|
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 December 01 2015 06:03 ragz_gt wrote: Wow going directly for Hitler. Seems like you skipped a few steps there buddy. Did you miss the part where he was responding to a post that literally references the Hitler Youth and says "You can't blame parents for letting them join, it was like boy scouts"?
Its fine to bring up Hitler if you are responding to a post that directly references him.
|
On December 01 2015 06:03 ragz_gt wrote: Wow going directly for Hitler. Seems like you skipped a few steps there buddy. Its not about Hitler or people being Hitler it's about the people having some sort of moral responsibility of reactionaries getting legitimacy. Ie who's fault is it that black people's socioeconomic standing keeps getting worse and if it's the rest of the population wanting to hold onto their federalism that keeps their socioeconomic standing good.
|
On December 01 2015 06:15 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 06:03 ragz_gt wrote: Wow going directly for Hitler. Seems like you skipped a few steps there buddy. Its not about Hitler or people being Hitler it's about the people having some sort of moral responsibility of reactionaries getting legitimacy. Ie who's fault is it that black people's socioeconomic standing keeps getting worse and if it's the rest of the population wanting to hold onto their federalism that keeps their socioeconomic standing good. Its the party repressing the other group for their own security, it is always their fault. Claiming you are just protecting yourself only works if doing so doesn't actively hurt someone else. I will judge the Germans of the 1930-1940 for allowed the Nazi party to come to power and do all the terrible things they did. Its like people expecting a pat on the back for being "not racist". There is no prize for doing literally nothing.
Or to put it another way, repressed groups do not put up with being repressed for an endless period of time. People claim that "wealth redistribution" through government assistance and means is bad. But that alternative is the numerous poor and repressed rise up and deal with that repression through violence and other means. Especially if the government favors the rich and stable. If you look to many of the most violent riots in US history, you can see them coming a mile off by unaddressed inequality and the empowered protecting their stability.
|
On December 01 2015 06:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 06:03 ragz_gt wrote: Wow going directly for Hitler. Seems like you skipped a few steps there buddy. Did you miss the part where he was responding to a post that literally references the Hitler Youth and says "You can't blame parents for letting them join, it was like boy scouts"? Its fine to bring up Hitler if you are responding to a post that directly references him.
I meant for OP (though it's kinda for both, the argument is pretty much over when Hitler is mentioned), shoulda quoted to avoid confusion.
|
On December 01 2015 06:28 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 06:08 Plansix wrote:On December 01 2015 06:03 ragz_gt wrote: Wow going directly for Hitler. Seems like you skipped a few steps there buddy. Did you miss the part where he was responding to a post that literally references the Hitler Youth and says "You can't blame parents for letting them join, it was like boy scouts"? Its fine to bring up Hitler if you are responding to a post that directly references him. I meant for OP (though it's kinda for both, the argument is pretty much over when Hitler is mentioned), shoulda quoted to avoid confusion.
Due to Donald Trump retweeting Neo-Nazi propaganda, considering mandatory Muslim registries, egging on his supporters to rough up a protester, being endorsed by at least a couple Neo-Nazi groups (one of which, who's leader was selling Trump T-shirts the day before the Charleston terrorist, who followed their site, shot up that church), and (according to tumblr) even an actual Holocaust survivor saying the similarities are there, there has been a suspension of Godwin's Law. Of course this only applies to pre-election Hitler comparisons, Trump hasn't actually started rounding up Muslims and placing them in camps, though if he got elected and did it, people would be right to say we can't act surprised and to blame the "moderate whites" who let it get that far.
Trump should of never had a chance after pushing so hard that our president wasn't legally our president and the entirety of all the alphabet agencies and the pentagon were either oblivious or in on the conspiracy. But instead you got a bunch of mealy-mouthed cowards who didn't make Trump into the laughing stock he should of been and now he's kicking every one of their cowardly asses.
Luckily Trump loses big already to Sanders in a heads up, so what it would take to beat him is already pretty obvious.
|
Trump is the exception to Godwin's law in almost every way, with the exception that he wouldn't' have the power to dissolve congress if elected. But I am 100% sure he would try to inform the public that he could and convince them it was a good idea.
|
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. BLM has been doing some pretty problematic things lately. There seem to be quite a few racists in that group looking to create their own brand of injustice.
|
On November 30 2015 03:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:Firstly, I myself wouldn't call myself a fair arbiter of what constitutes hateful rhetoric. I have a clear political bias, I willingly identify as part of the 'political left', and even though I genuinely try to interpret everything through unfiltered lenses, I think I know that all humans interpret everything based on everything they already think they know. And even though I also willingly identify as arrogant, I don't think I'm sufficiently special to not be influenced by the same principle. I've never argued for any type of legal stifling of what you can and cannot say, merely that people should understand that their words might influence others, and that they should think about this before they speak. Isn't this, 'assume personal responsibilty for your actions', an argument that should resonate well with the 'political right'? Further, I think you'll have a very hard time finding posts of me where I am lightly calling anyone racist or homophobe. (If you can, please direct me to them, so I can either retract the statement or argue why I think it was warranted. ) In fact, I think it is really problematic when these phrases are thrown around too lightly, firstly because I think it's much better to attack a statement than to attack the person behind the statement (although, as stated, it is likely that we have different interpretations of what constitutes racist or homophobic behavior due to interpreting the world based on different lenses), secondly because when there's a dilution of the meaning of words, they lose their force and power when they actually need to be applied. The word racist is probably the best example of a word losing its power due to being used too frequently. I'll grant you that I'm more likely to point out transgressions from political opposition.. But I mean.. Not every fight is my fight to take. Fair enough.
