***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[gry60]

imo This only make sense in like between bong rips in a freshman dorm thought experiment vacuum.

I suppose the whole french government must be on something, considering that they have incorporated the logic of monitoring religious sermons into their fight against Islamic extremism.

I also suppose that UN investigators were on something when they cited Radio Mille Collines as an important tool in the radicalization of Hutus against Tutsis.

When we hold Facebook responsible for the Rohingya genocide and the ethnic clashes in Ethiopia (and other countries where Facebook and WhatsApp dominate online communication with very little government oversight), it isn't because they are selling weapons; it's because they have failed to regulate speech, ironically in the name of free speech.

When it comes to using speech to radicalize, history shows that the slippery slope argument applies.

in actual practice creating exceptions for principles just lead to them being abused by the most mendiacious people in socitey.

Not all principles are created equal. Some need exemptions to be carved out in order to result in the intended outcome.

It's like saying that because morphine is an answer to pain, we shouldn't regulate its use until it is very clear that the patient is abusing it. In practice, by the time it becomes apparent that the patient is abusing morphine, the addiction has become a greater issue than reducing pain.

By the time people make explicit calls to the kind of violence that is meant to destabilize society, they have become secure in the belief that they can do so with very few repercussions. Censorship becomes meaningless.

this is my point, it's easier to brush ideas you don't like under the umbrella of hate speech to justify their suppression.

It's not about ideas I don't like.
It is about ideas that are true vs those that aren't.

Jordan Peterson is using IQ pseudoscience on college campuses to justify white supremacy, and money and support are pouring in from those who also fund GOP politicians. In fact, we've witnessed plenty of republican politicians use similar justifications to support policies that strip political power from minorities.

Entertaining race pseudoscience is not hate speech, but it is a gateway to hate speech, and the only people who think we shouldn't pay attention and call out those who are willing to cross that threshold probably think that the idea of "peaceful genocide" is a realistic option.

What I'm saying also applies to the teachings of NOI on race, but you don't see them or those who subscribe to those teachings try to take over the Democratic party.

 

[gry60]

Good stuff

Indeed.

However,

What does the law mean if I need an ambulance?​

The new law does not prevent ambulance companies from billing you directly for their services if they travel on roads. It does offer protections against surprise bills from air ambulances.

Expect X-ray ambulances to be a thing soon.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I suppose the whole french government must be on something, considering that they have incorporated the logic of monitoring religious sermons into their fight against Islamic extremism.

yah because government surveilling religious minorities always works out.
let's just bring back the patriot act while we're at it.

I also suppose that UN investigators were on something when they cited Radio Mille Collines as an important tool in the radicalization of Hutus against Tutsis.

When we hold Facebook responsible for the Rohingya genocide and the ethnic clashes in Ethiopia (and other countries where Facebook and WhatsApp dominate online communication with very little government oversight), it isn't because they are selling weapons; it's because they have failed to regulate speech, ironically in the name of free speech.

When it comes to using speech to radicalize, history shows that the slippery slope argument applies.

yes a radio station telling people to go encircle and murder a racial minority is violence.
a book progressives don't like, is not violence.

you just never want to consider that the slippery slope works both ways.

It's not about ideas I don't like.
It is about ideas that are true vs those that aren't.

yah no it's not,
books aren't fact checked, plenty of untrue things written in books, in art ect
controversies aren't being fueled by whether something is true or not.
there aren't even that many things in the culture that can be evaluated like that.

Not all principles are created equal. Some need exemptions to be carved out in order to result in the intended outcome.

It's like saying that because morphine is an answer to pain, we shouldn't regulate its use until it is very clear that the patient is abusing it. In practice, by the time it becomes apparent that the patient is abusing morphine, the addiction has become a greater issue than reducing pain.

this is just another airless thought experiment, that doesn't account for the frailties of human beings

i just disagree fundamentally, so there's no point in going on about this.

