Jump to content

Politics 20/20 now with extra hindsight!


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Maedhros said:

Yes, of course, it's a matter of perspective. THEY think they're fighting to change it for the better. All I'm saying is it's silly to say someone hates their country just because they want to change it, and because their opinions differ from yours.

No argument from me on that count. 

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, StupidSeal said:

Trump sucks Biden sucks I suck you all suck 

Behold, the third party voter

 

😛

  • Haha 4

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, StupidSeal said:

Trump sucks Biden sucks I suck you all suck 

the lack of punctuation makes it possible to read the quoted in ways most amusing. 

1 hour ago, HoonDing said:

Drump got it in the bag tbh

 

hoon likes to be funny, but am suspecting too many actual agree with the sentiment. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/?cid=rrpromo

does trump have a chance? sure he does. am not sure people understand how odds work? fivethirtyeight had trump with a better than 28% chance o' winning in 2016. trump would love to have same numbers this year, but he still does have a chance. nevertheless, if your political future (and more important the increasing high chance o' facing criminal charges) hinges on the election, am suggesting "in the bag" has a different meaning for trump.

tenor.gif

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2020 at 6:57 AM, Guard Dog said:

This is more what I was getting at. The liberal justices, except Ginsburg, could not always be counted on to reason their way into a "liberal" ruling. Even Sotomayor, probably the most "liberal" justice on the Court now, has conistently applied 4th Amend protections in the broadest way. That is, IMO, a decidely "illebaral" position. Illiberal in the American definition of the word at least. Ironicly the American definition of liberal is almost opposite it's actual definition. But hey, screwing up the language is part of our charm.

Anyway, before I wander off point again, the appeal of textualisim IMO is it does not require adherence to any philosopical orthodoxy. Merely the ability to read, compreheand, and the willingness to go where that leads. With a few exceptions all of them do that some of the time. I wish more did that all of the time. 

didn't read this earlier. is wrong. you are using a personal liberal v. conservative spectrum which don't match traditional definitions if you put sotomayor 4th amendment opinions on the conservative end o' the liberal v. conservative spectrum. cops win = conservative. is not particular deep or profound, but that is how law enforcement cases ordinarily gets placed on the liberal v. conservative spectrum. look at current law enforcement actions in places such as portland and chicago and ask if is liberals or conservatives supporting? am knowing you don't see as we describe, but am suspecting you got some prejudices which kinda fog your vision on this. scalia's 4th amendment decisions were noteworthy precise 'cause they did not fall w/i the expectations o' conservatives. criminals using 4th amendment to avoid justice? is not something conservatives support. and keep in mind with 4th amendment cases we are talking 'bout folks who would be criminalized but for the Constitution, which is an almost uniquely american legal concept.

you are switching libertarian for liberal, which is just one reason why liberal v. conservative ain't fungible with Court philosophies. 

perhaps we may offer an easier example, even if is fifth amendment. miranda were considered a liberal win. J. earl warren wrote the 5-4 decision in miranda and since that time more conservative Courts and Justices have chipped away at the ruling. warren were appointed by a republican President, but he went rogue and is considered one o' the most vocal liberal voices on a particular liberal Court. miranda is considered a liberal win. sotomayor is not quite as liberal as were warren. 

the real lesson here is that it is not good to use liberal v. conservative to describe judicial philosophies and is a particular poor benchmark from which to gauge predictability. 

am not sure we agree with how you distinguish textualism. leave for another time. however we will observe how both Congress' crafting laws and the executive's writing rules is purposeful ambiguous-- is an expectation and reliance on interpretation by the Courts to fill in gaps to make legislation and executive action workable. is the root problem which if addressed would eliminate much o' the debate 'bout legitimacy o' purposivism, textualism or whatever other theory o' interpretation employed by judges and Justices. 

apologies for double, but complete unrelated to our immediate previous post.

HA! Good Fun!
 

  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

you are switching libertarian for liberal, which is just one reason why liberal v. conservative ain't fungible with Court philosophies. 

