Page 371 of 396 FirstFirst ... 271321361369370371372373381 ... LastLast
Results 14,801 to 14,840 of 15840

Thread: Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!

  1. #14801
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    I think people might be slowly accepting that America has deeper structural problems than just who's sitting in the presidential seat. Like the issue isn't just Trump, it's Mitch McConnell, Republicans generally, the billionaires who back Republicans, and the obvious cluelessness or unwillingness of Democrats to respond to it.
    I think this is largely true. I mean, I also think that the story of Republican obstructionism has really prominent ever since 2010, when Democrats lost their control over the government. I think a lot of people remember when Mitch McConnell gave that infamous PowerPoint presentation in congress saying that the partyís chief priority would be to ensure that Obama was a 1-term president, and the means of achieving it would be to obstruct and deny Democrats anything that could be spun as a legislative victory. Iím not sure whatís really new. Maybe itís that anyone who had even shred of optimism that Republicans would be willing to compromise has now surrendered that optimism, which is partially what accounts for the Democratsí move to the left. I think thatís at least part of it. But obviously there are also cultural aspects to polarization too, and part of it is the growing confidence of the left in its worldview and orthodoxies.

  2. #14802
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    You knew this is what I meant. Donít pretend you didnít. I am posting on my phone and dropped one clause that is obviously understood in colloquial English. Bad faith AF.
    I was pretty sure you brought this topic up just so you could accuse me of bad faith. No bad faith, my guy. Donít even know what bad faith would mean in this context, given that I couldnít possibly know that youíre writing on your phone (I am too) and thatís why you dropped an operative phrase. Honestly I find a lot of ambiguity in what youíve been writing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    The working definition says as an example that calling Israel a racist project is antisemitic. Why then? Jewish people as a whole are not responsible for the actions of the Jewish people who founded it and who currently live there.
    Iím a little confused about what youíre asking when you say ďwhy then?Ē But if youíre asking me why itís antisemitic (or at least why theyíre saying itís antisemitic), Iíll tell you. Itís because of assumptions that make up the anti-Israel worldview. They say that:

    1. Jews are not a nation, and therefore they cannot have the national rights to self-determination that nations are entitled to
    2. Jews do not have a historic connection to their historic homeland, or, if they did, it is superseded by the rights of other peoples
    3. Because Jews are not a real nation, and because they have no historic connection to the land, Zionism as an enterprise is nothing more than an illegitimate form of settler colonialism, which exists only because individuals have moved to a land with the sole intention of dispossessing the indigenous people of that land for their own advantage. Zionism is not, as Jews and Zionists themselves see it, a national liberation movement and a restoration of former sovereignty, but an illegitimate exercise of a foreign people to subjugate its indigenous population.

    Itís because those premises (1 and 2), which are totally false and not at all grounded in reality (thus making holding those beliefs ignorant, or a denialist ó one should know better), and because they lead to the conclusion that a Jewish state in any part of the historic Jewish homeland would be illegitimate, thus singling out Jews as uniquely undeserving of a homeland, that they are antisemitic.
    Last edited by Eversor; 07-06-2019 at 08:41 PM.

  3. #14803
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    One of the few good things about the Trump hysteria is people are now learning quite a bit more about politics on every level in this country. I can't recall in 2012 or 2016 people paying so much attention to local politics or issues like how immigrants are treated in custody.

    Reminds me of how, someone recently shared a photo circa 2014/2015 of the conditions of immigrants in ICE custody as a criticism of Trump, and Trump supporters were all hot and bothered because Obama was to blame. Unfortunately everyone's finger pointing misses the central issue of mistreatment, but at least now people recognize it's there.

    In any case, country's ****ed so maybe it doesn't matter what people's hysterias are. All I know is that Gallup polls show Americans are at all-time high levels of stress and worry.
    Iíve said this before, but Iím not so optimistic that these changes will be enduring. Once Trumpís out of office, Democrats will become complacent again. Democratsí criticism of Trump, I think, is largely opportunistic, and even a little shameless, given all the continuities between Obamaís policies and Trumpís (which is not to say theyíre the same). Once our guy (or lady) is in office, if weíll go back to knee-jerk defenses of the Democratic-run status quo (just like Republicans do now while theyíre guy is in office) and people (on both the left and the right) who point out the Democratsí hypocrisy will be hushed and ridiculed, just as they are now, when you deviate from orthodoxy.

    Iíd be curious to see if a Democrat winning would exacerbate the coalitional tensions in the party or temporarily conceal them. It seems like currently both are happening in the GOP.