 

[IATT]

 

[yobyellav]

Not going your way when you need tips from O.J.

 

[dinyc3st]

Remember Dixie Chicks being “cancelled” from country stations because they were critical of GW Bush?

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[gry60]

yah no it's not,
books aren't fact checked, plenty of untrue things written in books, in art ect
controversies aren't being fueled by whether something is true or not.
there aren't even that many things in the culture that can be evaluated like that.

FBI crime "stats" and law enforcement policies ...

Creationism being considered equivalent to evolution theory ...

Womens ability to perform in "men's jobs" ...

Plenty of examples of cultural norms that can be evaluated on a true/false basis.

this is just another airless thought experiment, that doesn't account for the frailties of human beings

What am I doing that philosophy books are not doing? Aren't they full of analogies and other thought experiments from which their authors derive some of the principles we hold on to?

i just disagree fundamentally, so there's no point in going on about this.

"Stop challenging my beliefs!"

 

[gry60]

The Capitol Rioters Aren’t Like Other Extremists

We analyzed 193 people arrested in connection with the January 6 riot—and found a new kind of American radicalism.

www.theatlantic.com

However, a closer look at the people suspected of taking part in the Capitol riot suggests a different and potentially far more dangerous problem: a new kind of violent mass movement in which more “normal” Trump supporters—middle-class and, in many cases, middle-aged people without obvious ties to the far right—joined with extremists in an attempt to overturn a presidential election.

To understand the events of January 6 and devise solutions to prevent their recurrence, Americans need a fine-grained comprehension of who attacked the Capitol. Understanding the ideology and beliefs of those who commit political violence is important, but so is knowing what kind of people they are and what their lives are like

By these standards, 20 of the Capitol arrestees we studied— one-tenth—can be classified as supporters of gangs, militias, or militia-like groups such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters. The role that such groups played in the riot has attracted considerable news coverage. But 89 percent of the arrestees have no apparent affiliation with any known militant organization.

Third, the demographic profile of the suspected Capitol rioters is different from that of past right-wing extremists. The average age of the arrestees we studied is 40. Two-thirds are 35 or older, and 40 percent are business owners or hold white-collar jobs. Unlike the stereotypical extremist, many of the alleged participants in the Capitol riot have a lot to lose. They work as CEOs, shop owners, doctors, lawyers, IT specialists, and accountants. Strikingly, court documents indicate that only 9 percent are unemployed. Of the earlier far-right-extremist suspects we studied, 61 percent were under 35, 25 percent were unemployed, and almost none worked in white-collar occupations.

Fourth, most of the insurrectionists do not come from deep-red strongholds. People familiar with America’s political geography might imagine the Capitol rioters as having marinated in places where they are unlikely to encounter anyone from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Yet of those arrested for their role in the Capitol riot, more than half came from counties that Biden won; one-sixth came from counties that Trump won with less than 60 percent of the vote.

What’s clear is that the Capitol riot revealed a new force in American politics—not merely a mix of right-wing organizations, but a broader mass political movement that has violence at its core and draws strength even from places where Trump supporters are in the minority. Preventing further violence from this movement will require a deeper understanding of its activities and participants, and the two of us do not claim to know which political tactics might ultimately prove helpful. But Americans who believe in democratic norms should be wary of pat solutions. Some of the standard methods of countering violent extremism—such as promoting employment or waiting patiently for participants to mellow with age—probably won’t mollify middle-aged, middle-class insurrectionists. And simply targeting better-established far-right organizations will not prevent people like the Capitol rioters from trying to exercise power by force.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

FBI crime "stats" and law enforcement policies ...

Creationism being considered equivalent to evolution theory ...

Womens ability to perform in "men's jobs" ...

Plenty of examples of cultural norms that can be evaluated on a true/false basis.

I didn't say subjects like that don't exist, I said it's not what's primarily fueling left censorship.

