|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 30 2015 05:59 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 04:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:I think the central problem is one of fabrication. It would have been perfectly fine for Fiorina to describe the video as she did if that was what actually happened in the video. I don't think she would get nearly as much flak if it were, even if the attacker quoted her (though she would of course get some flak, it's politics and people are partisan). He could have just watched the video himself and come to the same conclusion and be using her as a mouthpiece. But that isn't what happens in the video. When you make a demonstrably false statement and someone quotes it or parts of it as motivation, they can't have come to that conclusion by looking at the evidence themselves. It starts to strain credulity to simply attribute it to political concordance and say that the guy would have done what he did no matter what and say that there was no rhetorical influence. In this case he doesn't quote the demonstrably false parts...but it's still unlikely he would quote parts of her statement and not have heard the rest. I don't think she should be getting quite as much blame as she seems to be though. I mean, if Hillary Clinton said that gun companies are lobbying to be able to sell guns to children and they aren't, then someone attacked a gun company and said that they were trying to sell guns to children, she would share some of the blame right? But if she said that gun companies are selling weapons that kill people, and someone attacked a gun company saying that they sell weapons that kill people, she shouldn't catch as much if any flak. + Show Spoiler +I don't want to harp on causation but what we're really discussing is how certain we are about the statement "would the attacker still have attacked in a world where Fiorina didn't make her statements about Planned Parenthood?" and, if the answer is no, whether or not it matters. I would argue that the statement being demonstrably false lowers the chance of the answer to that question being yes and makes the answer matter a lot more. That's all very well, but other than saying they're despiccable human beings, there's nothing you can do about it without reducing freedom of speech. Not that the latter is all wrong. I know that in the Netherlands, freedom of speech is limited by regulations such as a prohibition from inciting violence. And in the UK there's laws limiting libel and slander (which I think are awfully abused, but the laws exist, and would definitely apply to Carly Fiorina's speech about PP). The problem is that the difference between truth and falsehood tends to be fuzzy. Was Trump claiming thousands of people cheered 9/11 in New Jersey a flatout lie, or a slight exaggeration of the truth. Depending on whom you ask, you'll get one answer or the other. Is telling the truth, but leaving out some important context, and thereby completely twisting the meaning still telling the truth? The English courts have a hell of a time sorting this out. Is Geert Wilders inciting people to chant "less less less Moroccans" inciting violence? Even if nobody actually acted upon it and went out to "lessen" the number of Moroccans in NL? Does Breivik citing Wilders and Le Pen as inspirations for his heinous acts mean they are partially responsible for those acts? Or are they, as the European police and politics have decided, the acts of a lone mad man? For the record, I think Wilders is despiccable, but he is not inciting violence, nor is he in any way to blame for Breivik's actions. I think it is a very dangerous road to start down, and people are ultimately fully responsible for their own actions. While I absolutely agree that public people should consider their words, and throwing oil on the fire is both stupid and dangerous, people have the right to be stupid, and the danger comes from OTHER rational actors doing dangerous things that the speaker (probably) never condoned.
No amount of hemming and hawing makes Fiorina's statements about the PP video true. None. It is factually incorrect that the video contained PP employees butchering an infant with a beating heart and kicking legs, while a PP employee said we needed to harvest its brain. The only thing close is stock footage where that doesn't happen. Where you draw the line on freedom of violent speech is one thing (this probably isn't violent speech even), where you draw the line of freedom of fabrication is another. People need to stop conflating the right to political speech with the right to lie, it just isn't there.
I don't think Fiorina should be crucified quite so much as she is for this, however, so keep that in mind. I just think everyone dancing around the fact that falsification relates to blame in this scenario is being slightly disingenuous.
+ Show Spoiler +I am getting sick of this election where the electorate does not give a flying fuck when they are being lied to and does not ask people to be held accountable, and the politicians have realized this and-on both sides of the aisle-have completely stopped caring before they say dumbass things (see-Trump for the best example).
There is no fuzziness in saying that Trump's saying that he saw video of Muslims cheering in the U.S. was a lie, or that he is lying when he says he barely knew the reporter he made fun of. None. Wake up and stop making excuses for these people on both sides of the aisle.
|
On November 30 2015 07:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Hillary Clinton is calling for a $275 billion boost in federal infrastructure spending over five years and the creation of an infrastructure bank, arguing that the measures will help create jobs while modernizing the nation’s ailing roads and bridges.
