Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

User avatar
MTVCCVC
Justice League
Posts: 4574
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:03 pm
Justice League Membership: Tim Drake [Red Robin]
Location: Sisak, Croatia
x 87

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:23 pm

Recently, Jeremy Hambley who runs the Youtube channels The Quartering and Unsleeved Media has been physically attacked by a, no bones about it, SJWanker game designer and apparently a professor at a Uni, a person who advocates and subscribes to "punch Nazis" philosophy.

Following this, first op-eds popped up how it didn't actually happen, followed then by op-eds arguing that Jeremy had it coming, including an op-ed on comimcscrusade.com that has appears to have been take down continuing to argue that Nazis should be punched in order to stop them from spreading their ideology.


Jeremy is not a Nazi, by any measure. It would seem to me that the people advocating violence and commiting violence against those whose opinions they don't like are more Nazi-like.
I am no going to entertain this any further, but I do want to raise one important question:

Why stop at just punching the people you call "Nazis"?
If these "Nazis" are really such dangerous and terrible people and you want to stop them from spreading their ideology and doing who knows what else you think they'd do down the line to the point that you are willing to initiate political violence against them, why stop at punching? Why not kill them?

Anyone who argues for violence against anyone else needs to make a considerable effort to argue clearly and without room for interpretation why if violence against whoever is warranted, why said violence must be limited to assault and not murder.
Otherwise, you should shut up, because you are clearly a mental midget who has not thought the consequences of your advocacy through.

Anyone wnat to try and take a stab at arguing that position?
0 x

User avatar
Ghost13
Justice League
Posts: 2762
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:17 am
Justice League Membership: Captain Marvel (Shazam)
x 183

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:00 am

The people tearing these statues down do not care for a nuanced view of history, they just care about "Muh Racism!", which is why they also easily went after a statue comemorating the confedarate soldiers, not just the leaders.

Furthermore, these are not the kind of people to stop at just confederate statues
So far I have only heard of attempts to remove statues of Confederate Icons and such. No idea how effective thes attempts targeted at the Memorials of common soldiers were. Would surprise me though if we´ll ever going to see an affective attack on the founding fathers or some such.
Yes, so he earned it
Not in comparison to all the people who could have gotten a Star instead of him. From what I´ve heard he even got it years earlier than Mark Hamill...
Thinking that the public is too stupid to see and aknowledge the flaws and faults of people who are put on a pedestal for things they have achieved is not sufficient justification for me to erase people from history and into some dark basement to be forgotten.

How evil is evil enough to be removed from popular consciousness and history? How many good deeds or impresive ahievments does this outweight or counteract? Who gets to decide what constitutes "evil" and what consitutes "good"?
The problem is not necessarily that these faults are not acknowledged, the problem is that the statue suggests their achievements outweight the faults.

Pretty sure that having mob ties and the family sepperation policy are enough to refuse Trump the reward of gaining a Star on the Walk of Fame. At least until all other more worthy candidates have gotten one. This is not removing him from popular consciousness and history of course. That would be a bit difficult with somebody as famous as Donald Trump.



At least this is how I see it. Doubt we´ll end up agreeing with each other even if we continue this. Would really interest me, though what other people on this site think...
0 x
The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind.

― H.P. Lovecraft

User avatar
MTVCCVC
Justice League
Posts: 4574
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:03 pm
Justice League Membership: Tim Drake [Red Robin]
Location: Sisak, Croatia
x 87

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:34 pm

Ghost13 wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:00 am
At least this is how I see it. Doubt we´ll end up agreeing with each other even if we continue this. Would really interest me, though what other people on this site think...
Not a proble for me. I like to argue, in the philosophical sense. Even if I disagree, I like to hear your opinion and you defend it, especially if you do it well.

I'd also like to hear from the others, but this thread has been dead for a while and the forum has been kind of slow in general too.
DC has not exactly done much to be enthusiastic or otherwise emotionally invested about for quite a while now.
I hope the new movies and Young Justice change that. I really don't like being this apathetic about what was once one of my favourite entertainments.

