SocketWrench posted:

sometimes

n3wt posted:

Omg dude, you are at best an ignorant benevolent racist unwilling to reflect on why he might have hurt/offended the black americans in this thread and whinging about someone daring to say he's been really clumsy.
https://qz.com/656159/the-scientific-way-to-train-white-people-to-stop-being-racist/

SocketWrench posted:

.
In summary the US is full of a lot of stupid, gullible, and sometimes racist people.

Dejawesp posted:

quote:

BW: Any . . . . Before coming over, Bob and I have had lots of chats. And we were thinking about this, that you are running for the nomination in the Republican Party.

DT: Right.

BW: Which is the party of Lincoln and the party of Nixon. . . . And so we have this party that you are running to be the nominee in, and it’s got two heritages. Lincoln and Nixon.

DT: That’s true. That’s true.

BW: And why did Lincoln succeed? Thought about that at all?

DT: Well, I think Lincoln succeeded for numerous reasons. He was a man who was of great intelligence, which most presidents would be. But he was a man of great intelligence, but he was also a man that did something that was a very vital thing to do at that time. Ten years before or 20 years before, what he was doing would never have even been thought possible. So he did something that was a very important thing to do, and especially at that time. And Nixon failed, I think to a certain extent, because of his personality. You know? It was just that personality. Very severe, very exclusive. In other words, people couldn’t come in. And people didn’t like him. I mean, people didn’t like him.

BW: And he broke the law.

DT: And he broke the law, yeah. Yeah. He broke the law. Whether that’s insecurity . . . .

BW: I mean, you listen to those tapes, and he’s a criminal.

DT: Yeah. Whether that’s — right. And he broke the law.

BW: And time and time again, break in, get the FBI on this, get the IRS on.

DT: Sure. Sure.

BW: I mean, it is an appalling legacy of criminality.

DT: Right.

BW: And at the end, the day he resigned, an amazing day, he gives that speech which is kind of free association about mom and dad.

DT: Right.

BW: He’s sweating. And then he said, “Always remember: Others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.” The piston was hate.

DT: Well, and he was actually talking very much about himself, because ultimately, ultimately, that is what destroyed him. Hate is what destroyed him. And such an interesting figure. I mean, you would know that better than anybody. But such an interesting figure. And such a man of great talent. I mean, Nixon had great potential, great talent. Unfortunately it was a very sad legacy in the end. It turned out to be a very sad legacy. Such an interesting figure to study. I think. . . .

Relevant Tangent posted:

Texas drowning and then immediately pivoting to tax cuts wasn't too impressive to anybody.

bird food bathtub posted:

Eeyo posted:

I had to look up that Lincoln quote (don't want to fall for a fake meme)

QuoProQuid posted:

lovely, duplicitous memes

Dick Trauma posted:

I like the thought that Trump is constantly angry that he can't get the one thing he wanted from becoming the President: respect.

He's just self-aware enough to realize that he's being treated like a child and I hope that it's spoiling every waking moment that he's not being actively cheered.

cant cook creole bream posted:

He's afraid to say any actual good words about Lincoln, because his base might think he's opposed to the confederacy.

quote:

MANY AMERICANS WHO long for Europe’s hate speech restrictions assume that those laws are used to outlaw and punish expression of the bigoted ideas they most hate: racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny. Often, such laws are used that way. There are numerous cases in western Europe and Canada of far-right extremists being arrested, fined, or even jailed for publicly spouting that type of overt bigotry.

But hate speech restrictions are used in those countries to suppress, outlaw, and punish more than far-right bigotry. Those laws have frequently been used to constrain and sanction a wide range of political views that many left-wing censorship advocates would never dream could be deemed “hateful,” and even against opinions which many of them likely share.

France is probably the most extreme case of hate speech laws being abused in this manner. In 2015, France’s highest court upheld the criminal conviction of 12 pro-Palestinian activists for violating restrictions against hate speech. Their crime? Wearing T-shirts that advocated a boycott of Israel — “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel,” the shirts read — which, the court ruled, violated French law that “prescribes imprisonment or a fine of up to $50,000 for parties that ‘provoke discrimination, hatred or violence toward a person or group of people on grounds of their origin, their belonging or their not belonging to an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a certain religion.'”

quote:

But the more important point is that the ideal application of censorship that advocates envision isn’t how such laws are applied. And it never will be. If you empower state authorities to decide which ideas are permitted and which are not — to assess which ideas contain enough “hatred” to justify banning — it is not likely but inevitable that those laws will ultimately be used to outlaw the ideas you like. As Cole put it, “It is virtually impossible to articulate a standard for suppression of speech that would not afford government officials dangerously broad discretion and invite discrimination against particular viewpoints.”

As The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf recently explained, there is a grave irony at the heart of these newfound liberal desires for “hate speech” censorship laws: The people who would implement and interpret them are those in power, people like Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, GOP governors and legislators, and their litany of right-wing judges. It takes little imagination to see how such laws would be applied, and against whom. Indeed, the U.S. history of allowing such restrictions is that they have been used against exactly the groups that censorship advocates think they are protecting. As Cole wrote:

Our history illustrates that unless very narrowly constrained, the power to restrict the advocacy of violence is an invitation to punish political dissent. A. Mitchell Palmer, J. Edgar Hoover, and Joseph McCarthy all used the advocacy of violence as a justification to punish people who associated with Communists, socialists, or civil rights groups.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

The gallup polling is interesting. The biggest drop is in "people making <2000 a month", who dropped friggin 6 entire points in one week. What did trump do specifically this week that alienated poor people so disproportionately?

RuanGacho posted:

As we've worked out often enough, speech isn't a problem as written, its the calls to violence. It's not impossible that calls to violence could be interpreted in such a way as to be a way to suppress political speech but we have the ACLU to defend that and trying to pull back to a reasonable mean is a more pressing concern right now.

Our biggest issue is that free speech has been conflated to mean freedom from consequence and corporations are not civic minded enough to ask at this moment "gee I wouldn't hire this shitbag but he's free to use my platform to ruin other people's lives because free speech"

People have forgotten about collective ownership so much that corporations now think theyre the government too.

pumpinglemma posted:

Looking for short-term trends in individual groups is generally a bad idea - enough groups are tracked that by statistical noise alone you'll end up finding something. But yeah, if it's a real effect then his reaction to Harvey probably had something to do with it.

Eeyo posted:

I had to look up that Lincoln quote (don't want to fall for a fake meme). It's from April 2016, and he somehow managed to divert into boasting about crowd size while dodging whether or not he learned anything from Nixon's illegal actions. We all knew what he would be like, yet here we are.


Washington Post article

quote:

BW: And why did Lincoln succeed? Thought about that at all?

DT: Well, I think Lincoln succeeded for numerous reasons. He was a man who was of great intelligence, which most presidents would be. But he was a man of great intelligence, but he was also a man that did something that was a very vital thing to do at that time. Ten years before or 20 years before, what he was doing would never have even been thought possible. So he did something that was a very important thing to do, and especially at that time.

BW: And he broke the law.

DT: And he broke the law, yeah. Yeah. He broke the law. Whether that's insecurity . . . .

BW: I mean, you listen to those tapes, and he's a criminal.

DT: Yeah. Whether that's — right. And he broke the law.

BW: And time and time again, break in, get the FBI on this, get the IRS on.

DT: Sure. Sure.

BW: I mean, it is an appalling legacy of criminality.

evilmiera posted:

His going on vacation and making tone-deaf statements aside, it might also be related to getting around to doing the Transgender ban officially and yet another NK scare.

DaveWoo posted:

(link)

DaveWoo posted:

(link)

DaveWoo posted:

(link)

DaveWoo posted:

(link)

Fluffdaddy posted:

My favorite thing in this thread is when trump says or does something that is racist as all hell and people who call themselves leftist or liberals fall all over themselves to declare that it is incompetency or senility instead of racism.

Yardbomb posted:

I've not seen this but okay, also it can be both.

actionjackson posted:

I just saw this, it made me think about everyone that was saying we should have "Europe-style" free-speech restrictions. I had expressed concern that they could easily be used against left-wing viewpoints as well.

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-laws-are-often-used-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/

namaste faggots posted:

Is that the New York Observer? That's an obvious gaslight right?

DaveWoo posted:

Look, I'm sure that the paper owned by Jared Kushner has nothing but the best intentions for the Democratic party.

Dejawesp posted:

So why hasn't this happened over the decades with conservative European governments?

Anyway the US government has had no problem punishing the wrong opinions with the current "restrictions" (See McCarthyism)

Or if time is short. Kidnap them and send them to another country for torture.

Fluffdaddy posted:

My favorite thing in this thread is when trump says or does something that is racist as all hell and people who call themselves leftist or liberals fall all over themselves to declare that it is incompetency or senility instead of racism.

Fluffdaddy posted:

My favorite thing in this thread is when trump says or does something that is racist as all hell and people who call themselves leftist or liberals fall all over themselves to declare that it is incompetency or senility instead of racism.

Fluffdaddy posted:

My favorite thing in this thread is when trump says or does something that is racist as all hell and people who call themselves leftist or liberals fall all over themselves to declare that it is incompetency or senility instead of racism.

Rinkles posted:

I think he no longer owns it.

Koalas March posted:

CAC's always get the benefit of the doubt even when they clearly don't deserve it