Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Time to give Trump Presidency it's own Thread.Follow

#377 Aug 25 2017 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Wouldn't positive articles still be fake?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#378 Aug 25 2017 at 2:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
That's when cognitive dissidence kicks in: we haven't been able to find many fake news stories about how great Trump is, so all of his greatest must be real!
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#379 Aug 25 2017 at 3:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Apparently Kelly has stopped the flow of positive "news" articles from sources like Breitbart and sentient toadstool Alex Jones, so I'm sure that job has been much, much harder lately.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#380 Aug 25 2017 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
That's when cognitive dissidence kicks in...


Is that different than cognitive dissonance?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#381 Aug 26 2017 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Apparently some people might get stabby and shooty if Chump gets impeached.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-roger-stone-impeach-vote-endanger-life-congress-house-senate-white-house-russia-meeting-a7911691.html

I personally would love to see that happen, for any reason. What better way could there be to eliminate these kinds of people but for them to actually give law enforcement a reason to kill them. But this all sounds familiar. They won't do anything. White/Christian/Alt-Right terrorists are too lazy and complacent to put their own comfortable American lives in jeopardy over some **** not even they really believe.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#382 Aug 28 2017 at 7:19 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
White/Christian/Alt-Right terrorists are too lazy and complacent to put their own comfortable American lives in jeopardy over some **** not even they really believe.
Well, they'll drive a car into a crowd.

Edited, Aug 28th 2017 9:19am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#383 Aug 28 2017 at 7:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There's at least nine people from Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church who wish someone was a little lazier and more complacent.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#384 Aug 28 2017 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
That's when cognitive dissidence kicks in...


Is that different than cognitive dissonance?
Yeah, it has more protests.

Smiley: motz
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#385 Aug 28 2017 at 2:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
White/Christian/Alt-Right terrorists are too lazy and complacent to put their own comfortable American lives in jeopardy over some **** not even they really believe.
Well, they'll drive a car into a crowd.



I disapprove of the violence coming from the far left; however, I have to say, I do kinda smirk when the white supremacists complain about being chased out of town by mean people.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#386 Aug 29 2017 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Maybe now they'll finally figure out that their right to speak doesn't mean they have a right to avoid reactions for their speech.

Edited, Aug 29th 2017 10:47am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#387 Aug 29 2017 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
It's interesting, how much time they spend complaining about how violent and hateful "Antifa" is when their side has actually murdered someone for disagreeing with them.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#388 Aug 29 2017 at 10:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
I mean that nutso Bernie supporter tried hard, bless his heart. Poor guy unloaded a ridiculous amount of ammunition but didn't kill a soul. Then you get one redneck with a car and whammo, there's murder charges.

Makes you wonder why people are so worried about the government taking their guns. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#389 Aug 30 2017 at 5:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Maybe now they'll finally figure out that their right to speak doesn't mean they have a right to avoid reactions for their speech.


The issue isn't about reaction to their speech. The issue is whether that reaction is legal or not. No amount of offensive speech on the part of personA justifies illegal action on the part of personB.

IMO, one of the interesting aspects of this is that it highlights a key difference in how we can view issues like this. We can either judge people based on their actions, or judge them based on their identity. IMO, in any sane legal system, we should judge based on actions (that's the whole "content of character" vs "color of skin" angle btw). What people do is what matters, not who they are.

The fact that we can condemn people for their speech, opinions, etc, is just one aspect of this. The problem is when we refuse to judge people based on their actions because their actions were taken in response to someone else's speech. I've been seeing a whole lot of excuses of the counter protesters actions because of the identity of the protesters they were countering.

But that shouldn't matter. When judging the actions of that second group, we should ignore identity. If we were to strip away labels and just say that groupA was engaged in a lawful exercise of free speech and groupB showed up and engaged in unlawful actions to shut down that speech, I would hope every single one of us would condemn groupB for their actions. They clearly violated the rights of groupA.