"Investing in infrastructure makes our economy more productive and competitive across the board," she said Sunday at a rally in Boston’s Faneuil Hall, addressing a crowd heavy on workers from construction unions. "To build a strong economy for our future, we must start by building strong infrastructure today."
Her plan, she added, is "a down payment on our future."
The Democratic presidential front-runner plans to spend the next month laying out what her campaign is calling her “jobs agenda," including ideas for upping federal support for research and manufacturing. Her jobs proposals will add up to the most expensive set of policy ideas she’ll offer up throughout her campaign, her campaign said. The infrastructure proposals will be funded with revenue raised through business tax reform, though an aide declined to elaborate on what those measures would be.
Clinton’s plan would put $250 billion toward direct federal spending on infrastructure, while the remaining $25 billion would be seed funds to launch what her campaign described as a “strategic infrastructure bank.” The bank would leverage the initial federal investment to support another $225 billion in direct loans, loan guarantees and other forms of credit. In all, Clinton’s proposal would end up putting $500 billion in public and private funds toward infrastructure projects.
Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders have both talked up their plans for a national infrastructure bank while on the campaign trail this year, and it’s an idea that’s been part of Democrats’ campaign promises for a quarter-century. Bill Clinton called for one during his 1992 campaign and made some progress on the idea during his first term. Barack Obama offered his proposal for a $60 billion infrastructure bank during the 2008 race and has subsequently made a handful of attempts to revive it. Source
Reasonable 6+ years ago, but not today.
Boston is kind of a bad place to make a fuss over infrastructure spending too (big dig).
|
|
Canada10904 Posts
On November 30 2015 05:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 05:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The presidential campaign is reigniting the battle over importing prescription drugs from Canada, with all of the leading Democratic candidates endorsing the idea.
Calls for allowing people to buy directly from Canadian pharmacies are also intensifying from some Republicans in Congress, including Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa).
But the drug industry remains dead-set against allowing importation, and it's unclear whether voter support will translate into legislative action.
“Ensuring patients have access to needed medicines is critical, but importing medicines, whether from Canada or elsewhere in the world, is the wrong answer,” the trade group, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America or PhRMA, wrote in a fact sheet last month. That position was reiterated in a recent briefing with reporters.
The main argument from pharmaceutical companies is that allowing imported drugs into the U.S. could bring in unsafe drugs — a risk that the group says is growing over time.
“It has become very easy for counterfeiters to make bottles and packages look genuine, but the reality is they are often filled with laced, adulterated or fake pills that are dangerous to patients,” the group warned.
Still, public support for the idea is strong among both registered Democrats and Republicans alike. Nearly 75 percent of people believe Americans should be able to import prescriptions from Canada, according to a poll this fall by Kaiser Family Foundation.
Drug importation is governed by a complex patchwork of laws and regulations that is fueling a web-driven hunt for prescriptions.
While pharmacies are prohibited from importing drugs for resale, patients can purchase online for their own use. The Food and Drug Administration has cracked down on Internet pharmacies over the last three years, though it still has a slim record of enforcing the federal ban. Source Gotta stop people learning how badly US prices are inflated compared to the rest of the world lol Is Canada known for creating unsafe drugs?
|
On November 30 2015 10:44 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 05:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2015 05:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The presidential campaign is reigniting the battle over importing prescription drugs from Canada, with all of the leading Democratic candidates endorsing the idea.
Calls for allowing people to buy directly from Canadian pharmacies are also intensifying from some Republicans in Congress, including Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa).
But the drug industry remains dead-set against allowing importation, and it's unclear whether voter support will translate into legislative action.
“Ensuring patients have access to needed medicines is critical, but importing medicines, whether from Canada or elsewhere in the world, is the wrong answer,” the trade group, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America or PhRMA, wrote in a fact sheet last month. That position was reiterated in a recent briefing with reporters.
The main argument from pharmaceutical companies is that allowing imported drugs into the U.S. could bring in unsafe drugs — a risk that the group says is growing over time.
“It has become very easy for counterfeiters to make bottles and packages look genuine, but the reality is they are often filled with laced, adulterated or fake pills that are dangerous to patients,” the group warned.
Still, public support for the idea is strong among both registered Democrats and Republicans alike. Nearly 75 percent of people believe Americans should be able to import prescriptions from Canada, according to a poll this fall by Kaiser Family Foundation.
Drug importation is governed by a complex patchwork of laws and regulations that is fueling a web-driven hunt for prescriptions.