Ghost13 wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:00 am
So far I have only heard of attempts to remove statues of Confederate Icons and such. No idea how effective thes attempts targeted at the Memorials of common soldiers were. Would surprise me though if we´ll ever going to see an affective attack on the founding fathers or some such.
It's unlikely to happen from here on out, largely because the wninds, they are a-changin', but that should not be taken to mean that there aren't people who don't want to, but are incapable of achieving their goals.
Ghost13 wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:00 am
Not in comparison to all the people who could have gotten a Star instead of him. From what I´ve heard he even got it years earlier than Mark Hamill...
I don't exactly see how that invalidates the achievement.
Ghost13 wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:00 am
The problem is not necessarily that these faults are not acknowledged, the problem is that the statue suggests their achievements outweight the faults.
I don't see why that is a problem. Should great people and great achievements not be recognized if said people were insufficiently just according to modern moral standards?
That kind of puts the axe to every important figure throughout history. Hell, I bet if you looked deaper into some people who are considered basically saints, you'd find something bad about them that could unravel the whole yarn in one tug, if you subscribe to this notion.

And again, the question follows: who gets to decide what is or isn't just and right? For instance, if certain religious groups were the dictators of culture, no atheist could do enough good to be considered worthy just because of their lack of religious belief.
Ghost13 wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:00 am
Pretty sure that having mob ties and the family sepperation policy are enough to refuse Trump the reward of gaining a Star on the Walk of Fame.
Disagree. The star s supposed to be given to those with outstanding achievement in the entertainment industry.
Unless said achievement has been fraudulently gained, no other reason justifies removing the recognition.

As for Trump's mob ties, has that been proven? And the family separation policy is not something he created, it existed from the Bush era onwards, was not an administrative decision, but a legislative one and when Obama decided to make the administrative decision not to enforce it, it ended with hundreds of kids being handed over to human traficers.
After all, how do you prove that the child in question is in fact the parent of the person making the claim if they have no documentation? (...)
Ghost13 wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:00 am
At least until all other more worthy candidates have gotten one.
That seems so easily abusable. Not to mention that once again the question arises as to who the arbiter of worth is going to be.
Ghost13 wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:00 am
This is not removing him from popular consciousness and history of course. That would be a bit difficult with somebody as famous as Donald Trump.
Rome was not built in one day. The constant demonization of the man, justified and unjustified is aimed at making him a persona non grata, regardless of his fame.
0 x

User avatar
theamerican
Justice League
Posts: 3815
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:12 am
Justice League Membership: Lobo
Location: Isolated from the outside world
x 57

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Sun Aug 12, 2018 1:57 pm

Problem with the Confederate statue issue is you’re always on two camps. Lost Cause people and “Civil war was a battle of good and evil!”

When really the war is more of complex and nuanced. There was a song about the Battle of Shiloh by a country music star that reflects on the fact in the end, no one really won because you had brother killing brother and fathers killing sons (that actually happened). The war tore the country apart. To try to shoehorn this as good and evil or simplify it as a romantic lost cause really is an insult to everyone who died there.

Here are some hard truths people need to accept

1. The War was about slavery. Yes it was. States rights was the political argument but it was centered around slavery. Yes the South had a lot of grievances with the North and found themselves slowly getting choked out by losing political power due to population booms but ultimately the issue the South was willing to shoot the states rights gun and rebel was slavery.

2. Union was just as racist as the South. The war was about slavery but not the betterment of African Americans. In fact most the North hated slavery from more “Dey took our jobs!” mentality. Lincoln made his career as a free soiler, meaning he didn’t want to ban slavery but not add new slave states. Slavery was always an issue since the turn of the century (Missouri Compromise, South Carolina nullification, Great Compromise of 1850), but not many northern people were actually abolitionists. A huge chunk of the anti slave political body were free soilers, nativists, and people of a political persuasion who didn’t want more slave states added because it would lead to more slave state democrat votes in Congress. Abolitionists were seen as minority wackos (probably less popular than pro life activists) at the time. And even after the war union pretty much abandoned blacks to still get treated like shit in not just the South but around America.