|
Not only have Alabama's attempts to defund Planned Parenthood Southeast been blocked by the courts, Alabama taxpayers will also have to foot the bill in the more than $51,000 in legal fees for the reproductive health organization, the Montgomery Advertiser reported, under a settlement filed in federal court Monday morning. The agreement still must be approved by a U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, according to the Montgomery Advertiser.
Republican Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley was one of a number of elected officials who sought to defund Planned Parenthood by cutting off Medicaid funding to clinics after a series of "sting" videos asserted the organization was illegally profiting off the of the sale of aborted fetal tissue. (Planned Parenthood has denied the claim that it is profiting from donation programs, and says reimbursement fees clinics receive for storage and staffing costs are legal.)
However, Thompson issued a preliminary junction last month that halted the state's move to cancel its Planned Parenthood Medicaid contract after the Planned Parenthood Southeast sued the state over the defund attempt.
Other states have faced their own legal obstacles in attempting to defund the healthcare organization. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has warned states that blocking Planned Parenthood's Medicaid funding may not be legal.
Source
|
On December 01 2015 07:25 Plansix wrote: Trump is the exception to Godwin's law in almost every way, with the exception that he wouldn't' have the power to dissolve congress if elected. But I am 100% sure he would try to inform the public that he could and convince them it was a good idea. Congress approval rating is 11% with 86% disapproval in Nov 2015 Gallup poll. It would not be hard for someone to make a case that congress should be temporarily suspended under Marshal Law, especially if there is an incident like 9/11 or a Reichstag Fire. Then all you need to do is continue Marshall Law indefinitely.
It's part of what makes a Trump presidency scary. The path to fascism isn't nearly as difficult as I'd like and he has the ego to go that route. I don't actually think that Trump is purposely evil, but the easy comparisons to Hitler are certainly concerning. I think Trump wants to make America great (and be the guy credited for doing it), but I also think he is misinformed and doesn't understand the consequences of his proposals.
I'd also suspect that Hitler wanted to make Germany great and never thought of himself as evil. He saw certain groups of people (mostly Jews, but also gypsies, communists, and others) as a problem that was holding Germany back. So he tried a few different solutions (deportation, ghettos) before eventually resorting to genocide, "the final solution".
We should be careful of painting Hitler as a caricature of himself who was pure evil incarnate, otherwise we lose what he really was. He was a complicated man with a lot of prejudices, a broken moral compass, and a big ego. If we only label him as evil, we will never learn from the history and how a population of people could allow him to come to power. The population of Germany in the 1930s would never let "evil" rule them any more than you or I would. However, they might let a charismatic speaker who addressed their concerns and promised to solve their problems lead them.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
|
On December 01 2015 05:45 Plansix wrote: 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.
This is a MASSIVE problem, and not just with BLM or PP, across the board.
Basically everyone with internet access has the nuclear option at their fingertips for ruining people's lives and spreading misinformation. Its a power that really no one on earth is equipped to have, but everyone has so shit gets scary. Some people know they can cause devastation and use it for evil, I think some people do it out of sheer ignorance, they don't know that they've got a more powerful tool than anyone in human history has ever had so their intentions aren't necessarily bad.
Its so easy to call someone/something/some movement racist, bigoted, evil, or whatever with zero evidence and once you throw that out there a certain large percentage of people are just going to take that at face value based on nothing at all. Now that person or organization has to prove they're not evil, they must supply evidence to the contrary to fight back that tide. It's like everyone has the power to start a McCarthy Hearing, good luck ever cleaning your image up entirely after that shit, its impossible. Its easy to throw out big time accusations with zero evidence and for those accusations to reach across the world, no matter how unfounded in reality.
Got photoshop, microsoft movie maker, some friends on facebook or twitter and an axe to grind? It's never been easier to make someone's life more miserable! Things can get really scary out there and I honestly don't have an answer for it other than hoping people eventually realize they've got the nuclear option and they need to be more careful with it.
|
On December 01 2015 08:41 OuchyDathurts wrote: Got photoshop, microsoft movie maker, some friends on facebook or twitter and an axe to grind? It's never been easier to make someone's life more miserable! Things can get really scary out there and I honestly don't have an answer for it other than hoping people eventually realize they've got the nuclear option and they need to be more careful with it.