 

HA! Good Fun!
 

OK that is a fair point

Get off my lawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

I do think what is happening is utterly appalling but it is also basically predictable especially considering the fact we know the violent response that the cartoons have caused in the past

What is the right approach, do you ask Charlie Hebdo to stop insulting some Muslims with the cartoons as people are getting killed or do you ignore the attacks and consider posting additional  cartoons ....I dont think its necessary to post these cartoons considering all the years of violence and conflict in the ME

We know these  cartoons can trigger real violence so why encourage it......is it really worth the  point of " freedom of speech " 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

We know these  cartoons can trigger real violence so why encourage it......is it really worth the  point of " freedom of speech " 

Do you have freedom of speech if you are afraid to exercise same?

  • Like 1
  • Hmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Amentep said:

Do you have freedom of speech if you are afraid to exercise same?

Its a good question and you and I have discussed this before. I realize most Americans see this differently but  I am honestly saying  " if you continue to print the cartoons more French people will die " and of the course the attackers will be killed but is it worth it?

I cannot believe the French would still continue to support the cartoons.....its not really about free speech but rather this is real way innocent people can die because of a small group of  intolerant and ignorant extremists?

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Amentep said:

So your answer is to give de facto control  to the "small group of  intolerant and ignorant extremists"?

Its not about the control, I can see what you talking about and yes I would not agree to this ...we cannot allow this group to play a role in what defines a value of the country 

But lets reword my objective because I am not clarifying  the point. In this case France has a certain problem with a small extremist element that will generally attack and kill, and get killed , some French citizen in a random act of murder

So do we just accept this because the Muslim communities in France are huge and its almost impossible  who would resort to violence if the cartoons are shown 

But are you fine with this outcome, would you authorize the cartoons usage knowing there have  been  2 previous attacks? Now some French people take this freedom of speech very seriously and will always support the cartoons right to be shown...they are not going be " blackmailed " by the threat of attacks 

But that is how the French see it ?

 

Edited by BruceVC

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Its not about the control, I can see what you talking about and yes I would not agree to this ...we cannot allow this group to play a role in what defines a value of the country 

It is about control. That is exactly how extremists take control. They don't make one big strike to take all control. They use extreme reponse to minor things so weak people, who think this can be resolved peacefully, will give up freedom one thing at a time. Soon enough you will be telling people that giving their wives and daughters to harems is a small price to avoid more beheadings.

Have you watched Agora from 2009? It depicts how this works.

Edited by Skarpen
  • Thanks 3

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Its a good question and you and I have discussed this before. I realize most Americans see this differently but  I am honestly saying  " if you continue to print the cartoons more French people will die " and of the course the attackers will be killed but is it worth it?

I cannot believe the French would still continue to support the cartoons.....its not really about free speech but rather this is real way innocent people can die because of a small group of  intolerant and ignorant extremists?

It is not really about freedom of speech or supporting cartoons, but that caricatures of political and religious nature are inseparable part of French culture, meaning that even if people don't agree with the message of some particular caricature or find it grotesque and bad taste, they still feel attacks against it and demands to censor it as attacks against France and Frenchness. You could just ask Muslims forget their prophet in attempt to prevent people dying because of extremists.

In other words it is similar issue as why people support freedom of religion even though it leads people dying because of small groups of intolerant and ignorant extremists.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Why can't both be bad? :shrugz:

 

Last week I taught a lesson on satire and censorship and covered the Charlie Hebdo story as well as the recent teacher killing in France. But I did request that my students not kill me, so *fingers crossed*

It's basically a 1st Amendment lesson. So it covers freedom of religion, speech, press, and protest rights. It's based on previous lessons about the Magna Carta and Henry II's Royal Court system. I also shared news stories about the NY Post and Twitter censorship of the Hunter Biden story, as well as last years actions by Blizzard and the NBA in regards to China and the Hong Kong protests. It's pretty hard to gauge how it went during digital learning. I think I may need to rework it, since it has become a bit overwhelming with all the crazy stories that I can use to teach it.

And this week we started our unit on Islam, so the students all get to learn about a very different, non-secular way of life. 

Edited by Hurlshot
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Elerond said:

In other words it is similar issue as why people support freedom of religion even though it leads people dying because of small groups of intolerant and ignorant extremists.

Heh. You can't possibly expect a poorly educated illegal immigrant teenager from a Muslim country to know that freedom of religion actually leads to less people dying than the alternative by many orders of magnitude, but that's exactly how it is.

Euros don't live in secular states because of a whim. It is the practical application of the lessons learned during the unimaginably bloody Wars of Religion and Thirty Years' War, next to which the ISIS thing looks like a ****ing Sunday picnic. They literally do not know what they are pushing for. Remove the secular safeguards that prevent religious nutjobs from dictating social norms and controlling the national agenda? No one, especially not Muslim minorities, would like the result of that.

Callous as it may sound, a few deaths every year due to religious extremism is a very, very small price to pay for the stability brought by religious tolerance and freedom of expression.

  • Like 4

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hurlshot said:

Why can't both be bad? :shrugz:

 

Last week I taught a lesson on satire and censorship and covered the Charlie Hebdo story as well as the recent teacher killing in France. But I did request that my students not kill me, so *fingers crossed*

It's basically a 1st Amendment lesson. So it covers freedom of religion, speech, press, and protest rights. It's based on previous lessons about the Magna Carta and Henry II's Royal Court system. I also shared news stories about the NY Post and Twitter censorship of the Hunter Biden story, as well as last years actions by Blizzard and the NBA in regards to China and the Hong Kong protests. It's pretty hard to gauge how it went during digital learning. I think I may need to rework it, since it has become a bit overwhelming with all the crazy stories that I can use to teach it.

And this week we started our unit on Islam, so the students all get to learn about a very different, non-secular way of life. 

I must say I am impressed with your content and variation, I didnt think you would cover such a range of topics and it all looks like its really pertinent but not to complicated for the kids. Good choices 

How do you explain the French teacher killing and how do the kids respond to the idea of "  Islamic extremist " because how would you explain the killer to young people....its tough because is he called a killer or an extremist?

 

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Skarpen said:

am understanding the world is a scary place. a clutch-your-pearls reaction for some more timid individuals is to be expected. a story 'bout a bad muslim in france is gonna induce in some a fit o' shivering-- poor dears.

is something like 5.5 muslims in france and ~1.8 billion worldwide.... so 'bout 1.8 billion muslims complete innocent o' the crime in france. the bad muslim in france story has us positive terrified. send an individual scurrying under his bed for cover everytime he hears a story o' violence has gotta be a terrifying existence considering all the violence in the world. 

"‘We Are Being Eaten From Within.’ Why America Is Losing the Battle Against White Nationalist Terrorism"

"Since 9/11, white supremacists and other far-right extremists have been responsible for almost three times as many attacks on U.S. soil as Islamic terrorists, the government reported. From 2009 through 2018, the far right has been responsible for 73% of domestic extremist-related fatalities"

"FBI Director Christopher Wray told Congress in July that a majority of the bureau’s domestic-terrorism investigations since October were linked to white supremacy."

if there is ideology based associations in the US most worthy o' fear, 'ccording to US intelligence for past multiple decades, it is the white supremacists and right-wing groups.  if one were to try and lockdown fortress america and protect it from the evils lurking just beyond our borders, the sensible reaction would be to first exclude those most likely to do harm. am not personal advocating such a bedwetter approach to national safety, but even if one does embrace such, it would have us looking at the common characteristics o' the greatest threat. 

so, what is the salient characteristics o' the members o'  white supremacist and far/alt-right groups?

white

male

working class (nicer way o' saying uneducated, don't you think?)

christian

hmmm. that group o' qualities, given proximity to the Presidential election 'bout to take place, sounds familiar, but will leave that for a later date.

regardless, if you wanna protect americans from scary people who is likely to commit abominable acts o' violence in the name o' ideology, the obvious folks to exclude (again, a stoopid reaction, but might as well at least consider the possibilities) is the persons most likely to become members o' the most dangerous groups. if any, should ban the following: white, male, working class, christian.

