Politics And Current Events

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:09 pm

wait what

you won't be convinced that the black community has an anti-Semitism problem unless we count the black anti-semites we know personally?
Not what I said. At all.
Maybe you’re right. But I’m still curious how many black people you know personally that hold those thoughts. I guess it could be they’re hiding it from you, as KC is saying, but I haven’t witnessed it personally, and I’m very hesitant to judge a group of my personal experiences tell me otherwise.
I don't understand what your driving at in the bold then
I’m not “driving at” anything. I’m saying what my personal experiences are and wondering what his are and how those compare with social media.

Kraftster
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:22 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Kraftster » Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:38 pm


There is definitely a conservative amplification of this to appeal to the fears of middle-of-the-road voters in the vein of "this could be you." But I do think this is spreading to dangerous places. Take the case of Pinker, a linguist. Harvard professor who has always struck me as nothing if not intellectually honest. An important professional organization (Linguistic Society of America) denounces racism, which leads members to say, "if you really mean it, you will kick Pinker out of our club." The case against him was largely intellectually dishonest and debunked by fellow members rather quickly. Nonetheless, this is not the only example of this thought process spreading beyond pop culture and "art"--where I think the ramifications are less severe in terms of potential damage to the human project--to academia/public discourse.

I have a hard time believing this movement is any less dangerous than Trumpistan authoritarianism that chills free speech (threats of canceling federal funding/aid, for instance). I thought the letter did a nice job of equating these two things. At a minimum, the effect is the same, even if one cause is a greater threat than the other.

What do you see as the critical difference(s) between the two? It feels like two sides of the same coin to me. And I don't think either side presents a reliable basis for its conduct, and at a minimum, any basis that can be given fails to provide a scaleable principle upon which real policy could be formulated.
I don’t see the parallel between these two things to where I can differentiate. I think cancel culture is clearly public shaming and being weaponized by manipulative bad actors.

My rejection of trump and the current Republican Party is based on an entirely different context. I believe things that people take for granted as the truism of 20th century liberal democracy are social constructs and vulnerable to attack and indifferent pacifiscism will allow it to erode. The fall of the Soviet Union introduced into our consciousness the end of history. It is just accepted that liberal, market based democracy is the end goal of humankind and nothing can threaten that contract. Obviously trump is not able to move America in that direction, not due to desire, but he is not capable of imagining the next steps, nor the brutality necessary to achieve those ends. But the Overton window is being moved, to the point where the paper of record is publishing a senators opinion to turn th military against its people and its treated simply as a “difference of opinion”

I don’t have the patience to cite the examples that pushed me in this direction, but this is not the entirety of my answer to your question.
I feel like we're talking past each other?

We agree on Trump. He is the gravest threat to our democracy right now (saying nothing of his historical ranking in this regard). The Republican Party--largely through Trump and support for or indifference towards him--is dangerous. I agree this danger stems largely from the somewhat indirect attack on essential institutions, like you describe.

But how does that lessen the dangers of cancel culture/critical theory? We can and should discuss more than the most significant danger. For instance, there are greater racial concerns than potential disparate police violence, but we should still be talking about that problem.

Are you saying that you believe the cancel culture/critical theory project is nothing more than a conservative tool? I've started to hear that view for the first time lately. As I said, I agree that it can be manipulated by the right--"look at this liberal weenie"; "you could be next"; "where will this ever stop?" And I'm sure there could be cases where an attack has been incited (whether openly or surreptitiously) by someone on the right. But the majority of what we're seeing is not that. There is definitely a cohort of left-minded late millennial/Gen Z that believe in this. I think in general the group consists of three types of liberals: (1) genuine believers, (2) virtue signalers, and (3) a mix of the two--those that definitely believe something like the presentation of objective data can be racist but also want to make sure they put out a marker of being a part of the team.

The comparison I was seeking to draw is the chilling of discourse caused by Trump/team Trump bullying/gaslighting and the chilling of discourse caused as a result of one's fear of public excoriation (by one's own team!). The effect is the same in the end. I was trying to understand how you see the route from the right as more dangerous than the route from the left that ends at the same place. Beyond Trump being a more immediate threat because he is (a) in the White House and (b) an individual (populist demagogue) in whom this power is concentrated vs. a more diffuse group, I am not sure there are major differences. Both rely upon intimidation--instead of persuasion--so, again, not scaleable as a tool to make progress and build policy because its an inherently "du jour" thing.

