|
Thesaurasaurus posted:'Honest' in the sense that they don't misrepresent their platform and are entirely-candid about being awful people with awful views, as opposed to the Democrats, who get our hopes up about ending some of this poo poo and then let us down. Wait told you that?
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
Chamale posted:When did the transition happen for so many people to start thinking like that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Chamale posted:When did the transition happen for so many people to start thinking like that? I vaguely remember a time when torture was something bad people did. Obviously that attitude changed somewhere between 9/11 and the end of the Bush Administration, but when the first reports of torture came out were people outraged about them? I guess it was split between the people who said "support the President no matter what" and the other 50% of the country. Torturing people is definitely something that Bad People do, but this isn't torture, it's 'interrogating' terrorists, and because terrorists are Bad People, it's ok to interrogate them, so we can stop them doing terrorism, if we didn't, they would do lots more terrorism and maybe kill some of us, so instead we should interrogate them, and us, sometimes, to make sure to stop terrorism. Alternatively: Torturing is something Bad People do, but it's not the torturing that makes them bad, they're just intrinsically bad and torturing is just proof of that, also they do it for fun. It's OK for not-bad people to do torture for reasons. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Just like how you can't be a racist unless you've lynched someone, you aren't a torturer until you've sliced somebody's balls open just for the fun of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:
Well I always comfort myself by understanding that the world is more peaceful and prosperous then it has ever been, and people from as short as hundred years ago or so would consider it a paradise exempting countries like Syria. It's all relative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Well I always comfort myself by understanding that the world is more peaceful and prosperous then it has ever been, and people from as short as hundred years ago or so would consider it a paradise exempting countries like Syria. It's all relative. Though arguably with the increase in human population over the last century we are now at the point where the total number of people suffering and dying for stupid reasons at this moment is an appreciable fraction of all the humans who have ever lived. Never before in history has there been quite such a torrent of human suffering taking place in the world at once. But we do have videos of cute foxes on youtube I guess which helps counterbalance it somewhat. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Thesaurasaurus posted:'Honest' in the sense that they don't misrepresent their platform and are entirely-candid about being awful people with awful views, as opposed to the Democrats, who get our hopes up about ending some of this poo poo and then let us down. Yeah pretty much what I meant, maybe it makes some difference observing from across the pond but the Republicans have always been straight up about being lying far-right corporate whores. Maybe 'honest' was a lovely term since it implies truth telling but I meant more that they're straight up "vote for us for social repression and wars". Same as the Tories here, sure they lie all the time but absolutely everyone knows their party is founded on the ethos of "gently caress the poor" and they live up to that. In my mind its worse when apparently progressive governments do the same thing, maybe not objectively since the results are the same, but intellectually and politically. And before anyone says "lol the democrats arent progressive" youd have to seriously retcon Obamas 2008 campaign out of history to claim they've never claimed it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:
The 111th Congress and Obama's administration actually passed a lot of progressive things, and lo it was good. Regrettably, Revanchist America saw that it was good and spite and hatred took a a deeper hold on their hearts and in 2010 lots of the people who voted for Candidate Obama's stayed home and didn't back Congressional candidates from his party. So we lost Congress, and many state houses ensure that the house would be a steep climb the remainders of the decade. Now, after sleeping on 2010 and 2014 many progressives (not all) sit around and blame Obama for not accomplishing more progressive goals despite having one of the most Reactionary Revanchist opposition parties ever. You can quibble about how much of the 08 campaign reflected the brand and not the man and point out some genuinely sad disappointments like the lack of meaningful action for the preceeding administration's crimes but I've found many progressives, like Very Serious People in the Center, seem to believe in the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential where a sufficiently willful President can simply overcome institutional obstacles and the agency of radically opposed congressmen though his powerful Will and Leadership. This is bunk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:You can quibble about how much of the 08 campaign reflected the brand and not the man and point out some genuinely sad disappointments like the lack of meaningful action for the preceeding administration's crimes but I've found many progressives, like Very Serious People in the Center, seem to believe in the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential where a sufficiently willful President can simply overcome institutional obstacles and the agency of radically opposed congressmen though his powerful Will and Leadership. This is bunk. This administration has not been dragged kicking and screaming into extending the abuses of the previous administration. Drone strikes, surveillance, executive privilege, these are cases where the Obama administration has purposefully legitimized the whole system. I don't care how good Obamacare is, which is itself a point of great contention, those things are so outside of acceptable for me, that I cannot support a party or adminstration that does them. To, in the Senate torture report thread of all places, to assert that liberals hosed us - that's why no one is going to jail over this... I just find it impossible to believe people actually believe this. So I'll post the same point I do every time this comes up. Would you always and forever vote for the Democratic party as the lesser of two evils, or is there anything in the world (perhaps refusing to indict prosecutors of torture?) that would make you say "No"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
As long as the Republican party exists in any relatI've fashion and no viable alternative to the democratic party is an option, what do you expect people to do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
joeburz posted:As long as the Republican party exists in any relatI've fashion and no viable alternative to the democratic party is an option, what do you expect people to do? Not vote, let the Republicans run wild until the place falls apart and hope to build something better on the decaying remains?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Not vote, let the Republicans run wild until the place falls apart and hope to build something better on the decaying remains? As a white male, I will not feel the consequences of letting Republicans run wild, so this strategy is appealing to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Not vote, let the Republicans run wild until the place falls apart and hope to build something better on the decaying remains? Things being worse makes them harder to fix. Remember, democracy and a middle class is the historical oddity. But I'm a tall straight white dude so it's all win:win to me. Do what you feel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Not vote, let the Republicans run wild until the place falls apart and hope to build something better on the decaying remains? This sounds watertight. Proceed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Not vote, let the Republicans run wild until the place falls apart and hope to build something better on the decaying remains? That sure worked for the midterms!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
As a young, queer, non white woman from Texas please do not do this thing thank you