The fact that groupA is a bunch of white nationalists should not change how we view this. The problem, however, is that for those of us who are viewing it that way (IMO, the correct way under our constitutional system), we then get labeled as somehow "defending" groupA. Again though, as I mentioned in the other thread, we do not need to defend someone's speech to defend their basic right to express that speech. It's not the same thing.

And yes, IMO, failing to see that distinction is far more of a concern than anything groupA may be saying. Because that's actually dangerous to our society.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#390 Aug 30 2017 at 5:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Gah!

Edited, Aug 30th 2017 4:48pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#391 Aug 30 2017 at 6:06 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,135 posts
gbaji wrote:
But that shouldn't matter. When judging the actions of that second group, we should ignore identity. If we were to strip away labels and just say that groupA was engaged in a lawful exercise of free speech and groupB showed up and engaged in unlawful actions to shut down that speech, I would hope every single one of us would condemn groupB for their actions. They clearly violated the rights of groupA.


So, let's pretend that Group A made a joke about Group B being a rapist. We should be upset that Group B engaged in actions to shut down that joke?

Just want to make sure I am following along, at home.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#392 Aug 30 2017 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
What people do is what matters, not who they are.
Like, say, killing people with your car, right?
gbaji wrote:
The issue is whether that reaction is legal or not.
It is. The 1st amendment is about the government suppressing your speech, not your fellow citizens. Amazing how many racist dink-bags think that the 1st amendment lets then say anything they want any time with no repercussions. PROTIP: It doesn't.
gbaji wrote:
I've been seeing a whole lot of excuses of the counter protesters actions because of the identity of the protesters they were countering.
Given that the US has fought at least two wars because of N*A*Z*I*S and racists, I'm inclined not to give two fucks about their feelings.

Your douche friends have the right to spout their evil, hateful message and everyone else has the right to shout them down.

Perhaps the douches you care so much about can get a major news service to spread their message.....oh wait, they already have that, eh?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#393 Aug 30 2017 at 8:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
White/Christian/Alt-Right terrorists are too lazy and complacent to put their own comfortable American lives in jeopardy over some **** not even they really believe.
Well, they'll drive a car into a crowd.

Edited, Aug 28th 2017 9:19am by lolgaxe


Which is a pretty cowardly, ***** like spur of the moment kind of thing he probably wasn't planning on doing until right that moment. He's probably still crying about it and blaming the people he ran over for the world of **** he's in now.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#394 Aug 30 2017 at 8:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What people do is what matters, not who they are.
Like, say, killing people with your car, right?


Yes. You'll notice that almost no one is talking about the guy killing people with his car. It's all about condemning the ideology of the protesters. Any failure to do that and only that is met with a label of racism, or at least defending racists. Anyone who points out that the counter protest was unlawful is accused of defending, not just the right of the protesters to protest, but the ideology of those protesters.

Which is exactly what I'm talking about. They're picking a "side" based on who is in which group, and projecting that onto everyone else. If I'm not 100% on board with the counter protesters actions, then I must be 100% in support of the protesters ideology.

There's a middle ground where I can completely detest and oppose the ideology of the protesters while also opposing the action of those who were countering their protest. And it's alarming to me that doing this is met with accusations of being a racist, siding with racists, etc. That's now how our 1st amendment works.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
The issue is whether that reaction is legal or not.
It is. The 1st amendment is about the government suppressing your speech, not your fellow citizens.


Yes. But that's not the issue here. An unlawful assembly is unlawful regardless of whether you agree with the message of those assembling. You don't get to just show up and block streets because you want to. At the end of the day, the white nationalists had a permit for their protest, and those countering them did not. The thousands of people showing up and blocking streets, blocking access to the assembly area, etc, were in violation of the law.

That's what I meant by "the issue is whether that reaction is legal or not". The counter protest was illegal. Period. it doesn't magically become legal because we agree with their position. In the same way that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't become illegal if we like the guy who yelled, and we dislike the people in the theater.

Quote:
Amazing how many racist dink-bags think that the 1st amendment lets then say anything they want any time with no repercussions.


Again though, that's not the issue here. In this particular case, the ACLU defended their 1st amendment right to hold that protest. It wasn't "anything they want, any time they want". It was a specific protest, at a specific time, and a specific place, that they got lawful approval to hold. Again, you're allow your own disagreement with them and their position to bias how you think the law should apply. In this case, as it pertains to the actual protest itself, they were in the right, and those countering them were in the wrong.

Again! (cause I apparently have to say this over and over), that does not mean that their opinions are right and the opinions of those who oppose them are wrong. It merely means that the protest itself was legal, while the counter protest was illegal.

It also doesn't mean that the violence they engaged in was legal either. And yes, that includes the guy who ran into the crowd with his car. But at the same time, the actions of the counter protesters were *also* illegal. That's not opinion, that's fact. The problem I see is that merely pointing that out is somehow equated with defending the opinions and positions of the protesters. It's not though. An action is illegal regardless of whether other actions going on nearby are also illegal, and certainly regardless of whether there are people nearby who have opinions you disagree with.

Quote:
PROTIP: It doesn't.


It's also irrelevant to the point I'm making.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I've been seeing a whole lot of excuses of the counter protesters actions because of the identity of the protesters they were countering.
Given that the US has fought at least two wars because of N*A*Z*I*S and racists, I'm inclined not to give two fucks about their feelings.


Why is it always about "feelings". I'm talking about legal versus illegal actions. Period. It's not about how I feel about a group, or the group who oppose them. It's about whether the actions taken represent violations of the law. Period. It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok to break the law, as long as you're doing it to hurt people we all don't like.

We're all protected by the law. Even people with disgusting ideological positions.

Quote:
Your douche friends have the right to spout their evil, hateful message and everyone else has the right to shout them down.


A. They're not "my friends" (nice job proving my point about the associations being made though).

B. By all means, shout them down. But you must do so via your own lawfully exercised first amendment rights. Blocking streets is not merely "shouting them down". It's breaking the law. You don't get to violate the law because you disagree with someone else.

Quote:
Perhaps the douches you care so much about can get a major news service to spread their message.....oh wait, they already have that, eh?


And once again, you display the exact associative thinking I'm talking about. No one's allowed to question or condemn the actions of the counter protesters without being labeled as racists, or defenders of racists, etc.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. What you're doing is in complete opposition to the principle of free speech and the basic concept of a free society. You're free to disagree with someone's opinion. You're free to express that disagreement. You don't get to use violence and other unlawful acts to prevent them from expressing those opinions in the first place though. I know that its easy to think that some opinions are so bad, so offensive, and even so "evil" that we should, but the reality is that we shouldn't. We should let them speak. Let them express themselves. Let them show who they are, and what they believe. And then respond in kind, showing why they're wrong, why they are hateful, etc.

Because when you do that, you leave no doubt that you are countering them, because everyone can hear what they say and what you say. When you block their speech, all you do is create questions. Some will wonder what the other side really has to say. Is it really that bad? There's always some people who will gravitate to what they see as the "downtrodden" side. The last thing you want to do is make speech martyrs out of these people. You don't want people to see them as sympathetic, or start to wonder if maybe it's "the man" keeping them down, and maybe they should look into this whole neo-**** thing.

That's just plain stupid. Let them speak. Let their own words be their downfall. Trust that your position is the stronger one and will win out when both side speak in the light of day. If you try to suppress their speech, you'll only allow it to grow in strength in the darkness.

Maybe I'm an eternal optimist, but I think that most people can see that their ideas are bad and will reject them. Have a little faith in your fellow man.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#395 Aug 30 2017 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
There's a middle ground where I can completely detest and oppose the ideology of the protesters while also opposing the action of those who were countering their protest.
Your posting history doesn't let you in that "middle ground" though. Sorry.
gbaji wrote:
The issue is whether that reaction is legal or not.
It is. The 1st amendment is about the government suppressing your speech, not your fellow citizens.[/quote]
gbaji wrote:
The counter protest was illegal.
After they blocked streets, sure. Not on it's face, though, which you are implying pretty hard. Shocking.
gbaji wrote:
It also doesn't mean that the violence they engaged in was legal either. And yes, that includes the guy who ran into the crowd with his car. But at the same time, the actions of the counter protesters were *also* illegal.
Killing people is on par with blocking roads; gotcha.
gbaji wrote:
It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok to break the law, as long as you're doing it to hurt people we all don't like murderers.
Gotcha.
gbaji wrote:
No one's allowed to question or condemn the actions of the counter protesters without being labeled as racists, or defenders of racists, etc.
While at the same time failing to condemn the message of the hate dink-bags. Gotcha. (referring to your FOX buddies here, since you keep insisting you don't support the dink-bag. {HINT}I don't believe you. Something something posting history.
gbaji wrote:
You don't get to use violence and other unlawful acts to prevent them from expressing those opinions in the first place though.
Like killing and maiming people with a motor vehicle? Gotcha.
gbaji wrote:
There's always some people who will gravitate to what they see as the "downtrodden" side.
You view KKK and their ilk "downtrodden" in the American South? That'd be cute if i weren't so stupid.
gbaji wrote:
Maybe I'm an eternal optimist, but I think that most people can see that their ideas are bad and will reject them. Have a little faith in your fellow man.
You think that hateful, racist messages are targeted toward smart, thoughtful people? That's...interesting.


Edited, Aug 30th 2017 9:16pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#396 Aug 30 2017 at 9:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But that shouldn't matter. When judging the actions of that second group, we should ignore identity. If we were to strip away labels and just say that groupA was engaged in a lawful exercise of free speech and groupB showed up and engaged in unlawful actions to shut down that speech, I would hope every single one of us would condemn groupB for their actions. They clearly violated the rights of groupA.


So, let's pretend that Group A made a joke about Group B being a rapist. We should be upset that Group B engaged in actions to shut down that joke?


If Group B's actions were unlawful, yes.

I've made the point about the actions being legal versus being illegal multiple times, but you guys still insist on running off on tangents instead.

Quote:
Just want to make sure I am following along, at home.


You're not. You're still making it about the people, and not the action themselves and whether those actions are lawful or not. Making a clear reference to myself is just another way of associating with "the person" rather than "the action".

A big part of my point here is that I've noticed a trend in people doing this more and more over the last couple decades. Judging the people involved and not the actions taken. You're doing it right in this post, but I'm not sure you're even aware of it. And it's not just you. Every single response to my post(s) ignores the whole "legal versus illegal action" bit, choosing instead to focus on other aspects of the issue. And most of them manage to frame the response in some sort of manner that addresses the people involved, and whether we like or agree with them or not.

To me, that's an alarming trend. Our system should treat everyone the same. Judge them the same. That neo-**** has exactly the same right to express his opinion as the BLM protester does. And I judge their actions the same. The trend though, is to excuse violent and illegal protests by say BLM, or occupy, or whomever, while condemning a lawful protest by the neo-**** protester. Both have the same right to "lawful" protest. Neither has a right to "unlawful" protest. That fact does not change and should not be at all affected by our opinions of their respective positions or whether we agree with the content of their speech.

And that's the distinction that I'm seeing people fail to make. Most people seem to associate the "right to speak" to whether they agree with the content of that speech. And they make that a 100% "right". So a group they agree with has the right to do "anything" in the process of speaking. They can riot, block traffic, vandalize buildings and property, and otherwise do anything they want, if we agree with their message. A group we disagree with has zero right to speak at all, and subjecting them to violence to suppress their speech is perfectly acceptable.

Sorry. I find that disturbing. That trend wont stop with just white nationalists. Heck. It's already being used against other groups, not associated with racism (other than I suppose in the minds of those who assume all conservatives are secretly white nationalists). We've seen the exact same tactics, used the the same groups, using violent counter protest to block conservative speech. So yeah, I'm acutely aware of the danger of this.

We protect the rights of everyone to speak, even (especially) those we disagree with the most, because it's the only way we can ensure that our own speech is protected. This really shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. Heck. I thought it was a concept that we all shared. When did "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to my death your right to say it" disappear from our public conscience?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#397 Aug 30 2017 at 9:34 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,135 posts
gbaji wrote:

Quote:
Just want to make sure I am following along, at home.

You're not. You're still making it about the people, and not the action themselves and whether those actions are lawful or not.


After all this time, I skim your posts, at best, and I am not in any way shape or form interested in anything you might want to discuss.

gbaji wrote:
Making a clear reference to myself is just another way of associating with "the person" rather than "the action"


Making a clear reference to you is pretty much all I post about, really. I do it for the lulz
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#398 Aug 30 2017 at 9:59 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
That was either a Class A-1 WHOOSH on gbaji's part or an handwave sufficient to bring an hurricane to San Diego.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#399 Aug 31 2017 at 7:57 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
What people do is what matters, not who they are.
That does sound like it would make a very lovely bumper sticker. Marching with a bunch of loud white supremacists pretty much nullifies what your "actions" might be. Saying you want to save a statue because it's historically relevant to your heritage doesn't mean anything noble when you're surrounded by and speaking specifically to neo-Nazis. What people do matters, but who they are matters as well. I also wouldn't take recommendations for restaurants from vegans.

It's kind of like knowing someone who spent decades judging a group of people simply because of their association, and then that someone suddenly starts complaining about how associations are irrelevant and should be ignored. It'd be pretty damn hypocritical.
gbaji wrote:
At the end of the day, the white nationalists had a permit for their protest, and those countering them did not.
That's kind of mind mindbogglingly wrong, since legally protesters don't need permits. It's perfectly legal to enter a public area and demonstrate against demonstrators, rallies and even other protestors. And no, having a permit to rally doesn't block the public's access to an area, and doesn't block demonstrators or protests.

Amusingly, Unite the Right actually didn't have a city permit to occupy the park for their rally, whereas the counter-protesters did for their rallies in the area. The city wanted their rally to be in a bigger area, but the Unite the Right folks sued and found a judge to get an order.

I'm guessing you don't know the difference between a rally and a protest.

Edited, Aug 31st 2017 2:54pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#400 Aug 31 2017 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
We protect the rights of everyone to speak, even (especially) those we disagree with the most, because it's the only way we can ensure that our own speech is protected. This really shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.

It's not. You're intentionally conflating the right to free speech, unfettered by government, with the right to speak without ramifications or counter-speak and the right to an open platform of your choosing, which has never actually be a right.
Quote:
Heck. I thought it was a concept that we all shared

Only when convenient and yours is the side being "oppressed". See, for instance, the "Free Speech Zones" of the Bush (and later Obama) administration.

Police action is based largely on the moment at hand, not the message being promoted. Plenty of people have been arrested at protests including for actions like blocking access or failure to listen to the police. People have been arrested for violent crimes or assaults or property damage. You pretending that this doesn't happen at BLM protests is either strikingly ignorant or plain disingenuous. However, the police are well aware that they're not going to arrest their way through a thousand people on an overpass so they don't compound the situation by trying. The police were criticized for not intervening more forcefully early on at Charlottesville but were, in part, concerned by the number of white supremacist protesters carrying guns. The government sat by for weeks (months?) while a bunch of gun-totting right-wing white dudes took over a federally owned building and squatted in it and I don't remember you saying a peep of concern that they were protesting the "wrong" way. But, you know, be sure to whine more about BLM and how the police let them get away with stuff because they're being unlawful and you so nobly judge everyone the same.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#401 Sep 02 2017 at 5:16 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I seem to be forgetting a pace of history here this morning. America fought ****'s during WW2, but what was the second war?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 442 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (442)