While pharmacies are prohibited from importing drugs for resale, patients can purchase online for their own use. The Food and Drug Administration has cracked down on Internet pharmacies over the last three years, though it still has a slim record of enforcing the federal ban. Source Gotta stop people learning how badly US prices are inflated compared to the rest of the world lol Is Canada known for creating unsafe drugs?
No it's just PR 101 the Pharma monopoly uses in order to keep it's hands in the till.
|
On November 30 2015 10:44 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 05:52 Gorsameth wrote:On November 30 2015 05:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The presidential campaign is reigniting the battle over importing prescription drugs from Canada, with all of the leading Democratic candidates endorsing the idea.
Calls for allowing people to buy directly from Canadian pharmacies are also intensifying from some Republicans in Congress, including Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa).
But the drug industry remains dead-set against allowing importation, and it's unclear whether voter support will translate into legislative action.
“Ensuring patients have access to needed medicines is critical, but importing medicines, whether from Canada or elsewhere in the world, is the wrong answer,” the trade group, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America or PhRMA, wrote in a fact sheet last month. That position was reiterated in a recent briefing with reporters.
The main argument from pharmaceutical companies is that allowing imported drugs into the U.S. could bring in unsafe drugs — a risk that the group says is growing over time.
“It has become very easy for counterfeiters to make bottles and packages look genuine, but the reality is they are often filled with laced, adulterated or fake pills that are dangerous to patients,” the group warned.
Still, public support for the idea is strong among both registered Democrats and Republicans alike. Nearly 75 percent of people believe Americans should be able to import prescriptions from Canada, according to a poll this fall by Kaiser Family Foundation.
Drug importation is governed by a complex patchwork of laws and regulations that is fueling a web-driven hunt for prescriptions.
While pharmacies are prohibited from importing drugs for resale, patients can purchase online for their own use. The Food and Drug Administration has cracked down on Internet pharmacies over the last three years, though it still has a slim record of enforcing the federal ban. Source Gotta stop people learning how badly US prices are inflated compared to the rest of the world lol Is Canada known for creating unsafe drugs?
I think it has more to do with the completely ridiculous monopolies in the US, and the fact that they can adjust prices as they like. No competition = no need to reduce (absolutely retardedly high) prices.
|
The US and 18 other countries have pledged to double funds for clean energy research to a total of $20bn over five years, boosting a parallel initiative by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg and increasing the prospects for successful agreement at the Paris climate negotiations that start on Monday.
The countries, which include the UK, Canada, China, Brazil, India and South Africa, span the biggest global economies and major emitters, oil and gas producers, and leaders in clean energy research, the White House said.
Tech and business leaders, including America’s Bill Gates, George Soros, Meg Whitman and Mark Zuckerberg, Germany’s Hasso Plattner, India’s Ratan Tata and China’s Jack Ma, will also pledge on Monday to take on additional investment risks to bring environmental technologies coming out of scientific research to the marketplace.
“This announcement should help to send a strong signal that the world is committed to helping to mobilise the resources necessary to ensure countries around world can deploy clean energy solutions in cost-effective ways in their economies,” said Brian Deese, a senior White House advisor.
The announcement came as the first of more than 130 world leaders began jetting into Paris in preparation for the crunch negotiations. They will attend the first day of the two-week talks on Monday, instructing their negotiating teams.
Source
|
Well Ted Cruz suggesting the planned parenthood terrorist may be a "transgendered leftist activist" has to take the cake on bullshit responses so far.
|
On November 30 2015 14:53 GreenHorizons wrote: Well Ted Cruz suggesting the planned parenthood terrorist may be a "transgendered leftist activist" has to take the cake on bullshit responses so far. Just checked Breitbard for some lulz and see what they're making of it and 1st comment on the actual matter (3rd total, the other two are just "vote trump"):
If Cruz says he is so, then he is so as far as I'm concerned.....another leftist wacko from the vast left wing criminal conspiracy... Didn't we have a discussion about how this rhetoric/propaganda can influence people just yesterday? Granted, that's some random guy on the web and no idea if he's serious but it's not the only guy on there like that oO
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 30 2015 08:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 07:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton is calling for a $275 billion boost in federal infrastructure spending over five years and the creation of an infrastructure bank, arguing that the measures will help create jobs while modernizing the nation’s ailing roads and bridges.