'course there is an obvious hurdle to this rational (but stoopid and fear based) plan...

"congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

furthermore, the civil war amendments precludes the US from discriminating on the basis o' national origin and race n' such as well as religion, 'cause 'y'know we fought an extreme bloody war with ourselves already over such issues

there has never been a equal rights amendment for women, which is kinda curious but it is the law. gender actual gets something referred to as intermediate scrutiny, which as you might guess is less than the strict scrutiny applicable to race, religion and national origin and a few other categories. craig v. borena case on which rbg were an attorney for the plaintiffs, established gender as deserving intermediate scrutiny, a compromise result which satisfied nobody.

so a white, male, working class, christian ban is just plain illegal and complete unsupportable, but a male and working class ban could probably be managed. doesn't make for much o' campaign slogan though and am suspecting it don't resonate in the US rust belt. just a guess.

oh, and muslim ban is obvious illegal and unconstitutional, so...

'course focus on legal all too often ignores questions o' moral and right. many o' the founding fathers and framers o' the Constitution were descendents o' the those early settlers to the "new world," and the memory o' the persecution o' minority christian faiths in europe were not forgotten or ignored by these men. the US may have been founded by white men who were, for the most part, terrible bigots, but they did understand the value o' religious freedom and they clear sympathized with those attempting to escape religious persecution-- is the why behind the protection in the First Amendment. those men and women embracing unpopular christian teachings in europe found a chance to worship open and free in the US.

the US has had a troubled history with religious freedom. wounded knee were a massacre o' indians, mostly old men and women, who were gathered for the ghost dance, a religious observance. similarly, antisemitism has been common and every few decades there is a terrible resurgence o' bigotry directed at jews in this country. 

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

is aspirational, but the poem immortalized on the statue o' liberty were written by emma lazarus who were an advocate for jewish immigrants being driven out of europe in the late 1800s. those immigrants, fleeing religious persecution, were also targeted with claims o' lawlessness and immorality.

the US, from its founding, has in its horribly inconsistent way been a refuge for those fleeing religious persecution. moderate muslims in 2020, driven out o' their homes by more fundamentalist adherents o' the faith is having many parallels with the pilgrims in the 1600s who were escaping religious persecution in europe. is having parallels to the catholics and jews who would subsequent seek refuge in the US.  is much 'bout the US which is worthy o' criticism, but the aspirational embrace o' all religions and faiths is just and moral and right. we fail. we stumble. we write unjust laws and support immoral candidates for election. eventual we shake off the the fear of small and petty men unworthy o' public service and rededicate ourselves to something far from universal religious liberty, but we keep striving to close the gap 'tween reality and those aspirations codified in the first amendment and on the statue o' liberty and elsewhere.

so, muslim ban? you would advocate a willful ignorance o' the violation o' the moral and legal principles 'pon which the US is founded 'cause o' fear o' foreigners, particular as the monsters o' the domestic variety is more plentiful and o' a much more serious and immediate threat. that is the argument?

*snort*

HA! Good Fun!

edit: old stats... closer to 1.8 billion muslims worldwide, not 1.5. shoulda' checked before posting. our bad.

ps

The Effects of Large Group Meetings on the Spread ofCOVID-19: The Case of Trump Rallies

Extrapolating this figure to the entire sample, we conclude that these eighteen rallies ultimately resulted in more than 30,000 incremental confirmed cases of COVID-19. Applying county specific post-event death rates, we conclude that the rallies likely led to more than 700 deaths
(not necessarily among attendees).

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 1

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Gromnir said:

white supremacists and other far-right extremists have been responsible for almost three times as many attacks

Please point me to almost 6 beheadings done by those groups in the last weeks.

166215__front.jpg.45518d58bdab611f0e3a026d3b8c6489.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Gorth locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...