3. Many Americans didn’t see themselves as Americans but loyal to their state. This had roots since during the American Revolution. Some envisioned United States as a country others imagined a loose confederation of different states united for mutual protection and that was it. Kind of like what the EU sort of is. Whole reason Lee joined the Confederacy despite being asked by Lincoln to lead the Union army was because Virginia votes to join the Confederacy. His loyalty was to the State of Virginia over the US or Confederacy

4. While South had many crimes during and after the war from people they memorialize (Forrest is one of them), Union wasn’t necessarily saints in the war either. Sherman and Grant pretty much went total war on the entire Confederacy to win it. It even inspired outrage not just in the Confederacy but Union as well from Union Democrats of Sherman’s brutality during his march to Georgia. Sherman even acknowledged that he was being brutal because the Union wasn’t going to win the war by changing hearts or minds or by being gentlemen but he can go so brutal he’ll scare the South into not resisting Union authority for a 100 years (convenient civil rights era happens at the time isn’t it?)

Not to disparage Grant or Sherman or even say the strategy didn’t work (it did), but to point out while a lot of people poke fun of the Confederacy with glee and false sense of mora superiority, they would probably calling for war crimes against Sherman if he was pretty much doing the same thing in the Iraq War.

5. Civil War brought out a lot of good leaders on both sides. To not acknowledge Stonewall Jackson’s prowress because he was on the Confederate side is very immature and intellectually bankrupt. With that logic we should thus not study Tecumseh and his attempt at an Indian Confederacy because US won against him and we can’t talk about the losers at all. A lot of leaders came from the Civil War and it is important for us to acknowledge that. Not every Confederate Officer was Himmler and not every Union Officer was Eisenhower.


So what does that bring us? A lot of the statues were put up to romanticize the lost cause. Lee even warned against that. But now, the problem is those statues have been ingrained as part of a culture. Iconoclastic behavior doesn’t work. Instead of removing or taking them down, let them stand as one, now symbols of the folly of war and a reminder for us to be better.

Taking statues down spit in the face of reconciliation Grant tried to aim for (ie 1920s Confederate and Union veterans of Gettysburg met at the site and shook hands as a sign of healing old wounds). I’m not saying we add more statues, but considering the lives lost and the cost of the war that still had some nuance to it, it is appropriate we let them still stand but not be afraid to have a dialogue on the past. Removing them makes it seem like we’re only going with “Union good, Confederacy evil” narrative.

If we had a time machine we could go back and prevent those monuments being built, but we don’t and now the genie is out of the bottle you can’t force it back in.
0 x
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." -Patton
"A people free to choose will always choose peace. "-Ronald Reagan
"...law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."-Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Ghost13
Justice League
Posts: 2762
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:17 am
Justice League Membership: Captain Marvel (Shazam)
x 183

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:08 pm

And the family separation policy is not something he created, it existed from the Bush era onwards, was not an administrative decision, but a legislative one and when Obama decided to make the administrative decision not to enforce it, it ended with hundreds of kids being handed over to human traficers.
I think I´ve read something different. Not sure what the Obama fiasco had to do with the child sepperation laws, but according to what I´ve heard the policy only started to be implemented on a large scale thanks to the Trump administration. I am unsure about ist history beforehand but it certainly was not the fault of the Democrats as Trump claimed...
The constant demonization of the man, justified and unjustified is aimed at making him a persona non grata, regardless of his fame.
And that should be impossible due to his many fans. Which criticism of Trump do you think is justified?
0 x
The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind.

― H.P. Lovecraft

User avatar
MTVCCVC
Justice League
Posts: 4574
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:03 pm
Justice League Membership: Tim Drake [Red Robin]
Location: Sisak, Croatia
x 87

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:51 pm

Ghost13 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:08 pm
I think I´ve read something different. Not sure what the Obama fiasco had to do with the child sepperation laws, but according to what I´ve heard the policy only started to be implemented on a large scale thanks to the Trump administration. I am unsure about ist history beforehand but it certainly was not the fault of the Democrats as Trump claimed...
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the vast majority of information when it comes to Trump is disinformation, especially if it comes from legacy media.
Same for Obama, just from a different direction.
Ghost13 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:08 pm
And that should be impossible due to his many fans. Which criticism of Trump do you think is justified?
That he is an egotist, he lacks the usual politician's decorum and that despite being percieved as a straight-shooter, Trump is very much an actor.
Trump is great at acting to be a bufoon (probably because he is only acting 70% of the time), which makes him that much more effetive and competent.
People don't expect an idiot to be capable, which puts them in a state of unearned confidence and relaxes them, leading to them being easy to decieve and get played. At this point I am no longer sure if his fragile ego is also an act.