The subjects that becomes a national firestorms are usually about values,
not about some dry fact question that can be evaluated on a true or false binary.
people aren't mad a stand up comedians'', or films or whatever cultural property progressives deem worthy for suppression because they aren't "true"

What am I doing that philosophy books are not doing? Aren't they full of analogies and other thought experiments from which their authors derive some of the principles we hold on to?

there's a reason there we aren't ruled by philosopher kings.
neat philosophical analogies don't capture the hard realities of human beings.

"Stop challenging my beliefs!"

we continue to go round and round on this if you want to.

You can bring up another genocide or another fictional thought experiment and continue to sidestep the point im making.

you seem to think describing some genocide and drawing some connection to media
however tortured makes progressive censorship a just and good thing.

I do not, I don't think it was convincing when cultural conservatives made these arguments in the early 2000 and I don't think it's convincing when leftists do it.

so we can go on and on about this but ill just be repeating myself.

 

[Based Jesus]

Right wingers in America are actively writing and passing laws to ban critique of the things they hold dear, like slavery, and we're in here talking about fictional progressive censorship because of some burned books in Quebec.

What a marvelous way to waste people's time and be dismissive of their concerns.

 

[gry60]

The subjects that becomes a national firestorms are usually about values,
not about some dry fact question that can be evaluated on a true or false binary.

Funny how in order to make your point, you need to decouple values from the "facts" that support (or don't support) those values.

That's why people tend to say you discuss in bad faith.

neat philosophical analogies don't capture the hard realities of human beings.

Philosophical analogies are the equivalent of scientific models in that a number of variables have to be ignored to study a phenomenon, so it's funny to see you say what you said after you dismissed the need to examine the practical applications of the free speech principle and its limits.

I've not sidestepped your point about progressive hypocrisy when it comes to censorship. I've tried adding the nuance that you keep ignoring, and we're unfortunately beating a dead horse here.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Funny how in order to make your point, you need to decouple values from the "facts" that support (or don't support) those values.

That's why people tend to say you discuss in bad faith.

"Bad faith" aka "I don't agree with you so you are actually a bad person"

Philosophical analogies are the equivalent of scientific models in that a number of variables have to be ignored to study a phenomenon, so it's funny to see you say what you said after you dismissed the need to examine the practical applications of the free speech principle and its limits.

I've not sidestepped your point about progressive hypocrisy when it comes to censorship. I've tried adding the nuance that you keep ignoring, and we're unfortunately beating a dead horse here.

Ah yes fatally tenuous genocide references,

"well what about the holocaust?!"
always adds nuance to a discussion.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I see my decision not to engage regarding this topic was clearly the right choice

 

[gry60]

Trump’s ban on Chinese drones is making fighting wildfires harder, says leaked memo

Trump’s war against Chinese tech hurts at home

www.theverge.com

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Right wingers in America are actively writing and passing laws to ban critique of the things they hold dear, like slavery, and we're in here talking about fictional progressive censorship because of some burned books in Quebec.

What a marvelous way to waste people's time and be dismissive of their concerns.

aka there is no such thing as reasonable criticism of the left because na na boo boo conservatives are worse.

got it.

 

[Based Jesus]

As always, you're right, that's exactly what I said

 

[gry60]

"Bad faith" aka "I don't agree with you so you are actually a bad person"







Ah yes fatally tenuous genocide references,

"well what about the holocaust?!"
always adds nuance to a discussion.

I'm not calling you a bad person.

I'm just saying, there's no point in having a discussion if you summarily dismiss my all arguments on the basis that they are thought experiments.

When you open "The Wealth of Nations" or "The Republic" or "The Art of War," all you read is thought experiments from which conclusions about how society should be organized are drawn. Those books are not statistical references, but they influence our (and our leaders') understanding of the world.

If you're not willing to engage in the same process, then there's no point in continuing, and you said it yourself.

