|
It's still here:  There's an upper limit as to how many smileys you can put in a post, and the quote probably was that same limit.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
I don't even remember how on got on the MoveOn.org mailing list, but I got some wonderful email today:MoveOn.org email posted:Reformers just launched the Super PAC to end all Super PACs!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
^^^  R. Mute posted:I don't care enough about america to put a lot of thought into this, but aren't you basically assuming a) politicians feel the emotion known as shame b) people give a poo poo either way. Do I have to remind you that in your last presidential election, the losing party still got 47-something percent of the votes and Romney actually had that whole 47% video spread all over the news. People don't care. Any system shouldn't involve putting faith in people - they should work despite people being horrible. The problem isn't so much people giving (or not giving) a poo poo, but more the fact that people do not have the time to look at and evaluate* all of the information that would be revealed through increased transparency. Even if everyone were perfectly rational, there is simply too much stuff out there for people to go through all of the relevant information and have said information guide their actions. It's the same problem that would exist in a theoretical ideal libertarian society, where people wouldn't be able to go through all the information about every product/service available. The same thing would apply to something as complex as politics and government policy. I guess it wouldn't hurt, but increased transparency and access to information isn't going to fix any major problems. Not that I can what exactly would work; I just know that increased transparency wouldn't. *Assuming they even have the expertise to understand what they're looking at Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
I think DV's point is that Citizens United isn't what causes the problems of money in Politics, but that given it the best we can do is push for transparency, since actual restrictions to money in politics would at this point require a constitutional amendment to fix. which fair enough, but I wholly disagree with the idea that money can be considered equivalent to speech, no matter what the SCOTUS says e: vvvvvv pretty much yeah Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
The only solution is to vote Democratic until the majority responsible for Citizens United dies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I don't even remember how on got on the MoveOn.org mailing list, but I got some wonderful email today: So they're just gonna keep pretending that MayDay, despite the capitalization, isn't a references to a filthy socialist holiday (that as good Americans they of course want no part of).
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The problem isn't so much people giving (or not giving) a poo poo, but more the fact that people do not have the time to look at and evaluate* all of the information that would be revealed through increased transparency. Even if everyone were perfectly rational, there is simply too much stuff out there for people to go through all of the relevant information and have said information guide their actions. It's the same problem that would exist in a theoretical ideal libertarian society, where people wouldn't be able to go through all the information about every product/service available. The same thing would apply to something as complex as politics and government policy. Samurai Quack posted:I think DV's point is that Citizens United isn't what causes the problems of money in Politics, but that given it the best we can do is push for transparency, since actual restrictions to money in politics would at this point require a constitutional amendment to fix. which fair enough, but I wholly disagree with the idea that money can be considered equivalent to speech, no matter what the SCOTUS says Ytlaya, to the extent that you say that people can't evaluate all the relevant information, you're identifying a problem with democratic government, not with political spending. To the extent that something is "done about" that problem, it will entail restricting the ability of some people to speak, or removing voting power from the people who are subject to that speech. I do think that campaign expenditures and PAC actions count as political speech, and that CU was correctly decided. My point is that the harm caused by PACs is because current law enables expenditures of these sorts to be anonymous and unaccountable. That's the actual problem-not the amount of speech, but its abuse. Right now there is no way for anyone, including the press, to identify the sources of funding for PAC speech, if the organization doesn't want them to. In practice, this allows organizations to lie during the campaign and pay fees or disassemble themselves afterward. There is certainly Both of you are underestimating the ability of the press and political mechanism to evaluate and publicize abuses of political speech, and the ability of the public to respond to such revelations. If we need to limit the "amount" of speech different actors have in this system, reducing the discourse rather than making it open, we are effectively acknowledging the fundamental failure of a liberal democratic system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Brian Boyko: Vanguard of the New Sincerity An idea I respect but, y'know, bronies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Ytlaya, to the extent that you say that people can't evaluate all the relevant information, you're identifying a problem with democratic government, not with political spending. To the extent that something is "done about" that problem, it will entail restricting the ability of some people to speak, or removing voting power from the people who are subject to that speech. Money is not speech. By allowing it to act as such without restrictions you are allowing those who control the most resources to drown out the voice of all those who control less than the elite, which means no candidate will ever represent a cause that opposes those elites. You are betraying your America-centric perspective here, since all over the world democracies have restrictions on campaign funding and expenditures without the entirety of liberal democracy hadn't been cast off as a failure because of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:Money is not speech. Of course it's not, but the talking point obscures the underlying arguments. Making it illegal to pay for a newspaper or a movie would obviously be unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Of course it's not, but the talking point obscures the underlying arguments. Making it illegal to pay for a newspaper or a movie would obviously be unconstitutional. Yes but there are already laws on the books that dictate acceptable content, why can't private adverts smearing one politician or another that don't originate from the a political campaign be barred under a regulation controling truth in advertising and the like? Freedom of speech is already curtailed in certain circumstances, is it really impossible to extend those circumstances to political attack ads? e: Especially ones that lie in the guise of speculation? Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:It's still here: Clicked on the  link last page, would not click againSamurai Quack posted:Money is not speech. By allowing it to act as such without restrictions you are allowing those who control the most resources to drown out the voice of all those who control less than the elite, which means no candidate will ever represent a cause that opposes those elites.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:Yes but there are already laws on the books that dictate acceptable content, why can't private adverts smearing one politician or another that don't originate from the a political campaign be barred under a regulation controling truth in advertising and the like? Freedom of speech is already curtailed in certain circumstances, is it really impossible to extend those circumstances to political attack ads? e: Especially ones that lie in the guise of speculation? Because the right to criticize the government is at the very center of what freedom of speech protects. I'm not really sure what "other laws" you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:Yes but there are already laws on the books that dictate acceptable content, why can't private adverts smearing one politician or another that don't originate from the a political campaign be barred under a regulation controling truth in advertising and the like? Freedom of speech is already curtailed in certain circumstances, is it really impossible to extend those circumstances to political attack ads? It's fine to regulate political speech under truth in advertising, to the extent it applies(although the problem of enforcement is very, very fraught). The problem is that the regs in question were source, timing and quantity-dependent, and were found to both have a chilling effect and raise potential issues of uneven application (it wasn't clear why all media companies weren't being fined for their editorials, for example). cheese posted:Money being speech is like one of those 3 packs of perfectly folded underwear. Once you open it, there is no way to get it all back in without ripping the packaging to shreds. That's actually a really good metaphor, even if it's also really goony.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Because the right to criticize the government is at the very center of what freedom of speech protects. I'm not really sure what "other laws" you're talking about. How do you feel about the deportation of Emma Goldman?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Because the right to criticize the government is at the very center of what freedom of speech protects. I'm not really sure what "other laws" you're talking about. FCC broadcast regulations and truth in advertising regulations. It just seems to me that the Democratic process is somewhat undermined by the ability of private entities to fund shell groups which can then blatantly lie about things like 'death panels' and saturate the airwaves and media outlets with them. is there a point where freedom of speech is protecting the right to distort and mislead more than it is protecting the ability to criticize the government?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:FCC broadcast regulations and truth in advertising regulations. Notice how you need shell groups in there for this to be effective- that's why I keep harping on transparency regs. These strategies don't work if funding sources are identifiable-quantity of speech alone isn't enough to be persuasive. If you approach this set of actors from another direction, you wind up with someone with partisan affiliations making the call on which particular messages or speakers are invalid. That becomes a problem very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The only solution is to vote Democratic until the majority responsible for Citizens United dies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:Yes but there are already laws on the books that dictate acceptable content, why can't private adverts smearing one politician or another that don't originate from the a political campaign be barred under a regulation controling truth in advertising and the like? Freedom of speech is already curtailed in certain circumstances, is it really impossible to extend those circumstances to political attack ads? e: Especially ones that lie in the guise of speculation? The thing is that "raises taxes when needed" is both true and also used as an attack ad slur. And so on. Very few attack ads actually resort to making poo poo up wholesale; even Swift Boat Vets cannily kept just within the boundary of plausible deniability. Discendo Vox posted:The problem is that the regs in question were source, timing and quantity-dependent, and were found to both have a chilling effect and raise potential issues of uneven application (it wasn't clear why all media companies weren't being fined for their editorials, for example). This is really quite major. Media has been clearly pushing their own supported views for centuries, and there's never been a real way to restrict it. Samurai Quack posted:FCC broadcast regulations and truth in advertising regulations. Regulations that only apply to a minority of media don't account for much (Fox News definitely isn't covered) and "advertising regulations" can't really change anything either. Discendo Vox posted:Notice how you need shell groups in there for this to be effective- that's why I keep harping on transparency regs. And pre-CU we had a ton more shell groups to skirt campaign laws, because each $100 Delaware corp had its own separate limits..