He is not a racist, he is not a sexist, he is not a fascist, he is not an authoritarain and he is especially not a russian puppet.
He does adopt strong man foreign policy.

If you feel like I'm missing something or would like to argue/question any point, feel free to ask. I generally preffer more precise questions to open questions, because I can also be more precise in my answer.
0 x

User avatar
Ghost13
Justice League
Posts: 2762
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:17 am
Justice League Membership: Captain Marvel (Shazam)
x 183

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:11 pm

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the vast majority of information when it comes to Trump is disinformation, especially if it comes from legacy media.
Same for Obama, just from a different direction.

So do you have a better source of Information on the Child sepperation Policy? When I heard about this it definately seemed like he had crossed a line...

If you feel like I'm missing something or would like to argue/question any point, feel free to ask. I generally preffer more precise questions to open questions, because I can also be more precise in my answer.
So so far you think he hasn´t done any harm as president? And hasn´t been the least bit xenophobic?
0 x
The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind.

― H.P. Lovecraft

User avatar
MTVCCVC
Justice League
Posts: 4574
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:03 pm
Justice League Membership: Tim Drake [Red Robin]
Location: Sisak, Croatia
x 87

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:45 pm

Ghost13 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:11 pm
So do you have a better source of Information on the Child sepperation Policy? When I heard about this it definately seemed like he had crossed a line...
Well, here's 2 realtively decent sources that amongst the usual spin admit to the important aspects of it:
https://www.businessinsider.com/photos- ... ama-2018-6
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administ ... ver-949099

Key points:
1 - "Since April the Trump administration had been following a "zero-tolerance" policy, which criminally prosecutes people who illegally cross into US territory leading to separation from their accompanying children."
2 - "The Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy enforced existing laws, and saw almost 2,000 children removed their families along the US-Mexico border over a six-week period "
3 - " But similar photos from Obama-era border facilities have also surfaced, sparking debate on responsibility for migrant children being detained and prompting criticism across party lines.
On the left is a photo taken on June 18, 2014, when Obama was president. Taken by the Associated Press at the Nogales Placement Center in Nogales, Arizona, run by US Customs and Border Protection, it shows two young girls sleeping on mattresses in what appears to be a caged holding cell. They've been separated from other children by age and gender. "
4 - "Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Administration for Children and Families spokesperson Kenneth Wolfe told Newsweek on Wednesday that it had as many as 10,852 undocumented children in its custody—a significant jump from the 8,886 that were in the agency's custody on April 29, according to the Washington Post. spokesman for HHS’s Administration for Children and Families told
In fiscal year 2013, under the Barack Obama administration, the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) had as many as 25,000 unaccompanied children in its care across 80 shelters, according to a July 2014 article in Mother Jones."

...

So the question is as follows: If you aprehend a person or persons illegally and without documents crossing your border and bringing a child with them, how can you know that child is indeed theirs? Further, since these people are to be criminally prosecuted and put into detention centers with other adults for processing prior to deportation, should you shove them into the same detention facility?

Ghost13 wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:11 pm
So so far you think he hasn´t done any harm as president? And hasn´t been the least bit xenophobic?
Well, he's probably fucked up things with Iran lately. On the other hand, he's done wonders with the North Korean situation.
The US economy is doing fine and hasn't exploded like everyone said it would. He's managed to get Juncker to back off on some tarrifs and is going to win the same thing with China. He hasn't opened any concentration camps for balcks, jews and gays, to my knowledge.

Kicking out illegal immigrants may not sit well with some people's sensibilities, but the word "illegal" kind of has a meaning to consider there.
The "Muslim ban" was not a full on muslim ban and was a restriction on entering the country to 7 problematic countries from the ME, which again may not suit some people's sensibilities, but considering the whole ISIS thing and what the terror attacks in Europe, it was hardly the most baseless idea. Plus, as the courts eventually had to admit, it is completely in the authority of the president to decide who can and cannot enter the country.