  4. #14804
    I agree that people are mobilized now. And I think thatís why pro-Bernie people see him as the only real option. Heís not just running for president; heís trying to run a social movement that will remain mobilized once heís president. The Democratic base is primarily mobilized now to vote; once we have the presidency, that infrastructure will be dismantled. Weíll begin to care less about politics. A distinguishing feature of Bernieís candidacy is he wants to keep the infrastructure up and running once heís president.

  5. #14805
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Agreed

    This is also my understanding of the statistics. The rate is also increasing. It is very concerning.

    I agree.

    I agree.
    By the way, I donít disagree that the wording of the definition could potentially lead to various forms of abuse. That the definition could be used to crackdown on dissent is a reasonable concern. I think itís an inherent problem with the government getting involved in prosecuting hate crimes: definitions of what constitutes hate will inevitably be too inclusive for some circumstance and not inclusive enough in others, resulting overreach and wrongful prosecution. Unfortunately, prejudiced views about Israel plays a prominent role in the global rise of antisemitism. It has to be part of the definition. I take issue with some of the wording of the definition too, though.

  6. #14806
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    By the way, I donít disagree that the wording of the definition could potentially lead to various forms of abuse. That the definition could be used to crackdown on dissent is a reasonable concern. I think itís an inherent problem with the government getting involved in prosecuting hate crimes: definitions of what constitutes hate will inevitably be too inclusive for some circumstance and not inclusive enough in others, resulting overreach and wrongful prosecution. Unfortunately, prejudiced views about Israel plays a prominent role in the global rise of antisemitism. It has to be part of the definition. I take issue with some of the wording of the definition too, though.
    Like ďdonít criticize Israel for things that you donít criticize other democratic nations forĒ is good in spirit, but as part of hate crimes laws can only be used for one purpose. Unfortunately I have a feeling that outlawing economic action against Israel is a higher priority for western governments than action against antisemitism.

  7. #14807
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Like ďdonít criticize Israel for things that you donít criticize other democratic nations forĒ is good in spirit, but as part of hate crimes laws can only be used for one purpose. Unfortunately I have a feeling that outlawing economic action against Israel is a higher priority for western governments than action against antisemitism.
    Definitely possible. Itís too bad. That anti-BDS stuff is generally counter-productive. Itís an unfortunate feature of North American Jewish organizations that in recent decades theyíve defined the interests of US/Canadian Jews as an interest group primarily in terms of Israel, and so theyíre poorly equipped to do much else.

  8. #14808
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    Israel is, like Canada, a nation of immigrants and a diverse multicultural nation with citizens who are from or whose descendants are from all over the world. I donít know what you mean when you say that Israelis have ďmore self-determinationĒ than Canadians, but if you have a problem with Canadaís diversity and donít feel like you have enough self-determination, then... move? I donít know what to tell you. Something tells me though that it doesnít actually bother you that much. But whatever you mean by Israel having ďmore self-determinationĒ when you say the definition ďrequire[s] us to agree that Israel is necessary because its citizens need more self-determination than the rest of usĒ is not what adopting the definition does.
    This is what I mean.

    Iím Scottish, Bavarian, and matrilineal ashkenazi. Whatís my homeland? More importantly, do I need a homeland in order to experience self-determination? Is it ok if my clan invades our ancestral Scottish lowlands home and displaces the filthy Englishmen who currently live there? Would it be ok if I called you a racist for criticizing doing that, or if I got your government to pass a law saying itís racist?

    I know itís not the same thing, and Iím not saying Jewish people donít have a special connection to Israel or shouldnít have a right to live in their ancestral homeland if they want. We all should be able to live wherever we want, as far as Iím concerned. Iím just saying that as a modern liberal democracy goes, it doesnít treat members of other ethnicities fairly (including, as I previously mentioned, Jewish people of African descent).

    Hypothetically, I also think Kurdistan is the only option for the Kurdish people to escape genocide. Itís better for the Kurdish people to have a nation state. But Iíd also criticize Kurdistan if they instituted similar laws that Israel has. You donít need to support the destruction of something to recognize it has problematic aspects. And seeing a group of Jewish people (who live in / govern one sovereign nation) as racist doesnít mean you see all of them that way.