 

[RustyShackleford]

"Bad faith" aka "I don't agree with you so you are actually a bad person"

aka there is no such thing as reasonable criticism of the left because na na boo boo conservatives are worse.

got it.

Fair warning, you are undermining some of your other arguments/complaints by posting stuff like this

Can't play the "what is not exactly what I said" card if you are making uncharitable interruptions of other people's words

Can't complain about supposed trolling toward you when you want to jab back like this.

And, you are kinda proving people's criticisms about you

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I'm not calling you a bad person.

I'm just saying, there's no point in having a discussion if you summarily dismiss my all arguments on the basis that they are thought experiments.

When you open "The Wealth of Nations" or "The Republic" or "The Art of War," all you read is thought experiments from which conclusions about how society should be organized are drawn. Those books are not statistical references, but they influence our (and our leaders') understanding of the world.

If you're not willing to engage in the same process, then there's no point in continuing, and you said it yourself.

your thought experiments aren't dispositive of anything im saying.
as I said, progressives will justify censorship as long as they can claim it is in the name or protecting people.

Yes you can imagine a scenario where speech can be used to stifle speech. yes and so?
can you recall an episode in history where speech was literally violence, yes and so??

doesn't change the point that hate speech/claims of harm if not narrowly defined can also be abused and is abused to stifle speech.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Fair warning, you are undermining some of your other arguments/complaints by posting stuff like this

Can't play the "what is not exactly what I said" card if you are making uncharitable interruptions of other people's words

Can't complain about supposed trolling toward you when you want to jab back like this.

And, you are kinda proving people's criticisms about you

I actually don't think it's uncharitable.
I think that's plainly the logic of Based Jesus claim
if it isn't I think based jesus should clarify.

Because "Right wingers in America are actively writing and passing laws to ban critique of the things they hold dear, like slavery"

it means "fictional" criticisms of left wing people on the same subject

are a "waste of time" and is "dismissive of their concerns."


I think literally EVERYTHING that conservatives do is worse than liberals.
literally just about every topic, I can't think of a single issue where I think
"wow the conservative movement in america really is owning the libs"

so at least as I understand it, under based jesus formulation,
for me, criticizing the left on any topic is "a waste of time".

 

[RustyShackleford]

I actually don't think it's uncharitable.
I think that's plainly the logic of Based Jesus claim
if it isn't I think based jesus should clarify.

Because "Right wingers in America are actively writing and passing laws to ban critique of the things they hold dear, like slavery"

it means "fictional" criticisms of left wing people on the same subject

are a "waste of time" and is "dismissive of their concerns."


I think literally EVERYTHING that conservatives do is worse than liberals.
literally just about every topic, I can't think of a single issue where I think
"wow the conservative movement in america really is owning the libs"

so at least as I understand it, under based jesus formulation,
for me, criticizing the left on any topic is "a waste of time".

Yah I don't agree

The thing that sparked this conversation was about a very bad trend within the mainstream conservative movement. You quickly turned it into a discussion about supposed progressive (again not all, just some) own issues.

The discussion about the more pressing and more dangerous trend is lost.

Yet seemingly, you think the main issue one the discussion is that they are somehow living in denial about the thing you are so clearly right about

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Yah I don't agree

The thing that sparked this conversation was about a very bad trend within the mainstream conservative movement. You quickly turned it into a discussion about supposed progressive (again not all, just some) own issues

The discussion about the more pressing and more dangerous trend is lost.

Yet seemingly, you think the main issue one the discussion is that they are somehow living in denial about the thing you are so clearly right about

I made a joke that essentially said
"good to see liberals back on the side of free expression"

which I mean sincerely, I like it when liberals are opposing censorship and standing up for free expression the only criticism was I wish they were more consistent about it.
I don't even think you disagree all that much with point I made?


Now do I think it's the main issue
or did a bunch of people attack me for making a pretty innocuous point and then i responded?

 

[Cashflow]