There actually is another solution, apply the law and some reasonable social standards on the internet and take the big companies into responsibility. I mean you can't post an exposed nipple on facebook without getting scrutinized but dressing up as a Wehrmacht soldier chanting the KKK manifesto is apparently okay. It's no wonder that everything goes to shit on the internet.
I remember Hugh Dancy telling that they couldn't air an episode of Hannibal because of of exposed buttcracks on television. The solution was to cover the naked boodies in blood! It's no wonder that this combination of sexual oppression and violence turns people into nutjobs, maybe rearranging cultural values is in order.
|
On December 01 2015 08:46 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 08:41 OuchyDathurts wrote: Got photoshop, microsoft movie maker, some friends on facebook or twitter and an axe to grind? It's never been easier to make someone's life more miserable! Things can get really scary out there and I honestly don't have an answer for it other than hoping people eventually realize they've got the nuclear option and they need to be more careful with it. There actually is another solution, apply the law and some reasonable social standards on the internet and take the big companies into responsibility. I mean you can't post an exposed nipple on facebook without getting scrutinized but dressed up as a Wehrmacht soldier chanting the KKK manifesto is apparently okay. It's no wonder that everything goes to shit on the internet.
You're never going to get me to be for taking away someone's free speech is the thing. People are way too knee jerky and quick to label stuff now days. Its way too easy to whip people up into a blood rage where the mob then looks to ruin someone's livelihood and shit, everything is taken to DEFCON 1 instantly. I think people on both sides push for fascism and I don't want that.
The thing is people were never meant to wield this kind of power, and it can be a great thing that can topple oppressive governments, or it can ruin potentially innocent lives. It was one thing when someone could go to the town square and shout that someone was evil, racist, abusive, awful, a rapist, etc. But now you can shout into a megaphone that reaches everywhere in the world. So your speech has never been more powerful, but freedom of it might be the thing in life I feel most strongly about.
I guess the solution is people being more rational, more even handed, more informed before making decisions and saying or spreading information. But I won't hold my breath on that one. The problem is its the smartest people who use the most discretion while complete idiots will just spread BS instantly without thinking twice.
|
United States40768 Posts
On December 01 2015 08:11 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 07:25 Plansix wrote: Trump is the exception to Godwin's law in almost every way, with the exception that he wouldn't' have the power to dissolve congress if elected. But I am 100% sure he would try to inform the public that he could and convince them it was a good idea. Congress approval rating is 11% with 86% disapproval in Nov 2015 Gallup poll. It would not be hard for someone to make a case that congress should be temporarily suspended under Marshal Law, especially if there is an incident like 9/11 or a Reichstag Fire. Then all you need to do is continue Marshall Law indefinitely. Who exactly is Marshall Law?
I cross referenced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_(surname) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_(name) but he wasn't in there.
Are you sure you didn't mean marital law, the laws governing marriage? Or perhaps maritime law, the laws governing ships at sea?
Edit, my bad, found him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Law_(Tekken)
I think it's unlikely that Trump will declare him though.
|
Kwark shaming is to be done in the public square.
|
|
United States40768 Posts
On December 01 2015 09:37 IgnE wrote: Kwark shaming is to be done in the public square. It's a doggy dog world for all intensive porpoises.
|
On December 01 2015 08:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 08:11 RenSC2 wrote:On December 01 2015 07:25 Plansix wrote: Trump is the exception to Godwin's law in almost every way, with the exception that he wouldn't' have the power to dissolve congress if elected. But I am 100% sure he would try to inform the public that he could and convince them it was a good idea. Congress approval rating is 11% with 86% disapproval in Nov 2015 Gallup poll. It would not be hard for someone to make a case that congress should be temporarily suspended under Marshal Law, especially if there is an incident like 9/11 or a Reichstag Fire. Then all you need to do is continue Marshall Law indefinitely. Who exactly is Marshall Law? I cross referenced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_(surname) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_(name) but he wasn't in there. Are you sure you didn't mean marital law, the laws governing marriage? Or perhaps maritime law, the laws governing ships at sea? Edit, my bad, found him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Law_(Tekken)I think it's unlikely that Trump will declare him though. Oh yay, edgelord KwarK came to save the day. Bringing his brand of idiocy across the pond, with nonsensical arguments of which we're so fond. Making a homonym mistake is such a crime, but effort to correct it I don't have that much time.
Martial Law not Marshall Law. Got it.
I also misused some commas in this post if you'd like to correct that too.
|
When half the people in a given thread are probably typing on their phones, jumping on an autocorrect mistake has to be the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel strategy for discrediting a post.
|
United States40768 Posts
Sorry to be the baron of bad news but I don't need to do or say anything for a post explaining how Trump will disband Congress and declare a 1000 year Reich to be dumb. Reasons why that isn't going to happen are a diamond dozen.
However I do think those homonym substitutions are great. Please continue to use Marshall Law.
Also I didn't come across the pond. I'm an ex-patriot now. Living in America.
Edit: Anyone considering googling Marshall Law will not be disappointed. There are a lot of Texans posting online about Jade Helm and they have some opinions regarding Obozo's plans for a coup.
|
|
|
|