    Jewishness is not a racial identity; itís a religious and national identity, or a religious and ethnic identity, depending on the context. (For example, in the USSR, all citizens had to carry ID cards that noted an individuals nationality. Under nationality, it said Jew. In a North American context, we use ethnicity as a category in part because we have different assumptions about the relation between individual and collective identity than the Soviets did.) Many Jews are Jews by birth but many are also Jews by choice, who converted to the religion. Racial identity doesnít work like that, and Israel doesnít define Jewish identity as a racial one (it doesnít define who a Jew is at all; the Law or Return only defines who is entitled to immigrate into the country as a Jew, which was partially a political compromise made so as not to upset the ultra-Orthodox when the Law was drafted). The people who insist that Jewishness is a racial identity are generally racists.
    This is a fair point. To be clear i was only talking about Israelís immigration law, not to Judaism in general. I was not aware that the law considered conversion. So I will stop criticizing Israel for having racist immigration laws, and start criticizing it for just religious discrimination.

  9. #14809
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    This is what I mean.

    Iím Scottish, Bavarian, and matrilineal ashkenazi. Whatís my homeland? More importantly, do I need a homeland in order to experience self-determination? Is it ok if my clan invades our ancestral Scottish lowlands home and displaces the filthy Englishmen who currently live there? Would it be ok if I called you a racist for criticizing doing that, or if I got your government to pass a law saying itís racist?
    Identityís a complex thing. Someone could say, for instance, that itís wrong to say that someone is a Lithuanian Jew; itíd be better to say their of Jewish Lithuanian ó That is, theyíre a Lithuanian national first, and a Jew second (rather than vice versa). Like, people can choose whatever aspects of their complex identity to make salient; thatís why there were Jews in the 19th/20th century who were, for example, German nationalists (and French, etc). They saw their Germanness and their membership in the German nation as more relevant than their Jewishness, and it was what mobilized them politically. People can believe whatever they want about themselves, but there usually needs to be a critical mass of people who agree that they belong to a community before itís politically and socially salient.

    The examples youíve given are obviously analogous to Israel-Palestine, and intended to make the debates seem arbitrary and silly. But to be a little less silly: would it make sense for someone to be offended to be told, in the midst of Scotlandís efforts to separate from the UK, if someone told a Scot that they arenít Scottish, theyíre British? The only reason why nations exist is because people believe theyíre part of a nation, and people who arenít part of that nation recognize what those who are believe about themselves. I think Hegel was right that the combination of self-identification and recognition is the basis of nationality (and the rights that nations are entitled to, although I donít think Hegel would say that).

    I know itís not the same thing, and Iím not saying Jewish people donít have a special connection to Israel or shouldnít have a right to live in their ancestral homeland if they want. We all should be able to live wherever we want, as far as Iím concerned. Iím just saying that as a modern liberal democracy goes, it doesnít treat members of other ethnicities fairly (including, as I previously mentioned, Jewish people of African descent).

    Hypothetically, I also think Kurdistan is the only option for the Kurdish people to escape genocide. Itís better for the Kurdish people to have a nation state. But Iíd also criticize Kurdistan if they instituted similar laws that Israel has. You donít need to support the destruction of something to recognize it has problematic aspects. And seeing a group of Jewish people (who live in / govern one sovereign nation) as racist doesnít mean you see all of them that way.
    Israelís not like some super-progressive utopia, and thereís plenty of discrimination and all sorts of other bad stuff that happens there (as is true of every country), but itís shortcomings are greatly exaggerated. In some respects itís treatment of minorities is more progressive than the US, in that it recognizes the rights of minorities to preserve their culture and language through education and so on. It also has a weird system thatís a vestige of the Ottoman period, where all issues of religion and personal status are the purview of state-funded religious courts. What this boils down to is that Israel has state-funded Sharia courts, and if your a Muslim you can can only get marry another Muslim, and that marriage happens through the the court. (The country recognizes marriages from abroad, too, which is how people get around the system. Civil marriage doesnít exist but itís coming.)

    So Israelís not necessarily a model democracy, but thereís also a lot thatís less outrageous than you might be led to believe, even if imperfect and not entirely equitable.

    This is a fair point. To be clear i was only talking about Israelís immigration law, not to Judaism in general. I was not aware that the law considered conversion. So I will stop criticizing Israel for having racist immigration laws, and start criticizing it for just religious discrimination.
    Good! Ha.
    Last edited by Eversor; 07-06-2019 at 10:38 PM.

  10. #14810
    I mean, I certainly think a reasonable person can believe that Israel is fundamentally racist by design, because itís an ďethno-nationalistĒ state whose raison díetre is the parochial interests of its religious-national majority, and because it has policies that are designed to preserve its demographics, which is also problematic too. Like, I totally disagree with that analysis, but it shouldnít be illegal to say that.