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
The alternative is voting for the D team despite them loving you anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
joeburz posted:As long as the Republican party exists in any relatI've fashion and no viable alternative to the democratic party is an option, what do you expect people to do? I expect the party and its leader to stop programs and attitudes that its base finds morally repugnant. I also expect party shills to stop making liberals out as villains for refusing to sanction this nonsense. The alternative is to buy into the "We can't possibly stop assassinating and spying on American citizens. The Republicans won't allow it!  " narrative. If you think coming to me with that line while insinuating that if I don't vote for you I'm part of the problem is going to somehow motivate me to hand you a mandate to govern, you are out of your mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:I expect the party and its leader to stop programs and attitudes that its base finds morally repugnant. I guess the next question is - how much of the base actually finds each program morally repugnant?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I guess the next question is - how much of the base actually finds each program morally repugnant? Not anywhere near enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I guess the next question is - how much of the base actually finds each program morally repugnant? Not enough to overcome the party's FYGM mentality. Drone strikes, torture, and indefinite detention are all fine because we've got healthcare now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Except plenty of people don't find those things fine and it still hasn't been shown why abstaining from voting or voting for another party is any better for them. You're asking democratic voters who disagree with all that to produce a change they fundamentally are incapable of producing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I meant the 21st century torture. You may have heard, the Senate released a report about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Except plenty of people don't find those things fine and it still hasn't been shown why abstaining from voting or voting for another party is any better for them. You're asking democratic voters who disagree with all that to produce a change they fundamentally are incapable of producing. I'm asking Democrats to stop voting Democrat if they actually care as much about those things as they claim. Vote third party. Vote independent. It's not impossible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
What reason do we have for believing non-strategic voting would work better next time than it has any time before?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
It's just a matter of principle over pragmatism. Don't vote for war criminals and human rights abusers no matter their rhetoric. If you don't value that, vote however you want - just do so knowing exactly what you are voting for without any illusions whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
For that matter I could just not vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:What reason do we have for believing non-strategic voting would work better next time than it has any time before? If the Democrats see that they lose votes based on a few policies that they already claim to be critical of, they may actually work against those policies. I guess I would reverse the question though. What reason do we have to believe that the Democrats will seriously oppose these policies if not doing so never costs them anything?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Probad posted:I guess I would reverse the question though. What reason do we have to believe that the Democrats will seriously oppose these policies if not doing so never costs them anything? It's already not costing them anything because the people who care about this so much aren't voting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's already not costing them anything because the people who care about this so much aren't voting. And if the people who care about this start voting for Democrats this, too, will not cause the Democrats to take up the cause of equality and justice. We could do this all day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:And if the people who care about this start voting for Democrats this, too, will not cause the Democrats to take up the cause of equality and justice. We could do this all day. This is correct, but only because the people who care are an insignificant number of people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
I think a lot of people who vote Democrat do care about these issues, and this is reflected by the rhetoric Democratic politicians choose to use to differentiate themselves from Republicans during elections. I just think that most who vote Democratic are poorly informed on what actually occurs, have short memories, or go ahead with voting Democrat because lesser-of-two-evilism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:I think a lot of people who vote Democrat do care about these issues, and this is reflected by the rhetoric Democratic politicians choose to use to differentiate themselves from Republicans during elections. The rhetoric being "yes we're torturing folks" versus "no we're not". Most of the complaints people have here also don't relate to torture, but prosecution thereof.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The rhetoric being "yes we're torturing folks" versus "no we're not". If Republicans honestly don't believe that EITs are torture, then it makes sense for them not to see this as a problem. To believe that something is torture and still do nothing about it actually seems more reprehensible to me. I'm also a little confused about how the prosecution of torture is not related to torture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
I would say "immunizing those who tortured" and "currently torturing" are somewhat related. The reason being this guarantees that there is no real deterrence to a systematic torture program in the future. I fail to see much of an ethical difference between endorsement-by-nonpunishment and torture. It's also narrow to separate this from the wider issue of American foreign policy (which is still hosed up and evil), surveillance, and the growth of the security state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Probad posted:If Republicans honestly don't believe that EITs are torture, then it makes sense for them not to see this as a problem. To believe that something is torture and still do nothing about it actually seems more reprehensible to me. They did do something - they stopped. TEAYCHES posted:I would say "immunizing those who tortured" and "currently torturing" are somewhat related. Most people don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They did do something - they stopped. So the problem here is that you are being extremely pedantic and that you have blinders on. That's something that I probably can't help you with. Being unable to see the forest for the trees is something you might want to work on yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
The truly amusing thing about this is that as the torture program came to an end, the drone program ramped up exponentially. The Obama administration decided to just start interrogating suspected terrorists and militants with hellfire missiles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:The truly amusing thing about this is that as the torture program came to an end, the drone program ramped up exponentially. The Obama administration decided to just start interrogating suspected terrorists and militants with hellfire missiles. And presumably innocent American teenagers. Let's not forget that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
computer parts posted:They did do something - they stopped. You're right, and I suppose that's what you meant by the torture v. prosecution of torture thing. I just don't think it's enough. Like Teayches said, stopping alone does nothing to dissuade future administrations from starting the whole program up again. But it's also hard to imagine "they stopped" being an excuse in any other serious criminal context. A murderer can't go to court and argue that, although they murdered a lot of people in the recent past, they aren't currently murdering anyone and therefore should not be punished.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 19:12
|
|