|
rscott posted:The magical thinking is that there is an objective truth that you can educate people with and that will make them not be racists and lovely people So you can't educate someone on the 'objective truth' but you can legislate one?
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Abrasive Obelisk posted:If Watergate never happens, how does the rest of Nixon's term go and the 1976 election? Well, based on every speculative history book I'm familiar with, somehow the Nazis take over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:How long does it take for this to get good? I tried reading it once before but after about 20 minutes or so I just gave up. Maybe skip the first chapter, up till Alison and the angel are going on a tour of hell, but I liked it from the start so I may not be the person to ask. Mendrian posted:So you can't educate someone on the 'objective truth' but you can legislate one? Apparently there is no cure for being an arse, so I am unsure what would be a good solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
doubles post!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Donkwich posted:Doesn't Germany explicitly ban fascist parties and symbols and yet they're still contending with a right-wing nationalist party that's totally not fascist you guys? 1. Our actual fascist parties- primarily the NPD - have never really held any power. This is in part because they're much too in love with these symbols, and it makes them look strange, "un-German", backwards facing and ridiculous. 2. The far right party that's actually getting significant votes (low double digits), the AfD, is very clearly not justifiably called fascist. They're politically basically Trumpian, including the anti-supernationalism, climate change denial and racism, and their hatred of the "Lügenpresse" - lying media - but they don't have a strong authoritarian figure; instead, they have a tiny, calm woman in charge. Importantly, in contrast to the NPD, they dress and look like average folks. Their color is a light blue. 3. Low double digits. So they are less extreme and less successful than comparable parties elsewhere in Europe. I don't want to present Germany as a success story, but the story is more nuanced than saying "it makes no difference" or "it makes everything even worse".
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Apparently there is no cure for being an arse, so I am unsure what would be a good solution. Ban all arses
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Exactly. The problem isn't the speech, it's that people are supporting the speech, and this is a loving democracy. You stop that by long, slow, grinding social progress, not by waving your Magic Wand of the Glorious People's Revolution and banning wrongthink. It's just magical thinking, plain and simple, the same sort of thinking that leads to people being honestly offended when politicians suggest moderate improvements that can be made right now rather than mandating Full Communism Now or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ClayMcNeary/status/785245381609283584 gross.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Abrasive Obelisk posted:If Watergate never happens, how does the rest of Nixon's term go and the 1976 election? Probably about the same. People say that's when distrust of the government became mainstream but that was already a thing with the JFK assassination and racists reacting to the Civil Rights Act. Maybe you'd see President Ted Kennedy in 1980 after an economic downturn but that's about it I think. Obviously it gets harder to tell the farther away from the event you get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:So you can't educate someone on the 'objective truth' but you can legislate one? There is a difference between knowing what is truth and knowing that something is untrue
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
ted kennedy killed a girl so i can't imagine him ever getting elected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:ted kennedy killed a girl so i can't imagine him ever getting elected. things were different in 70s and 80s
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:0. We ban "Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen"/symbols of anti-constitutional organisations. That is, any organisation that is against our democracy, including ISIS and, when they were still a thing, communists. Clearly, the swastika is a symbol of an antidemocratic organisation. There is also this in which the idea of banning fascism has a real world example and while it isn't perfect it's better than what we have now
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Ban all arses That would be my second suggestion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:ted kennedy killed a girl so i can't imagine him ever getting elected. Hillary has a double digit kill count yet all that stands between her and the presidency is an orange fascist. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
rscott posted:There is a difference between knowing what is truth and knowing that something is untrue This is some Nostradomus poo poo and I'm going to need you to unpack it for me. What I was getting at is that if you can't even teach people something is good, then how can you have a governing body try to get people to go for it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/787663755324694528 By no means am I saying that Democrats got the House in the bag or even that it's particularly likely, but only getting 53% to agree to a question that pushes "checks and balances vs free reign" isn't really something I'd get excited about if I were the Republicans. Aerox posted:I've been thinking about this a lot recently and I think the lack of oppo research from the primary is more complicated than people not caring or just assuming he'd lose. I suspect a number of his opponents had at least some of this information. The only person in the entire field who was willing to make a sacrifice to take out another candidate was Chris Christie, and he did it to kneecap Marco Rubio of all people. It is true though that using most of the opposition bombs dropped on Donny in the general would be a gamble in the primary. Aside from Donny generally doing and saying things that aren't actually offensive to the base, a lot of the GOP guys in the primary were more in disagreement with the tone and lack of dog whistle that Donny brought to the table. They're just as unlikely to see the real issue with his bus comments as the rest of the party, they are more likely to be really offended by the word Pussy though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:things were different in 70s and 80s it wasn't! it's why he never became prez!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
rscott posted:There is also this in which the idea of banning fascism has a real world example and while it isn't perfect it's better than what we have now There is pretty much no indication that the ban has actually done anything against fascism in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
If we ban all bad opinions and dangerous ideas, who would've caused this derail these last few pages? Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
I gotta say, I love the way DnD is proving its every stereotype. When people rise out of the woodwork to advocate overturning the first amendment and banning political speech they disagree with, the response isn't "this is morally repugnant what the gently caress is wrong with you" but rather "unfortunately we couldn't administer this properly." It's actually not a good thing to ban political speech. The other goons who have posted are right, that you could never implement something like HUAC 2.0 without trampling all over minorities. But that's not why overturning the first amendment is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:00
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Night10194 posted:This polling analysis. If this is really Trump internal strategy holy poo poo lol rscott posted:There is also this in which the idea of banning fascism has a real world example and while it isn't perfect it's better than what we have now I know there's a lot of Free Speech Fundamentalists who basically treat free speech like our ancestors have treated a maiden's hood or scripture - as something inherently and absolutely perfect - and that's not a smart perspective, but there is some truth to this: it's really hard to foresee what the actual effect of any specific speech-limiting policy will be, but it's always easy to conjure up an example where it will be used to silence a group voicing legitimate grievances and important criticism of the hegemony. That's not to say it's inherently impossible to do right, but it's clearly at the very least hard to do right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I gotta say, I love the way DnD is proving its every stereotype. When people rise out of the woodwork to advocate overturning the first amendment and banning political speech they disagree with, the response isn't "this is morally repugnant what the gently caress is wrong with you" but rather "unfortunately we couldn't administer this properly." Partisans typically agree on tactics but disagree on targets. Another good example is Freep vs radical Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Most internal polls are actually conducted by the same pollsters as public polls, they're just commissioned by the candidates themselves. The only reason that they really matter is that they're (potentially) targeted at areas that the campaign considers to be currently in play and they may be more up to date than the polls we get. They may also be based on a better demographic picture of the party's likely voters since that's information that a campaign would have, but that relies on the party not pulling a Mittens and ignoring demographic data to make themselves feel better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I gotta say, I love the way DnD is proving its every stereotype. When people rise out of the woodwork to advocate overturning the first amendment and banning political speech they disagree with, the response isn't "this is morally repugnant what the gently caress is wrong with you" but rather "unfortunately we couldn't administer this properly." But have you considered he only wants to ban bad speech?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Quoth the shitlord, have some dough http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-donald-j-trump.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:Swedish Chef talking sense. The worst part was how god drat goofy they looked trying to raise the fist. And then the one guy took off his hat, because it would be disrespectful to keep it on during the anthem. Even when they're trying to help, white people suck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I gotta say, I love the way DnD is proving its every stereotype. When people rise out of the woodwork to advocate overturning the first amendment and banning political speech they disagree with, the response isn't "this is morally repugnant what the gently caress is wrong with you" but rather "unfortunately we couldn't administer this properly."
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
What the gently caress is the debat going to look like with Trump yelling about rigging? Its in 3 days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:free speech is, on its face, something of value Historically speaking, free speech has had enormous utilitarian benefits, and I think you can probably make a case for its inherent worth, but it would have to be made first. Mill certainly didn't ask for unrestricted universally free speech for its own sake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I gotta say, I love the way DnD is proving its every stereotype. When people rise out of the woodwork to advocate overturning the first amendment and banning political speech they disagree with, the response isn't "this is morally repugnant what the gently caress is wrong with you" but rather "unfortunately we couldn't administer this properly." Eh, deal with the realities you have. The fact is that it's harder to make a moral case for not actively oppressing facists than it is to make a practical one. Same reason it's easier to point at the practical reasons that certain things like immigration are good for a nation than the abstract of "not being dicks is good for everyone". Well, why is it? Is it because it's sacrosanct and doing so would weaken the idea of freedom of speech world wide? Because again that's a practical arguement. Why is not allowing certain sorts of speech a moral imperative? I mean I hope its obvious that I am being just a little bit of old Josef "Let's ask tedious questions" bugman here. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Oct 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:But have you considered he only wants to ban bad speech? We already ban "bad" speech, the definition of what is bad speech is very narrow at the moment. Like there is a case at the Supreme Court right now dealing with trademarks on things that could be construed as hate speech.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Eh, deal with the realities you have. The fact is that it's harder to make a moral case for not actively oppressing facists than it is to make a practical one. Same reason it's easier to point at the practical reasons that certain things like immigration are good for a nation than the abstract of "not being dicks is good for everyone". It's harder to make a moral case for anything, period, without buy-in beforehand. Like make a moral case against murder if you're talking with someone who doesn't already believe that murder is bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Sinners Sandwich posted:What the gently caress is the debat going to look like with Trump yelling about rigging? Its in 3 days. Don't think this has worked so far though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Sinners Sandwich posted:What the gently caress is the debat going to look like with Trump yelling about rigging? Its in 3 days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I gotta say, I love the way DnD is proving its every stereotype. When people rise out of the woodwork to advocate overturning the first amendment and banning political speech they disagree with, the response isn't "this is morally repugnant what the gently caress is wrong with you" but rather "unfortunately we couldn't administer this properly." The value in free speech is the dignity it affords people. Pointing out that authoritarian limitations on free speech will simply be used to limit the speech (read: dignity) of minorities is not ignoring what makes free speech good. Hammering away at someone that doesn't even agree with the premise that free speech is a moral good with the moral argument never works. Edit: Plus, the argument is that banning fascism will reduce harm, so to combat that it has to be pointed out that it probably won't due to the limitations of enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
rscott posted:There is also this in which the idea of banning fascism has a real world example and while it isn't perfect it's better than what we have now So you're saying that Europe, with actual literal fascist parties, is doing better than the U.S. which does not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:So you can't educate someone on the 'objective truth' but you can legislate one? What are natural rights? What is the Constitution? Mendrian posted:Please define fascism and explain how you would ban them. I'm going to avoid the abstractions of Eco's definition and get into their playbook. Fascists may vary on certain policies, but only do so to rhetorically pose themselves as an the outsider. In juxtaposition with conservatives standing next to them, they often present themselves as being critical of certain aspects of capitalism, but only do so specifically whenever the market runs contrary to national interest. Against their ideological enemies from the left, they openly talk about arresting them or depriving them of their rights. They are against any criticism kind of criticism whatsoever and respond with threats of violence. They will wholly embrace conspiracies about global elites to do this. They openly support the idea that race is a subset of national identity. They have this compelling need to inform the public the need to return to "more traditional values" and of the existential threat of minorities within the country. They are not quiet about this. In foreign policy, they promote loot and pillage styled imperialism as a source of power and a cure for any malaise in the nation's standing in the world. They believe symbols are an important tool of power. They invent symbols (the thunderbolt in particular is popular), slogans, or gestures to remind people the power they have over them. Additionally, they also celebrate aggressive masculinity and contempt for the weak. Keep in mind, conservatives adopt the ideas of fascists- not the other way around. Some conservatives do borrow their beliefs from fascism, but avoid the necessary step of framing themselves as all of those things at once. Quorum posted:Exactly. The problem isn't the speech, it's that people are supporting the speech, and this is a loving democracy. You stop that by long, slow, grinding social progress, not by waving your Magic Wand of the Glorious People's Revolution and banning wrongthink. It's just magical thinking, plain and simple, the same sort of thinking that leads to people being honestly offended when politicians suggest moderate improvements that can be made right now rather than mandating Full Communism Now or whatever. If you really want to defend democracy you can start by recognizing its shortcomings. This includes its well defined history of falling to right wing authoritarian groups who ignored whatever laws they thought were inconvenient. We're apparently stuck in this delusional End Times Fukuyamaist thought bubble where we'd never see right wing governments from the 1920-1930s ever show their faces ever again. That scares me the most about all of this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I gotta say, I love the way DnD is proving its every stereotype. When people rise out of the woodwork to advocate overturning the first amendment and banning political speech they disagree with, the response isn't "this is morally repugnant what the gently caress is wrong with you" but rather "unfortunately we couldn't administer this properly." It was after people pointed to the First Amendment that things turned into a thought experiment on whether or not you can write a law that fucks with those guys while not being able to be used by those guys to gently caress with you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Sinners Sandwich posted:What the gently caress is the debat going to look like with Trump yelling about rigging? Its in 3 days. Significantly more of a shitshow than the last one, since it's going to have Fox trying really hard to help him while he's still bugfuck crazy, most likely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 20:16
|
|