Trump is an old guard nationalistic statesman. I can't hold that against him. The government of a state is supposed to put the well-being of its citizens over everyone else, including foreign nationals and foreign economies.
At least, thus far, he hasn't gone back or directly against the promises he made during his campaign, which is a shock these days.


Is there anything more specific you'd like me to comment on?
0 x

User avatar
DaisyJane
Justice League
Posts: 6380
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:52 pm
Justice League Membership: Donna Troy
Location: Los Angeles
x 242
Contact:

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:49 pm

Let me add that during the Obama era there was briefly a catch and release policy with illegal immigrants and their children which led to border patrol finding the dead bodies of many children in the desert as they were basically used by traffickers to illegally enter the country and then when they had served their purpose were either left for dead or murdered and left to rot. So then Obama detained the families together which led to Flores vs. Reno(a case from 1993 btw) rearing its ugly head which led to the children having to be separated from their parents as they could not be legally detained with them. All this is because the adults entering illegally claim asylum which slows the process of deportation because now their case has to be investigated. This has been a problem since Clinton was President and it is what has led to the concept of building the wall. The media was very quiet when similar stuff was going down with Obama but are shrill about it now because the mid term elections are coming up and they want the democrats in power the House and Senate. The really could give a crap about the kids.
0 x
FU DC

User avatar
theamerican
Justice League
Posts: 3815
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:12 am
Justice League Membership: Lobo
Location: Isolated from the outside world
x 57

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:39 pm

DaisyJane wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:49 pm
Let me add that during the Obama era there was briefly a catch and release policy with illegal immigrants and their children which led to border patrol finding the dead bodies of many children in the desert as they were basically used by traffickers to illegally enter the country and then when they had served their purpose were either left for dead or murdered and left to rot. So then Obama detained the families together which led to Flores vs. Reno(a case from 1993 btw) rearing its ugly head which led to the children having to be separated from their parents as they could not be legally detained with them. All this is because the adults entering illegally claim asylum which slows the process of deportation because now their case has to be investigated. This has been a problem since Clinton was President and it is what has led to the concept of building the wall. The media was very quiet when similar stuff was going down with Obama but are shrill about it now because the mid term elections are coming up and they want the democrats in power the House and Senate. The really could give a crap about the kids.
DJ is right. This has been a problem since the Clinton years. Thing is both parties are complacent and get advantages of not doing anything. Republicans say “vote for us in congress and we’ll fix it.” Dems say “vote for us and we’ll protect immigrants.”

Trump has time and time again indicated he wants to fix immigration. He’s even angered some elements of his base when he hinted he work with Dems and compromise DACA and maybe more amnesty in exchange for total commitment to building the wall and fixing the enforcement in exchange for other reforms.

And he keeps kicking the ball to congress telling them it’s their job. Now some radical Republicans of course will be like “no compromise!” but most would be willing. Problem is Dems have nothing to gain from compromise. If congress is actually doing its job it’s hard to get people outraged and when you’re the out of power party you thrive off outrage. For better or worse Trump has exposed how much bullshit congress and corrupt us government is by time and time again tossing the ball into their court (hence why he’s ironically been less authoritarian despite his bellicosity) and saying “hey this your job, I’m willing to accept a compromise, just actually fix it.”

When the economy was doing shittty or meh the last eight years guess which area thrived? DC and the surrounding neighborhoods in Virginia because more congressmen and bureaucrats were getting Cush rich jobs but still not doing anything. Congress these days is in the business of you being outrage to keep voting them to stay in power and they’ll keep allowing useless bureaucrats or lobbyists to thrive as long as they protect them.

Immigration isn’t Trumps fault. It’s over twenty years of presidencies and congress not being adults and actually fixing the issues
0 x
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." -Patton
"A people free to choose will always choose peace. "-Ronald Reagan
"...law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."-Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Ghost13
Justice League
Posts: 2762
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:17 am
Justice League Membership: Captain Marvel (Shazam)
x 183

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:57 am

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... ndal-react

Looks like we have an actual case of gender discrimination in Japan.
0 x
The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind.

― H.P. Lovecraft

User avatar
MTVCCVC
Justice League
Posts: 4574
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:03 pm
Justice League Membership: Tim Drake [Red Robin]
Location: Sisak, Croatia
x 87

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:09 pm

Wish I could say that I was surprised, but I'm really not.