  11. #14811
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    I’ve said this before, but I’m not so optimistic that these changes will be enduring. Once Trump’s out of office, Democrats will become complacent again. Democrats’ criticism of Trump, I think, is largely opportunistic, and even a little shameless, given all the continuities between Obama’s policies and Trump’s (which is not to say they’re the same). Once our guy (or lady) is in office, if we’ll go back to knee-jerk defenses of the Democratic-run status quo (just like Republicans do now while they’re guy is in office) and people (on both the left and the right) who point out the Democrats’ hypocrisy will be hushed and ridiculed, just as they are now, when you deviate from orthodoxy.

    I’d be curious to see if a Democrat winning would exacerbate the coalitional tensions in the party or temporarily conceal them. It seems like currently both are happening in the GOP.
    They may get tamped down under a Democratic president, sure. Other than being better at reassuring people, I don't think Democrats will do anything long term to help stability though - antagonisms will still persist. No real corrections in sight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    I agree that people are mobilized now. And I think that’s why pro-Bernie people see him as the only real option. He’s not just running for president; he’s trying to run a social movement that will remain mobilized once he’s president. The Democratic base is primarily mobilized now to vote; once we have the presidency, that infrastructure will be dismantled. We’ll begin to care less about politics. A distinguishing feature of Bernie’s candidacy is he wants to keep the infrastructure up and running once he’s president.
    Yup, that's the threat of a Clinton/Clinton clone presidency. That all of the deranged Russiagate people will believe all order is restored and all antagonisms resolved.

  12. #14812
    the simple act of creepy joe biden taking the oath of office will return the atmospheric co2 concentration to between 300 and 350 ppm at manua loa
    Epstein didn't kill himself.

  13. #14813
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Spook View Post
    the simple act of creepy joe biden taking the oath of office will return the atmospheric co2 concentration to between 300 and 350 ppm at manua loa
    I'll stand and put my hand over my heart, Putin will weep, and Europe will convene to restore America's badge of honor.

  14. #14814
    So, Trump 2020 then?

  15. #14815
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    They may get tamped down under a Democratic president, sure. Other than being better at reassuring people, I don't think Democrats will do anything long term to help stability though - antagonisms will still persist. No real corrections in sight.
    We have had elections where it seemed like the country was going to disintegrate from centrifugal forces tearing it apart, and then suddenly... stability was suddenly restored after a period of intense polarization, as if after an apocalyptic battle. The election of 1896. Itís worth looking into.

    There are some striking similarities to today ó the rise of populism, for one, although the term meant something very different in 1896 than what it means today. But perhaps more importantly, prior to the election, there had been a few decades where, like in the past few decades, neither party was the dominant party, which is pretty atypical in American politics: while the president usually switches parties every eight years or so, the parties typically hold the legislature for the better part of a few decades. The American system works best when at any one time a single party is recognized as the dominant party. It actually does more to incentivize compromise from the minority when thatís the case. You donít have an incentive to obstruct just to make the other party look bad, so you can win the election next time around, and you do have the incentive to cooperate with the majority, because then at least you might get something out of it.

    So yeah, itís possible that when the big realignment happens, partisan tensions die down quickly. Thatís what happened in 1896: it was like someone had been pulling a rubber band tighter and tighter until finally it snapped, and everything relaxed. I donít think itís going to happen in 2020, though. Itíll require one of the parties to fundamentally reconstitute the party coalitions. Nobody in the Democratic field has that kind of vision. Trump showed promise that he might, but... nope.
    Last edited by Eversor; 07-07-2019 at 03:39 AM.

  16. #14816
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,379
    What about the election of 1860

  17. #14817
    Whataboutism!

  18. #14818
    So was anyone following this Eddie Gallagher trial? It seems like it basically went like so:

    Prosecution: Chief Gallagher is guilty of crimes
    Chief Gallagher:No u
    chief walks off into sunsent
    Prosecution: Damn why didn't we think of that
    Epstein didn't kill himself.

  19. #14819
    Also prepare for conspiracy theorists to have renewed platforms with this chuckle**** back in the news:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/08/n...c-mansion.html
    Epstein didn't kill himself.

  20. #14820
    I saw someone on Twitter point out the irony that QAnon seems totally uninterested that a child sex trafficking ring that implicates a network of international elites was just discovered

  21. #14821
    Well they've been going on about him specifically for years. Maybe not QAnon but those types in general. But now he is arrested and it's a big deal and I'm actually not seeing as many of the 'see we are right but also what are they trying to distract from' posts now that you mention it
    Epstein didn't kill himself.