I get if it's a discussion you don't think deserves attention until after November, but I'd rather try to nip this whole thing in the bud. I think it threatens Biden's chances. If that's at all true, it warrants discussing it now. If Trump is already dead in the election, then it would seemingly be worth our attention as well. Ignoring it on the left, with as rampant as it is right now, seems like just the sort of indifference you are worried will move the Overton window in the opposite direction.

Kraftster
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:22 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Kraftster » Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:43 pm

Paging @doublewinder to seek and tally correct counts of 5af RL friend demographics.

faftorial
Posts: 14819
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:35 pm
Location: Lengeschder

Politics And Current Events

Postby faftorial » Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:15 pm

Also @double m v.2.0 while we're at it.

PFiDC
Posts: 9248
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:23 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby PFiDC » Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:56 am

I speak to plenty of black people on a weekly basis, but that's because I am recruiting them for positions at my company. Needless to say that topic doesn't come up, but there is plenty of evidence out there that shows BLM and similar movements are infested with Jew haters.
I spend a lot of time with BLM organizers and leaders. Not just in protests. In their homes (well, outside their homes, covid n'at). I have my son with me every other week. When he's with his mom I work and then I go to a meeting or a vigil or a protest. Even before George Floyd I spent time in the community doing work for the Thomas Merton Center and more recently the Central Outreach Center. The people I spend time with don't hold back. They don't censor their thoughts, feelings, or words because a white dude is around. I've never heard Farrakhan's name mentioned once. Nor have I heard or seen any anti-Semitic talk or behavior. Maybe it's the eastern PA POC that are that way but I'm guessing it's just that those kinds of people are just fewer and further between.

Gaucho
Posts: 49575
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:31 pm
Location: shootzepucklefraude

Politics And Current Events

Postby Gaucho » Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:07 am


shafnutz05
Posts: 50379
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.

Politics And Current Events

Postby shafnutz05 » Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:54 am

I am legitimately shook right now:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... lover.html
The luxury hideout that was home to Ghislaine Maxwell prior to her arrest was purchased by a company that reportedly has ties to her wealthy lover, Scott Borgerson.

Maxwell - who is the accused procurer for convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein - was picked up by the FBI at the $1million property, named Tuckedaway, in Bradford, New Hampshire on Thursday. She has now been charged with six federal crimes, including enticement of minors, sex trafficking and perjury.
The Sun reports that Granite Reality LLC is managed by Boston lawyer, Jeffrey W. Roberts, who is also the registered agent of a second company, Hopely Yealton.

Curiously, the publication reports that the manager of Hopely Yealton is Scott Borgerson.

It is not known whether Maxwell, 58, and the much-younger Borgerson, 44, are still an item.
In 2003, then-Lieutenant Scott Borgerson was an instructor at the Coast Guard Academy. I got to know him extremely well, to the point that we kept in touch after CGA, up until about 2008. There was a small group of cadets that he befriended, myself included. When I saw his name in the above article I almost sht my pants. I recall he struck me as a party animal then and dipped like a fiend.

Never in a million years did I ever think I would have a connection to someone near the center of the Jeffrey Epstein stuff.

One nice piece of trivia, the name of the second company in the article (Hopely Yealton) is named after Hopley Yeaton, the first commissioned officer in what was then the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopley_Yeaton

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:31 am

That's crazy

Gaucho
Posts: 49575
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:31 pm
Location: shootzepucklefraude

Politics And Current Events

Postby Gaucho » Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:43 am


count2infinity
Posts: 35613
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby count2infinity » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:06 am

Of course his wife's name is Karen... :lol:

NAN
Posts: 11563
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:26 pm
Location: shoeshine boy is a lady

Politics And Current Events

Postby NAN » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:20 am

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/n ... ions-surge

Surge in NYPD retirements creating a bottleneck.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:30 am


CBear3
Posts: 7666
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

Politics And Current Events

Postby CBear3 » Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:42 am

So, I keep seeing this position:
Libs keep pushing BLM but what are they doing about inner city violence.

You know what I don’t see? Any ideas put forward to do that. BLM protestors may be chanting defund the police, but at least they’re putting ideas out there on how to reappropriate funding to better the community.

Honest question, what ideas are being put forth to curb inner city violence?

Troy Loney
Posts: 27518
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Troy Loney » Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:20 am

I feel like we're talking past each other?
I think so, or I think the way I framed my post led to an assumption on your part that isn’t the case.
But how does that lessen the dangers of cancel culture/critical theory? We can and should discuss more than the most significant danger. For instance, there are greater racial concerns than potential disparate police violence, but we should still be talking about that problem.
What I was driving at with the parallel comment was not an issue of degree danger, but that I don’t see the issues related. I think the elements of cancel culture that you are addressing is just a different type of problem. I think it mostly manifests itself in a form of online mob bullying. While I think there’s an overlap with this “shouting down” of speakers at college campuses, I think the former is a product of social media and the latter is the amplification of a pretty irreverent phenomenon that is easily squashed when it slides down the slippery slope. I also likely have a different opinion on the latter, such that if some college group invited Richard Spencer to speak, it would necessary for the university to cut that off. That is not a like “we need to respect all speech” thing, it’s a we can’t give platforms to people seeking to incite violence and racial animus. And of course the opposite end is probably this Pinker thing (I know nothing about this) where we are saying “this thing could potentially be narrowly offensive to some singular segment of our audience”. You don’t address that concern by stripping the platform away from that person, you discuss the wedges and hear each other out. To me, it’s likely about intent, if Pinker arrived at his potentially offensive theory from good faith, then he’s not trying to offend and would likely be happy to defend the position from that criticism.
I think everyone acknowledges that there is a slippery slope when you auto-reject a Richard Spencer, but I am not going to ever agree that there is value in allowing all messages to be given the opportunity to address your audience at your institution.
So ultimately, this whole phenomena addresses some challenges to the limits of free speech, and what my last response was meaning to state was the risk/threat that I see in Trumpism, which was fundamentally different (to me) than the cancel culture risks.
Are you saying that you believe the cancel culture/critical theory project is nothing more than a conservative tool?
No, there is absolutely the sentiment among loud, opinionated, racially conscious Americans that they need to attack all insensitivity or offensive remarks. And the impulse to publicly shame people that make those remarks. This is alienating to the people that are actually affected by it and galvanizing to its intended targets. Basically, the only people that this works on are lefties that want to adhere to this line, I mean, look at that barstool sports guy, you can’t shame him for being offense, it’s his intent. It only helps him to be your target. I think a lot of this is again tied to social media, people posting unfiltered thoughts and the constant feedback loop from social media attention has made the whole arena toxic and opened the door for the truly shameless to exploit.
There is definitely a cohort of left-minded late millennial/Gen Z that believe in this. I think in general the group consists of three types of liberals: (1) genuine believers, (2) virtue signalers, and (3) a mix of the two--those that definitely believe something like the presentation of objective data can be racist but also want to make sure they put out a marker of being a part of the team.
Not sure what this means.
The comparison I was seeking to draw is the chilling of discourse caused by Trump/team Trump bullying/gaslighting and the chilling of discourse caused as a result of one's fear of public excoriation (by one's own team!). The effect is the same in the end. he effect is the same in the end. I was trying to understand how you see the route from the right as more dangerous than the route from the left that ends at the same place. Beyond Trump being a more immediate threat because he is (a) in the White House and (b) an individual (populist demagogue) in whom this power is concentrated vs. a more diffuse group, I am not sure there are major differences. Both rely upon intimidation--instead of persuasion--so, again, not scaleable as a tool to make progress and build policy because its an inherently "du jour" thing.
I guess if you simplify the conceptual of the threat, you eventually end up at a broad enough concept that both ideas fall into. In general, my actual concern here is the erosion of the two party system. I know that we hate our current political climate, and see that hate being the product of the two party system. I think it’s pretty clear that many would stand at cheer at it’s downfall because they think the next step is some multiparty system. That’s naïve, as the next step is absolutely one party rule, and the manner in which our two parties have divided, the continued push to demonize the opponent has grown and they are incapable of cohesive government.
I get if it's a discussion you don't think deserves attention until after November, but I'd rather try to nip this whole thing in the bud. I think it threatens Biden's chances. If that's at all true, it warrants discussing it now. If Trump is already dead in the election, then it would seemingly be worth our attention as well. Ignoring it on the left, with as rampant as it is right now, seems like just the sort of indifference you are worried will move the Overton window in the opposite direction.
I don’t know electoral politics seems rather trite in this discussion. I can almost make the case that a second trump term would be better, were he to narrowly defeat Biden. A narrow win, with a continued split government would not lead to any sort of mandate, and he would just continue to flail around and watch himself of TV all day. He has some ideologues roaming around, but mostly they are just a cohort of grifters. Which goes back to the Cotton thing, the threat of a determined ideologue in the position of power. But luckily, so much of Trump’s draw is that he’s entertaining, Carlson, or Cotton or Hawley, none of them have that same electoral draw.
A Biden presidency will walk people off ledge for a bit, but the same forces will be at play that continue demonizing the opposite parties and push towards the fracturing of the two-party system. I think my desire would be to see the GOP walk back and start pushing moderate voices. The Dems put a moderate forward who will advocate for left causes, but is not being sent to the WH to try and jam socialist policies through.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:10 am

The GOP pushed moderate voices in 2000 and 2008 and 2012.

First was brain dead, the other was branded a lunatic, the other a progenitor of capitalist cancer.

Troy Loney
Posts: 27518
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Troy Loney » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:13 am

The GOP pushed moderate voices in 2000 and 2008 and 2012.

First was brain dead, the other was branded a lunatic, the other a progenitor of capitalist cancer.
Not sure what your point is. Of course candidates are going to be attacked, not sure what that has to do with electing a responsible statesman that would seem to respect the position and it's responsibilities.

Troy Loney
Posts: 27518
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Troy Loney » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:14 am

Trump loses his tax case against NYC. Methinks he will prevail against congress.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:16 am

The GOP pushed moderate voices in 2000 and 2008 and 2012.

First was brain dead, the other was branded a lunatic, the other a progenitor of capitalist cancer.
Not sure what your point is. Of course candidates are going to be attacked, not sure what that has to do with electing a responsible statesman that would seem to respect the position and it's responsibilities.
The GOP has done what you wanted since 1988, really. Bush I, Dole, Bush II (2000), McCain, and Romney were all center-right moderates who beat out "reactionaries" like Buchanan, Huckabee, Santorum, etc...

Kaiser
Posts: 5391
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:35 pm
Location: In these uncertain times

Politics And Current Events

Postby Kaiser » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:17 am

I remember the DNC running some kind of... Antichrist character? A couple times.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:18 am

Good for Gorsuch

NAN
Posts: 11563
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:26 pm
Location: shoeshine boy is a lady

Politics And Current Events

Postby NAN » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:18 am

The GOP pushed moderate voices in 2000 and 2008 and 2012.

First was brain dead, the other was branded a lunatic, the other a progenitor of capitalist cancer.
Not sure what your point is. Of course candidates are going to be attacked, not sure what that has to do with electing a responsible statesman that would seem to respect the position and it's responsibilities.
The GOP has done what you wanted since 1988, really. Bush I, Dole, Bush II (2000), McCain, and Romney were all center-right moderates who beat out "reactionaries" like Buchanan, Huckabee, Santorum, etc...
:thumb:

Troy Loney
Posts: 27518
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Troy Loney » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:24 am

Ok, so change "start" to "again". What a minuscule point to argue.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:24 am

The GOP pushed moderate voices in 2000 and 2008 and 2012.

First was brain dead, the other was branded a lunatic, the other a progenitor of capitalist cancer.
Not sure what your point is. Of course candidates are going to be attacked, not sure what that has to do with electing a responsible statesman that would seem to respect the position and it's responsibilities.
The GOP has done what you wanted since 1988, really. Bush I, Dole, Bush II (2000), McCain, and Romney were all center-right moderates who beat out "reactionaries" like Buchanan, Huckabee, Santorum, etc...
And I think the country was better off. I was certainly on the fence with McCain, and think he would’ve made a good president. The trump thing (along with those in congress who have been so vocally supportive) is, hopefully, an outlier.

AuthorTony
Posts: 8950
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:18 am

Politics And Current Events

Postby AuthorTony » Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:33 am


Never in a million years did I ever think I would have a connection to someone near the center of the Jeffrey Epstein stuff.
This might put you on the Clinton's hit list. Watch your back, shad! ;)

Troy Loney
Posts: 27518
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby Troy Loney » Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:12 am

Tomorrow's fun:
Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s tax returns, financial records to come Thursday
The end result of these decisions is that SCOTUS upheld principles that would have been absolutely ridiculous to green light, (that the President is not subject to congressional or criminal subpoena). But in the practical sense, the president can continue to exploit the US legal system and keep these disputes tied up in court indefinitely. Effectively, a shameless and corrupt executive can continue to ignore accountability to anyone but the voters and there is nothing the courts or the legislative branch can do about it. Thus exploiting a weakness in the structure of our government (the ultimate threat of Trumpism @Kraftster )

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dickie Dunn, faftorial, nocera, RonnieFranchise, tjand72 and 102 guests