"Investing in infrastructure makes our economy more productive and competitive across the board," she said Sunday at a rally in Boston’s Faneuil Hall, addressing a crowd heavy on workers from construction unions. "To build a strong economy for our future, we must start by building strong infrastructure today."
Her plan, she added, is "a down payment on our future."
The Democratic presidential front-runner plans to spend the next month laying out what her campaign is calling her “jobs agenda," including ideas for upping federal support for research and manufacturing. Her jobs proposals will add up to the most expensive set of policy ideas she’ll offer up throughout her campaign, her campaign said. The infrastructure proposals will be funded with revenue raised through business tax reform, though an aide declined to elaborate on what those measures would be.
Clinton’s plan would put $250 billion toward direct federal spending on infrastructure, while the remaining $25 billion would be seed funds to launch what her campaign described as a “strategic infrastructure bank.” The bank would leverage the initial federal investment to support another $225 billion in direct loans, loan guarantees and other forms of credit. In all, Clinton’s proposal would end up putting $500 billion in public and private funds toward infrastructure projects.
Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders have both talked up their plans for a national infrastructure bank while on the campaign trail this year, and it’s an idea that’s been part of Democrats’ campaign promises for a quarter-century. Bill Clinton called for one during his 1992 campaign and made some progress on the idea during his first term. Barack Obama offered his proposal for a $60 billion infrastructure bank during the 2008 race and has subsequently made a handful of attempts to revive it. Source Reasonable 6+ years ago, but not today. Boston is kind of a bad place to make a fuss over infrastructure spending too (big dig). maybe not over the amount of investment but the politics and whatnot of infrastructure work. direct federal spending may be less or more efficient than whatever they do at the state level because of less lobbying influence.
not meant to be a point about boston in particular
|
A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.
Public support for international and domestic measures to address climate change may provide a lift for American negotiators attending the major United Nations climate change conference that began in Paris on Monday. But the stark partisan divide on climate policy will still make it difficult for President Obama and his successors to put in place the energy and climate policies that will be needed to support a robust international agreement, the goal of the Paris talks.
Republicans in Congress and many Republican governors oppose Mr. Obama’s proposal to limit emissions from power plants, for example, complicating his ability to meet targets he has set to comply with United Nations climate goals. And the Obama administration has made it clear that any agreement it would sign in Paris would not take the form of an internationally enforced treaty that would require Senate ratification.
Still, the shift in public opinion has many advocates of strong climate change measures hopeful that the Paris talks could provide a turning point.
Source
|
A point I've been struggling to eloquently state recently is the difference between conservative right elements and reactionary right elements. I don't think that the tea party is really anything more then a reactionary movement that the conservatives infiltrated and organized. Which yeah makes them shitty when your expecting them to act reasonable say like a bush.
But how to easily describe the difference between that uncle who complained about "those uppity negros" and the other uncle who just doesn't think things should change as much as the next guy?
|
The ground is shaking near Cushing, Okla., home to the largest commercial crude oil storage center in North America.
This little patch of prairie in northwestern Oklahoma is one of the most important places in the U.S. energy market.
Oklahoma is on track to have a record year of earthquakes — more than 5,000 have already been recorded. And those quakes appear to endanger the very industry that created them.
"We're in amongst about 18 tanks here. Anywhere from 350,000 barrels to 575,000 barrels," says Mike Moeller, senior director of midcontinent assets for Enbridge Energy.
He walks through the tank farm and worries about all the industry-linked earthquakes. These tanks were built to national standards that account for some shaking, but they weren't constructed with serious earthquakes in mind.
That's because, historically, Oklahoma never had many. That's changed; last year was record-breaking, and this year, there will likely be even more.
In October, a magnitude-4.5 earthquake struck a few miles away. Moeller says it triggered inspections, but no immediate problems, at the Enbridge tank farm.
"We've not experienced any issues, any deformations or releases that were caused because of an earthquake," Moeller says.
The massive hub in Cushing, where domestic crude oil enters the energy market, is dotted with hundreds of airplane hangar-sized tanks that hold an estimated 54 million barrels of oil.
No earthquake damage has been reported — yet. But the possibility is a matter of national security.
Source
|
On December 01 2015 03:27 Sermokala wrote: A point I've been struggling to eloquently state recently is the difference between conservative right elements and reactionary right elements. I don't think that the tea party is really anything more then a reactionary movement that the conservatives infiltrated and organized. Which yeah makes them shitty when your expecting them to act reasonable say like a bush.