  22. #14822
    Anyone hear about this Russian submarine story?

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...as-secret-sub/

  23. #14823
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Anyone hear about this Russian submarine story?

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...as-secret-sub/
    How ominous. Theyíre concerned about the US operating secret subs in the Canadian Arctic.

  24. #14824
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,964
    While the US Navy's "special purpose" submarine USS Jimmy Carter uses remotely operated vehicles to perform tasks at great depths
    Hey, I have a Navy friend who works as a nuclear engineer on that sub.

  25. #14825
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,964
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-secrets.shtml

    Paper ballots please? End this voting machine election fraud already? The fraud that's almost certainly happening? Please?

  26. #14826
    But counting is hard!
    Sorry for the lousy German

  27. #14827
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Hey, I have a Navy friend who works as a nuclear engineer on that sub.
    opsec the russians are reading
    Epstein didn't kill himself.

  28. #14828
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Spook View Post
    opsec the russians are reading
    Hi GRU! I can promise you that American subs run on nuclear energy! Please add that to your list of secrets about America!

  29. #14829
    DELET THIS

  30. #14830
    Quote Originally Posted by Ars Technica
    In other words, the actions of the officers who died fighting a fire from within a sealed compartment prevented an undersea nuclear disaster in the Arctic.
    Would it really be that much of a disaster? What happens when a nuclear reactor in a sub catches fire, in terms of potential fallout?

  31. #14831
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,964
    I think the threat is more that the limited oxygen space will be used up, the crew will be incapacitated and you'll have a live nuclear reactor with no rudder.

  32. #14832
    GOR-KA! GOR-KA! GOR-KA!
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  33. #14833

  34. #14834
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,964


    You see this? This is what happened to Facebook's stock after a $5bn fine was announced. As it turns out, insane privacy violations are worth far more than petty fines like these.

  35. #14835
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,379
    Thatís reading a first order effect into an N-order system. The fine has been anticipated for a long time, so the stock market would have already priced it in and the stock rose because the uncertainty went away (indirected N times). It clearly didnít exceed wall streets expectations though so letís also not call it an effective punishment.

  36. #14836
    Which reminds me of a thing I've thought a tiny bit about in the past. Is it odd for a third party to profit via fines for transgressions not against them?

    Also, just if anybody didn't know what my "Gorka" chant was about (I actually only know because I happened across a random thing) there was some Rose Garden thing that looked like something out of a reality TV show. I really have no idea who any of the people were but I really hate this thing where we chant peoples names at anything possibly more important than a sporting event. One syllable names like Trump and Cruz are especially bad. I'm sure there were Obama chants but much more memorable and well done was "Yes We Can" chants. "Make America Great Again" doesn't work as a chant and "MAGA" sounds dumb.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  37. #14837
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    8,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    That’s reading a first order effect into an N-order system. The fine has been anticipated for a long time, so the stock market would have already priced it in and the stock rose because the uncertainty went away (indirected N times). It clearly didn’t exceed wall streets expectations though so let’s also not call it an effective punishment.
    Yup. Fair response.

  38. #14838
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Which reminds me of a thing I've thought a tiny bit about in the past. Is it odd for a third party to profit via fines for transgressions not against them?
    Can you be more specific?

  39. #14839
    Sure, the government fining someone or something because they did something another person or group. Of course I understand government of the people blah blah blah... I'm not aware of whether or not any government entities have some sort of restitution policy, never heard of it anyway. Of course I suppose the fact that punitive fines have been levied could be used as evidence should somebody choose to take legal action. I don't know, just a brief thought.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  40. #14840
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Sure, the government fining someone or something because they did something another person or group. Of course I understand government of the people blah blah blah... I'm not aware of whether or not any government entities have some sort of restitution policy, never heard of it anyway. Of course I suppose the fact that punitive fines have been levied could be used as evidence should somebody choose to take legal action. I don't know, just a brief thought.
    Your line of thinking is based on several assumptions, not all with which I disagree, but all of which need to be justified. For starters, that:

    - the government was not injured by the misconduct
    - the government is a third party to this misconduct / can, as constituted of representatives of both parties, ever meaningfully be a third party
    - the government will profit from this fine / that Ďprofití is even a meaningful concept when it concerns a government
    - that fines are intended to be reparation rather than strictly punitive
    - that government action to correct criminal acts is better achieved through tort (I think this is what youíre saying?)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •