***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[IATT]

 

[Nike Jordan]

Hope Putin sends one of his agents to poison Jeanie

 

[IATT]

dwalk31

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

She's an embarrassment to my state.

Can’t decide if I like this better in or out of character.

 

[cedric ceballos]

Jeanine Pirro stays looking drunk. I’m pretty certain she’s an alcoholic.

Or as our dapper former El Presidente would say. A very nasty lady.

 

[elpablo21]

Hunter Biden

 

[IATT]

I support exceptions for medical reasons, incest, rape, etc.

So I don’t think we disagree on this issue.

you still in Tennesse?

 

[gry60]

I gave a lot of people way too much credit. I thought their fealty to trump would disappear once he was out of office. The man knows nothing about anything, and came over from a reality show to take over a major political party that’s filled with Ivy League educated, life long politicians. I feel like I’m missing something really important that would make this make sense.

Just because someone is educated doesn't mean that they're not an authoritarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum

The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.[6][7] One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained: "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp".[8]

Right-wingers have always loved absolute kings and dictators because they believe that society is best structured with a clear and definite hierarchy where some decide and others execute. Trump is the closest Americans has ever been to the archetype of the modern authoritarian leader, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that college-educated folks who subscribe to the same vision of what society ought to be have flocked to him.

 

[frink85]

Just because someone is educated doesn't mean that they're not an authoritarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum



Right-wingers have always loved absolute kings and dictators because they believe that society is best structured with a clear and definite hierarchy where some decide and others execute. Trump is the closest Americans has ever been to the archetype of the modern authoritarian leader, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that college-educated folks who subscribe to the same vision of what society ought to be have flocked to him.

Trump still has the eyes and ears of the idiot masses, it's smart/strategic for them to continue to latch on to his nuts and retain their backing/power. Then they do whatever they want in the background or even in plain sight to the cheers of said idiots. Maintain the power/control and keep the peasants in check.

 

[IATT]

 

[Zainjal26]

 

[RustyShackleford]

 

[aepps20]

Can’t decide if I like this better in or out of character.

LFG

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[yobyellav]

Just because someone is educated doesn't mean that they're not an authoritarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum



Right-wingers have always loved absolute kings and dictators because they believe that society is best structured with a clear and definite hierarchy where some decide and others execute. Trump is the closest Americans has ever been to the archetype of the modern authoritarian leader, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that college-educated folks who subscribe to the same vision of what society ought to be havocked to him.

I get this. Them handing over their party to an idiot is what gets me. I'm sure trump is an ivy leaguer too, but I'd put my middle of the road sec education up against him any day. The guy knows nothing. He always has a plan that he can't reveal just yet and he fails at everything. His most profitable business venture was becoming potus; and that **** ended with him trying to overthrow the govt.

 

[RustyShackleford]

humans for a milenia, **** outside in public but we don't do that anymore either.

there are a lot of terrible things that humans are naturally prone to,
we come up with laws, culture, norms ect to curb behavior that's bad for socitey..

Dude, I get the point you are trying to make here about things changing, but technological and engineering advancements made human beings start ****ting inside.

Nothing of the sort is gonna help ease the frictions we see now.

I agree with the advancement of discourse but coming up with new norms is messy work.

Like Jamelle Bouie mentioned, there are a lot of important unanswered questions from these self-proclaimed anti-censorship types who never give a good answer for and avoid answering.

Look in this discussion how many assumptions you want me to buy into, how I have to connect censorship with dissent with a slippery slope argument.

I feel oftentimes that...

a) Actual more interesting and important examples of people piling on and censorship get pushed to the background for these constant "leftist are attacking me" winning from privileged people.

b) Critics have not worked out their framework for better discourse anywhere near as much as they think. And they use that grey area to here advantage to attack progressive people/views/actions they don't like.

c) Critics never offer a plan to ensure some sort of social progress in discourse. Noah Smith had an article about supposed "wokeness" where he points out that these frictions are not new. And really "woke/cancel culture" arguments we see now are about respect redistribution. It always had been. So if we celebrate that the country is more tolerant in some way from 40, 30, 20, 10 years ago, how do you ensure that continues. Because that progress was messy and there were disagreements along the way.

This same dude Bill Maher, has had multiple people on his show including Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro to complain about students protesting speakers. One of the cited examples was calling Charles Murray a racist. So allowing Charles Murray to move about the country unfettered to profit by peddling race theory without pushback is also a violation of proper free speech etiquette.

There is a line. But I feel there isn't much thought on how things should work beyond the entire left agreeing their critics are right. It is clear this is not simply about the acknowledgment of an issue. And beyond having an issue with censorship. And everyone needs to agree to this even though these same kind of arguments have been had before and the progressive side's argument won (the 90s PC wars)

progressives should embrace a culture of tolerance and good faith open debate,
and should strongly discourage attempts to stifle dissent, resist the urge to turn every dispute or trait into and identity and should reject excessive speech as harm arguments.

we are human, and we do fail but that should be the goal.

I feel a good majority of them do so.

But dissent goes both ways. People get upset. I have taught college classes, there is no reason I should expect kids in marginalized groups to nod and smile along and privileged groups get their hot takes off. You have to have some level of order and respect, but anger is a fair reaction. I feel it is a net positive for people to be allowed to get mad at some things.

Even here, you want progressives to buy into an idea that is openly debated. Shouldn't there also be debate about that? Because I think there are situations where speech is harmful. So who gets to decide what is excessive? The critics of the progressives? Many of which have been proven wrong numerous times.

Like if people celebrate how more respecting some parts of society have become toward marginalized groups. How do we ensure that continues. It just didn't happen.

You are throwing out these goals that sound great but given your other post on the issue I get the sense that this just reads like "I want progressives to admit I'm right". It is clearly not just about censorship because critics object to how progressive dissent all the time, even in the absence of censorship, is brought up. Assumptions about the other side over the simplest of things too.

I feel these self-proclaimed free speech defenders are way more reactionary than they realize.

Even worse, I have to point out that these critics along with centrist liberals ASK PROGRESSIVE TO SELF CENSOR ALL THE TIME. So not only do I think critics want to be the referees to discourse, they want exempts from their state principles too. I don't know why people don't see that there would be pushback to this. How in the face of conservatives being a million times worse on speech, people won't see this as unilateral disarmament.

Working out what is good or bad, is a hard and messy process. Critics often times want to discuss to behind with everyone admitting their right (which is the same thing they complain about others making them do)

Bouie is reasonable, I may disagree with him on stuff, but he generally argues in good faith.
but quoted in that Bouie tweet thread is NHJ tweet is an clearly a total mischaracterization.

most of the arguments Ive seen about Camp, devolve into whataboutism, "xyz stuff is worse so shut up "
or she wrote for reason so she's a conservative, and therefore is wrong and bad.
or she's did work for FIRE, so there for she's a Koch Brothers plant. and wrong and bad
or you got an op ed therefore no one is self censoring , just a silly girl imagining things.

NHJ tweet is a bit uncharitable to Camp but I don't think it is a total mischaracterization. Her tweets don't attack her personally or call her a racist or venture into any of the things you listed. And again, she is not being censored.

It seems she is touching on a specific example from her class Camp brought up. When she said something, her classmates got upset and shifted seats and in her assessment, in her assessment, everyone got upset with the exchange. I'm sorry but I am not that sympathetic to Camp here either. First, we only have Camp's take on the situation and given what I have read from her (include her articles in her college paper), she comes off as a bit self-serving.

Her peers thought she was full of it and didn't rock with her. I think it is a bit naive to demand difficult conversation happens, then act surprised if people get pissed off. She clearly was not censored in that instance.

This is the passage Jones seems to be referring to...

When a class discussion goes poorly for me, I can tell. During a feminist theory class in my sophomore year, I said that non-Indian women can criticize suttee, a historical practice of ritual suicide by Indian widows. This idea seems acceptable for academic discussion, but to many of my classmates, it was objectionable.

The room felt tense. I saw people shift in their seats. Someone got angry, and then everyone seemed to get angry. After the professor tried to move the discussion along, I still felt uneasy. I became a little less likely to speak up again and a little less trusting of my own thoughts.

I was shaken, but also determined to not silence myself. Still, the disdain of my fellow students stuck with me. I was a welcome member of the group — and then I wasn’t.

A white girl felt unwelcomed because she feels peers got upset with what she said. This read like wanting to be coddled to some degree. This is literally a white college kid saying taking issue with people getting angry at her. Furthermore, she can't read minds. Maybe some people in the room just wanted to girl high on her own supply to not try to spark another heated convo. But nah, this is presented like they just can't handle dissent.

She writes for her school's paper, she fancies herself a free speech warrior. She even points out that the school changed a policy because of her. it is not just about the Op-Ed, where she is complaining about censorship, at UVA people can observe she is not being censored. the NYT Op-Ed is just the cherry on top.

I remember subbing for an Economics of Discrimination class on the night and one student one to get off a "black people a shown to be statistically" more violent/lazy. I could see the reaction from other students and it was not positive. I had to keep order but I felt that it was fair to allow other students to make that student know they had a serious problem with what he said, and make him feel uncomfortable. He tried to double down but of course, his argument ran out of stem and he decided to shut up. I don't think I or anyone else has to feel bad for the treatment he got.

There needs to be space for there to be angry blowback top somethings. And while I wouldn't call her a plant, I think these free speech advocates are in some way being usual idiots for the right too. You see it already, hell Maher is allowing himself to be one because he is so reactionary. The right has already become skilled at using certain rhetoric to advocate tolerance for dog whistles.

one of the co-hosts left vox years ago as a writer and is still hosting.
so I doubt it's about wanting to feature their employees.

i have no idea if they did him dirty, but I don't see why your interpretation of the events is more valid than mine.
we are just guessing,

I brought him up in a different context first. About him bemoaning the social pressure that brings about changes he celebrates.

You in response brought up him being fired from Weeds. And I responded to that

So if we just guessing, fine, but you are the one that started guessing on this weeds situation as some sort of data point to respond back on another point I made later in my post, that didn't refer to his situation at Vox at all.

-You can respond, of not. I feel I have said all I need to say in this instance.

 

[gry60]

The guy knows nothing. He always has a plan that he can't reveal just yet and he fails at everything.

Them handing over their party to an idiot is what gets me.

Trump echoes the prejudices held by the majority of voters on the right at a visceral, emotional level. People on the right still line up in freezing weather to hear him speak.

The leadership needs to stay in power by all means, and handing over the reins of the party to Trump is one step above straight up cheating (which is what they've been trying to do ever since the majority of the electorate has realized that the GOP has nothing going for them policy-wise).

 

[Methodical Management]

It’s weird to me that, in a conflict between progressive Twitter users and wealthy old White celebrities who shout racist slurs through corporate megaphones to reach massive audiences, the Twitter users are somehow cast as “the elite.”

There’s more than a tinge of anti-intellectualism in all of this.


Speaking of:

Trump Is Now Talking About Critical Race Theory Like It’s a Holy War

Trump told rally attendees that conservatives must “lay down their very lives to defend their country”—from critical race theory.

www.vice.com

One suspects that work is about to get busy again.

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

dwalk31 this near you?

 

[IATT]