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The thing is that "raises taxes when needed" is both true and also used as an attack ad slur. And so on. Very few attack ads actually resort to making poo poo up wholesale; even Swift Boat Vets cannily kept just within the boundary of plausible deniability. Yeah the more I think about it the more I realize trying to fight this side of the battle is the losing proposition when gerrymandering does far more to give dis-proportionate power to the media blitz than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
McDowell posted:How do you feel about the deportation of Emma Goldman? Against it. Samurai Quack posted:FCC broadcast regulations and truth in advertising regulations. FCC regulations are all based in the fact that the airwaves are a limited resource and tragedy of the commons needs to be avoided. That said I think content-based FCC rules should be repealed. Truth in advertising laws regulate commercial speech about your own product. Those are easy to enforce. Political speech, on the other hand, is much more gray. The example you brought up of death panels actually has a kernel of truth. It was hyperbolized to an absurd extent, but that's standard for political ads. Another example: Obama seriously stretched the truth when he commented on CU at his SOTU after it. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v3/13-193_pet_amcu_cato-pjo.authcheckdam.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Ok, which one of you dorks did this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:So they're just gonna keep pretending that MayDay, despite the capitalization, isn't a references to a filthy socialist holiday (that as good Americans they of course want no part of). Their website used to be called 'MayOne' and mayone.us still redirects to their website. I wonder what prompted they to shed what is at the very most a faint echo of socialism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bviXilHxDpo
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
goatse.cx posted:Their website used to be called 'MayOne' and mayone.us still redirects to their website. I wonder what prompted they to shed what is at the very most a faint echo of socialism. They called it may one initially because it was a play on the term "mayday" in the sense of a cry for help. Then they realized a) they were getting wildly made fun of as "mayOne" and b) people weren't getting the joke anyway. At least that's what I remember from one of Boyko's older things about it, I don't think he was aware that May Day was actually supposed to be about socialism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:They called it may one initially because it was a play on the term "mayday" in the sense of a cry for help. Then they realized a) they were getting wildly made fun of as "mayOne" and b) people weren't getting the joke anyway. He is by no means a socialist or even left of the current center (which has been moving to the right since I can remember).
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
brianboyko posted:2) I didn't come up with the name "Mayday." And it's "mayday" as in the ship is sinking, not the socialist one. And honestly, if I was in the room when names were being considered, I'd have raised hell. Lessig et al not knowing what May Day is would probably be expected.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:They called it may one initially because it was a play on the term "mayday" in the sense of a cry for help. Then they realized a) they were getting wildly made fun of as "mayOne" and b) people weren't getting the joke anyway. He knew about it and didn't like the connotations. The hucksters behind it most certainly knew what they were doing (get money from Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Against it. I'll keep this in mind if a figure ever arises who seriously threatens the two party system and sacred property rights. Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I do think that campaign expenditures and PAC actions count as political speech, and that CU was correctly decided. My point is that the harm caused by PACs is because current law enables expenditures of these sorts to be anonymous and unaccountable. That's the actual problem-not the amount of speech, but its abuse. This is an interesting discussion as it makes me think of where the difference between bribery and campaigning lies. You can lie to all hell and that's fine but if you pay someone in order to make them vote for you then you're anti-democratic. If money equals speech, then where does the boundary lie between campaign and bribery? This isn't a criticism of you but more an interested question of the principle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
I wish I could answer that for you, but my election and bribery law notes are all filed away and I should be studying for the bar exam right now! My instructorwas house counsel during the last Democratic majority- oh, the stories he told us...
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:quantity of speech alone isn't enough to be persuasive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
I'm going to make a superpac called TheOPPOSITEOfMayOne.org and lobby for ONLY corporations to be allowed to donate to politicians. Because nothing will get better until america has been burnt to the ground in a fit of unfocused revolutionary anger, and that wont happen till poo poo gets TRULY terrible. Well actually I wont because its stupid, but superpacs are even more stupid and the democrats will never be a vehicle to fix americas problem. If you really want to fix americas problems within the electoral system, lobby for preferential voting so that small parties like the Greens and the like actually stand a loving chance of getting dudes in to screw up the balance of power and make politicians shoot steam out their ears loony tunes style. Trust me, I'm an australian and its really loving funny when your conservative primeminister flips his poo poo because an insane person who owns a rubber dinosaur park gets into the senate and starts trying to block tax appropriation bills duck monster fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
We have a whole party of insane people who own rubber dinosaur parks and try to block tax appropriation bills, and they control the lower house of our legislature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
San Francisco has ranked choice voting for mayor and every election in recent memory has been won by the candidate bought and paid for by developers and tech firms. First choice votes get spread out among the crazies as everyone picks their favorite long-shot. second and third choices get purchased through advertising, and second and third choices decide the election. Ranked choice doesn't do a drat thing about money buying elections.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
duck monster posted:If you really want to fix americas problems within the electoral system, lobby for preferential voting If you're going to lobby for electoral reform you might as well shoot for PR, it's just as likely to happen and people support it more because it's simpler. British Columbia and the UK both had referenda on preferential voting and it lost because it's too easy to attack and present as being complicated and destructive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 09:35
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Are you sure? Hasn't it been shown that simply being more familiar with a factoid increases the chance of you believing it to be true, and thus repetition of a factoid will make it a fact in many people's eyes? I just took a semester in graduate level persuasion theory, so let me promise you, absolutely not. Repetition can have a strengthening effect on the persuasive effect of some messages some of the time, but it is also able to have the reverse effect, even when the message is initially agreeable. Similarly, the repetition of a fact can trigger counterarguing all on its own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I just took a semester in graduate level persuasion theory, so let me promise you, absolutely not. Repetition can have a strengthening effect on the persuasive effect of some messages some of the time, but it is also able to have the reverse effect, even when the message is initially agreeable. Discendo Vox posted:Similarly, the repetition of a fact can trigger counterarguing all on its own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:If you're going to lobby for electoral reform you might as well shoot for PR, it's just as likely to happen and people support it more because it's simpler. British Columbia and the UK both had referenda on preferential voting and it lost because it's too easy to attack and present as being complicated and destructive. Ontario had a vote on Mixed Member Proportional in 2007 and it lost spectacularly, with only about 36% of the overall vote, and only 5 of the 107 districts had a majority of votes in favour of it. Almost all of the major media editorials were opposed to it as well. You can sabre-rattle for electoral reform but there are many powerful, and deeply entrenched interests for whom the status quo is working just fine, and they'll fight to defend it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
I had totally forgotten who crazy he was. I'm just watching some of his youtube videos now, and I cannot believe how much stuff there is under his real name. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuk-KLISp0g Political Whores fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
E: Quote is not edit
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 12:22
|
|