But how to easily describe the difference between that uncle who complained about "those uppity negros" and the other uncle who just doesn't think things should change as much as the next guy?
Well I think the moral responsibility lies primarily with the second guy allowing the first guy to spew his crap. This whole "white moderate" thing that also tries to attack all the black lives matter people is the real problem. The logic goes along the lines off "It's okay if you want to fight the institutions, but only as long as you don't ruin my English lawn, and as long as I get to define what racism is and where you have to stop". It's kind of a farce really, there's nothing moderate about tolerating unjust conditions.
It's kind of like when people try to shift historical war guilt away from the population and towards the evil leadership, I mean you could as well just blame a landslide for being morally guilty. The first condition for being responsible is that you can actually see that unjust stuff is happening. That is by definition something extremists can not do.
|
On December 01 2015 03:43 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 03:27 Sermokala wrote: A point I've been struggling to eloquently state recently is the difference between conservative right elements and reactionary right elements. I don't think that the tea party is really anything more then a reactionary movement that the conservatives infiltrated and organized. Which yeah makes them shitty when your expecting them to act reasonable say like a bush.
But how to easily describe the difference between that uncle who complained about "those uppity negros" and the other uncle who just doesn't think things should change as much as the next guy? Well I think the moral responsibility lies primarily with the second guy allowing the first guy to spew his crap. This whole "white moderate" thing that also tries to attack all the black lives matter people is the real problem. The logic goes along the lines off "It's okay if you want to fight the institutions, but only as long as you don't ruin my English lawn, and as long as I get to define what racism is and where you have to stop". It's kind of a farce really, there's nothing moderate about tolerating unjust conditions. It's kind of like when people try to shift historical war guilt away from the population and towards the evil leadership, I mean you could as well just blame a landslide for being morally guilty. The first condition for being responsible is that you can actually see that unjust stuff is happening. That is by definition something extremists can not do. The problem with your line of thinking is attaching some sort of moral judgement on genuine ignorance. You can't systematically label everyone before 2000 a homophobic bigot beacuse they didn't want gay people to marry. People are always going to have a group that enjoys the today and be confused why people want to change it. Most white people live in good neighborhoods so how is it their fault for not understanding why change can't simply happen to make bad neiborhoods better expecially when those areas complain about the same problems with no solutions.
The same as you can't blame a population for valuing simple things like stability and prosperity and the people's ability to tolerate that groups activities for giving it to them. Hitler youth wouldn't look too far off from the boy and girl scouts from a parents view.
|
The Obama administration is scaling back the federal mandate for using ethanol in gasoline — a loss for the corn industry that could scramble political calculations in the Iowa caucuses.
For the first time ever, the Environmental Protection Agency will require fuel suppliers to blend less ethanol into gasoline than Congress specified in 2007. The much-lobbied decision is likely to become an issue for presidential candidates in Iowa, the nation’s top producer of corn-based ethanol, especially for Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
The 2007 biofuels mandate has faced growing opposition from critics including the oil industry, livestock producers and several environmental groups.
Source
|
On December 01 2015 05:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 03:43 Nyxisto wrote:On December 01 2015 03:27 Sermokala wrote: A point I've been struggling to eloquently state recently is the difference between conservative right elements and reactionary right elements. I don't think that the tea party is really anything more then a reactionary movement that the conservatives infiltrated and organized. Which yeah makes them shitty when your expecting them to act reasonable say like a bush.
But how to easily describe the difference between that uncle who complained about "those uppity negros" and the other uncle who just doesn't think things should change as much as the next guy? Well I think the moral responsibility lies primarily with the second guy allowing the first guy to spew his crap. This whole "white moderate" thing that also tries to attack all the black lives matter people is the real problem. The logic goes along the lines off "It's okay if you want to fight the institutions, but only as long as you don't ruin my English lawn, and as long as I get to define what racism is and where you have to stop". It's kind of a farce really, there's nothing moderate about tolerating unjust conditions. It's kind of like when people try to shift historical war guilt away from the population and towards the evil leadership, I mean you could as well just blame a landslide for being morally guilty. The first condition for being responsible is that you can actually see that unjust stuff is happening. That is by definition something extremists can not do. The problem with your line of thinking is attaching some sort of moral judgement on genuine ignorance. You can't systematically label everyone before 2000 a homophobic bigot beacuse they didn't want gay people to marry. People are always going to have a group that enjoys the today and be confused why people want to change it. Most white people live in good neighborhoods so how is it their fault for not understanding why change can't simply happen to make bad neiborhoods better expecially when those areas complain about the same problems with no solutions. The same as you can't blame a population for valuing simple things like stability and prosperity and the people's ability to tolerate that groups activities for giving it to them. Hitler youth wouldn't look too far off from the boy and girl scouts from a parents view.
People prior to 2000 aren't labeled homophobic because gay marriage wasn't as big of an issue back then, and "don't ask don't tell" was still considered the norm. If you asked a random individual about gay marriage, they would probably tell you they hadn't even thought about it. And that's fine. But if you start explaining your perspective on oppression, whether it be gay marriage or police brutality, and the other side responds with hostility, that is when people start to get pissed off.
I, like the other white people you described, have absolutely no idea what it's like to live in some of the communities, and I have never had to worry about police brutality. I will say that the one time I had an encounter with police left me intimidated and I am uncomfortable around police officers to this day. But I also try to listen when people try to describe a perspective I don't have and don't automatically assume they are lying or have some sort of agenda.
The reactionary far right, of which I think only a couple of people on this board belong to, have made a full-time job of trying to refute every point BLM tries to make. I, like a great many other people I suspect, agree with some of BLM's points and disagree with others. I think it it a shame so much attention was paid to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown when Eric Garner and Freddie Gray were more clear-cut cases of police brutality. But when you have a group doing everything in their power to try to show that BLM is completely, not just partially (like everyone else in this country), full of shit, it sends up red flags.
I've said this before, but I would be a bonafide independent if the Republican party could cut the cancer out, that being the radical social conservatives. I'm all for small government, but please for the love of sweet baby jesus stop talking to me about your religion, women's reproductive health, and the sanctity of marriage. Republicans have lost many of those battles and need to move on if they want to attract younger voters.
|
Technology has also made is much easier for a small group to focus on discrediting something like BLM or PP with false or misleading information. The accessibility of services like YouTube, easy to sue video editing software and the viral nature of social media makes it easy to propagate a misleading or doctored video. And it takes several magnitudes more effort to prove the video is fake or misleading.
And our modern news networks are not helping, but feeding into the issues. The “Starbucks” war on Christmas was started by a guy doing satirical videos that are popular on facebook and snowballed into the creating the very thing he was satirizing. And people believe all of this because vetted, creditable information is so hard to come by and by its nature is slower than the viral media.
|
On December 01 2015 05:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 03:43 Nyxisto wrote:On December 01 2015 03:27 Sermokala wrote: A point I've been struggling to eloquently state recently is the difference between conservative right elements and reactionary right elements. I don't think that the tea party is really anything more then a reactionary movement that the conservatives infiltrated and organized. Which yeah makes them shitty when your expecting them to act reasonable say like a bush.
But how to easily describe the difference between that uncle who complained about "those uppity negros" and the other uncle who just doesn't think things should change as much as the next guy? Well I think the moral responsibility lies primarily with the second guy allowing the first guy to spew his crap. This whole "white moderate" thing that also tries to attack all the black lives matter people is the real problem. The logic goes along the lines off "It's okay if you want to fight the institutions, but only as long as you don't ruin my English lawn, and as long as I get to define what racism is and where you have to stop". It's kind of a farce really, there's nothing moderate about tolerating unjust conditions. It's kind of like when people try to shift historical war guilt away from the population and towards the evil leadership, I mean you could as well just blame a landslide for being morally guilty. The first condition for being responsible is that you can actually see that unjust stuff is happening. That is by definition something extremists can not do. The problem with your line of thinking is attaching some sort of moral judgement on genuine ignorance. You can't systematically label everyone before 2000 a homophobic bigot beacuse they didn't want gay people to marry. People are always going to have a group that enjoys the today and be confused why people want to change it. Most white people live in good neighborhoods so how is it their fault for not understanding why change can't simply happen to make bad neiborhoods better expecially when those areas complain about the same problems with no solutions. The same as you can't blame a population for valuing simple things like stability and prosperity and the people's ability to tolerate that groups activities for giving it to them. Hitler youth wouldn't look too far off from the boy and girl scouts from a parents view. Of course you can attach a moral judgement on genuine ignorance.
Also, are you seriously trying to say that you can't blame the german population for the Hitler youth cause the group activities were so nice?
|
Wow going directly for Hitler. Seems like you skipped a few steps there buddy.
|
|
|
|