Here's something I'd really like as many of you as possible to weigh in on:
Should companies like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, possibly even Google be turned into public utilities, a la the telephone companies?

I am currently undecided on the issue, which is not to say that I don't have an opinion.

First let's get the libertarian/classical liberal(ish) argument out of the way:
They are private companies and the gov'ment doesn't have the right to step in and take something they've built.

In a vacuum, I would agree to this point, but these comapnies have, evidently and in some cases admittedly, a disproportionate impact on public life and discourse. Given that is the case, it is arguably not approrpiate for private entities to wield that much power, espcially if it affects the political process.
If they could demonstrably be truly unbiased and not force their own political and moral stances onto the public or exclude people they deem unworthy from the digital public square, then I would agree that such a government seizure would be unwarranted. Given that they evidently are and cannot be trusted to respect and tolerate the speech of all members of the public, I can't agree with the notion.

However, my problem arises from these companies being global and multinational entities. If they are turned into public utilities, well, that does kind of put the US into a substantially superior and dominating position over every other country on Earth and invites the problem of actual state intervention in foreign countries public life.

A more propper solution, from my point of view may be the notion of a Digital Bill of Rights, or something like that and preferably and international treaty on such. This would serve to undercut both these comapnies exerting too much influence onto states as well as states like China being able to censor said companies and their own citizens rights to expersion on said platforms.

Thoughts?
0 x

User avatar
theamerican
Justice League
Posts: 3815
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:12 am
Justice League Membership: Lobo
Location: Isolated from the outside world
x 57

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:38 am

MTVCCVC wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:09 pm
Wish I could say that I was surprised, but I'm really not.


Here's something I'd really like as many of you as possible to weigh in on:
Should companies like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, possibly even Google be turned into public utilities, a la the telephone companies?

I am currently undecided on the issue, which is not to say that I don't have an opinion.

First let's get the libertarian/classical liberal(ish) argument out of the way:
They are private companies and the gov'ment doesn't have the right to step in and take something they've built.

In a vacuum, I would agree to this point, but these comapnies have, evidently and in some cases admittedly, a disproportionate impact on public life and discourse. Given that is the case, it is arguably not approrpiate for private entities to wield that much power, espcially if it affects the political process.
If they could demonstrably be truly unbiased and not force their own political and moral stances onto the public or exclude people they deem unworthy from the digital public square, then I would agree that such a government seizure would be unwarranted. Given that they evidently are and cannot be trusted to respect and tolerate the speech of all members of the public, I can't agree with the notion.

However, my problem arises from these companies being global and multinational entities. If they are turned into public utilities, well, that does kind of put the US into a substantially superior and dominating position over every other country on Earth and invites the problem of actual state intervention in foreign countries public life.

A more propper solution, from my point of view may be the notion of a Digital Bill of Rights, or something like that and preferably and international treaty on such. This would serve to undercut both these comapnies exerting too much influence onto states as well as states like China being able to censor said companies and their own citizens rights to expersion on said platforms.

Thoughts?
This actually has been causing a debate between right wing and libertarian/anarchist camps. I’m more of the mindset of just build a competing product.

However, there is an argument to be made social media and tech is a virtual monopoly. Thus access to it to exercise free speech and it’s discriminating could be the equivalent of the government discriminating against marriage licenses or people to have a petition for a public protest.

The thing is, it sets up a dangerous precedent when you got a company regulating/censoring speech and then a government or other regulatory authority have to step in and be like “hey I think you regulating speech is wrong, therefore I’m going to regulate how you regulate free speech.”

Problem with that gives more power to another agency over the company, and while many on the right may welcome it, what happens when that power falls in the hands of someone on the left (which it eventually will because politics swing back and forth)? As many Obama acolytes are tearing their hair out with all the precedents that he set now Trump inherits. And you can put all the laws you want to try to avoid an agency being misused when another party takes power, but when your country is run by lawyers you can always figure a legal justification to change the agency’s mission set or not enforce it at all.

I’m saying say Trump has FCC regulate tech companies censorship of information. But then say in two to six years we have President Kamala Harris and a leftist government majority. What if her administration decides the FCC be more passive now of regulating internet content (say they only step into stop censorship when its being discriminatory to people’s characteristics, not opinions). Or what if it starts encouraging the FCC to censor more conservative opinions even worse than the tech companies were doing because the power of the state was behind it. Despite their near monopoly tech companies still value their wallets above anything else (hence why the censorship has for the most part been more passive or they find other excuses like bullying). If they came and flat out admitted they were censoring, it could hurt their stock. It’s why Jack from Twitter goes out of his way to try say they still want free exchange of ideas and why he was very reluctant to block Alex Jones (even though Twitter plays games with shadow bans, selective blocking of bullying tweets, and check mark bias).

So taking about the potentials of both. Tech companies eventually deplatforming right and libertarian point of views or government regulating it and eventually growing more aggressive in deplatforming, I believe the latter more likely.

I think the best way to combat it is in the people themselves still raising hell. Let outrage be known. Star Wars is learning the hard way when they tried to double down on the overt left wing politics and alienate more centrist and right wing fans. Netflix cancelled Michelle Wolf’s show after it just blatantly being a bash anything remotely a conservative issue non stop over being funny. Someone gets smart enough to realize “hey there’s still an untapped market.” Ashton Kutcher pretty much admitted this is why he created the TV show The Ranch because it was targeted to a more rural, socially conservative audience instead of usual sitcom about young people living in New York City.

So I think balance comes back. Only thing I think the government can step in if someone sues them for a case of fraud. Example Twitter promotes it as a discussion but with its selective rules you could make a case to sue them for fraud if they seemed to block you despite complying to their rules. Same can be for google. You can argue google has blocked your website for popping in its search engine despite it promoting itself as the best search engine company in the world and your website reaching competitive enough traffic it should pop as number one when the title is searched.

In short my strategy is go for the money, not the power of the law. Because whenever you use the law to help your political or social cause (no matter how just it was), eventually it will he turned against you when someone else with a different political and social view is in power.
0 x
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." -Patton
"A people free to choose will always choose peace. "-Ronald Reagan
"...law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."-Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
DaisyJane
Justice League
Posts: 6380
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:52 pm
Justice League Membership: Donna Troy
Location: Los Angeles
x 242
Contact:

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:03 am

I have been having this debate with my husband and my opinion is with TA. I have seen these tech platforms come and go and I do think competition will drive them out especially if they piss off people using their product. I am always leery of gov't getting involved in anything because that in the end is how monopolies stay in power, by buying the politicians (through lobbyists) who create regulation that keeps competition out of the market.
1 x
FU DC

User avatar
Ghost13
Justice League
Posts: 2762
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:17 am
Justice League Membership: Captain Marvel (Shazam)
x 183

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:08 am



Haven´t heard much from him yet but could it be that Jordan Peterson is a bit overrated as a thinker?
0 x
The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind.

― H.P. Lovecraft

User avatar
MTVCCVC
Justice League
Posts: 4574
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:03 pm
Justice League Membership: Tim Drake [Red Robin]
Location: Sisak, Croatia
x 87

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:31 pm

No, he isn't. He is an overthinker, though. I'd recommend watching some of his content for yourself, if you can set aside enough time. He does tend to go on for a while.I watched some of it some time ago, but I don't anymore. I'm not that much into philosophy that I can stand to watch over an hour of talk on metaphysical concepts and such.
When he get's into concrete things, he's very good, but he looses me when he goes into the metaphisical.


That said, this 3 arrows guy is the one that came off badly from my POV out of this video.
He starts the video off with rather jarringly cut clips that essentially boild down to guilt by association, weakly qualifying that he is in fact opposed to the "fringe views" that are associated with him.
Despite (rather dismissively) specifically mentioning the part where Petereson specifically discusses how people have the innate potential to be extremely good and extremely evil and that circumstances can push you either way (the Nazi gaurd talk), he proceeds to condemn Peterson for portraying Nazis as evil and pathological, because that other-ises them and makes it easier to disassociate ourselves from ever understanding or concieving of being that kind of evil.
This stuck out to me all the more considering how he castigated Peterson for not adopting the (and I'll be just as childish as he was) the oh so revolutionary and exclusively post-modern notion of trying to see the world through the eyes of the subject you are examining in order to understand them and not imposing yor worldview on thier thouhts, only to fall into the very same trap quite gleefully himself when it seemed like a nice opportunity to put a zinger down on Peterson.

Then near the end he compares Peterson's opposition to people who are trying to, in their own words, "smash the oppressive capitalist patriarchy" which they identify as society as it is structured today and replace it with... something... with the Nazis view of the internationaly Jewery and the solution they ultimately came up with.

He also misrepresentes what Peterson means with "perfectly fine and logical" when talking about how the Nazis should have "enlasved the Jews and the Gypsies", though if I was to give 3Arrows the benefit of the doubt, i think this was a slip up on his part.

I find it somewhat odd that he attacks Peterson for talking in "metaphysical bullshit" by going into realphysical acts and relating how they were based on the Nazis metaphisical concepts of the "international Jewery".

Then there's also the bit where he gets his knickers in a twist over Peterson using the word Gypsy, a word that in his mind if used invites and justifies genocide (i'm paraphrasing, but only slightly

I also rather dislike his disclaimer at the end of the video "let me be clear, I don't think PEterson is a Nazi" after a 20 minute video where he associated Peterson with (neo)Nazis and compared his way of thinking to Nazi thinking.



That said, the part where he got off Peterson's back and talked about the Nazi's actions and the "philosophy" that guided it was actually interesting.
0 x

User avatar
Ghost13
Justice League
Posts: 2762
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:17 am
Justice League Membership: Captain Marvel (Shazam)
x 183

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:48 pm

That said, this 3 arrows guy is the one that came off badly from my POV out of this video.

Then I assume the critique Peterson gets for allegedly misrepresenting that Bill C-16 is also not fair?


0 x
The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind.

― H.P. Lovecraft

User avatar
MTVCCVC
Justice League
Posts: 4574
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:03 pm
Justice League Membership: Tim Drake [Red Robin]
Location: Sisak, Croatia
x 87

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:25 pm

Oh my god, that's cult of dusty! This is going to be fucking hillarious and full of shit.

Anyway, yes Peterson's claim that Bill C-16 itself leads to compelled speech was not true, but he talked about it in the following manner: "Bill C-16 and surrounding legislation".

that said, even this article that goes into length as to how Peterson is wrong says the following:
http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-n ... un-misuse/
Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.
So there is already a notion floating around the legal system that addresses what he is talking about.
Now you tell me, what happens if you refuse to abide by the dictates of a court or tribunal?


And it would seem that Peterson is not the only one who misunderstands the specifics and scope of C-16 as it stands today and with no surrounding legislation as to what constitutes discrimination:
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... rimination
But Rambukkana goes further, telling Shepherd she’s also in violation of the legal regime created by C-16.

“These arguments are counter to the Canadian Human Rights Code ever since, and I know that you talked about C-16, ever since this passed, it is discriminatory to be targeting someone due to their gender identity and gender expression,” he says.

The recording caused an outcry not only from Peterson’s side, who see this as confirmation of their free speech concerns, but also from academics and legal experts who smacked their heads when they heard how C-16 was being wrongly invoked to censure Shepherd.
So, the issue isn't quite as cut and dry as Dusty would like to think for his own convenience.
Last edited by MTVCCVC on Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
0 x

User avatar
Ghost13
Justice League
Posts: 2762
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:17 am
Justice League Membership: Captain Marvel (Shazam)
x 183

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:31 pm

MTVCCVC wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:25 pm
Oh my god, that's cult of dusty! This is going to be fucking hillarious
Sounds like that YouTuber has a reputation.
0 x
The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind.

― H.P. Lovecraft

User avatar
Ghost13
Justice League
Posts: 2762
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:17 am
Justice League Membership: Captain Marvel (Shazam)
x 183

Re: Political thoughts, views, and standpoints here...

Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:20 pm

Anyway, yes Peterson's claim that Bill C-16 itself leads to compelled speech was not true, but he talked about it in the following manner: "Bill C-16 and surrounding legislation".
Okay, so his concerns were valid.

What about his hatred of postmodernism? Does he overreact here? I´ve seen that he even did a video for Prager U about this...
0 x
The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind.

― H.P. Lovecraft

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests