -- and also want to be part of America. These are the people you need most. These are the people who can bridge the gaps; who can help us understand this part of the world. Why shut them out? Why piss them off?

    Because Islam is "scary" -- and it's easier to be scared of something than try to understand it. Again: Textbook Islamophobia. Supporting it doesn't make you anti-Muslim, but it is a clear expression of anti-Islamic sentiment.
    Yablo wrote:
    • I truly believe the vast majority of police officers are good people and deserve to be respected. They need the power, ability, and tools to do their jobs and protect law-abiding people.
    Supporting police officers is pretty easy. It's kind of like supporting the troops: Who's going to disagree?

    But actually challenging police officers to do better? Asking them to de-escalate situations instead of engage in violence -- holding them accountable for the mistakes they make and the lives they unnecessarily take? That's dangerous. Especially since it means speaking truth to people who are literally in charge of your safety -- who are capable of killing you and getting away with it.

    While I am all for supporting the police, I think people need to understand that criticizing our police -- standing up to them -- this is an inherently dangerous, inherently courageous act. Much like you believe that Nazis' speech needs protecting, I think criticism against the police needs protecting -- possibly moreso, since, unlike Nazis, the government actually has an incentive to punish (or even kill) you when you try to hold them accountable.

    With that in mind, I find it deeply unsettling when the President of the United States takes time to support the police and not the people who are trying to hold the police accountable.
    SecondTalon wrote:If the age of consent is 17, then it was illegal when the younger one was 16. There is no such thing as "both minors so legal" in the US. Two underage people having sex are committing statutory rape against each other because neither one could consent.

    The reason it doesn't come up very often is not many DAs are willing to come down hard on the crime of two 15 year olds boinking.
    Wait, what? Seriously?

    Good grief, US laws regarding consent are so messed up.

    User avatar
    CorruptUser
    Posts: 10154
    Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby CorruptUser » Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:33 am UTC

    If both are 15, which one is the rapist?

    User avatar
    sardia
    Posts: 6456
    Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby sardia » Sun Apr 01, 2018 2:56 am UTC

    CorruptUser wrote:If both are 15, which one is the rapist?

    Both.

    Back on topic, Scott Pruit of the EPA is unethical (charges expensive flights on the tax payer's dollar instead of flying commercial), but he does a really good job of gutting the EPA. People aren't sure how much longer he's gonna last.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/ ... epa-452116

    Honestly, the corruption behind the Trump administration deserves more attention, far more than the other stuff on the news.

    jewish_scientist
    Posts: 917
    Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby jewish_scientist » Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:51 pm UTC

    Yablo wrote:A wall along the southern border is not racist. It is a matter of national security, sovereignty, and the rule of law.

    I don't support a "Muslim ban," and Trump's travel ban on countries which are known to harbor terrorists with strong anti-American beliefs is not a "Muslim ban." Every Muslim I've ever met has been a great person, and I have a great respect for their religion.

    Building a wall and restricting immegration are not inherently racist actions; it is Trump's motivation for these policies that makes them racist. This is how a lot of modern racist policy work.

    Spoiler:
    Denying service to a customer is not racist; denying service to a customer because they are black is.
    Harsh punishments for drug dealers is not racist; harsh punishments for black drug dealers is.
    Being upset with new neighbors is not racist; being upset with new neighbors because they are black is.
    Refusing to hire someone is not racist; refusing to hire someone because they are black is.
    Building a landfill near a community is not racist (although it is a bad idea for other reasons); building a landfill near a community because they are predominately black is.


    Spoiler:
    sardia wrote:There's plenty of legal and constitutional things that can be done to Blacks(and other ilk) that do not violate the 1st and 4th Amendment. For example, we can claim "stand our ground" when a Black gets into an altercation. Alternately, the cops can pull them over for every and any minor infraction. If you police them until 1 in 5 Blacks are behind bars, then the rest of the Blacks will know their place. Once they been to jail, make sure that hate crimes are felonies, and broadly applicable. That way the convicted felons can't vote. We can also have Congress legislate behavior requirements when Blacks apply for welfare/benefits.

    There are other things that can be done that are also legal, but I think counterproductive. Examples include, screaming conflicting commands at Blacks, and escalating encounters until you are justified in killing them. It works, but it promotes bad stereotypes like Blacks should be shot on sight because they are demonic thugs. Contrary to popular belief, Blacks aren't ubermensch, and fall rapidly after being shot/beaten up.

    If we go too far in our zeal to be tough on Blacks, we can slowly implement reforms. First, we have the institutions police themselves. Then if we are still brutalizing Blacks too much, then we can do some research, like a 10 year study on the cost/benefit of the "tough on Blacks" policy. You wouldn't want to be branded as soft on Blacks, would you? And then maybe an independent commission, followed by some commutation of sentences. (But only for the Blacks with good behavior.) Lastly, we'll take the survivors, and maybe apologize to them and hand them a 20$ check for the trouble.

    Do you see why this line of reasoning is wrong?

    CorruptUser wrote:If both are 15, which one is the rapist?

    They are both rapists and they both can be prosecuted for rape.

    P.S. Most illegal immigrants enter the USA legally and then remain once their visas expire. Building a wall is not going to do anything substantial.
    Last edited by jewish_scientist on Mon Apr 02, 2018 6:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
    "You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
    -Socrates

    User avatar
    CorruptUser
    Posts: 10154
    Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 02, 2018 6:10 pm UTC

    Most people aren't worrying about the immigrants overstaying a student or work Visa, who then sexually harass Ryan Reynolds into a sham marriage to avoid being deported to Canada. The wall rhetoric isn't about them, stop bringing them in.

    jewish_scientist
    Posts: 917
    Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby jewish_scientist » Mon Apr 02, 2018 6:14 pm UTC

    There are plenty of people who feel that immigrants are 'stealing' their jobs, so they want to build a wall. They would care very much about people overstaying their visas.
    "You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
    -Socrates

    User avatar
    CorruptUser
    Posts: 10154
    Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 02, 2018 6:24 pm UTC

    But the people overstaying the visas aren't doing the jobs that the twerk ore jobs folks would do in the first place.

    elasto
    Posts: 3555
    Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby elasto » Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:09 pm UTC

    Nor are most immigrants who risk their lives trekking across the desert.

    User avatar
    CorruptUser
    Posts: 10154
    Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:22 pm UTC

    Not exactly true. Many of the midwest torque air jabs folks are in construction or farm work, jobs that illegal immigrants do indeed do. Hotel cleaning staff, not so much.

    Illegal immigrants generally take the manual labor jobs, the ones that pay single digits per hour. They depress the wages in those jobs, but in doing so, make almost everyone else in any other job richer, and in turn provide more jobs for most others. The problem is, for the uneducated American with an old misdemeanor conviction? His job sorting recycling is indeed at risk from illegal immigration. The middle school earth science teacher? Not really, and she enjoys marginally lower prices of green beans in the supermarket. The accountant? The doctor? The attorney? No, they don't have to worry about the Honduran refugees. But the taxi drivers, the farm hands, the unskilled construction workers, the mechanics, the janitors, the line cooks, and so on? They do. Ideally, the government would take some of the excess wealth that the accountants and doctors and such make from illegal immigrants, and perhaps from the illegal immigrants themselves, and transfer it or use it for training the blue collar workers, and everyone would be wealthier off, but that isn't happening. Thus, the Tarquin or Jeeves crowds.

    elasto
    Posts: 3555
    Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby elasto » Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:33 pm UTC

    Agreed. The thing is, even if low-skill immigration could be halted (which it can't be, at least in any meaningful way), the same issue is going to raise its head when robotics and AI really take off in a decade or three.

    The answer, then as now, will be exactly as you say: taxpayer-funded education and retraining of the displaced. So why not bite the bullet and do it now? It's easier to blame a boogieman than to take the tough decisions, that's why.

    (And neither mainstream party is facing up to it, btw.)

    User avatar
    Pfhorrest
    Posts: 4888
    Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
    Contact:

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:45 pm UTC

    jewish_scientist wrote:
    Spoiler:
    sardia wrote:There's plenty of legal and constitutional things that can be done to Blacks(and other ilk) that do not violate the 1st and 4th Amendment. For example, we can claim "stand our ground" when a Black gets into an altercation. Alternately, the cops can pull them over for every and any minor infraction. If you police them until 1 in 5 Blacks are behind bars, then the rest of the Blacks will know their place. Once they been to jail, make sure that hate crimes are felonies, and broadly applicable. That way the convicted felons can't vote. We can also have Congress legislate behavior requirements when Blacks apply for welfare/benefits.

    There are other things that can be done that are also legal, but I think counterproductive. Examples include, screaming conflicting commands at Blacks, and escalating encounters until you are justified in killing them. It works, but it promotes bad stereotypes like Blacks should be shot on sight because they are demonic thugs. Contrary to popular belief, Blacks aren't ubermensch, and fall rapidly after being shot/beaten up.

    If we go too far in our zeal to be tough on Blacks, we can slowly implement reforms. First, we have the institutions police themselves. Then if we are still brutalizing Blacks too much, then we can do some research, like a 10 year study on the cost/benefit of the "tough on Blacks" policy. You wouldn't want to be branded as soft on Blacks, would you? And then maybe an independent commission, followed by some commutation of sentences. (But only for the Blacks with good behavior.) Lastly, we'll take the survivors, and maybe apologize to them and hand them a 20$ check for the trouble.

    Do you see why this line of reasoning is wrong?

    I got the impression that Sardia was intentionally listing things that are done to blacks as things that we could do to Nazis, so I don't think you swapping the swap back again will illustrate anything to Sardia. I was, however, unclear whether Sardia was suggesting that it would actually be okay to do those things to Nazis? Because in my opinion, again, it's bad when those things are done, no matter who they're done to, and just because bad things are being done to one group doesn't mean we should endorse them being done to a different group, instead of trying to put a stop to them happening at all.
    Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

    User avatar
    CorruptUser
    Posts: 10154
    Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:00 pm UTC

    I think S brought it up for lots of reasons. One of which is to highlight that we seem to treat black people worse than actual nazis.

    Fun tidbit, in WWII we had German prisoners of war in the US. Some got jobs locally. They took the bus to get there. And guess who got to sit in the front?

    jewish_scientist
    Posts: 917
    Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby jewish_scientist » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:50 pm UTC

    Pfhorrest wrote:I got the impression that Sardia was intentionally listing things that are done to blacks as things that we could do to Nazis, so I don't think you swapping the swap back again will illustrate anything to Sardia. I was, however, unclear whether Sardia was suggesting that it would actually be okay to do those things to Nazis? Because in my opinion, again, it's bad when those things are done, no matter who they're done to, and just because bad things are being done to one group doesn't mean we should endorse them being done to a different group, instead of trying to put a stop to them happening at all.

    Poe strikes again!
    "You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
    -Socrates

    Tyndmyr
    Posts: 11354
    Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

    Re: Trump presidency

    Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:54 am UTC

    sardia wrote:
    Tyndmyr wrote:.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/23/why-rep ... tions.html
    More special elections upcoming along with Cooks report of their political tilt.
    Arizona's is April 24, so we should see how close it'll be. GOP is likely to win this one, but+13 isn't unreachable given democrat's overperformance this year.
    Ohio's will be much easier as it's only 7 points more conservative.
    Iirc, you were wrongish on the Conner-Lamb election. Care to reassess GOP chances going forward?


    Conner-Lamb? Afraid I don't remember. Is it my "PA's leaning reddish" idea?

    Would have to recrunch numbers to see what's changed since last I looked at it, and I'm afraid I really haven't. Hopefully I'll get some time to poke around, though, it's fun to see stuff shift as election time approaches.

    CorruptUser wrote:I'm not sure we have the same definition of "violence". "Violence" =/= "Injustice". Unless you want to argue that making it illegal for 12 year olds to buy cigarettes is "violence".


    I mean, on a certain level, laws are ultimately backed up by violence. So, laws that treat one group unfairly may, depending on enforcement, rise to the level of violence.

    But a boycott isn't violence, I agree. Ultimately, you can choose where to shop.

    SecondTalon wrote:Please, explain to me how punching someone who advocates for the systematic execution of groups based on arbitrary heredity categories, sexual orientation or sexual identity is wrong.

    Feel free to use small words in case you think I don’t understand.


    It's not inherently wrong. Depends on situation. Self defense is always fine. Defense of others being victimized is fine(people will babble about it being vigilantism, but cmon, it's not wrong).

    However, if society's only real solution for 'em is individual face punching, then your society probably has a bit of a shortcoming. I would generally prefer that punching not be the go-to for this. Maybe have cops that actually promote law in order instead of randomly shooting folks they dislike? I mean, it sounds like a good idea in theory, anyways.

    CorruptUser wrote:You find it unacceptable that the majority can suppress a group that advocates for crimes against humanity, or unacceptable that a group advocating crimes against humanity even gets a platform at all?


    I think they have the freedom to speak. I also have the freedom to not listen. If they want to have a talk or what not for their ideology, cool. I'm not going to attend, because listening to them would literally be a waste of my time. Same goes for flat earthers, creationists, and god knows what other stupidity.

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean you automatically get an audience. It just means you don't go to jail for talking.

    Thesh wrote:So let's say Nazis are allowed to have a platform, and they recruit and grow as a movement, and eventually get control of government. What happens to the freedom of the rest of us? It's an issue of whether the objective of that speech is ultimately to cause harm.

    There are limits to free speech; as soon as you are a political movement advocating for the harm or disenfranchisement of others, you have crossed the line into something that is incompatible with a free society.

    Let's say you are marching with guns and yelling "Jews go home!" Is that not intimidation? Is the objective of that not to cause people to fear for their lives?


    That is the problem with democracy, yes.

    If they do gain sufficient purchase for their ideas, yeah, they'll definitely cause harm then. But the same is true of ignorant socialists, and antifa's waving socialist insignia around are supporting that. Both ideologies have a very, very bloody history.

    Ultimately though, the idea's that if everyone can freely express ideas, and the good ideas beat out the bad ones in the long run. If you don't believe that will happen, you might as well give up on democracy as a principle.

    sardia wrote:What if we stopped and frisked them on a daily basis? Or prosecuted them extra hard for equivalent crimes committed by regular folks. Or let's slap them with a Nazi tax.
    There's plenty of serious threats to the republic already in progress, and yet the country still stands. Adding Nazis to the long list of undesirables isn't going to be the straw that breaks the camel...


    I dare say the best path is being dickbags to fewer groups of people, not more. Sure, the Nazis are particularly unsympathetic, but we have a long history of folks making laws to screw over those they don't feel sympathy for, and generally speaking, it goes poorly.

    CorruptUser wrote:And yet those same people are mysteriously absent when it comes to uncrossing the line for black people.


    Plenty of us have been active in the police thread, observing that there's some pretty serious bullshit going on. Sure, for those who are hypocritical, rag away, but pretty much everybody here acknowledges that racist treatment ought not exist.

    Thesh wrote:
    Pfhorrest wrote:Ditto punching people in the face, censoring their speech, etc. Actions should be dictated by general principles regardless of who the people in question are.


    Organizing politically for the sake of harming or suppressing the rights of others, whether it is an immediate threat or a long term objective of the movement, *is* taking action. It's about what they are doing, not who they are


    This is basically the same logic as that used by those who accuse leftists of "treason" and such. They see your ideology as a long term threat to their rights and stuff.

    But, just because a leftist floats a gun banning idea doesn't make it okay to start violence against leftists. Yes, yes, they may WANT to hinder your rights, and they may be politically organizing for that end, but that means you organize back. Not throw a punch. Shit, what about the anti-abortion folks if they took this stance? They believe ya'll are literally advocating for murder, but that doesn't excuse bombings or what not.

    In short, treating "politically organizing for a things" is not the same as doing the thing. It's related, sure, and yeah, you definitely should oppose people advocating stupid shit, but it's not a self defense situation. The situation lacks immediacy.

    As for the Trump being racist thing, eh...yeah, that's not a hill I want to die on. One can advocate immigration restrictions for non racist reasons, sure, but plenty of awful reasons have been public enough that I'm not gonna bother with defending characterizations. Plenty actual racism out there. Even when Trump has a perfectly fine policy, he does generally manage to go about advocating it in some of the worst ways possible.


    Return to “News & Articles”

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests