The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: AI Wessex on March 12, 2016, 08:18:42 AM

Title: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 12, 2016, 08:18:42 AM
Weeks after telling his supporters that he would like to punch a protester in the face and several other times saying that protesters deserve what they get from his angry supporters, and two days after a Trump supporter sucker punched a protester at a rally and later said next time he would kill him, a near riot broke out at another Trump rally in Chicago.  It means that the Trump reality show is starting to pick up momentum (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-rally-chicago-heated-exchanges-cancellation-election-2016/), so much so that the unthinkable is happening where Cruz is beginning to look like the reasonable alternative.

Quote
Anger surrounding Donald Trump's presidential campaign reached a boiling point in Chicago Friday night.

The Republican front-runner canceled a campaign rally over security concerns when thousands of protesters gathered outside an arena at the University of Illinois, then flooded the venue where he was scheduled to speak, reports CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds.

Trump's campaign events have turned increasingly hostile with sometimes violent confrontations between his supporters and demonstrators.

Five people were arrested, but the demonstrators were mostly peaceful, and police say they did not recommend Trump cancel the event.

The announcement by a Trump staffer postponing the event set off celebrations for some and disappointment for others.

As police tried to clear the pavilion, some fights broke out. Demonstrators - many of whom are students at the University of Illinois Chicago - say Trump received their message.

Trump loyalists say the protest is an attack on free speech.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: DonaldD on March 12, 2016, 09:14:40 AM
What are the optics of a white, male, Trump supporter, at a Trump rally, wearing a cowboy hat, punching a black man in the face in front of 4 police officers and not being immediately arrested?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 12, 2016, 12:24:43 PM
Try to absorb this (http://crooksandliars.com/2016/03/maddow-trump-violence-deliberate-heres)...The Republican Party will support him if he wins the nomination, which he will.  Let *that* sink in.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 12, 2016, 12:39:45 PM
These "protesters" are coming to disrupt Trump's events. If they follow the usual playbook, they'll attempt to use violence to shut down any event where Trump attempts to speak. We see this kind of thing frequently at universities. It's just the case that at Trump rallies his supporters are numerous enough (and aggressive enough) that the tactic doesn't achieve its usual goal (of shutting down the event), although it did in this case.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 12, 2016, 12:45:28 PM
 http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-rally-cancelled-in-chicago-after-clashes-between-protesters-and-supporters  (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-rally-cancelled-in-chicago-after-clashes-between-protesters-and-supporters)

Quote
“Trump represents everything America is not and everything Chicago is not,” said Kamran Siddiqui, 20, a student at the school who was among those celebrating. “We came in here and we wanted to shut this down. Because this is a great city and we don’t want to let that person in here.”

By the way, I don't for a single second accept the claim that this is "escalation". I have been seeing these kind of brown shirt tactics for years practiced among the mainstream protesting class, especially at universities. This is entirely normal and expected now that Trump is entering more ideologically diverse territories. You can expect increasing levels of violence and disruption from the anti Trump protesters. Mr. Cowboy Hat is a single dude. These guys are going to be quite well organized, by contrast.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 12, 2016, 01:04:11 PM
And do you often see the candidate encouraging violence against those who speak out?  He tells the crowd, go ahead and if you hurt him I will pay your legal expenses.  In the old days, he says, we would be the crap out of people who objected.  You're ok with that?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 12, 2016, 01:19:51 PM
No I'm not okay with that.

Trump frequently says things I'm not okay with.

But my opinion is that brown shirt thugs shutting down a candidate's campaign event in an organized campaign of threats and intimidation is more worrisome than some random thug in a crowd roughing up a protester, or even a candidate slyly condoning such violence.

And for the record, I have been seeing these tactics used with increasing frequency over the years, long before Trump became a politician. Watch and see. The ideological left may not have a monopoly on thuggery, but they are unparalleled when it comes to organized thuggery, i.e. the kind of brown shirt tactics the Nazis used to disrupt their opposition back in the 20s. 
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 12, 2016, 01:49:24 PM
Quote
The ideological left may not have a monopoly on thuggery, but they are unparalleled when it comes to organized thuggery, i.e. the kind of brown shirt tactics the Nazis used to disrupt their opposition back in the 20s. 
Interesting meme.  There are organized protests, but I wouldn't call them brown shirt Nazi tactics, since these are people protesting the government for perceived abuses.  OTOH, I would call Trump's calls for a "loyalty oath" and support for violence against protesters from the podium something close to that kind of thing, wouldn't you?

FWIW, you refer to a monolithic "ideological left", but there are a great many groups who are protesting denial of their freedoms or seeking recourse to ongoing grievances.  LGBT, blacks, Muslims, and other groups all are the victims of systemic abuses.  Each group is waging its own battle for the kind of attention and redress that they think they deserve.  If you think they are all part of one thing called the "ideological left", perhaps you should define what that collective group is and how it operates.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 12, 2016, 01:59:59 PM
Quote
OTOH, I would call Trump's calls for a "loyalty oath" and support for violence against protesters from the podium something close to that kind of thing, wouldn't you?

No I wouldn't call that "brownshirt tactics", which is not just a generic term to denote "bad" or "violent" or even fascist.

The brownshirts were known for using violence and intimidation to break up meetings of labour unions, communists and other ideological enemies. Using violence or threats to shut down your opposition's ability to meet and organize and speak is "brownshirt tactics".

Quote
FWIW, you refer to a monolithic "ideological left", but there are a great many groups who are protesting denial of their freedoms or seeking recourse to ongoing grievances.  LGBT, blacks, Muslims, and other groups all are the victims of systemic abuses.  Each group is waging its own battle for the kind of attention and redress that they think they deserve.  If you think they are all part of one thing called the "ideological left", perhaps you should define what that collective group is and how it operates.

That there are many groups under the umbrellla of "left" is not really in issue, nor do I care about their individual grievances and victim myths in the context of this discussion. It's really beside the point.

What I am calling the "ideological left" is a movement, largely composed of millenials, who have typically left social ideologies and who occupy most university student governments and constitute the majority of protesting and activism on and off campuses. This group does not believe in free expression and considers it correct and justified to use threats, intimidation and violence to shut down opposing views. If a speaker they don't like comes to speak, they will attempt to shout that person down, crowd the stage and in some cases physically trash the premises. They will deface signs, overturn displays and use whatever means to ensure that opponents cannot have a forum to speak. More recently they use social media to lobby institutions to shut down or ban views they don't like. Pro life groups have been targeted especially of late on campuses throughout Canada, but these tactics have been used to attack all manner of groups.

In other words, they use classic brown shirt tactics to get their way. It's nothing new. It didn't start with Trump. We'll see plenty more of this before the campaign is over.

And yes, while Mr. Cowboy Hat is a thug, his manner of thuggery is different from what I'm describing here. The key distinction being the degree of organization as well as the purpose. I am not aware of Trump supporters crowding Hillary Clinton rallies and attempting to shut them down with threats and intimidation. When that sort of thing happens, then we can have a further discussion on whether or not Trump is advocating for "brown shirt" activism.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: rightleft22 on March 12, 2016, 02:08:34 PM
Wow
 :'(
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: rightleft22 on March 12, 2016, 02:14:59 PM
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/11/trumps_not_hitler_hes_mussolini_how_gop_anti_intellectualism_created_a_modern_fascist_movement_in_america/
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: JoshCrow on March 12, 2016, 02:36:35 PM
Jason - while I agree with you about tactics, I think you have lost perspective. You are consistently more angry about the messenger than about the message, and you are elevating the messenger to the status of being the real problem - when in fact the message is of much more significance. I share your annoyance at disruptive protesters of all stripes - I just think it's a piffle next to the actual content of the rallies. I wish you were as energetic in your contempt for more serious scourges than some belligerent protestors.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 12, 2016, 02:40:33 PM
What scourge do you suppose is worse than the fact that mainstream millenials (the future leaders of our society) no longer believe in free speech?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: rightleft22 on March 12, 2016, 02:44:52 PM
"I would like to say that they should all have greater faith in their Constitution's ability to withstand populism. After all, if Trump won the presidency – which is highly unlikely – he would be bound by Congress, a military obliged to ignore illegal orders, the judiciary and the God-given rights enjoyed by every citizen." telegraph.co.uk

Such statements were made in the past about other leaders that when they got in power the systems fails to contain them.

A issue with a Trump presidency is that it is unlikely he would be able to deliver on what policies he is suggesting without breaking the constitution. It seems to be the reasoning that many intelligent people are accepting of a Trump presidency. However he is creating a situation in which he must come through or the mob he is creating turns on him violently.

I know I am all over the map and I wish I was more articulate... and I sense a... defeat
Ten years ago the debate on this forum would have been very different.

I am truly scared that this is not going to end well.




Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: JoshCrow on March 12, 2016, 02:46:26 PM
What scourge do you suppose is worse than the fact that mainstream millenials (the future leaders of our society) no longer believe in free speech?

The rhetoric of fear and abuse of hyperbole some to mind. The latter is evident in your very comment.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 12, 2016, 02:54:07 PM
What scourge do you suppose is worse than the fact that mainstream millenials (the future leaders of our society) no longer believe in free speech?
This is a very selective blame-casting.  What kind of leader tells his followers it's ok to beat up someone who exercises his right to free speech by rising up to speak against him?  If they hurt him, he says that's ok, he'll cover their legal bills.

What we're seeing (and I hope won't continue to escalate) is that the protesters who wanted to speak were shut down, kicked out and sometimes physically abused.  They've now raised the ante on their side by asserting their own side of the argument with stronger numbers and physical resistance.  I predict it won't be long before there are direct assaults on perceived anti-Trump activists, rally riots, intentional disruption of Clinton and Sanders rallies, and maybe even some gunfire.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 12, 2016, 03:31:11 PM
Al no ante has been raised. These protests and tactics were inevitable. They have nothing to do with Trump's comments on violence. Zero.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Greg Davidson on March 12, 2016, 03:52:35 PM
I hate when protesters interrupt a speaker. As a matter of fact, I am going to the very right-wing AIPAC policy convention next week (a first for me) and I suspect I will hear some things I substantially disagree with, including from Mr. Trump who will be speaking there, but I don't plan to interrupt.

I suspect that the random assortment of people trying to protest/interrupt Trump at all his venues will include some left-wing people who are pretty disreputable/incoherent. I think that's the point. Trump will run against the stupidest protester, he will disavow the actions of the stupidest of his supporters, but he will paint a story that the protesters are big, scary, black thugs.  He'll keep promoting this regardless of whether it is truthful, and then exploit the stupidest of the protesters to say he was right all the time.

And also say that this is Obama's fault, that Obama has done more to divide America than Trump has.

And the defense of the Trump candidacy is that he doesn't really mean this, once he has more power he will be more restrained.





Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: JoshCrow on March 12, 2016, 04:37:46 PM
Al no ante has been raised. These protests and tactics were inevitable. They have nothing to do with Trump's comments on violence. Zero.

Out of curiosity, Jason - do you think these protests or tactics are particularly new? That is, are you of the opinion that in the past there were no such agents provocateurs causing a ruckus at an opposing party's rallies?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 12, 2016, 04:49:38 PM
Al, i take it you forget a more serious incident of theis nature in chicago 1996 reelection of clinton, by clinton supporters, and winked at by the corrupt illinois courts?  se4rious injury to peaceful anti clinton assembly.  So no, here to Hillary fails to provide a better alternative.  Your better argument for her is experience.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 12, 2016, 06:43:36 PM
Al no ante has been raised. These protests and tactics were inevitable. They have nothing to do with Trump's comments on violence. Zero.

Out of curiosity, Jason - do you think these protests or tactics are particularly new? That is, are you of the opinion that in the past there were no such agents provocateurs causing a ruckus at an opposing party's rallies?

Obviously not given my brownshirt reference.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 12, 2016, 07:39:55 PM
Al, i take it you forget a more serious incident of theis nature in chicago 1996 reelection of clinton, by clinton supporters, and winked at by the corrupt illinois courts?  se4rious injury to peaceful anti clinton assembly.  So no, here to Hillary fails to provide a better alternative.  Your better argument for her is experience.
I can't find anything on google about any incident at that convention.  What are you referring to?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 12, 2016, 08:01:26 PM
Chicago union thugs put a protester in the hospital. 
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 13, 2016, 03:31:40 AM
"I would like to say that they should all have greater faith in their Constitution's ability to withstand populism. After all, if Trump won the presidency – which is highly unlikely – he would be bound by Congress, a military obliged to ignore illegal orders, the judiciary and the God-given rights enjoyed by every citizen." telegraph.co.uk

Such statements were made in the past about other leaders that when they got in power the systems fails to contain them.

Man, could you be more sensational about this? You are comparing such statements made in the U.S. in 2016 to statements of the same sort made in Germany in 1932 during the Versailles tribute period during the Great Depression? Not only 'can' the system contain Trump or whoever else, but it is so geared towards containing them that effecting any kind of real change - in any direction - is very difficult. That's exactly what Sander's campaign is about, in fact. That the political machinery is geared towards status quo and operated by special interests that won't allow real change. The only thing they *would* allow is change towards their benefit, and it actually would be an interesting conversation to examine what that might be. Trump becoming some dictator is basically a ridiculous fear as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 13, 2016, 08:56:12 AM
Chicago union thugs put a protester in the hospital.
Pete, I can't find anything after multiple web searches.  Please point me to the reporting about this.

Greg,

Quote
I hate when protesters interrupt a speaker. As a matter of fact, I am going to the very right-wing AIPAC policy convention next week (a first for me) and I suspect I will hear some things I substantially disagree with, including from Mr. Trump who will be speaking there, but I don't plan to interrupt.

I suspect that the random assortment of people trying to protest/interrupt Trump at all his venues will include some left-wing people who are pretty disreputable/incoherent. I think that's the point. Trump will run against the stupidest protester, he will disavow the actions of the stupidest of his supporters, but he will paint a story that the protesters are big, scary, black thugs.  He'll keep promoting this regardless of whether it is truthful, and then exploit the stupidest of the protesters to say he was right all the time.

The protesters can make their presence known, but should let the speaker speak.  They're not hosting the event, so they should find other ways to get their points across. But any disruption they cause doesn't justify anyone else throwing the first punch, and it is absolutely wrong for the candidate to advocate violence against any protester.

Yet things have degraded to the point that that is where we are. 

I think there are few deranged people protesting at the campaign rallies.  Instead they are just as "angry" as Trump's supporters who go there to vent their own emotions.  It's odd (and frightening) that Trump blames Sanders for their presence, as if to say that the fact that they disagree with him and are vocal about it ties them to the opposition.  That then makes that opposition an adversarial force against which he incites his supporters to believe they are fighting a war. 

Things will get worse on the campaign trail through the convention and then maybe worse between then and the election.  What will happen after the inauguration is impossible to predict, but it could be bad no matter who wins.

Even though I think Cruz is downright evil and ultimately more dangerous to our democracy than Trump, people will be drawn toward him by his quieter tone in the runup to the GOP convention.  Lindsay Graham's metaphor was apt, that the choice is between being shot (Trump) or poisoned (Cruz).  In this case, we might ultimately survive the bullet wound, but not the poison.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 13, 2016, 09:11:02 AM
Al, could not find the chicago story, but here's an allusion to a bigger Teamsters bit of thuggery where thd union thugs were directed by the government toward their taeget.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 13, 2016, 10:34:31 AM
Quote
The rhetoric of fear and abuse of hyperbole some to mind. The latter is evident in your very comment.

I'd like to digress from the main topic for just a second and just explore this point a bit.

When I said that millennials don't generally respect freedom of speech, let me expand a bit on that.

First off, this is a generalization. I don't need to explain what that is.

Second, I have no doubt that millennials care about freedom of speech when it pertains to their own views. So they would be angered at, say, a Bernie Sanders rally being shut down by right-leaning business interests. However, as I'm sure you agree - free speech is, by definition, the belief that opposing viewpoints have the right to speak as well as agreeing ones. In the entire history of humanity, no group has ever called for censorship of views that group agrees with. Everyone, everywhere, certainly agrees with their own right to free speech or the rights of like minded individuals. Free speech must, by definition, embrace controversial, even offensive views, or it's a nullity, end of story.

Third, and most significantly - I put it to you that the majority of any large heterogeneous group, anywhere, by default, is going to be politically neutral or apathetic. The vast majority of humanity is apolitical insofar as they just want to get along with their lives, do their jobs, raise their families and attend classes. They want to eat, screw and work in peace. That has not changed with the millennials. By definition, most of them don't care much one way or another about free speech on any practical level, although they may have some vague sensibility about it that they'd share if you pressed them. So to point out that the majority of millennials might not embrace certain views or seek to actively campaign would be true, but would certainly eschew any attempt at commentary on the political makeup of a generational group.

Therefore, the only people we really care about when we're making a generalization about the ideological flavour of a certain generation, is the political class, the activist class, the group that really does care and is willing to make their views known.

I believe the evidence has been growing that this group either outwardly reviles free speech, seeing it as an instrument of systemic oppression and the reinforcement of various forms of privilege, or (among those who are without much intelligence or possessing a high degree of cognitive dissonance) thinks that they believe in free speech, though the evidence is overwhelming to the contrary.

I can provide links to various stories of late, one recent example being the campaign to extinguish pro life advocacy from campus life through various means, whether brownshirting pro life speakers / meetings, or (in a recent example) making the cost of security so high that it is financially prohibitive for any pro life group to organize on campus (in the University of Alberta case, the university was going to charge the pro life campus group $17,000 in security fees in anticipation of its rally, which of course it could not afford.) There are other numerous examples, such as groups lobbying to ban right wing speakers (Ann Coulter, George W. Bush etc...) student unions refusing to authorize resources for non approved groups (most recently, a pro Israel human rights group seeking to have a booth at a social justice rally in an Oshawa university). 

I don't believe that these are just isolated one offs. I happen to think that this sort of mentality, and the mentality of the young man who commented that he wanted to "shut down" Trump's event are exceptional or the behaviour of one-off thugs a la Cowboy Man. This is going to be the new normal.

Now it's true, as some will point out, that many have always practiced such tactics, but the difference is: if you go back even to when I was in school (I am a tail end Gen Xer) if someone put Voltaire to the class, everyone (even among the political class) would have agreed, at least in principle. Free speech was a value, even not everyone actually implemented it in practice. I don't actually think free speech is a value in any meaningful sense for millennials, among the group that matters. It has been supplanted by other values which can't co-exist with it.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 13, 2016, 10:44:36 AM
Al, could not find the chicago story, but here's an allusion to a bigger Teamsters bit of thuggery where thd union thugs were directed by the government toward their taeget.
You're really just talking about strong arm Chicago machine politics, nothing new or especially notable.  That's been going on for over 100 years, not pleasant, not fair, not fun, not safe for the family, but if you stumble into it unawares you learn how to avoid getting hurt by it.  Chicago is still working through the remnants of that tradition, where the police are the remaining body of corruption.  I wouldn't blame Rahm for causing it, and it seems even a little uncharitable that he should suffer the consequences when it happens, but he is in charge and should be doing a lot more to fix it for the people who live there today and those who will follow him in office.

JasonR:

Quote
Second, I have no doubt that millennials care about freedom of speech when it pertains to their own views.
...
I believe the evidence has been growing that this group either outwardly reviles free speech, seeing it as an instrument of systemic oppression and the reinforcement of various forms of privilege, or (among those who are without much intelligence or possessing a high degree of cognitive dissonance) thinks that they believe in free speech, though the evidence is overwhelming to the contrary.
...
 I don't actually think free speech is a value in any meaningful sense for millennials, among the group that matters. It has been supplanted by other values which can't co-exist with it.

I'll just say that for your effort to clarify what you think, you have done that and your views are both offensive and disturbing.  That's not to say that there aren't people with extreme views in the group you call millennials, but to say that they are the ones causing the problem is to ignore what they are agitating against and advocating for.  Your assessment is a deeply shallow attempt to understand that.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 13, 2016, 11:11:40 AM
Didn't take long:

Quote
On Sunday, Trump signaled to his legion of followers that it might be time to express their anger by becoming "disruptors" at Sanders' events.

"Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren't told to go to my events," Trump wrote on Twitter. "Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!"
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: JoshCrow on March 13, 2016, 11:15:31 AM
This is going to be the new normal.

Now it's true, as some will point out, that many have always practiced such tactics, but the difference is: if you go back even to when I was in school (I am a tail end Gen Xer) if someone put Voltaire to the class, everyone (even among the political class) would have agreed, at least in principle. Free speech was a value, even not everyone actually implemented it in practice. I don't actually think free speech is a value in any meaningful sense for millennials, among the group that matters. It has been supplanted by other values which can't co-exist with it.

This is not at all new - I would suggest to you that the only new thing is that you are now aware of and bothered by it.

This should be informative for you: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/11/false-alarm-on-millennials-and-free-speech.html (http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/11/false-alarm-on-millennials-and-free-speech.html)

I'll post it here in full.

Quote
Last week, I wrote about a new Pew poll that showed that 40 percent of millennials would be in favor of government bans on speech offensive to minority groups. Many people took this as a dire sign that kids these days are Nae Nae–ing themselves straight into an authoritarian future, especially given all the recent talk about young people’s coddling and fragility.

Here’s Charlie Nash of the right-wing website Breitbart offering some in-depth sociological analysis of the numbers:

This is simply the result of what most journalists on the right have been saying for years. Freedom of speech is under attack, not by direct legislation, but by erasing the value of freedom of expression in schools and colleges. Just 10 to 20 years ago, college campuses were places defined by their open debates, easy access to learn new things, and free student discussion. College campuses are now defined by “safe spaces,” authoritarian student unions, and bourgeoisie middle-class-but-I’m-down-with-the-poor protesters. Students of today do not want a free discussion if anything said could hurt someone’s feelings (unless you’re straight, male, and white; then fire away).
“Just 10 to 20 years ago” there was freedom on campus! A terrible situation indeed.

I wasn’t immune to the hype myself. While I did caution in my write-up that the number needed to be taken in context given that the question had never been asked in this way before and there was therefore nothing to compare the result against, it still jumped out at me as surprisingly high — that’s why I posted about it.

I was wrong; it shouldn’t have jumped out at me. A bit of digging into past poll results shows that this just wasn’t an unusual result. Yes, broad attitudes over free speech change over time — more on this in a bit — but there’s a general pattern to how Americans answer these questions: They’ve shown over and over again that they favor free speech in theory, when asked about it in the broadest terms, but they also tend to be fairly enthusiastic about government bans on forms of speech they find particularly offensive (what’s considered offensive, of course, changes with the times). On this subject, millennials are right in line with reams of past polling, and it would be wrong to hold up last week’s results as an example of anything other than an extremely broad tendency that’s existed for a long time.

Before jumping into a few past numbers, it’s important to note that you really can’t compare directly between different polls, since different polls have different sampling procedures and question wording. This is a cardinal-sin no-no. But that doesn’t mean you can’t check to see whether the result from last week was a crazy outlier suggestive of new attitudes about free speech. If the vast majority of past polls asking similar types of questions had found that, say, only 15 percent of Americans are in favor of banning offensive speech, then we could at least say, “Hmmm, something’s going on here with millennials.”

But that isn’t the case, as numerous examples show. In March, for example, the Washington Post reported on a decades-long trend in the General Social Survey: Over time, when asked whether they think a variety of figures — atheists, militarists, and so on — should be “allowed to give a speech in [their] community,” Americans have gotten increasingly tolerant. The one exception highlighted by the Post? A speaker discussing African-Americans’ genetic inferiority. There, the figure hasn’t really budged since 1976 — it’s been consistently the case that 60 percent of Americans believe such speech should be allowed, meaning 40 percent don’t believe it should be or aren’t sure. Now, this is a survey of American adults rather than just young people, but still: same very general ballpark, and strikingly stable since the 1970s.

Maybe it’s the question phrasing, though — maybe these respondents don’t want a racist speaker in their neighborhood, but also don’t want the government to ban that speaker at all. Alas, there’s plenty of other polling and research showing that approval of more general bans on speech is something of a national tradition.

Here’s then–Washington Post polling director Richard Morin writing in 1998:

In 1938, the American Institute of Public Opinion surveyed a national sample of American adults. The institute asked respondents whether they believed in free speech or not, and of course 96 percent said they did.
But in subsequent questions, it became uncomfortably clear that Americans would place many limits on free speech. Fewer than four in 10 – 38 percent – said they would allow “radicals” to meet and speak. Even fewer would grant those rights to Communists or fascists.
Likewise, during the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s, Harvard sociologist Samuel Stouffer conducted a national poll to measure support for free speech. Two-thirds said a Communist should not be allowed to speak. And nearly as many, 60 percent, said an atheist should not be allowed to speak.
Or take an AP article from 1990 — accessed via Nexis, so no link — with the headline “Americans apply ‘double standard’ to free speech rights”:

Americans overwhelmingly believe the Constitution guarantees their individual freedom of expression, but more than one-fourth say that protection shouldn’t apply to the arts or the media, according to a private survey [of 1,500 adults].

Robert O’Neil, founding director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, said Friday that the center’s survey spotlighted “an appalling gap” in public understanding of free speech and equally protected freedom of the press.

“We found alarming evidence of a double standard, a sense that the 1st Amendment protects what the speaker wants to say, but not so clearly the views of others,” O’Neil said, releasing the survey results at a news conference on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial.

While 90 percent of Americans believe the government has no business telling them what to say, nearly 59 percent said the government should have some power of censorship, according to the center’s survey.

In addition, more than half said the government has the right to ban the sale of recordings that favor drug use or broadcasting of sexually explicit lyrics; 84 percent favored mandatory labeling of recorded songs containing such lyrics.

The survey said between 25 percent and 30 percent of those questioned believed the 1st Amendment’s guarantees of free speech didn’t cover art works, films, music, radio, cable and network television, plays, newspapers or photographs. [emphasis mine]
Last week’s poll wasn’t even an outlier if we restrict the question to young people. Kathleen Weldon of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at Cornell sent me an age breakdown from a 1999 American Attitudes About the First Amendment survey in which respondents were asked whether they agreed with the statement “People should be allowed to use words in public that might be offensive to racial groups.” Combining the “mildly disagree” and “strongly disagree” categories, 75 percent of respondents in the 18-to-29 age bracket disagreed. (Let’s do a Charlie Nash callback: “Just 10 to 20 years ago, college campuses were places defined by their open debates, easy access to learn new things, and free student discussion.”)

This is a far-from-comprehensive look at past polling numbers on free-speech questions, and I’m sure there are interesting patterns to be discovered, some of which might reveal noteworthy things about young people’s attitudes and how they have changed over the years. But on the specific question of whether people should be alarmed that 40 percent of millennials are in favor of government censorship of offensive speech, there’s very little to suggest this is an unusual result.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 13, 2016, 12:12:57 PM
Josh, I may be misreading your article somewhat, but is this an apples to apples comparison. It seems that the comparison group is "Americans" versus Millennials. The more relevant comparison (according to the criteria I set out) would be something like university students in 1980 compared with university students in 2016. Since the universities are certainly ground zero for mainstream millennial political thinking, and indeed, the spearhead of any millennial political movement (in other words, the ones who actually think about politics and influence politics) that would be the relevant point of comparison, not some general survey of American adults which is going to include millions who are just inert and don't have any say in anything.

I would be very curious to know what percentage of university attending millennials 30 years ago would have ranked free speech high on their list of values, compared with today.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 13, 2016, 12:29:57 PM
Quote
That's not to say that there aren't people with extreme views in the group you call millennials, but to say that they are the ones causing the problem is to ignore what they are agitating against and advocating for.

No, that's the thing - if you pay attention to what's going on at college campuses, you realize that what I'm describing isn't "extreme" (and I am assuming by "extreme" you mean "out of the ordinary", "not mainstream" etc...). Yes, students willing to go out and commit acts of violence themselves would be in a minority. But ones who would condone violence? Not uncommon. Ones who would actively lobbey to have speakers they dislike banned or forced out? That's mainstream thought. Not remotely controversial or "extreme". Ones who want to ban speech they dislike? That's the mainstream at any universities across the country. Yes, this kind of thinking has always been present in the general population, but until recently, college campuses were bastions of free speech. No more.

It is shocking how much things have changed even since I was last at a university (back in 2005!). I was an editor at a student newspaper when I was in undergrad back in 2003, so I had a pretty good sense of what kind of ideas were floating around. Nothing I experienced back then compares with what I read in the paper every day, including about an institution I actually attended.

Quote
but to say that they are the ones causing the problem is to ignore what they are agitating against and advocating for.

I really should say that this is a bit tangential to Trump, because really what I'm talking about has been going on for years and certainly didn't start with Trump. They really are two separate questions. Trump just happens to be a very good lightning rod for this sort of thing, so he's giving you a nice preview of what you can expect as the new normal over the next 10 years. Call him a canary in a coal mine.

But if you're asking me why I don't condemn Trump, I do (on certain points). But since my voice would get drowned out in that chorus, I'd rather be contrarian and just point out some aspects of this story that worry me alot more than whether a crass demagogue wins the repub nomination.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 13, 2016, 01:56:48 PM
This is not at all new - I would suggest to you that the only new thing is that you are now aware of and bothered by it.

This should be informative for you: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/11/false-alarm-on-millennials-and-free-speech.html (http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/11/false-alarm-on-millennials-and-free-speech.html)

In addition to Jason's point that this survey apparently interviews Americans as a whole including those who tacitly have views that they will state when pressed but who aren't active in a political sense, there is another problem here: the article doesn't give us a gauge on whether there is any political or ideological tilt to the results - probably because it isn't designed to target that data. In other words, it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. What the article does cover is the fact that Americans as a whole have long been willing to say that certain kinds of public speech shouldn't happen, and in a sense this isn't precisely contentious in itself. Even by the standards of a typical libertarian I don't believe anyone advocates blanket unlimited free speech. For instance, I doubt any except for the most radical of libertarians would argue that fomenting a lynch mob should be protected free speech, or that inciting any criminal activity should be allowed. Similarly, political gatherings whose purpose is to subvert democracy (fascist or revolutionary gatherings) or aid America's enemies would almost universally garner consensus that they should be banned. But these are a gimme and so let's forget about them and focus on other things mentioned in the article: banning offensive music, banning speech about black genetic inferiority (or more generally, direct hate speech), banning atheists from speaking. There are not many more examples that this listed, and if you look at these you'll notice one thing: they are hardly left-wing issues; at least not specifically. The issue of offensive lyrics in music has probably irked people on both sides of the political fence over the years, although right-wing Walmart was the one to ban certain music from its shelves, and I'm comfortable saying that the music/art ban concept is more of a right-wing issue. The desire to ban speech about black inferiority might arguably be more left-of-center if we knew the people interviewed were in the Deep South, but if it was taken in, say, New York City then I think there would be general consensus from both sides that this kind of speech sucks. So this one might be a wash. Then there's the banning of atheists, which I think is again pretty blatantly a right-wing issue.

So there we have it: Jason's point is not really addressed by this article. He is saying that the left-wing of America among millenials, especially in the university scene, are shifting away from valuing free speech. If the article's data points towards at best general consensus that certain topics should be banned, and more likely that right-wing people have long thought so, then this does not in the slightest bit contradict a thesis that left-wing people are shifting towards favoring banning speech as compared with right-wing people. This relative comparison is the main issue, although since we can readily observe that right-wing people are not increasingly favoring free speech then by corollary we can infer this must mean that left-wing people are decreasingly favoring it, if there is indeed a relative shift.

Yes - hoodlums, union thugs, and other mayhem have always been around. It's true that people can forget this and then when they remember it feel like things have suddenly gotten worse. This kind of social blind spot, bred by mass ignorance, can indeed create false impressions of what the past was like. But is it really debatable that things are much harder for right-wing social clubs in universities now compared with 30 years ago?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: JoshCrow on March 13, 2016, 02:57:50 PM
Josh, I may be misreading your article somewhat, but is this an apples to apples comparison. It seems that the comparison group is "Americans" versus Millennials. The more relevant comparison (according to the criteria I set out) would be something like university students in 1980 compared with university students in 2016.
I would be very curious to know what percentage of university attending millennials 30 years ago would have ranked free speech high on their list of values, compared with today.

Fine - challenge accepted. Here's some perspective, written in 2002 but going back to 1980.

From http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/free-speech-on-public-college-campuses

Quote
Beginning in the 1980s, a variety of studies, including one by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching titled “Campus Tensions,” highlighted instances of racial hatred and harassment directed at racial minorities. Over the past two decades the harassment has grown to include gays and lesbians, women and members of other ethnic groups. On several campuses white students have worn blackface for sorority and fraternity parties. On one campus a flier was distributed that warned: “The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Are Watching You.”
 
Many campuses responded to such actions by adopting policies that officially banned such expression and made those found guilty of engaging in it susceptible to punishments ranging from reprimands to expulsion. The idea, of course, was to chill the environment for such expression by punishing various forms of speech based on either content or viewpoint. These codes found strong support from some administrators, faculty and students who were convinced that by controlling speech it would be possible to improve the climate for racial and other minorities. The assumption behind the codes was that limiting harassment on campus would spare the would-be victims of hate speech psychological, emotional and even physical damage. The supporters of such codes also argued that they represented good educational policy, insisting that such bans meant that the learning process on campus would not be disrupted and that the concept of rational discourse, as opposed to hate-inspired invective and epithet, would be enshrined.

It goes on... and Fenring, this gets at what you were saying.

Quote
The Connecticut example, however, raises a far more disquieting issue. The erection of these codes in the late 1980s and the early 1990s was done, at least in part, in response to dogged pressures brought by groups determined to use the authority of the university to eliminate harassment and discrimination while pressing their own causes. As former university president Sheldon Hackney has observed: “n this kind of argument, one is either right or wrong, for them or against them, a winner or a loser. Real answers are the casualties of such drive-by debate. This may be good entertainment, but it … only reinforces lines of division and does not build toward agreement.”
 
As so-called political correctness ignited a nationwide debate about what universities could and should restrict, many liberals found themselves in the awkward position of supporting the very limitations on expression that they had fought against during and after the great McCarthy Red Scare of the 1950s and 1960s, and campuses divided into camps for and against. Moreover, states during these years also adopted bans on speakers, most notably those associated with the Communist Party. Hence, a new and left-wing form of political oppression seemed to be replacing an older, right-wing one, with the same effect: The views and voices of some were curtailed.

My point here is just that this is nothing new in 2016 - not in America, and not in the microcosm of college campuses. All this alarm from people over the 'lack of valuing free speech' is describing a condition that has been present for our entire lifetimes and has not exactly had earth-shattering repercussions in 35 years.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: JoshCrow on March 13, 2016, 03:36:03 PM
Also, bringing this back around to Trump - I would say that it is alarming that something like 20% of his supporters disagree with the Emancipation Proclamation. They were asked "Do you approve or disapprove of the executive order which freed all slaves in states that were in rebellion against the federal government?". 20% of Trumpies said they disapproved!
The same is NOT true of supporters of Rubio and other candidates in each party. There is clearly a major racial animus amidst the Trump support. It's not everyone by far, but it's alarming to see.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-supporters-pro-slavery/
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 13, 2016, 03:47:12 PM
Fine - challenge accepted. Here's some perspective, written in 2002 but going back to 1980.

From http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/free-speech-on-public-college-campuses

Although this wasn't directed at me I'll just point out that this excerpt details a scenario where one group was directly threatening another - most likely with violence - and where many people felt that prohibiting this kind of direct threat being issued by racists shouldn't be allowed. In today-speak this would fall under the category of "duh" and isn't what we're discussing. That was them banning speech which itself was intended to squash speech. In other words, it was a move towards increasing freedom of speech, not limiting it. The fact that to maximize aggregate free speech some kinds of speech (that are designed to prevent free speech) have to be banned is a mechanical necessity and not ideological at all. It's like saying that to prevent violence the police have to utilize violence. Well...yeah, of course they do. It's not a contradiction. Similarly, the move to prevent the KKK threatening people was not at all a move to 'limit speech' in the broad sense.

Quote
As so-called political correctness ignited a nationwide debate about what universities could and should restrict, many liberals found themselves in the awkward position of supporting the very limitations on expression that they had fought against during and after the great McCarthy Red Scare of the 1950s and 1960s, and campuses divided into camps for and against. Moreover, states during these years also adopted bans on speakers, most notably those associated with the Communist Party. Hence, a new and left-wing form of political oppression seemed to be replacing an older, right-wing one, with the same effect: The views and voices of some were curtailed.

I don't believe Jason is saying that the political correctness movement has never existed before, and so your reference to past iterations of it is both quite right and yet beside the point. There was a spike in political correctness in the late 80's-early 90's for sure, and it was met with resistance and frankly never amounted to that much anyhow. It's unclear whether the current trend towards is the very same groups just trying again or is a new movement using similar notions. But the fact of past iterations of this trend spiking upwards doesn't particularly speak to whether there's a notable trend in that direction now. Ok, this isn't the first time in history this has happened; so what? Does that mean it shouldn't be addressed or treated like something noteworthy? I would also note that whatever it is that's happening now, the magnitude of it seems to be greater than it was then.

Just as an analogy, imagine you're looking at the economy and someone says that since 2008 the economy has gone to hell and things are worse now than they were 30 years ago. Sure, you could then reference the big recession of the early 80's and make the argument that having a recession is nothing new and that making a big deal out of the crash of 2008 is just blowing smoke and forgetting history. But when seen in economic terms it immediately becomes obvious that it's silly to point towards a past recession and say that a current one is 'business as usual' and nothing to talk about; especially so when the current one far exceeds the previous one in both magnitude and contextual relevance. This is especially so when the current recession is not merely incidental but rather is tied to endemic realities that are not going to go away. And so the analogy goes for the declining value of free speech.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: JoshCrow on March 13, 2016, 06:03:52 PM

Although this wasn't directed at me I'll just point out that this excerpt details a scenario where one group was directly threatening another - most likely with violence - and where many people felt that prohibiting this kind of direct threat being issued by racists shouldn't be allowed. In today-speak this would fall under the category of "duh" and isn't what we're discussing. That was them banning speech which itself was intended to squash speech.

Blackface and oblique references are not "incitement to violence". On top of that, you are making a slippery argument... "duh" to banning some instances of speech, whereas today you have Trump saying he'll pay legal fees for violent followers of his who rough up protestors and this is somehow fine. In essence, you are making a value judgement on speech - which is exactly what college students are accused of doing now. It doesn't mean, as Jason implies, that free speech is "dead" or whatever other hyperbolic claim you want to make. It means that a group exists that has placed (God forbid) some other value above unrestricted speech. I happen to disagree with that group! But I have disdain for the hyperbole Jason uses and the lamentation that free speech means nothing to these people. It's facile to take an all-or-nothing approach to speech (i.e. you either have free speech or not).


Quote
I would also note that whatever it is that's happening now, the magnitude of it seems to be greater than it was then.

We tend to think our problems are worse than they were in history - but is this really true? How would you find out? Your 2008 recession example is fine and dandy because we have economic data and can objectively say this one was worse than usual. But do you have such data besides anecdote that there is really a more severe problem than usual in this arena? Or is it just a 'feeling'? Perhaps social media has simply made us more aware of things that always existed.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 13, 2016, 06:42:59 PM
Well, I heard on the radio today that back in 1976 Reagan supporters destroyed the convention floor phone at one of the states that was backing Ford so they couldn't communicate with the Ford leadership team.  Back in the 60's Strom Thurmond threatened another Senator and had to be restrained.  That kind of stuff goes all the way back to the first years of the country when Thomas Paine smeared James Madison in order to thwart the ratification of the Constitution and during the 1796 election Adams accused Jefferson of being "the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father" and Jefferson returned the favor by accusing Adams of being a hermaphrodite.  Adams was elected that year and Jefferson became his Vice President because he had the second highest number of votes.  In 1800 they both ran again and Jefferson won (with Burr as his VP).
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 14, 2016, 06:53:50 AM
Josh, I echo Fenring's point that naked threats (like references to the Klan, a terrorist group) are not really in the same category as what we  have been discussing. But I will concede that blackface is getting at least in the ballpark (alebeit deep in left field). Banning communist speakers is certainly alot closer.

But as Fenring notes, just because we had a recession in the 1980's, doesn't mean the 2008 financial crash wasn't a meaningful (and world altering) event. I never denied that free speech suppression, even on university campuses, existed before.

Do you have evidence that widespread curtailment of political speech on campuses supported by a wide majority of mainstream students was a common occurrence over the past 30 years?

You were in university when I was. You must have noticed some of what I was speaking about? Do you deny that university educated millennials have a lower tolerance for and cultural acceptance of free speech as a value?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: JoshCrow on March 14, 2016, 09:07:45 AM
Do you have evidence that widespread curtailment of political speech on campuses supported by a wide majority of mainstream students was a common occurrence over the past 30 years?

I would counter that you don't even have evidence of that NOW, nevermind 30 years ago. What you have are a series of anecdotes culled from a few of the thousands of American universities. A shut down event here, a cancelled talk there. Have you genuinely researched whether these events are more frequent than in the past?

Quote
You were in university when I was. You must have noticed some of what I was speaking about? Do you deny that university educated millennials have a lower tolerance for and cultural acceptance of free speech as a value?

This descends into anecdote, but consider this - I've been at a university since the late 90's and have never left, and apart from what I read on the news I've noticed nothing meaningful in my institutions that suggests anything has changed - except for the fact that there are discussions about 'safe spaces' and the like. Actually I'm signed up to be in a campus discussion of safe spaces and trigger warnings in a few weeks - should be interesting.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 14, 2016, 10:11:18 AM
I am very curious to hear your impressions from that discussion.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 10:54:26 AM
What scourge do you suppose is worse than the fact that mainstream millenials (the future leaders of our society) no longer believe in free speech?

Any one that actually and not propaganda designed to get people to ignore what the protestors are trying to communicate. Nothing like blaming people for having the nerve to do what it takes to be able to speak and get their voice to be hard for "silencing" others simple because they're not bowing to authoritarianism and doing what they're told so that you can easily ignore them.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: D.W. on March 14, 2016, 10:58:14 AM
It's just awful that Trump had to cancel an appearance because of security concerns.  Such an occurrence couldn't possibly work to his advantage...   ::)

This move is more artful than him protesting the early debate.  The guy's got some game.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Seriati on March 14, 2016, 11:23:43 AM
I just want to add one thought, disruption is not a legitimate form of protest.  Political speech is actually intended to be the most protected from of speech we have, and deliberately disrupting a political rally to the point that you prevent it from occurring should be condemned by all parties.  I have no doubt, that nearly everyone supporting the protestors, who are clearly engaged in disruption, not protest, would completely flip their position if it were disruptors at a Bernie convention or disruptors at a "safe space" and that represents a fundamental flaw in your comprehension of what free speech actually means.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 11:32:26 AM
THey way Sanders got upset when his rally was disrupted?

Oh wait. He let the protestors have the stage and effectively acknowledged that they had more need of the platform to speak at the time than he did.

And that was in the case of an actual disruption, not a pat after-the-fact manufactured accusation of danger used to capitalize on deciding to cancel an event in order to maximize the free press and outrage. Why try to fight the protest directly when you can bring out legions of people willing to slander them at your behest by simply letting them seem to win in the short term?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: JoshCrow on March 14, 2016, 11:43:08 AM
THey way Sanders got upset when his rally was disrupted?

Oh wait. He let the protestors have the stage and effectively acknowledged that they had more need of the platform to speak at the time than he did.


LOL, that's because he needed their votes and to not upset his own side's base. And I say that as a strong Sanders supporter.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: JoshCrow on March 14, 2016, 11:43:58 AM
I just want to add one thought, disruption is not a legitimate form of protest.  Political speech is actually intended to be the most protected from of speech we have, and deliberately disrupting a political rally to the point that you prevent it from occurring should be condemned by all parties.  I have no doubt, that nearly everyone supporting the protestors, who are clearly engaged in disruption, not protest, would completely flip their position if it were disruptors at a Bernie convention or disruptors at a "safe space" and that represents a fundamental flaw in your comprehension of what free speech actually means.

Seconded for emphasis. Well said.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: TheDrake on March 14, 2016, 11:44:35 AM
Political speech is actually intended to be the most protected from of speech we have, and deliberately disrupting a political rally to the point that you prevent it from occurring should be condemned by all parties. 

How bizarre! Free speech means free from government interference, not "you get to say whatever you want at all times with no interference". When the Klan holds their events, it is perfectly healthy to drown out their hateful words in a non-violent manner. It is abhorrent to think that they should be completely unfettered in their attempt to promulgate hateful ideals.

Does Trump rise to that level? Obviously not. But he is advocating anger and violence, talking about how he'd like to punch people. I don't understand people who want to punch people unless they were first assaulted. The entire idea that you would smack somebody in the mouth because of what they said is alien to me. And for it to be a man looking to be president? Mind-boggling.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: JoshCrow on March 14, 2016, 12:13:56 PM
Does Trump rise to that level? Obviously not.

Your shot down your own point right here. There was no need to continue with what amounts to "I don't like aggressive talk". A single remark from a frustrated candidate is not an excuse to disrupt his political speeches forever. He is not even close to actually advocating violence on the level that his speech should be curtailed.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 14, 2016, 12:14:31 PM
Quote
But he is advocating anger and violence, talking about how he'd like to punch people. I don't understand people who want to punch people unless they were first assaulted.
It's pre-emptive self defense, very hard to carry off, like the crane move in The Karate Kid, but when done right incredibly effective.  I think Trump has all those moves, like canceling a rally and blaming the police when they had told him to go ahead.  As a result, the protesters look evil and the Chicago police, known for their own vicious brutality, look weak.  We need a strong leader who can stand on one leg atop fence post and win while gravely injured in an unprovoked attack!  Drumpf!  Drumpf! Drumpf!
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 14, 2016, 12:22:58 PM
Blackface and oblique references are not "incitement to violence".

As Jason noted, I was referring to the banning of the KKK statements, which are most certainly an incitement to violence. The banning of wearing blackface is a bit more controversial and I would even say I'm against it, but it's all about context. If the manner in which it was done was to scare or intimidate others then I would say that kind of act should be banned. But there is also an historical tradition of wearing blackface for performance purposes that is in no way demeaning or aggressive towards others, and this should definitely be ok. However in the case of something like wearing blackface it could be difficult to make a rule allowing one while banning the other and so in this case I could see a case for banning it purely to prevent the aggressive version of it even though its other use should theoretically be protected. But again, if the use of blackface in that context was going on concurrently with an active KKK presence I could see how the two would be seen as correlated to each other and how sporting blackface could be seen as a direct threat.

Quote
On top of that, you are making a slippery argument... "duh" to banning some instances of speech, whereas today you have Trump saying he'll pay legal fees for violent followers of his who rough up protestors and this is somehow fine. In essence, you are making a value judgement on speech - which is exactly what college students are accused of doing now. It doesn't mean, as Jason implies, that free speech is "dead" or whatever other hyperbolic claim you want to make. It means that a group exists that has placed (God forbid) some other value above unrestricted speech.

I agree with your sentiment (that unlimited freedom to say anything isn't desirable for the common good) but disagree in the specifics of your example here. Trump's position was that he doesn't like the practice of 'protesters', which he says are really disruptors (and this is often an accurate description), and that he sympathizes with people who lose their cool when goaded by those people. In specific, Trump said of the man who struck such a protester that he got carried away and that he does not at all condone violence. You can call BS on Trump's comments, but in themselves they are totally consistent; being against violence, disliking the disruptors, and feeling sympathy for a guy who lost his cool and did something bad when goaded. If anything there is something humane about the sentiment that "the guy got carried away and did something wrong but I want to help him", which is a contrast from the usual treatment of 'wrongdoers' in the media who are vilified without qualification. Note again that while violence is bad, the intent using rhetoric to squash 'protesters' of this type is to prevent them interfering with the right for Trump and his supporters to meet in peace and speak. I'm sure some people who appear to protest Trump do so in good conscience and others are trying to disrupt the event, so obviously I mean this only in regards the ones who would like to use their presence to interfere with the meeting as planned. Trump removing disruptors from his rallies isn't a clear case of preventing speech at all; indeed, taking steps to ensure that a planned meeting can proceed without interference is itself the protection of speech and free association. I'm reminded of the Sanders rally with huge attendance where fake members of BLM showed up and cowed him into walking off the stage and cancelling the rally. That just isn't acceptable, and I don't blame Trump for taking steps to prevent such things. Since I'm not physically present at his events I can't tell you whether he's really doing this or whether he's escorting out peaceful, nice people who just disagree with him. But I have little doubt that there are the types of protesters Trump refers to, and I wouldn't want to tolerate them either.


Quote
Quote
I would also note that whatever it is that's happening now, the magnitude of it seems to be greater than it was then.

We tend to think our problems are worse than they were in history - but is this really true? How would you find out? Your 2008 recession example is fine and dandy because we have economic data and can objectively say this one was worse than usual. But do you have such data besides anecdote that there is really a more severe problem than usual in this arena? Or is it just a 'feeling'? Perhaps social media has simply made us more aware of things that always existed.

This is your best point, as it's more central to the issue. The old adage that every generation thinks things are going downhill does tend to be true, but this fact shouldn't be taken to mean that things never actually do go downhill! It just means people aren't great at judging when this is really the case and when it's just false memory or lack of perspective talking. In the case of the recession it's obvious the 2008 one is the worst since the Depression, and as you say the metrics to determine this are fairly simple. So what kind of metric could we use for speech on campuses? I admit I'm at a loss to come up with a concrete one, and so again you're right that personal perception might have to suffice right now as far as evidence goes.

I would agree to a compromise on this topic, though, which would be that I happen to think what Jason is describing regarding free speech on campus is actually a symptom of general polarization in culture and politics. It's people being divided and conquered so they fight each other rather than those who really abuse them. I think protesting outrageous things has happened for a long time, including police brutality, the Vietnam war, harsh drug laws, and so forth. Because of the current polarization it's become normal to think of simple opposition to one's political views as being an evil outrage, and where supporters of 'the other side' are seen as the enemy rather than as good people who disagree. In this light the protester mentality might not have changed (that truly evil and inhuman things should be opposed and protested), but what has changed is that they now count under this heading speech on any topic in opposition to their causes du jour. Basically the new normal is that it's evil to disagree, and so the logic follows that such dissent must be opposed. In this sense the lower value of freedom of speech seems to me a symptom rather than a cause, the cause being an increasing tendency towards vilifying and even hating people who disagree with you. We could argue that this type of phenomenon has surely existed in the past, and current pop culture tends to assign that past to the Jim Crow era, and to evangelicals and other radical Christians who employ hatred to maintain their base. But what seems to be on the rise is left-wing people (what used to be the hippy free-love crowd) who speak in these same terms and use the same vilifying moral epithets to describe the evil people who speak about evil ideas (like being pro-life, or *gasp* anti-misandry).

In short: Josh, you're entirely right. The desire to restrict speech isn't the core issue, since that desire always follows from identifying a type of speech as being dangerous, subversive, or truly evil. What has changed is which sorts of things are now considered to fall under those categories, and to me that's the real danger; that dissent will become synonymous with evil. This quagmire has been with us for a long time on the abortion issue, but now many other issues have become just as divisive and intractable. 
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 14, 2016, 12:29:19 PM
THey way Sanders got upset when his rally was disrupted?

Oh wait. He let the protestors have the stage and effectively acknowledged that they had more need of the platform to speak at the time than he did.

This is complete horse manure. He left because he knew dealing with them was a lose-lose. If he stood there and argued with them he'd look unsympathetic to their cause (which was fake because they were imposters - BLM denied they were real members), and if he had them escorted out the news would read that he bans oppressed people from his rallies. He did the only logical thing he could have, which was to give in and admit the disruption was a success. So kudos to Bernie, he used good tactical judgement and refused to be made to look like a bad guy. Instead he got sympathy from having been unjustly treated. But to say that he gave them the stage because he felt they needed it more - just no. That is complete propaganda.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 14, 2016, 12:59:13 PM
Quote
If he stood there and argued with them he'd look unsympathetic to their cause (which was fake because they were imposters - BLM denied they were real members)
Are you saying that Sanders knew that at the time?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 14, 2016, 01:10:54 PM
Quote
If he stood there and argued with them he'd look unsympathetic to their cause (which was fake because they were imposters - BLM denied they were real members)
Are you saying that Sanders knew that at the time?

Did I say he did? My parenthesis was added for detail but not to explain Sanders' motivation for leaving.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: JoshCrow on March 14, 2016, 01:14:39 PM
Quote
If he stood there and argued with them he'd look unsympathetic to their cause (which was fake because they were imposters - BLM denied they were real members)
Are you saying that Sanders knew that at the time?

He didn't have to. The optics of arguing with black people about whether their "Lives Matter" is already radioactive. It's utter futility to reason with people about nuance when they have positioned themselves as the ultimate victim through their own slogan. Sanders' judgement was correct - there is no choice but to admit that they played the ultimate card.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 14, 2016, 01:19:37 PM
That's more or less my point.  Whether it was calculated or not for good or bad reasons, Sanders did the right thing, the only thing.  Some people don't do the only thing, but something else.  I've actually seen videos of Cruz engaging with people at small events who challenge him, as well as Hillary and even Bill recently.  Trump says he can't hear what the protesters are saying, which may be true, but he doesn't do small gatherings where they might get a chance to be heard.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 14, 2016, 01:35:02 PM
Whether it was calculated or not for good or bad reasons, Sanders did the right thing, the only thing.  Some people don't do the only thing, but something else.

I just want clarify this because it sounds like you're trying to connect Bernie's behavior to that of Trump on some moral ground, like decency or something. Sanders didn't walk away from that rally do to 'the right thing', which colloquially means the moral thing. He did it because he was snookered and made the best choice he could. I don't even know that refusing to stand up to bullies in order to generate political capital is the 'right thing' in a moral sense, but it was the smart thing and I'm happy he did it since it also had the virtue of being civil. But you almost make it sound like it's morally correct to give in to disruptors or activists and let them speak at your rallies, and I don't at all agree with this sentiment. A private function is not a public forum for peanut gallery comments, nor is it a place for people to come and disrupt the function. The fake BLM people who disrupted Bernie were despicable, and while I agree with Bernie's choice to walk away from them I'm not at all happy with the result of that scenario; i.e. that such tactics can be successful. That is simply godawful, and I hope you're not suggesting that it's somehow morally good to have the terms of your own rally dictated to by a disruptive faction.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 02:19:07 PM
I think it was a moral choice in this situation as well as the good tactical choice.

I disagree with Al that it was "THE" thing to do.  I think it's what another Jewish leader 2000 years ago that I'm quite fond of would have done under the circumstances, but I don't think that there's a moral obligation to do what he did.  Is that perhaps what you're getting at, Fenring?  If you're saying that goodness morality and ethics should not compel a speaker to give up his podium to some loud snake oil salesman (see Ibsen's play entitled "Enemy of the People") then I agree.  But I do feel that what Sanders did showed moral conviction as well as good tactical sense.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 02:31:12 PM
Quote
The fake BLM people who disrupted
You're suggesting that they didn't support the principles behind BLM? That they were out to use the label to spread ideas contrary to the commonality of message that defines the movement?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 02:34:55 PM
Quote
The fake BLM people who disrupted
You're suggesting that they didn't support the principles behind BLM? That they were out to use the label to spread ideas contrary to the commonality of message that defines the movement?

Ask BLM what BLM meant when they said the disruptors were phonies.  Do you question the right of BLM to speak for itself?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 02:39:44 PM
Quote
The fake BLM people who disrupted
You're suggesting that they didn't support the principles behind BLM? That they were out to use the label to spread ideas contrary to the commonality of message that defines the movement?

Ask BLM what BLM meant when they said the disruptors were phonies.  Do you question the right of BLM to speak for itself?

Which group of people that identify with the BLM movement are you talking about? A movement is an abstract concept, it can't exactly speak for itself.

Are you saying that a particular local group organized under the auspices of the BLM movement said that they weren't members of that particular group?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 02:46:10 PM
I imagine any black person has more right than that Asian woman in blackface that was making most of the threats, and that kept screaming "stop asking questions" when they offered the microphone but asked how long they were going to take.

Quite the hypocrisy, saying over and over again that Bernie was "welcome to Seattle" while preventing him from speaking, and refusing to let him speak.  And that "four and a half minutes of enforced silence" was straight out of a cult brainwashing 101 handbook.

Most importantly, they took up all that time and had nothing at all to say.  It was nothing but naked exercise of control over other human beings.  Bullying for the sake of bullying.  Where's the *censored*ing message?  There was no message other than a boot on the people's heads.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 02:56:02 PM
It was poorly planned for sure, especially since they expected to be kicked out and have that be the leading point for a more coherent conversation. Shows taht you should always be ready to be more successful than you planned to be as well as failure.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 02:58:54 PM
It was poorly planned for sure, especially since they expected to be kicked out and have that be the leading point for a more coherent conversation.

I don't believe that you even believe that crap, Pyr.  What evidence do you have that these guys wanted a "  coherent conversation?"  They came planning to shut Bernie's event down.

In short, they are Hillary's clack.  Once Bernie gave them the mike, their whole purpose shifted to baiting the crowd so that Bernie wouldn't be able to speak at his own rally.

I really fear what's going to be their payoff if Hillary wins.  I guess we'll have bastards like this storming into our churches with this kind of shut down red guard tactics.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 03:14:08 PM
Quote
What evidence do you have that these guys wanted a "  coherent conversation?"  They came planning to shut Bernie's event down.
Their own words, afterwards, when they admitted that they had no idea what to do once their plan to get booted off went wrong.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 03:17:05 PM
Quote
What evidence do you have that these guys wanted a "  coherent conversation?"  They came planning to shut Bernie's event down.
Their own words, afterwards, when they admitted that they had no idea what to do once their plan to get booted off went wrong.

That admits in itself that they came to shut the event down.  Because they had the numbers to shut it down when they were booted off.

Do these losers have names?  Where were they interviewed?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 03:23:18 PM
Here's what the group said for itself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter_us_55c68f14e4b0923c12bd197e

Quote
A statement apparently from the group of protesters addressed the event:

"Today BLM Seattle, with the support of other Black organizers and non-Black allies and accomplices, held Bernie Sanders publicly accountable for his lack of support for the Black Lives Matter movement."

If they said differently, they lied, just like they lie about the circumstances and numbers.  They publicly bragged about punishing sanders by shutting his event down.  They lied to him when they said that if he "listened" to them that they'd let him speak.  They dance on the coffins of the dead, and have nothing to say; it's just a game of control.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 03:44:07 PM
Here's the face of the big fat liar herself, Marissa Johnson:

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/files/2015/08/blmjohnson.jpg

First she asked to be listened to, saying he could speak afterwards.

Second, she demanded to speak, saying she'd give the mike to Bernie afterwards

Then she goaded the crowd with the four and a half minutes of silence.

Finally, having had all her demands met, she still refused to give Bernie the mike, saying that she was "holding him accountable" for not supporting BLM.

In short, she's a big fat lying Johnson.  And I bet she's drawing a check from Hillary's campaign.

Sanders marched with Martin Luther King.  This Johnson's never faced anything serious.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 14, 2016, 03:46:44 PM
I disagree with Al that it was "THE" thing to do.  I think it's what another Jewish leader 2000 years ago that I'm quite fond of would have done under the circumstances, but I don't think that there's a moral obligation to do what he did.  Is that perhaps what you're getting at, Fenring?  If you're saying that goodness morality and ethics should not compel a speaker to give up his podium to some loud snake oil salesman (see Ibsen's play entitled "Enemy of the People") then I agree.  But I do feel that what Sanders did showed moral conviction as well as good tactical sense.

I think any decent person will have a moral component involved in all of their acts. In its essence acting decently and being honest is inherently moral even if those acts are also advantageous or convenient. In this sense I do think his walking off was moral, but I guess what I'm saying is I don't think he walked off out of moral conviction, as in "I'd like to stay but I'll be a better person if I leave." I think he didn't want to stay, for the reasons mentioned above. He knew it would be a mistake. There are many ways within the bounds of morality to deal with a given situation, and his decision to leave or to stay could both have been done morally or immorally. He could have stayed and been dignified about it, and he could have left and started ranting about them to the papers. So the mere decision to leave, to me, says little about morality and more about good decision-making. Since I do think he's a morally solid person I have no doubt this general approach to life can be said to apply to all kinds of things he does, but I don't see that as applying in any specific way to his walking off here. Al was trying, you see, to show how Bernie treated the fake BLM people morally while Trump treats protesters immorally, and my main point was to express that I think this is a false comparison.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 04:03:45 PM
After watching the video, i sadly agree with you.  It was obvious that Marissa Johnson was a soulless attention whore, and that thuggish asian in blackface by her, refusing even to let them gracefully explain to the crown before turning the mike over ... It was obviously nothing about actual black lives.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 04:08:13 PM
I can't find the specific interview, and I may even be crossing it with something else I've heard but here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQqdNF-BHTw&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

Keep in mind, that this action not only resulted in Sanders publishing a more robust civil rights policy and actually taking racial issues more seriously, but Clinton agreeing to sit and meet with BLM advocates and directly listen to their concerns, so it seems that she got her message across pretty well, as well as driving a much longer more coherent conversation afterwards.

I mean even in your attempts here to attack her because she actually spoke up and made you have to pay attention to her instead of remaining conveniently ignorable and waiting for her betters to tell her when she was allowed to talk, you're contributing to the success of the action and the lasting impact that it's had on the amount of attention and work the issue is getting.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 04:13:02 PM
After watching the video, i sadly agree with you.  It was obvious that Marissa Johnson was a soulless attention whore, and that thuggish asian in blackface by her, refusing even to let them gracefully explain to the crown before turning the mike over ... It was obviously nothing about actual black lives.

OKay, seriously. can you cut the personal smears? You bias is clear, how about you actually talk to things of substance instead of needing to see just how many useless, judgmental personal insults you can cram in? Your apparent compulsion to vomit up that kind of garbage really gets tiresome, especially since it involves a lot of begging the question and well poisoning.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 04:18:22 PM
Get this: the skank calls Sanders supporters "white supremacists" while she herself supported Sarah Palin.  Wiki: Marissa Johnsom.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 04:20:23 PM
"ou bias is clear, how about you actually talk to things of substance instead of needing to see just how many useless, judgmental personal insults you can cram in? "

Like you are doing with me?  you owe me that courtesy, as part of your agreement on Ornery. Johnson is not an Ornery member, so she's free game.  And you were the one who raised the skank's credibility when you asked us to take her word for her intent.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 04:23:00 PM
"ou bias is clear, how about you actually talk to things of substance instead of needing to see just how many useless, judgmental personal insults you can cram in? "

Like you are doing with me?
Like I'm always careful to never do.
Quote
  you owe me that courtesy, as part of your agreement on Ornery. Johnson is not an Ornery member, so she's free game.  And you were the one who raised the skank's credibility when you asked us to take her word for her intent.

She's a human being. That alone demands courtesy.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 04:30:03 PM
"
I mean even in your attempts here to attack her because she actually spoke up and made you have to pay attention to her "

Check it out!  Pyr goes pro-rape.  So much for his respect for consent.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 14, 2016, 04:32:08 PM
Get this: the skank calls Sanders supporters "white supremacists" while she herself supported Sarah Palin.  Wiki: Marissa Johnsom.

Oh yeah...I had momentarily forgotten that these people were Palin supporters. Heh, yeah, I'm sure they were really invested in their social cause. /s
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 04:38:53 PM
"ou bias is clear, how about you actually talk to things of substance instead of needing to see just how many useless, judgmental personal insults you can cram in? "

Like you are doing with me?
Like I'm always careful to never do.
Quote
  you owe me that courtesy, as part of your agreement on Ornery. Johnson is not an Ornery member, so she's free game.  And you were the one who raised the skank's credibility when you asked us to take her word for her intent.

She's a human being. That alone demands courtesy.

I show more to her than she showed to Bernie.  And more than you show to me when you lie about what i say and make hateful speculations about how i feel.

I am angry that even after getting her platform and running out of things to say, she still refused to let Bernie speak as she had promised.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 05:00:40 PM
Get this: the skank calls Sanders supporters "white supremacists" while she herself supported Sarah Palin.  Wiki: Marissa Johnsom.

Oh yeah...I had momentarily forgotten that these people were Palin supporters. Heh, yeah, I'm sure they were really invested in their social cause. /s

Loved how she tears up when discussing the matter of her own self-importance.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 05:05:36 PM
Get this: the skank calls Sanders supporters "white supremacists" while she herself supported Sarah Palin.  Wiki: Marissa Johnsom.

Oh yeah...I had momentarily forgotten that these people were Palin supporters. Heh, yeah, I'm sure they were really invested in their social cause. /s
Cause who a kid supports because of her parents when she's 16 is something that never changes? MEans taht tehy hold the same views 8 year later and must be what they'll believe for their entire life?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 05:12:00 PM
I show more to her than she showed to Bernie.
And? That's not a good justification regardless of accuracy.


Quote
  And more than you show to me when you lie about what i say and make hateful speculations about how i feel.
I don't have to speculate about what you're actively doing. You're heaping insults on someone who spoke out and brought a significant amount of attention to an important political issue. You're being critical about the fact taht they didn't do it in a way that you approve of to the point that you're paying no attention to the message, but focusing completely on your disapproval of the delivery.

Quote
I am angry that even after getting her platform and running out of things to say, she still refused to let Bernie speak as she had promised.
Being angry is fine. That's still not a good excuse for personal insults.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 05:22:52 PM
You are in no position to lecture on courtesy, and you seem to wield talk of courtesy in the same way that Marissa Johnson used a dead black kid: a spectre to silence other voices.

What you said about my motives was dishonest, because you had already admitted that she basically got up and said nothing.  Font use dishonest motive projection and then lecture on courtesty.

If you gave a *censored* about blm, you should be glad i blame her terrorist antics on Marissa and her thuggish asian in blackface, rather than attributing it to BLM. what's the deal? You know this Palinist skank?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 05:42:57 PM
"I don't have to speculate about what you're actively doing. You're heaping insults on someone who spoke out and brought a significant amount of attention to an important political issu"

That's a lie.  She didnt bring any attention to BLM's message. She just insulted the people of Seattle, talked about indian history, then lied and bullied them into silence. She used the same tactics the early Nazis used against Jews and Socialists in the late 1920s. Steal a platform, bully them back, and hurl racist insults. No surprise her little clubs are known for antisemitism
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 05:50:37 PM
You are in no position to lecture on courtesy, and you seem to wield talk of courtesy in the same way that Marissa Johnson used a dead black kid: a spectre to silence other voices.
Ah, like you're silenced? And because showing a bit of basic respect for others is being "silenced". Because freedom of speech means that no one is ever allowed to call out out when you're rude or behaving badly rather than an acknowledgement that people can and will do so if the find cause to do so.

Quote
What you said about my motives was dishonest, because you had already admitted that she basically got up and said nothing.  Font use dishonest motive projection and then lecture on courtesty.
I said nothing at all about your motives. I don't know why you choose to attack her because she spoke out, but the fact is she spoke out and you're here insulting her for it, where you wouldn't even know she exists, never mind be attacking her if she hadn't.

Quote
If you gave a *censored* about blm, you should be glad i blame her terrorist antics on Marissa and her thuggish asian in blackface, rather than attributing it to BLM. what's the deal? You know this Palinist skank?
Because slinging insults and false accusations shows that you have any idea of what you're talking about? That you've made any real effort to understand what happened and the impact it had on the race and the conversation? I should be happy that you're engaging in name calling that only serves to derail and distract from substantive issues and instead focus what people who act in ways that displease or even anger you should expect as their punishment?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 05:53:08 PM
That's a lie.  She didnt bring any attention to BLM's message.
That's funny, people were talking about it for along afterwards. Are still talking about it. Sanders changed the amount of attention he gave to civil rights as a result. Clinton went out of her way to sit down and meet directly with BLM activists as a result.

You wouldn't be talking about this if she didn't bring attention to the matter. She just didn't do it in a way that you, as her _obvious_ superior, approved of.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 06:27:27 PM
"You wouldn't be talking about this if she didn't bring attention to the matter. "

That's a lie.  I have no idea if she brought attention to the matter.  Based on the obvious falsehoods you've said here, the fact that you claim she did means nothing to me.  When I heard about the incident for the first time on this thread, I was approving at first, until I saw the video of what the skank actually did.

So please quit being a motive projecting ass.  You aren't going to convince me of anything on a thread where you've demonized me like that.

"as her _obvious_ superior, approved of."

Don't project your authority worship psychosis onto me, Pyr.  She's a liar.  She said she'd let him speak after she had her say.  She didn't.  It's clear even from what you said she said, that she never had any intent to let him speak.  So you are lying when you claim that I'm resentful of her speaking.  There's no way you could honestly get that from I said.  I'm angry that AFTER she got her "message" out, she still didn't let him speak, out of pure malice against him. 

Yes, my criticism of her is personal, because she's the person who did this crap.  That's no excuse for you to lie about me or what I said, or to claim that I believe things that you know I don't believe.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 07:03:33 PM
Quote
  I have no idea if she brought attention to the matter.  Based on the obvious falsehoods you've said here, the fact that you claim she did means nothing to me.  When I heard about the incident for the first time on this thread, I was approving at first, until I saw the video of what the skank actually did.
On what  basis do you effectively assert that you'd have been criticizing this incident if this incident never happened?

She literally had to do this for you to have any chance of knowing that it had happened, never mind throwing insults at her for having done it.

Quote
So you are lying when you claim that I'm resentful of her speaking.
I didn't say anything about resent. I said that you were talking about what she did and slinging insults at her for doing it. And making it very clear that you do not approve of it and feel justified in insulting her because you disapprove.

Quote
Don't project your authority worship psychosis onto me
And yet you're the one angry here in response to people that didn't behave the way you wanted them to, not me.  You keep accusing me of authority worship, but it's you that insult and attack people who don't meet your standards.

Quote
I'm angry that AFTER she got her "message" out, she still didn't let him speak, out of pure malice against him.
Please cite the explicit quote where she puts forth that explanation. It seems to me that he never spoke at that because he left before she was done speaking. Though you've certainly directly asserted an itemized list of when you declared her done and thus should have handed the stage back.

Quote
Yes, my criticism of her is personal, because she's the person who did this crap.
That again, is a poor excuse for the kind of demeaning and insulting name calling you're employing.

Quote
  That's no excuse for you to lie about me or what I said, or to claim that I believe things that you know I don't believe.
Something that I haven't done, no matter how much you try to manufacture accusations.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 07:19:51 PM
"On what  basis do you effectively assert that you'd have been criticizing this incident if this incident never happened?:

Please stop playing stupid.  The incident of her interrupting Sanders would have gotten publicity as it had before.  My criticism only occurred to her failing to keep her false promise of turning the stage back to Sanders when she'd had her say.


"throwing insults at her for having done it."

Get off my leg.  Everything she said about black lives matter could have been summed up in 15 seconds.  I criticize her only for lying, and she did lie. 

"I said that you were talking about what she did and slinging insults at her for doing it. And making it very clear that you do not approve of it and feel justified in insulting her because you disapprove."

Now you are obfuscating to cover your earlier lie.  Now you obfuscate with "what she did" and "it" rather than your earlier lie that I was attacking her for how she delivered her message.  Cut the crap, Pyr.  I criticized her for failing to deliver on her promise to turn the stage back to sanders WHEN SHE RAN OUT OF THINGS TO SAY.  And you even admitted above that she had nothing to say when she got the mike.  For you to turn around now and pretend that I'm "poisoning the well."

Don't be an ass.  I'm not killing the messenger for her message.  Here the messenger forgot her *censored*ing message and held the stage by force, saying nothing and insulting people.  I criticized what she did, and in response, you've lied about me and made stupid insulting motive inferences. You say you didn't need to.  Then stop doing it.  Back off.  If you hadn't done that, we might have had a civil conversation, but I won't listen to you about civility on a thread where you've pulled something like that.

You say she made a positive difference.  I don't believe you, because you have zero credibility with me after how you've misrepresented me.

You don't dispute that she lied, and yet you cry like a baby when I call her a liar.  Grow up.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 07:25:50 PM
Quote
The incident of her interrupting Sanders would have gotten publicity as it had before.  My criticism only occurred to her failing to keep her false promise of turning the stage back to Sanders when she'd had her say.
If it never happened, how would it have gotten publicity? Are you saying people would have made it up if she hadn't done it?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 07:27:51 PM
" You keep accusing me of authority worship, but it's you that insult and attack people who don't meet your standards."

Could someone translate Pyrian to English?  I'm having a hard time separating his grammatical errors from his authority-sucking logic errors.

"And making it very clear that you do not approve of it and feel justified in insulting her because you disapprove."

I showed what she said, and I showed what she did, and I inferred that she lied and kept people sitting while she said nothing, based on the expectation that she would eventually give up the stage.  Which she didn't until Sanders left. Then she bragged about "holding him to account."  I disapprove of lying and fraud.  Fraud means manipulating people to do what you want based on a lie.  If you think the only the only thing wrong with lying and fraud is that Pete disapproves of it, then it's a complete waste of time to talk to you about anything that has to do with right or wrong.  Anyone that doesn't recognize the basic wrongness of fraud and extortion is a basic waste of space in any discussion group like this.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 07:38:21 PM
Quote
I criticized her for failing to deliver on her promise to turn the stage back to sanders WHEN SHE RAN OUT OF THINGS TO SAY.
By which point Sanders was gone.

Quote
And you even admitted above that she had nothing to say when she got the mike.
No, I said that I'd heard an interview where they said taht they hadn't planned _what_ to say. The fact that she winged it and didn't come across as coherently as she could have in the moment doesn't mean she might have if she has a rehearsed piece to deliver doesn't mean that she had nothing to say, just that she wasn't fully ready to say it.

Quote
Here the messenger forgot her *censored*ing message and held the stage by force, saying nothing and insulting people. I criticized what she did, and in response, you've lied about me and made stupid insulting motive inferences.

Okay, so despite all your protestations, you are, in fact, attacking what she did. Even right after you just said that I was being somehow misleading for saying that. HE choice of when to give the stage back was part of how she delivered her message, as is how she talked about the event afterwards in the conversation that happened about it and because of it. You can't cast them as separate things.

Quote
You don't dispute that she lied
I never agreed that she lied. I, in fact, did not address that because we never really found out if she was going to hand it back because Sanders was gone (and, for that matter, on his way to another microphone waiting for him to speak into it) by the time she actually finished. So he was still heard despite anything she did, and she was heard because he chose to let her speak instead of having her removed as he could have (and the Clinton campaign had managed to quietly do a few times over already at that point)

Quote
You say she made a positive difference.  I don't believe you, because you have zero credibility with me after how you've misrepresented me.
How convenient. Glad to give you an easy excuse so you didn't have to dig any deeper to find a reason to go on not paying attention to the actual impact.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 07:46:56 PM
Quote
I showed what she said, and I showed what she did,
Thus conveniently ignoring conversation that followed it and the wider message taht both Sanders' and Clinton's got and reacted to.

Quote
and I inferred that she lied and kept people sitting while she said nothing, based on the expectation that she would eventually give up the stage.
Which she did.

Quote
Which she didn't until Sanders left.
Thus making it impossible to tell if she would have given hem back the stage if he'd stayed.

Quote
Then she bragged about "holding him to account."
Because that is what happened, and his campaign very clearly and quickly reacted to having its blindspot exposed.

Quote
  I disapprove of lying and fraud.  Fraud means manipulating people to do what you want based on a lie.
Sure. Not controversial.

Quote
  If you think the only the only thing wrong with lying and fraud is that Pete disapproves of it, then it's a complete waste of time to talk to you about anything that has to do with right or wrong.
Reverse that. I object to calling something fraud and lying _because_ it's something that Pete disagrees with, and then selectively recasting the event and resorting to name calling to back the accusation.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 08:07:43 PM
Pyr, you are gaslighting the conversation again.  Not smart, given that I was one of the few left on Ornery that actually listens to you. 

"[Pyr snips bits of what I said out of context to pretend I said other than I did]
 impossible to tell if she would have given hem back the stage if he'd stayed."


You're being dishonest about what the skank did.  She stopped talking and started doing that four and a half minutes of silence bit.  You can't force that on a crowd, especially a crowed you've been insulting and lying about.  She called them white supremacists and then expected them to go silent for her?  She was dancing on the dead kid's grave.  You don't ask for silence by insulting the crowd you expect to go silent.  At that point it became obvious that she had no intent to give the mike back.  So  when you pretend that her intent wasn't primarily to shut Sanders' speech down, I lose respect for you to the point I don't trust anything you say.  Because it's obvious from what she said there, what she did, and her tweet afterwards, that her intent was to shut him down, to punish him for not giving more support for BLM.  So she's a liar and a fraudster, for pretending that she'd give the mike back, and holding the crowd there under false pretenses.  I didn't make up those facts or the meaning of lying or fraud, and when you pretend that's just my own standard, you come off as a sellout like her.

Back in Martin Luther King's day, it was all about the message, not the man.  less than 40% of white Americans approve of MLK during his time, but most got the message at Selma and things began to change fast.  Today, skanks like this are all about themselves.  You blather about the message but all you are doing is defending the protesters.  MLK was willing to endure beatings and prison to get his message out.  You bleat on about the unfairness of me saying mean words that you even admitted may be true.  Well grow up.  If the message is important, then articulating it, actually getting people to understand and contemplate what you are saying, would be more important than getting them to like you or to kiss your ass.  You blather about her supposed success in getting people to talk about "the message" but you can't even articulate what that message is.

Let me tell you a bit more about this dumb ass slag that you lionize.  She busted up a Seattle meeting that was promoting the use of body cams on cops.  You know the sort that would PREVENT the very sort of police violence that this dumb slag supposedly opposes, right?  Do you know what she said about it?  That she had no interest in watching her oppressor's "home movies." 

She's a "let them eat cake" skank.  I defy you to show me ONE single viable proposal that Marissa Johnson has brought to the discussion, that's more useful to reducing unnecessary police violence (or limit that to police violence against blacks if we pretend that only the subset of black lives actually matter) than body cams on cops.

Wanna bet Pyr is going to dodge that last challenge re body cams and come back with more personal attacks on me wrapped in sanctimonious jibberjabber?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 08:14:11 PM
"You say she made a positive difference.  I don't believe you, because you have zero credibility with me after how you've misrepresented me.


How convenient. "

Not convenient at all, since I come here to talk with people I respect, and you make it impossible for me to respect you.  You've lost one more chance of persuading me to your point of view.  Try again on some other topic, but on this one, you've shown yourself too dishonest to have a meaningful conversation.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 15, 2016, 07:26:09 AM
How nice that you lose respect for Pyrtolin because he fails to fall in line with your suppositions and speculations, despite you beating him over the head time after time.  Shame on him.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 15, 2016, 08:15:41 AM
Political speech is actually intended to be the most protected from of speech we have, and deliberately disrupting a political rally to the point that you prevent it from occurring should be condemned by all parties. 

How bizarre! Free speech means free from government interference, not "you get to say whatever you want at all times with no interference". When the Klan holds their events, it is perfectly healthy to drown out their hateful words in a non-violent manner. It is abhorrent to think that they should be completely unfettered in their attempt to promulgate hateful ideals.

Does Trump rise to that level? Obviously not. But he is advocating anger and violence, talking about how he'd like to punch people. I don't understand people who want to punch people unless they were first assaulted. The entire idea that you would smack somebody in the mouth because of what they said is alien to me. And for it to be a man looking to be president? Mind-boggling.

No idea if Drake is a millenial, but regardless, this is typical of their political culture.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 15, 2016, 10:49:03 AM
How nice that you lose respect for Pyrtolin because he fails to fall in line with your suppositions and speculations, despite you beating him over the head time after time.  Shame on him.

No..  My respect for Pyr felll because he lied about what i said and then speculated about what i thought.  Just as you did in that last response.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: TheDrake on March 15, 2016, 12:46:15 PM
No idea if Drake is a millenial, but regardless, this is typical of their political culture.

Not sure exactly what you're referring to. I am GenX, FWIW.

Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Wayward Son on March 15, 2016, 01:22:53 PM
Rallies and protests are nice, but the real show starts July 18 in Cleveland.

Read about the probable result of a contested convention. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/10/a_contested_republican_convention_explained.html)

Now that's going to be a hellava show.  ;D
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 15, 2016, 01:30:37 PM
Keep in mind, that this action not only resulted in Sanders publishing a more robust civil rights policy and actually taking racial issues more seriously, but Clinton agreeing to sit and meet with BLM advocates and directly listen to their concerns, so it seems that she got her message across pretty well, as well as driving a much longer more coherent conversation afterwards.

This is your standard ends justify the means argument, and for a liberal I'm always surprised at how often you employ it. It's typically a right-wing tool of analysis. Further, you assert that she created grounds for a better conversation about the topic, but I've never read one single thing corroborating this claim; it seems entirely to be made of smoke. When Clinton met with BLM members it was arranged and mutually agreed upon. They didn't storm her rally, and they had real questions for her rather than the mere intent to disrupt. You know the difference between an activist and a disruptor? The activist has hope of success and always has their cause in mind on the off-chance that today will be a day of success. A disruptor doesn't have any hope of success because their mission statement is fulfilled by their mere presence. For a person to successfully disrupt an event and then have nothing to say demonstrated that this was not an activist deep in the cause they were supporting. Such a person would have plenty to say on a moment's notice. It's not like activist speech is canned or scripted; they know their topic. This lady didn't, and was no activist but rather a mercenary. A wolf in sheep's clothing. I remember back during Occupy there'd be people accosted by a camera crew and extemporaneously spell out detailed problems with Wall Street and what they wanted changed. They were passionate about it. And these weren't designated spokespeople or experts - some of them were barely teenagers and they knew their stuff. But this lady who disrupted Sanders didn't have anything to say, wasn't versed in her material, and had no real cause to put forward. She was there to harass Sanders and that's exactly what she did. Because she was there under the false banner of BLM Sanders knew the game was up.

This disruptor didn't bring attention to her cause, she brought shame to it. Countless people who witnessed this were disgusted. You can rely on the fact that Sanders supporters came out of this upset rather than impressed with her so-called cause. It received attention all right - negative attention. Luckily for the BLM she wasn't actually part of it, which meant her shameful act reflected only on her and not on BLM. Or at least I hope that's the case, because she may inadvertently have poisoned part of the public consciousness against BLM too. Some people probably never heard the update that she wasn't BLM, so they'd blame BLM for the disruption. Others may have read the update but it was too late for them; the negative association was already made and couldn't be unmade.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Seriati on March 15, 2016, 02:52:24 PM
You're being critical about the fact taht they didn't do it in a way that you approve of to the point that you're paying no attention to the message, but focusing completely on your disapproval of the delivery.
For the same reason that the Unabomber's manifesto should not have been published at his demand, the method of delivery chosen (ie disruption) should taint the ideas that are being exposed.  Anyone who choses to use disruption is acting on a fundamental disrespect for the rights and ideas of others so profound that their judgment is inherently suspect.

Please note, that doesn't prejudge a cause, morons support all causes and beating them in an argument proves nothing, but it does demonstrate that these particular people are not capable of forming an argument that is worth hearing.

This is your standard ends justify the means argument, and for a liberal I'm always surprised at how often you employ it. It's typically a right-wing tool of analysis.
Where on Earth do you find support for ends justifies the means being a right wing tool of analysis?  It's pretty much the defining characteristic of the Democratic party on every modern issue.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 15, 2016, 03:13:04 PM
This is your standard ends justify the means argument, and for a liberal I'm always surprised at how often you employ it. It's typically a right-wing tool of analysis.
Where on Earth do you find support for ends justifies the means being a right wing tool of analysis?  It's pretty much the defining characteristic of the Democratic party on every modern issue.

I would specify that it's a method employed by certain right-wingers, but not all. Certainly it's the mainstay of Neocons, as well as those groups that support CIA or military-based regime change. In terms of aggressive foreign policy I would agree with you that militaristic ends-justify-the-means is becoming a bipartisan thing. Another example of this being more a right-wing mentality is in the area of torture, where various GOP officials not only employed torture during W's Presidency but later even defended it as necessary. This is about as fundamentally ends-justify as you can get. Even supply-side economics is, on its face, end-justify-the-means. After all, it surely cannot be morally good in itself to give even more resources to those who are already rich; that pretty much flips Robin Hood right on its head. But the argument that this nevertheless ushers in greater wealth for all is the only argument that could justify such an act, and even even so it comes off as distasteful to many.

The surveillance state is another ends-justify-the-means system, although since it has been perpetuated during Obama's Presidency this one also appears to be bipartisan.

Maybe you'd prefer it if my statement read that it's a typically right-wing approach but that the left has been increasingly taking part? I have no problem agreeing that both sides are hopelessly mired in corruption and hypocrisy now, but I think it's not too controversial to say that the Democrats were supposedly the civil rights party since the mid-20th century, and that central to this philosophy ought to be not trampling over small things to achieve big things. Little people matter; little acts matter; how you treat people matters. So in this sense even if it's true now that both parties employ the ends-justify mentality to some extent it isn't a betrayal of the party's stated beliefs when the GOP does it as it is with what's supposedly a civil rights party.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 15, 2016, 04:21:01 PM
You're being dishonest about what the skank did.
No, I'm simply not agreeing with your interpretation of events. And still objecting to your use of judgemental. and actively sexist name calling.  Even if you have no respect for her, have some respect for women in general by not using terminology that demeans them as a class by using them as a point of comparison for bad behavior.

Quote
She stopped talking and started doing that four and a half minutes of silence bit.
Talking yes, speaking no. Or do you take any request for a moment of silence as a signal that someone is done speaking? SO again, it's not that she lied, but that she didn't behave in the way you wanted her to.

Quote
  You can't force that on a crowd,
She didn't. She asked for it and performed it, but made no effort to actively force the crowd to participate.

Quote
especially a crowed you've been insulting and lying about.
Completely unfounded claims. Calling someone out for bad behavior is not insulting or lying about them, even if they feel indignant that someone is holding them to account.

Quote
  She called them white supremacists and then expected them to go silent for her?
No, she called them that so that they'd have to at least consider the effects of their behavior, even if they then chose to prove her right by way of their disrespect.

Quote
At that point it became obvious that she had no intent to give the mike back.
That's your opinion. I disagree.

Quote
  So  when you pretend that her intent wasn't primarily to shut Sanders' speech down, I lose respect for you to the point I don't trust anything you say.
Right, because the only valid opinion here is yours. If others disagree, then you should punish them for not bowing to your authority by being disrespectful.

Quote
  I didn't make up those facts or the meaning of lying or fraud, and when you pretend that's just my own standard, you come off as a sellout like her.
You made up your interpretations of her actions, and it's dishonest to present those as facts rather than as your opinions.

Quote
less than 40% of white Americans approve of MLK during his time, but most got the message at Selma and things began to change fast.
The right ones got the message and things changed because the forced the issue despite the objections of those that were opposed.

Quote
You blather about the message but all you are doing is defending the protesters.
Absolutely. Someone has to, and the more people do, the less need for protest there will be.

Quote
MLK was willing to endure beatings and prison to get his message out.
Well thank goodness we have you to help administer the beatings, if verbally, to those that follow after him. They wouldn't get nearly as much press if people like you weren't ready to go to town on them when they spoke out.

Quote
You bleat on about the unfairness of me saying mean words that you even admitted may be true.
I've never said one thing about fairness or unfairness (except, occasionally, to dismiss them as vacuous notions.)

Quote
If the message is important, then articulating it, actually getting people to understand and contemplate what you are saying, would be more important than getting them to like you or to kiss your ass. 
Indeed, as you're proving here. And that was my point above as well. They're obviously not trying to get you to kiss their ass, or even like them. They're trying to be heard by the people in a position to make a difference, and they're continuing to get results, rather than bowing down to the supremacist notion that they need to please white people in order to be tolerated.

Quote
Let me tell you a bit more about this dumb ass slag that you lionize.
ANd you're making things up again. That I'm willing to defend a particular protest action says nothing about whether I agree with her on any given point.

Quote
She busted up a Seattle meeting that was promoting the use of body cams on cops.  You know the sort that would PREVENT the very sort of police violence that this dumb slag supposedly opposes, right?  Do you know what she said about it?  That she had no interest in watching her oppressor's "home movies." 
If I have time, I'll look into it. It'll be interesting to see what effect it had on the overall conversation, particularly if it helped ensure that people didn't just do the minimum possible by deploying body cams and then pretending that they'd done all they could to fix the more fundamental problems.

Because, while body cams do help protect people from the problems, they don't actually address the underlying issues, without which, body cams wouldn't be needed in the first place. They're a good step,. but they're a short term bandage, not a cure.

Quote
Wanna bet Pyr is going to dodge that last challenge re body cams and come back with more personal attacks on me wrapped in sanctimonious jibberjabber?
We'll see what I have time for. BUt nice try at derailment there by bringing up something completely irrelevant to the protest action in question and it's immediate and long term effects.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 15, 2016, 05:03:23 PM
This is your standard ends justify the means argument,
No, it's a right tool for the job argument. It's not the ends that justify the means, but the nature of the problem itself. Suggesting that the means needs to be justified here comes from your presumptions, not mine.

Quote
Further, you assert that she created grounds for a better conversation about the topic, but I've never read one single thing corroborating this claim; it seems entirely to be made of smoke. When Clinton met with BLM members it was arranged and mutually agreed upon.
After BLM advocates had been turned away many times. It was only arranged and agreed to instead of dismissed in the wake of this event.

Quote
They didn't storm her rally, and they had real questions for her rather than the mere intent to disrupt.
And had Sanders already similarly made such a big deal about meeting with them publicly and thus induced Clinton to have to follow suit, it's likely none would have seen the motivation. The meeting with Clinton alone was a major win for them out of this, because her much tighter security had, till then, actively prevented them from even getting into any events, never mind actually commanding her direct personal attention.


Quote
You know the difference between an activist and a disruptor?
One acts in the way you are about to dictate as proper, the other one does not.

Quote
For a person to successfully disrupt an event and then have nothing to say demonstrated that this was not an activist deep in the cause they were supporting. Such a person would have plenty to say on a moment's notice.
That's funny, it seems like she did have plenty to say, it just wasn't well rehearsed. In fact Pete is here bashing her for saying too much and not giving the microphone back according to his schedule. She wasn't ready to speak, she wasn't rehearsed, so what she said didn't come out in as organized and coherent way as it would have if she were better prepared, but that doesn't mean there was nothing there at all.

Quote
It's not like activist speech is canned or scripted; they know their topic.
It's not like activists don't give rehearsed speeches either, though. They can be rehearsed, they can be off the cuff. A prepared and rehearsed statement will always be more tight and coherent than an off the cuff delivery, and each has its place. And even off the cuff delivery benefits from the implicit rehearsal of having done int many times until one has effectively perfected their delivery method.

That she was young and relatively inexperienced isn't really at issue here. She managed to pull off a bigger success than she was expecting and had some pretty significant downstream effects.

Quote
I remember back during Occupy there'd be people accosted by a camera crew and extemporaneously spell out detailed problems with Wall Street and what they wanted changed. They were passionate about it. And these weren't designated spokespeople or experts - some of them were barely teenagers and they knew their stuff.
Repeat and re articulate a concept many times over and you can get pretty good at speaking off the cuff about it. The internal debates about such principles within the Occupy movement were very good and getting people to articulate such ideas on the fly easily, especially because such activity was encouraged rather than used as basis to criticize others as it is in other forums.

Can BLM learn a bit for the Occupy tactics? Absolutely; there were a lot of useful tools developed or improved upon through the various groupings.

 But this lady who disrupted Sanders didn't have anything to say, wasn't versed in her material, and had no real cause to put forward. She was there to harass Sanders and that's exactly what she did. Because she was there under the false banner of BLM Sanders knew the game was up.

Quote
This disruptor didn't bring attention to her cause, she brought shame to it.
Seems like we're still paying attention, so the first half of that is false. It'll only become true once no one talks about it anymore.

Quote
Countless people who witnessed this were disgusted.
I'm sure they did and were. That's the price of speaking out about things that make other uncomfortable.

Quote
You can rely on the fact that Sanders supporters came out of this upset rather than impressed with her so-called cause.
I'm sure many did, if they didn't then there really wouldn't have been a need to do it in the first place. The one thing that could have contradicted what she said would have been everyone being patient and respectful of her until she was done, capping it off with a little polite applause and then getting back to the business at hand.

Quote
It received attention all right - negative attention.


Quote
Luckily for the BLM she wasn't actually part of it, which meant her shameful act reflected only on her and not on BLM.
You still haven't pointed out this magical grand judge of the BLM movement that makes such declarations. How can one not be part of a movement that's based on voluntary declaration of affiliation?

She definitely sparked a lot of conversation within the movement between people that supported her action and those that didn't like it. But again, that's how sich things work.

Quote
Or at least I hope that's the case, because she may inadvertently have poisoned part of the public consciousness against BLM too. Some people probably never heard the update that she wasn't BLM, so they'd blame BLM for the disruption. Others may have read the update but it was too late for them; the negative association was already made and couldn't be unmade.
Further validating her action, and proving her point, then.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 16, 2016, 12:01:56 AM
She busted up a Seattle meeting that was promoting the use of body cams on cops.  You know the sort that would PREVENT the very sort of police violence that this dumb slag supposedly opposes, right?  Do you know what she said about it?  That she had no interest in watching her oppressor's "home movies." 
If I have time, I'll look into it.

I doubt you will.

It'll be interesting to see what effect it had on the overall conversation, particularly if it helped ensure that people didn't just do the minimum possible by deploying body cams and then pretending that they'd done all they could to fix the more fundamental problems.

Because, while body cams do help protect people from the problems, they don't actually address the underlying issues, without which, bodycams wouldn't be needed in the first place. They're a good step,. but they're a short term bandage, not a cure.

That's idiotic.  Body cams are both a short term cure and a diagnostic for long term cures.  Plus in the medium term it will weed out abusive cops.  You can't solve a problem without getting a good look at it, and analysis of this sort of footage will revolutionize police training to handle situations safely.

What cameras won't solve is the underlying poverty of African Americans, nor the police-fearing culture that gelds their interactions with police.



Quote
Wanna bet Pyr is going to dodge that last challenge re body cams and come back with more personal attacks on me wrapped in sanctimonious jibberjabber?
We'll see what I have time for. BUt nice try at derailment there by bringing up something completely irrelevant to the protest action in question and it's immediate and long term effects.
 [/quote]
Nice try at pretending that body cams aren't "relevant", (which you use here again in typical Pyr fashion to shut out any inconvenient fact).  You blather about the importance of her message, which presumably involves police violence against African Americans. 

Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 16, 2016, 12:06:06 AM
Quote
Countless people who witnessed this were disgusted.


I'm sure they did and were. That's the price of speaking out about things that make other uncomfortable.

Stop playing stupid and misrepresenting what people say.  No one's complaining about her speaking out.  The problem is the thuggish manner that she and her blackface Asian thug took and held the stage, with screaming, threats, and refusing to treat everyone else as human beings.

"We're going to let you speak.  How long do you need."

Blackface Asian: "Stop asking questions or we will shut you down."

"No, I'm simply not agreeing with your interpretation of events."

I might believe that you simply disagree with my interpretation, if you didn't lie about what I said.  If you disagreed with what I said you could respond to that, instead of pretending I'd said something else.

" And still objecting to your use of judgemental. and actively sexist name calling. "

I've never before referred to a woman as a "skank" and will gladly desist if you will answer my questions and stop lying about what I said.  There is no rule against showing disrespect to a person who isn't an Ornery member, and her thuggish conduct and failure to communicate even at the level of a trained chimp, while holding the stage hostage, has earned my contempt.



Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 16, 2016, 12:38:32 AM
If you want to persuade me to not describe Marissa Johnson as a shallow controlling little attention whore, wbo dances on black dead bodies in order to play gunpoint Simon Says with an angry white crowd, then please show me where she actually advocates for some solution.  Since she came in to silence folks who were trying to advocate for police body cams.  What specific viable change in how society does things, is she recommending?

As a former lawyer who had several black and Latino clients tortured by feds and locals, You had better have a really good *censored*ing alternative after blowing off cop cameras as a "short term bandaid."  Please show me something real.  I would really like to believe that you're not like that posturing slag.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 16, 2016, 01:04:38 PM
That's idiotic.  Body cams are both a short term cure and a diagnostic for long term cures.  Plus in the medium term it will weed out abusive cops.  You can't solve a problem without getting a good look at it, and analysis of this sort of footage will revolutionize police training to handle situations safely.
They're not a cure any more than a lab test is a cure. they're a diagnostic tool as you note. If all the footage goes into a vault and no one sees it or pushed for action on it, nothing will change. They're a tool, taht helps us find a solution, not a solution unto themselves, despite people taht will claim the problem has been solved because body cams are now deployed so everything will automatically be better.

Quote
What cameras won't solve is the underlying poverty of African Americans, nor the police-fearing culture that gelds their interactions with police.
Indeed. Activism, that's assisted with footage will help with the latter, and other economic policies will help with the former. But that's the point, in no case are cameras the final cure for anything, they're a patch that helps us get closer to real solutions, with ongoing activism being needed to make sure taht we don't stop there and pretend things are fixed, as has routinely happened with every other "solution" applied in the past/



Quote
Nice try at pretending that body cams aren't "relevant", (which you use here again in typical Pyr fashion to shut out any inconvenient fact).  You blather about the importance of her message, which presumably involves police violence against African Americans.
If body cams have something to do with the disruption of the Sanders rally, you'll need to spell it out for me. Otherwise this is a separate protest action that only happens to be linked by having a person to point to that was around for both of them. Otherwise the body cam disruption has no relevance to the Sanders disruption. But this does fit your general patter of me pointing out how you derailed one specific conversation to inject a completely different conversation, then accuse me of saying taht the other conversation is't useful because I point out that it's a separate thing unrelated to the current conversation.

So please-  connect the dots here. What does the issue of body cams have to do with your objections to her behavior at the Sanders rally aside from the completely incidental fact that she was involved with both events?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 16, 2016, 01:13:21 PM
If you want to persuade me to not describe Marissa Johnson as a shallow controlling little attention whore, wbo dances on black dead bodies in order to play gunpoint Simon Says with an angry white crowd, then please show me where she actually advocates for some solution.
Why does my difference in opinion on her actions have any relevance to your usage of empty, degrading, and inflammatory name calling? What is it about her sexual behavior that you believe is relevant such that you apply with words "whore" and "skank" in a way taht both targets empty invective at her and perpetuates the notion that women need to conform to your sexual standards to be respected?

Why can't you just talk about your objections and your opinions about the issue without resorting to degradation and name calling?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Wayward Son on March 16, 2016, 02:59:15 PM
Here's one for the Reality Show.

In Illinois, Trump lost delegates because they had foreign-sounding names. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-voters-aversion-to-foreign-sounding-names-cost-him-delegates/)

If I understand it correctly, in Illinois, you don't vote for the candidate, but for the delegates.  Each congressional district has three delegates that can be elected, and each of them has the name of the candidate they are pledged to.  So if you want all three to go to a certain candidate, you vote for the three delegates that have that candidate's name next to them.

This worked well if the candidate's name was Doug Hartmann.  But Raja Sadiq, in the same district, got 25% fewer votes, even though both of them were pledged to Trump.

So in three districts, the number one and two spots were taken by Trump supporters, but he lost the third delegate because the third supporter (with a foreign-sounding name) missed the third spot--a pattern unique to Trump.

It's like Trump supporters wouldn't support Trump if his delegate didn't sound "American" enough. :)
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Mynnion on March 17, 2016, 12:56:09 PM
I was working my way through my daily news list and saw an interesting article on Trump as a threat to the global community.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35828747 (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35828747)
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 17, 2016, 01:31:56 PM
My wife read me a report (Politico?) from an interview with Trump yesterday.  He was asked how he was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall. His answer was basically that he would threaten them with our military and even hinted that Japan suffered certain consequences for not surrendering soon enough.  Will even this be somehow glossed over?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 01:44:48 PM
I did nearly snort my drink this morning when I heard "I talk to myself. I've got a great brain. I say a lot of things."  getting airtime.

If the media doesn't realize that it's being trolled at that point, it's lost beyond all hope in accurately covering his campaign. He's got it completely twisted around his finger.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: rightleft22 on March 17, 2016, 02:38:37 PM
Trump the shadow collective unconscious of America?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-smaldino/carl-jung-and-donald-trum_b_9320554.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/07/trumpenfuherer-magnetizing-the-american-shadow/
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Seriati on March 17, 2016, 02:45:49 PM
That's idiotic.  Body cams are both a short term cure and a diagnostic for long term cures.  Plus in the medium term it will weed out abusive cops.  You can't solve a problem without getting a good look at it, and analysis of this sort of footage will revolutionize police training to handle situations safely.
They're not a cure any more than a lab test is a cure.
I'm not aware that bacteria or virus become aware of lab tests and modify their behavior while the tests are going on.  In fact your flat wrong about this, recording police interactions and making them aware that they will be accountable for what's on the tapes (and even more liable if tapes go missing), will directly act to control those abuses that occur because certain officers think they can get away with it.   

I think you're overselling the importance of activism, the vast majority of all beneficial change comes from within the system and working with the system.  Activism is useful highlight areas that have been overlooked, but not for long term development.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 17, 2016, 02:57:03 PM
Trump the shadow collective unconscious of America?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-smaldino/carl-jung-and-donald-trum_b_9320554.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/07/trumpenfuherer-magnetizing-the-american-shadow/

Didn't I make this argument in another thread? :p
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 03:14:09 PM
I'm not aware that bacteria or virus become aware of lab tests and modify their behavior while the tests are going on.
Out of bounds of what I was using the metaphor to illustrate.

Quote
[ In fact your flat wrong about this, recording police interactions and making them aware that they will be accountable for what's on the tapes (and even more liable if tapes go missing), will directly act to control those abuses that occur because certain officers think they can get away with it.   
This will only happen is someone holds them accountable for what's on the tapes or for missing tapes. The tapes in Chicago almost did no good, it took activism to actually make them follow the necessary procedure to make the tapes useful.

Quote
I think you're overselling the importance of activism, the vast majority of all beneficial change comes from within the system and working with the system.
Which is it, then is activism not useful, or do people need to work within the system to make change. Activism has nothing to do with in our out of the system; it has to do with active engagement by members of the public to make sure that change is happening. It only goes outside the system when the system does not offer a useful or sufficiently expedient path to the necessary changes.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Seriati on March 18, 2016, 10:13:54 AM
I'm not aware that bacteria or virus become aware of lab tests and modify their behavior while the tests are going on.
Out of bounds of what I was using the metaphor to illustrate.
Your metaphor was poor specifically because it denied the agency of the police officers and the probable impact of their awareness that they would be subject to real oversight.  That's exactly the point of body cameras, to move all those he said/she said interactions where the officer's word is given precedence by the courts back into the realm of what really happened.  We've seen some pretty blatant videos in the last few years, officer shooting someone and planting a gun, officers jumping out of cars and immediately shooting non threatening people.  It's clear that they've been used to a culture of deference and being able to blame their victims.  This is type of transparency creates an accountability that is a direct cure for that, and it's knock on effect is even greater.

As a related issue, we should all uniformly oppose any law or attempted regulation that bars or purports to make illegal filming officers who are interacting in any way with the public.
Quote
This will only happen is someone holds them accountable for what's on the tapes or for missing tapes. The tapes in Chicago almost did no good, it took activism to actually make them follow the necessary procedure to make the tapes useful.
The whole point of the requirement is to require the tapes be made available.  I think your "issue" is pretty fake, but I'll go on record saying I support making the tapes available.  It shouldn't take activism to do it, in fact, the far more powerful and effective way to do it, is to have court's disallow officer testimony where they fail to produce the tapes.  That's exactly the way most of our civil rights have been protected vis a vis the police.  Activism leaves too much to chance whether an issue gets enough attention to allow for fairness to creep in.
Quote
Quote
I think you're overselling the importance of activism, the vast majority of all beneficial change comes from within the system and working with the system.
Which is it, then is activism not useful, or do people need to work within the system to make change. Activism has nothing to do with in our out of the system; it has to do with active engagement by members of the public to make sure that change is happening. It only goes outside the system when the system does not offer a useful or sufficiently expedient path to the necessary changes.
It depends on what you mean by "activism".  If you are counting everyone who advocates for change as an "activist" then yes, its useful.  If you're looking at the extremists that we've been discussing then not so much other than at flash points.  This is one of those places though, where I suspect you'll be incredibly vague, because you'll use the broad definition to defend activism and then narrow it when you want to attack.

You tell me what you are referring to and I'll better answer your question.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 11:07:57 AM
Quote
The whole point of the requirement is to require the tapes be made available.  I think your "issue" is pretty fake, but I'll go on record saying I support making the tapes available.  It shouldn't take activism to do it, in fact, the far more powerful and effective way to do it, is to have court's disallow officer testimony where they fail to produce the tapes.
Sure, but that's not going to happen unless, can you guess? People advocate for it and get it to happen.

Quote
If you're looking at the extremists that we've been discussing then not so much other than at flash points.
Which is convenient, because anyone that advocates for something that you don't want to happen can be dismissed by calling them an extremist. The should just sit down shut up, and file a polite formal complaint that you can toss in the trash after saying that you'll take their point of view under advisement.

Activists only get loud and "extreme" once it's clear that the system is dismissing them. If you don't want this kind of flash points to emerge, then you should be more supportive of them and help push for change before they become necessary, not sit around trying to shout them down for doing what it takes to get things done long after more polite measures have failed.30, 40, 50 60 years? How long are they supposed to sit quietly and hope that the system might start working right so as not to annoy you by being loud enough that you can't keep ignoring the problems?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 18, 2016, 11:28:04 AM
Quote
If you're looking at the extremists that we've been discussing then not so much other than at flash points.
Which is convenient, because anyone that advocates for something that you don't want to happen can be dismissed by calling them an extremist. The should just sit down shut up, and file a polite formal complaint that you can toss in the trash after saying that you'll take their point of view under advisement.

That's a very bold statement. Are you sure you have a right to tell Seriati what he does and doesn't want to happen?

I, for one, would call some of the actions of BLM extreme, and some members who protest extremist. Do you take that to mean I have no concern for unequal treatment of citizens by police on racial lines? If so your ability to assess what I think would be deeply flawed.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Seriati on March 18, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
Quote
The whole point of the requirement is to require the tapes be made available.  I think your "issue" is pretty fake, but I'll go on record saying I support making the tapes available.  It shouldn't take activism to do it, in fact, the far more powerful and effective way to do it, is to have court's disallow officer testimony where they fail to produce the tapes.
Sure, but that's not going to happen unless, can you guess? People advocate for it and get it to happen.
Nonsense.  Virtually all of your civil rights have come about "activist free" by the dry operation of the courts.  Our fundamental commitment to the rule of law (which you would like to erode) has provided more real protections for you than all the activists put together.

In this case, we're already at a point where video evidence is almost always produced and almost always used to identify suspects and allow the police to catch them.  It is literally only a matter of time before convictions get thrown out because of a failure to produce video evidence.  There is absolutely no question, that if a department has body cameras they will be required to share the videos with defense attorneys, and that as the videos become common in court rooms their lack will lead to negative inferences.
Quote
Quote
If you're looking at the extremists that we've been discussing then not so much other than at flash points.
Which is convenient, because anyone that advocates for something that you don't want to happen can be dismissed by calling them an extremist.
I didn't speak at all to what they are advocating for, only how they choose to do it.  You're the only one on these boards that categorically dismisses arguments by anyone.

That said you've already gone on record supporting extremists who can't even articulate their argument.  How can anyone even get to the point of "dismissing" an argument that can't be stated?  They've dismissed their own "argument" by not having one.  I can choose to dismiss their inarticulate anger, and I do reject their chosen tactics in some cases (I dismiss any disruptor or suppressor of free speech of others out of hand, I don't dismiss protestors or those who criticize other's free speech).
Quote
The should just sit down shut up, and file a polite formal complaint that you can toss in the trash after saying that you'll take their point of view under advisement.
Given my long standing and oft stated support for the Rule of Law, I'd like you to support your claim that I'd support tossing their complaint in the trash, in either a figurative or literal sense, or else quit trolling and retract it.

I've quite specifically articulated that the Rule of Law has done more to protect these people already, and will continue to do more, than all these protests put together.
Quote
Activists only get loud and "extreme" once it's clear that the system is dismissing them.
That's a lie.  It may have been true once, but extreme "activists" these days are loud and extreme even when the system bends over backwards to validate and accommodate them.
Quote
If you don't want this kind of flash points to emerge, then you should be more supportive of them and help push for change before they become necessary, not sit around trying to shout them down for doing what it takes to get things done long after more polite measures have failed.30, 40, 50 60 years? How long are they supposed to sit quietly and hope that the system might start working right so as not to annoy you by being loud enough that you can't keep ignoring the problems?
You do a lot of lecturing for someone without any real ideas on how to effect a meaningful change.  Adult discussions that balance the costs of action with the gains, and that weigh all sides of an issue and all viewpoints are going to be the way we solve these problems.  Activists don't put forward solutions, they put forward demands based on their wants without any real consideration of anyone else's needs.  And you dismiss any obligation on their part to consider others by the mental short cut of declaring the system to be so weighted against them that nothing they demand could impose on anyone else.  Then of course you double down by accusing anyone who questions of being too privledged or afraid of losing their own better position to be an honest participant.

If they want change, they need to explain in a convincing manner why its better for everyone, or at a minimum how its a much better situation for a group that's been treated unfairly and that the burden for others to bear in their place is worth it.  And I don't give a rats ass about your view that I'm telling them how they have to protest, when you're trying to tell me how I have to respond to them.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 12:53:03 PM
I, for one, would call some of the actions of BLM extreme, and some members who protest extremist. Do you take that to mean I have no concern for unequal treatment of citizens by police on racial lines? If so your ability to assess what I think would be deeply flawed.
No, I just suggest that accusations of extremism are distractions. It doesn't say anything about the issue at hand, but it does divert the conversation away from discussion of the actual issues and toward useless judgmentalism directed at the people involved.

I mean, if they commit a crime they should be held legally accountable, but even that should not be used as a dishonest excuse to poison the conversation of the actual issues that need to be resolved.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 12:55:37 PM
Quote
I didn't speak at all to what they are advocating for, only how they choose to do it. 
Exactly my point. Make the conversation about irrelevant judgmentalism and you get away with not discussing the issue or at least poisoning the well with such judgements that have nothing to do with the substantive issues.

Heck I think can pull a direct quote from you not to long ago in one of these threads where you outright advocated for such dishonesty by saying something that effectively justified ignoring protests if you judge their behavior to be poor rather than being honest and treating the message and the messenger completely separately.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Wayward Son on March 18, 2016, 01:02:58 PM
And as the show goes on, another idea pops up.  A State Legislature could override the popular vote and make the House decide the next President. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/17/if-no-one-else-stops-trump-the-electoral-college-still-can-its-in-the-constitution/)

Basically, it could go like this.  While the people vote on who they want for President, the state legislatures appoint the electors for the electoral college.  Normally, they vote according to the results of the election, but there is no Constitution requirement for them to do so.

So the legislation in a state like Texas could appoint electors that would vote for a third candidate, like Paul Ryan.  If the election was close enough, that could mean that neither of the other candidates would receive the 270 required to win.  So the decision would revert to the House of Representatives, who would choose among the candidates with electoral votes--including the Texas pick.  So with a willing House, both the Democrat and Republican candidates could be ignored and the Texas pick could be voted in by the House.

It's a wild, long-shot idea, which would probably result in the members of the House being replaced (although it would be the next House members that would vote), but the fact that anyone is talking about this shows what a crazy circus this election is becoming.

Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Seriati on March 18, 2016, 01:25:49 PM
Quote
I didn't speak at all to what they are advocating for, only how they choose to do it. 
Exactly my point. Make the conversation about irrelevant judgmentalism and you get away with not discussing the issue or at least poisoning the well with such judgements that have nothing to do with the substantive issues.
That's nothing but a side step, I certainly expanded on the point in the text you choose to snip away.  We can't "discuss the issues" with those who refuse to engage in discussion and can't articulate their issues.  They haven't even been convincing that they are outraged about substantive issues.
Quote
Heck I think can pull a direct quote from you not to long ago in one of these threads where you outright advocated for such dishonesty by saying something that effectively justified ignoring protests if you judge their behavior to be poor rather than being honest and treating the message and the messenger completely separately.
No, you can find where I said they should be ignored if they disrupt political speech.  Suppression of free speech is not a form of protected free speech, no matter how you pretend otherwise.

No protestor has a right to prioritize their own voice over other voices engaged in political speech, they can protest it, they can't disrupt it.  Even you know this, you get all in a tizzy whenever anyone even suggests that protestors don't have a right to demand our undivided attention, even if they have nothing to say, at a whim for as long as they choose to do so.  You just have no concept that anyone other than protestors has rights or the right to speak.  Absolutely no one is forcing protestors to listen to a political message.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 02:19:28 PM
Quote
  Suppression of free speech is not a form of protected free speech, no matter how you pretend otherwise.
Sure, but that's not something that's happening except in your imagination to justify false accusations. Suppression requires legal power. Speaking up, even interrupting, by someone that you'd prefer remain silent is not suppression. Advocating that ehy be ignored because you disapprove of them is, however attempting to silence them.

But then again, if you weren't so busy ignoring people who tried to speak, then perhaps such disruptions wouldn't end up becoming necessary for them to get a chance to do it.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Seriati on March 18, 2016, 02:31:02 PM
That's a very dishonest reply Prytolin.  Both Sanders and Trump had political rallies disrupted, that is not my imagination.  Interrupting to the point that a political rally can't occur is in fact suppression, and you'd acknowledge it if your protesters were disrupted in the same manner.  Your belief in the correctness of social causes is not sufficient to take away everyone else's rights.

Disruptions are never necessary, that's just a lie you tell yourself.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 02:44:39 PM
That's a very dishonest reply Prytolin.  Both Sanders and Trump had political rallies disrupted, that is not my imagination.
Disrupted sure. Disruptions are part of life. Each chose a different way to deal with them. Sanders chose to allow the protesters the stage and move on to his next engagement. Trump has had disruptive people removed by force, as is his prerogative (something that Sanders could have done as well) Trump also chose to cancel one event in order to blame processors for shutting it down. Neither has had any problems being able to speak, and in fact has spoken through their choice of how to deal with the interruptions.

Quote
  Interrupting to the point that a political rally can't occur is in fact suppression,
Really? What greater power was being used to prevent someone with less power from acting here? Suppression is a top down act, not bottom up.

Quote
and you'd acknowledge it if your protesters were disrupted in the same manner.
In the same manner? By someone less powerful that was ignoring them taking action to get them to pay attention? No. OR are you trying to equate a more powerful entity abusing power to disrupt legal actions with someone less powerful stepping up and doing what it takes to be able to speak?

Quote
Your belief in the correctness of social causes is not sufficient to take away everyone else's rights.
Sure, but you're the only one talking about people surrendering their rights to please you here.


Quote
Disruptions are never necessary, that's just a lie you tell yourself.
Disruptions are the only way to break the status quo. Inertia insures taht nothing changes unless it is disrupted.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 18, 2016, 03:04:24 PM
Quote
  Interrupting to the point that a political rally can't occur is in fact suppression,
Really? What greater power was being used to prevent someone with less power from acting here? Suppression is a top down act, not bottom up.

Don't you know by now that obliging others to frame issues in the peculiar ways you would like them dressed is not honest debate? Purposely sidestepping the meaning of a post by claiming a different definition than the one used by that poster is a disruption tactic in itself.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 03:29:52 PM
Don't you know by now that obliging others to frame issues in the peculiar ways you would like them dressed is not honest debate? Purposely sidestepping the meaning of a post by claiming a different definition than the one used by that poster is a disruption tactic in itself.
I'm not obliging him to do anything. If he wants to characterizing people with less power standing up to those with more power as an oppressive act, though, he's going to have to show better reasoning than just defining a given protest act to be oppressive on the fly.

IF we can consistently agree that "suppression" just means "a weaker party interrupting a stronger one" then I'll accept that definition for the context of the conversation, but only under the condition that later games aren't played to try to apply a completely different meaning of the word.

But I feel that I did actually dress the meaning he intended- specifically an attempt to cast Sanders or Trump as the weaker party/victim and pretend that the protestors were the party bringing institutional power to bear to prevent them from being able to speak. Which is actually what you were trying to suggest I was doing- an attempt to falsely reframe the issue by assertion instead of honestly evaluate the balance of power.

And that's being charitable. Less charitable was that he was falling back on simple authoritarianism, suggesting that that people should only speak if they do so in a way that meets the approval of those in power, thus using "suppression" to mean "in violation of authority"
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 18, 2016, 03:50:18 PM
Did it ever occur to you that throughout American history powerful people have hired goons to go and disrupt meetings of various kinds that threaten their interests? This is so old hat that it should be obvious by now. We can't know what motivated the fake-BLM people to disrupt Sanders, but it apparently didn't occur to you that they may have been sent there by Hillary or who knows who else. Even if you insist on framing suppression as being top-down, surely it should brook no debate that Hillary is by far a more powerful person with more connections than Bernie and that any move by her to suppress his campaign is textbook suppression by your definition. Now, they may have been 'earnest' incompetent protesters as well, so both possibilities should be considered. But it doesn't seem like you do consider both as possible; you treat disruptors as having honorable intentions sight unseen, even when their actual conduct isn't honorable at all.

The Onion even satirized this the other day by showing the GOP leadership itself personally appearing at a Trump rally to disrupt it (and being roughed up in the process, hehe).

Similarly for Trump, any disruptions of his rallies that were in fact orchestrated by the RNC would also count as suppression by your definition because Trump as one man - an outsider in Washington - is certainly less powerful than the various candidates standing alongside the RNC and their lobbyists.

You want to frame this as the lowly humble protesters trying to disrupt the mighty Presidential candidate, but that assessment already makes assumptions you cannot make with the information you have. You don't know who sent them or what they really wanted to achieve. Telling us what they said they wanted to achieve is obviously useless because whether or not they were there with honorable intentions they would always speak as if they were; so that line is a wash.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Seriati on March 18, 2016, 04:09:11 PM
Quote
  Interrupting to the point that a political rally can't occur is in fact suppression,
Really? What greater power was being used to prevent someone with less power from acting here? Suppression is a top down act, not bottom up.
The power of a mob to suppress is well understood, it brings physical intimidation or force to an instant situation, and forces the suppressed to use physical force or accept the disruption. 

Doesn't really matter though, our rights are premised on only the weaker party having them.  A collection of the powerful is still entitled to get together and engage in political speech without being disrupted under our freedoms of association and speech.  There is no exception for a "weaker" party being allowed to prevent a stronger from engaging in political speech.  Pretending like they don't have physical power, without which they wouldn't be able to disrupt at all, makes your point into a falsehood.  The whole point of disruption is to change the relevant measure of power to one the disruptor has an advantage on.
Quote
Quote
and you'd acknowledge it if your protesters were disrupted in the same manner.
In the same manner? By someone less powerful that was ignoring them taking action to get them to pay attention? No. OR are you trying to equate a more powerful entity abusing power to disrupt legal actions with someone less powerful stepping up and doing what it takes to be able to speak?
Not trying to equate, flat out stating that disruption is always an exercise in power, and the disruptor, to be effective, is just using a different form of power.  Doesn't make a difference if it's pinkerton's suppressing the weak, or an angry mob suppressing the "powerful" its still a violation of their rights to engage in political speech. 

There is no message for which you or anyone else is entitled to suppress the message of another.
Quote
Quote
Your belief in the correctness of social causes is not sufficient to take away everyone else's rights.
Sure, but you're the only one talking about people surrendering their rights to please you here.
No matter how often you pretend that is the case, you're the only one who's supporting suppressing anyone's rights.  No one asked any protestor to surrender any right to please me or anyone else, yet you demand that people you label as powerful give up their most fundamental right to engage in political speech.
Quote
Quote
Disruptions are never necessary, that's just a lie you tell yourself.
Disruptions are the only way to break the status quo. Inertia insures taht nothing changes unless it is disrupted.
Spoken like a true radical, in spite of all the lessons of history.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 04:14:52 PM
Quote
Did it ever occur to you that throughout American history powerful people have hired goons to go and disrupt meetings of various kinds that threaten their interests?
Sure, but that kind of accusation requires evidence. Trump has certainly tossed up random accusations, but not provided any backing; the evidence as it stands there would point more to him having picked the venue he did with the specific intent to cancel and blame someone for it taht it does anyone else actually hiring peopel to disrupt him.

Quote
We can't know what motivated the fake-BLM people to disrupt Sanders,
Hey, whats a little more slander, despite the fact taht you still haven't justified your "fake" accusation. Is someone a fake football fan if they aren't on a list of season ticket holders in your book?

Quote
but it apparently didn't occur to you that they may have been sent there by Hillary or who knows who else.
It's possible, but there's no evidence to suggest that it's a reasonable possibility.

 
Quote
Even if you insist on framing suppression as being top-down, surely it should brook no debate that Hillary is by far a more powerful person with more connections than Bernie and that any move by her to suppress his campaign is textbook suppression by your definition.
Sure, but again, there's no evidence that she's doing that. Some of the donor list scandals and funkiness with the DNC itself may have a suppressive angle to it, but a single disruption that has a far easier explanation if just taken at face value doesn't hold up, unless you're suggesting that Clinton is exceptionally erratic, worried that she's exceptionally vulnerable, and prone to poor strategic moves.

If that's what's happening, then, sure it's suppressive, but it's not the act of disruption that's suppressive, it's the act of paying for disruptions.

But again, all of that falls under better explaining what was meant by suppression above and lies way outside the much more direct associated. He didn't say it was suppressive because [pick you conspiracy theory] he said that it was suppressive because it was disruptive, which is simply not true. Disruptions can be used suppressively, but that's not a straight line claim as was made.

Quote
You want to frame this as the lowly humble protesters trying to disrupt the mighty Presidential candidate, but that assessment already makes assumptions you cannot make with the information you have.
No, it takes not making assumptions _beyond_ the information that I have. Any other explanation requires seculating or unsupported accusations of deception.

Quote
Telling us what they said they wanted to achieve is obviously useless because whether or not they were there with honorable intentions they would always speak as if they were; so that line is a wash.
Sure, which is why not taking them at their word requires having evidence to justify doing so. Otherwise you're basically just engaging in character assassination and speculating beyond the available evidence.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 04:16:47 PM
Quote
A collection of the powerful is still entitled to get together and engage in political speech without being disrupted under our freedoms of association and speech.
WIthout being disrupted _by the government_. Their freedom to speak does not, as you' have it, empower them to silence others, even if those others are interrupting them.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Seriati on March 18, 2016, 04:20:31 PM
Don't you know by now that obliging others to frame issues in the peculiar ways you would like them dressed is not honest debate? Purposely sidestepping the meaning of a post by claiming a different definition than the one used by that poster is a disruption tactic in itself.
I'm not obliging him to do anything.
That's true, I'm not obliged to do anything.  But it is heartening to see so many posters directly question your never ending attempts to burden shift through changing definitions.
Quote
If he wants to characterizing people with less power standing up to those with more power as an oppressive act, though, he's going to have to show better reasoning than just defining a given protest act to be oppressive on the fly.
If you want to pretend that people with the ability to put their message out there without suppressing others political speech have no choice but to engage in the worst forms of repression I can't stop you.  If you want to continue to pretend that people who don't listen, can't say what they want and have no respect for anyone else's rights have an important message that we all have to listen to, I can't stop you.
Quote
IF we can consistently agree that "suppression" just means "a weaker party interrupting a stronger one" then I'll accept that definition for the context of the conversation, but only under the condition that later games aren't played to try to apply a completely different meaning of the word.
Why would agree to that?  It's just another version of a fake definition you generate to obfuscate the issue.  Suppression as a concept doesn't say anything about whether one group is objectively weaker or stronger, it's talking about a subjective context.  I flat out reject your unproven assumption that every term can only have meaning in a context of absolute power levels (that only you are "qualified" to establish).
Quote
But I feel that I did actually dress the meaning he intended- specifically an attempt to cast Sanders or Trump as the weaker party/victim and pretend that the protestors were the party bringing institutional power to bear to prevent them from being able to speak. Which is actually what you were trying to suggest I was doing- an attempt to falsely reframe the issue by assertion instead of honestly evaluate the balance of power.
No, that's both error and motive speculation.  It's not my fault that you can't discuss anything without translating it in your head into a class based power struggle against the institution.  Rights apply to individuals, not to classes. 

It's just a fact that Trump and Sander's had their political speech suppressed.  Makes no difference if they have other opportunities to speak, or if they are more "powerful" on some arbitrary measure than the suppressors on every other day of the weak.  You're playing a dangerous game when you validate the "weak" using force to upend the rights of the powerful, because you're just validating - under another name - the old concept that might makes right.  And that's not a game that plays out to the benefit of the weak long term.
Quote
And that's being charitable. Less charitable was that he was falling back on simple authoritarianism, suggesting that that people should only speak if they do so in a way that meets the approval of those in power, thus using "suppression" to mean "in violation of authority"
You're not being charitable, you're not being honest, and you're not even arguing in good faith.  You just strawman everything into defined terms and power constructs you feel comfortable with without engaging the actual arguments made.

No one suggested anything constraining the protestors speech, in ways I "feel comfortable with" or otherwise.  I flat out said, no one, whether you label them weak or strong, has a right to suppress anyone else's speech.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Seriati on March 18, 2016, 04:22:33 PM
Quote
A collection of the powerful is still entitled to get together and engage in political speech without being disrupted under our freedoms of association and speech.
WIthout being disrupted _by the government_. Their freedom to speak does not, as you' have it, empower them to silence others, even if those others are interrupting them.
I take  my earlier comment back, this is now the most irrational thing you've ever said.  In any event, the Supreme Court precedents are clear on this.  The government has an affirmative duty to prevent disrupters from engaging in the conduct you are favoring, because unlike you, they understand that preventing anyone's message (whether you're weak or not) violates the very fundamental ideas protecting everyone's right to put there message out there.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 18, 2016, 04:27:27 PM
If that's what's happening, then, sure it's suppressive, but it's not the act of disruption that's suppressive, it's the act of paying for disruptions.

But again, all of that falls under better explaining what was meant by suppression above and lies way outside the much more direct associated. He didn't say it was suppressive because [pick you conspiracy theory] he said that it was suppressive because it was disruptive, which is simply not true. Disruptions can be used suppressively, but that's not a straight line claim as was made.

I was purposely making a weaker argument than I could have just to show that even using the definitions you prefer I could make a case for the Sanders and Trump disruptions as being suppression. But as it stands the real argument is the one Seriati has made.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 04:29:14 PM
Quote
No one asked any protestor to surrender any right to please me or anyone else,
Nonsense. You keep insisting over and over that the protestors must surrender their right to speak to let the more powerful people talk uninterrupted.

Quote
yet you demand that people you label as powerful give up their most fundamental right to engage in political speech.
No I don't. Not once in this has anyone more powerful been denied their right to speak. At times they've changed what they said or where they were going to speak in response to the speech of others, but not once have they been prevented from speaking. Sanders could have easily had the stage cleared or even waited out the protest action, he chose not to. Trump could have easily held his rally and let the protesters have their protest, but he chose not to.

you seem to be forgetting that speech goes both ways in your insistence that people who are protesting should be blocked from engaging in dialog with others who have more power to speak.

And you resort to even more slander by now, without evidence, equating them to mobs or hired enforces despite having no evidence to back those claims.

The protesters have just as much right to speak or disrupt as the politicians. The response that respects taht right is to engage them in dialog, not to try to silence the protesters because you find their speech inconvenient as you keep insisting should happen.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 04:30:53 PM
Quote
A collection of the powerful is still entitled to get together and engage in political speech without being disrupted under our freedoms of association and speech.
WIthout being disrupted _by the government_. Their freedom to speak does not, as you' have it, empower them to silence others, even if those others are interrupting them.
I take  my earlier comment back, this is now the most irrational thing you've ever said.  In any event, the Supreme Court precedents are clear on this.  The government has an affirmative duty to prevent disrupters from engaging in the conduct you are favoring, because unlike you, they understand that preventing anyone's message (whether you're weak or not) violates the very fundamental ideas protecting everyone's right to put there message out there.
and yet the protesters aren't preventing anyone from speaking, the only people being prevented from are the protesters if we follow your insistence that they be silenced.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 04:34:37 PM
Quote
If you want to pretend that people with the ability to put their message out there without suppressing others political speech have no choice but to engage in the worst forms of repression I can't stop you.
You're the one pretending that not me. The candidates have near universal ability to put their message out there however they want. The protesters have no meaningful way to get their message across without disrupting in order to actually have a voice in the conversation instead of being relegated to effective silence.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 04:39:54 PM
Quote
It's just a fact that Trump and Sander's had their political speech suppressed.
Which one? I'm sorry, who has been out there talking in their name then, since someone has been claiming to on both parts?

If you want to point to the DNC and things like the way it scheduled the debates in bizarre was as being suppressive to Sanders, that makes sense. The protesters, though had absolutely no effect on his ability to speak, and his response tot hem was a decision fully and freely made under his own power.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 04:45:05 PM
Quote
No one suggested anything constraining the protestors speech, in ways I "feel comfortable with" or otherwise.  I flat out said, no one, whether you label them weak or strong, has a right to suppress anyone else's speech.
But then turn around and advocate for protestors speech to be suppressed, over and over and over again. You don't get it both ways here. No one has prevented the candidates from speaking at all, in any way shape or form. The candidates have had to choose _how_ to speak in response to the protestors, but that's not suppression, that's dialog.

The only person here saying that anyone should shut up and stop talking is you in regards to the protestors. I have not suggested that the candidates should not speak in any way, you are the one advocating, over and over, that someone not speak until and unless they do it according to the way to dictate to them and not how they choose to speak.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 20, 2016, 02:16:08 AM
But then turn around and advocate for protestors speech to be suppressed, over and over and over again. You don't get it both ways here. No one has prevented the candidates from speaking at all, in any way shape or form. The candidates have had to choose _how_ to speak in response to the protestors, but that's not suppression, that's dialog.

So tell me, Pyr, does this also not count as an attempt to suppress speech?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-protesters-rally-arizona-highway-1.3499162

Quote
Footage of the demonstration in Arizona showed a group of protesters with cars blocking forward traffic, holding signs that read: "Dump Trump" and "Shut Down Trump."

Is there much of a difference between physically preventing someone speaking versus physically preventing people from travelling to hear the speech?

And regarding your belief that protesters have as much right as anyone to say their piece, do they likewise have the right to detain and force others to hear their message?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pete at Home on March 20, 2016, 07:09:01 AM
If you want to persuade me to not describe Marissa Johnson as a shallow controlling little attention whore, wbo dances on black dead bodies in order to play gunpoint Simon Says with an angry white crowd, then please show me where she actually advocates for some solution.
Why does my difference in opinion on her actions have any relevance to your usage of empty, degrading, and inflammatory name calling? What is it about her sexual behavior that you believe is relevant such that you apply with words "whore" and "skank" in a way taht both targets empty invective at her and perpetuates the notion that women need to conform to your sexual standards to be respected?

Why can't you just talk about your objections and your opinions about the issue without resorting to degradation and name calling?

Being an attehntion whore has nothing to do with sexual behavior, sillly.  That's like arguing that because Hitler wasx a vegetarian, I cant call him a "butcher".  Here again you strain slavish literalism past the point of illiteracy.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 09:19:05 AM
Quote
Being an attehntion whore has nothing to do with sexual behavior, sillly.

if it has nothing to do with sexuality, then it's harmful to invoke words taht are designed to create the impression that sexuality is something that should be use to denigrate people.  Not that it's good to denigrate peopel directly for their sexuality in the first place, but this gets a double whammy. Why not jsut say "she's just trying to get attentino" You still get to be judgmental, but without resorting to outright denigration of female sexuality by using terms taht are rooted in attacking it as valid comparisons to use to attack others.

Quote
That's like arguing that because Hitler was a vegetarian, I cant call him a "butcher".
I was unaware of a parallel situation where "butcher" was generally used as a term to judge and implicitly control the behavior of an entire class of people by punishing them for otherwise personal choices in vocation or behavior.

Are you saying actual butchers are punished by society for their choice of vocation to make the comparisons equal in net effect? That calling someone a butcher helps promote the notion that butchers are morally bad people?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 09:33:33 AM
Quote
So tell me, Pyr, does this also not count as an attempt to suppress speech?
Whose speech was suppressed? Was Trump rendered at all unable to chose and publicly air his response to the action?

I mean if you want to talk about how they helped him get his message out and build support by what they did in the process of trying to communicate their message, you'd have some pretty solid ground to stand on, But to argue taht there was any danger of rendering him unable to speak or respond is pretty absurd.

Quote
Is there much of a difference between physically preventing someone speaking versus physically preventing people from travelling to hear the speech?
Only in what the legal remedies are for such restraint. I imagine taht there are some pretty specific traffic laws that they were violating taht can and should absolutely be applied as the price for taking such an action, similar to any other kind of civil disobedience that involves using legal violations as a protest tool.

Quote
And regarding your belief that protesters have as much right as anyone to say their piece, do they likewise have the right to detain and force others to hear their message?
They had a right to speak. I imagine there will be no charges pressed for the message they were communicating, while there will be some internal tsk-tsking for helping make Trump's voice even louder and giving him a larger platform to speak from. I also imagine taht some of them may be facing traffic related fines completely unrelated to their speech as the legally assigned price on the kinds of actions that they took in order to be heard.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 21, 2016, 10:14:12 AM
So in short you condone forcibly rounding up unwilling citizens and detaining them unlawfully while you issue speech they have not agreed to listen to and are visibly angry to have to endure.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
So in short you condone forcibly rounding up unwilling citizens and detaining them unlawfully while you issue speech they have not agreed to listen to and are visibly angry to have to endure.
Who was rounded up here? Again, I imagine that there are already legal penalties for actually forcibly abducting peopel, if you want to add that, as well as detaining them against their will.

What I point out is that even if the actions are illegal, it's absurd to suggest that no speech is occurring in the overall act, and that there are not and should be no legal penalties for the content of the message. Only for the specific illegal acts that were used in the process of conveying it. (And that, relatedly, no act should be made illegal simply for the purpose of removing an avenue for speech. There are other reasons that such actions are illegal that have nothing to do with message content.)
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: D.W. on March 21, 2016, 10:22:56 AM
Quote
if it has nothing to do with sexuality, then it's harmful to invoke words taht are designed to create the impression that sexuality is something that should be use to denigrate people.  Not that it's good to denigrate peopel directly for their sexuality in the first place, but this gets a double whammy. Why not jsut say "she's just trying to get attentino" You still get to be judgmental, but without resorting to outright denigration of female sexuality by using terms taht are rooted in attacking it as valid comparisons to use to attack others.
In general I agree with your sentiment that we should remove misogyny from our insults.  Many of them don't even make sense.  We (some of us) shout them when irritated or upset or just for the reaction without giving them much thought.  I've shouted (in my enclosed car), "You stupid m'fer!".  Right after I thought to myself, "Well, I've F'ed a mother...  Why is that an insult at all?  Are we suggesting incest on the part of the labeled?  Is this a terrible insult that lost meaning through short hand?  It makes no damn sense as it stands...

So, I get it.  Some of our insulting language can not only border on nonsensical but can also be harmful to people who have nothing to do with the target of our ire.  That should be looked at and we should attempt to control for it.

Attention whore however...  One who sells their dignity and behaves outside of societal boundaries in order to receive attention (good or bad); well that one is spot on.   As to why we don't take the long hand approach and remove "whore"?  Well it doesn't have the same ring to it.  Less is more on verbal barbs.  Also, just because prostitution is primarily thought of first as a female occupation, that is not exclusive.  It's not like we have a variation of insult for male attention whores.  I suppose you could argue "jackass" but I don't believe they are equivalents.

Pyr, I think you are attempting to shoewhoren this point into a larger discussion.  :)
This reads very much like a, "get off my lawn you rotten kids", argument.  I think this label is both technically accurate and quickly conveys a concept for which we sadly have a pressing need to identify and condemn.  Far more so than actual whoring... which is the only caveat I would grant.  While that deals with sex, it is not however sexist.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 10:33:21 AM
Quote
Also, just because prostitution is primarily thought of first as a female occupation, that is not exclusive.  It's not like we have a variation of insult for male attention whores.
That's not accidental. There's a whole extra level of social damaging implicit in the fact taht the way we insult ment is to compare them to women, on top of the fact that we use biased terms about women as a way to cast them as second class. (And while there are male related insults, they almost always tend to emphasized and sell aggressive or dominant behavior, implicitly reinforcing a superior male gender role, even while using it to criticize)

But there's a simpler solution, really, which is "Don't insult people". IF you want to accurately apply a term to someone's behavior, pick one that directly speaks to the behavior and is as neutrally valenced as possible (no term is completely neutral, to be sure, but there are definitely ones taht have a much longer track record of oppressive use by defining otherwise irrelevant behavior as bad vs those that specifically identify harmful behaviors and identify a specific harm.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: D.W. on March 21, 2016, 10:42:55 AM
The female label to insult a man is another good argument that I think, in this case, misses it's mark entirely.

As to, "don't insult people", we got a long way to go before people get over that personality quirk.  It beats punching people in the face.  Baby steps Pyr.  (And no, that was not an attempt to infantalize you in an insulting manner.)
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 10:54:03 AM
Sure, but the only way steps will be taken at all is if people who see the benefit of a given path keep pointing the way to it.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 21, 2016, 11:54:08 AM

Who was rounded up here?

Please show where the protesters offered to set up an alternate route for the people in cars to go while the roadblock was in effect. If they had no intent to trap anyone on a road then surely they created an alternate path for them, correct?

Quote
Again, I imagine that there are already legal penalties for actually forcibly abducting peopel, if you want to add that, as well as detaining them against their will.

A complete dodge. Whether there happen to be legal consequences for their action has no bearing on whether you think their action should be condoned or condemned. You seem to be making it clear so far that you will not criticize or even recognize criticism of protesters for anything they do short of, perhaps, murder or mayhem.

Maybe you'd like to go on record and say specifically whether what they did here was ok, and whether it should be considered fair play or off-limits to physically stop people and disallow them going to a political rally?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 12:16:39 PM

Who was rounded up here?

Please show where the protesters offered to set up an alternate route for the people in cars to go while the roadblock was in effect. If they had no intent to trap anyone on a road then surely they created an alternate path for them, correct?
Rounding up would suggest taht the protestors forced them to be on the road in the first place. They impeded traffic, they did not force anyone to be in traffic. There are definitely negative ramifications for doing so outside the context of the message they were attempting to communicate, and hey should be held accountable for those.

Quote
Quote
Again, I imagine that there are already legal penalties for actually forcibly abducting peopel, if you want to add that, as well as detaining them against their will.

A complete dodge. Whether there happen to be legal consequences for their action has no bearing on whether you think their action should be condoned or condemned. You seem to be making it clear so far that you will not criticize or even recognize criticism of protesters for anything they do short of, perhaps, murder or mayhem.
Because it's not for me to pass such judgments; that would be de facto suppressive, since it would be dismissing the message based on my completely irrelevant personal opinion of the messenger. Whether I support or oppose their action has no bearing on anything and is is a complete distraction from any meaningful conversation.

We have the law to handle putting a price on actions if they come at a public cost. If they violated such, then they should be held accountable for that cost. Pay the debt to society that they incurred by acting, as it were. It's fair to talk about the costs vs penalties for the actions that they took without regard to their message, if we want to talk about whether the penalty for traffic obstruction is not high enough. It's also fair to talk about the message without regard to the way it was delivered, but conflating the two discussions would be suppressive- using the accessibility of their action as an excuse to ignore the message behind it.

In fact, the less I condone the method of the message, the more important it is for me to figure out what they're trying to say and how to give them a less distasteful way to engage so taht they're not drive to such lengths in the future because they're ignored if they try and use existing avenues.
Maybe you'd like to go on record and say specifically whether what they did here was ok, and whether it should be considered fair play or off-limits to physically stop people and disallow them going to a political rally?
[/quote]
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: D.W. on March 21, 2016, 12:24:12 PM
Quote
Because it's not for me to pass such judgments; that would be de facto suppressive, since it would be dismissing the message based on my completely irrelevant personal opinion of the messenger. Whether I support or oppose their action has no bearing on anything and is is a complete distraction from any meaningful conversation.
Doesn't this sentiment directly contradict the concept of protesting wrongdoing?  How can one wash their hands of law enforcement in one situation yet claim that protest, even disruptive protests which break laws, is necessary to conform law enforcement to represent the people and work justly? 
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 12:30:53 PM
Quote
Because it's not for me to pass such judgments; that would be de facto suppressive, since it would be dismissing the message based on my completely irrelevant personal opinion of the messenger. Whether I support or oppose their action has no bearing on anything and is is a complete distraction from any meaningful conversation.
Doesn't this sentiment directly contradict the concept of protesting wrongdoing?  How can one wash their hands of law enforcement in one situation yet claim that protest, even disruptive protests which break laws, is necessary to conform law enforcement to represent the people and work justly?
How is challenging the abuses of law enforcement equivalent to washing one's hands of it? I don't think many people are meaningfully protesting the fundamental concept of laws or their enforcement- most protests focus on the ways taht the system is being applied unjustly and in biased manners.

Again- there is plenty of room to discuss whether a given law or system of enforcement is just, but it becomes even more important in those situations to distinguish between the method of protest and the message of the protest. (Especially for law enforcement officers, who can very easily end up underscoring the point if they react abusively)
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 21, 2016, 12:44:13 PM
Quote
Quote
Who was rounded up here?

Please show where the protesters offered to set up an alternate route for the people in cars to go while the roadblock was in effect. If they had no intent to trap anyone on a road then surely they created an alternate path for them, correct?
Rounding up would suggest taht the protestors forced them to be on the road in the first place. They impeded traffic, they did not force anyone to be in traffic. There are definitely negative ramifications for doing so outside the context of the message they were attempting to communicate, and hey should be held accountable for those.

I'm trying pretty hard to read this into this reply something other than trolling. Give me some time, maybe I'll come up with something.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: D.W. on March 21, 2016, 01:06:48 PM
Quote
How is challenging the abuses of law enforcement equivalent to washing one's hands of it?
It doesn’t.  That was my point.  You cannot say, “I do not concern myself with the legality of the protester’s methods”, implying that concern lies with law enforcement, and be a proponent of protest against abuse of authority (which I am assuming you are). 

I am suggesting you MUST have an opinion.  It can be either that the laws of permissible protests are wrong, or correct or on how those laws should be enforced.  By washing your hands of all concern for it, you are granting others the power to abuse authority or manipulate you.  Maybe it’s not even abuse, since you gave them consent through your lack of concern.

By voting, by protest, by verbal or written criticism and suggestions we attempt to shape society.  If you focus only on the message and ignore law enforcement cracks down you put yourself in danger and may miss that the corruption of law enforcement is a graver threat than the message which drew them to act.  If proponents of a cause choose a method that vilifies them in the eyes of the majority they can do grievous damage to their cause.  Does the average citizen care about your cause if you murdered 10’s or 100’s to get the attention; or do they just see a terrorist and ignore the message?

The method of protest IS the message (or at least a large part of it).  It speaks volumes and colors the entire message you attempt to convey.  If you ignore the method you fail to grasp the message at all. 
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on March 21, 2016, 01:11:15 PM
If proponents of a cause choose a method that vilifies them in the eyes of the majority they can do grievous damage to their cause.  Does the average citizen care about your cause if you murdered 10’s or 100’s to get the attention; or do they just see a terrorist and ignore the message?

The method of protest IS the message (or at least a large part of it).  It speaks volumes and colors the entire message you attempt to convey.  If you ignore the method you fail to grasp the message at all.

This is a great point. I'm reminded of the Unabomber right now, who had a coherent point to make about technological society but who not only tarnished his position by employing violence to get the message out, but also made it fairly clear that part of his message was that violence ought to be used in opposition to certain trends in society. Reading his written statement without regard to how he delivered it would be a serious mistake.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 05:17:03 PM
Quote
It doesn’t.  That was my point.  You cannot say, “I do not concern myself with the legality of the protester’s methods”, implying that concern lies with law enforcement, and be a proponent of protest against abuse of authority (which I am assuming you are). 
TO some degree, sure. But one can easily say "That's a separate conversation." When it's being used as an active distraction from a conversation about the content of the message. And also that conversation has to cover more that jsut the fact of its legality, because, in many cases, the action should, under normal circumstances, be illegal because of the need to not only put a cost on the behavior, but toad value and impact to its being engaged in as a protest action.

Again- there are good reasons to make obstructing traffic illegal that have nothing to to do with protest actions. I'm sure I'd be unhappy if someone obstructed traffic when I was trying to get somewhere. But that illegality, that discomfort - they're things that actually give it value as a protest action. Without it being against the law, there'd be no value or voice in engaging in it as way to raise consciousness of a given issue.

Quote
I am suggesting you MUST have an opinion.  It can be either that the laws of permissible protests are wrong, or correct or on how those laws should be enforced.  By washing your hands of all concern for it, you are granting others the power to abuse authority or manipulate you.  Maybe it’s not even abuse, since you gave them consent through your lack of concern.
And I gave it-= in this case I do think laws about obstructing traffic are reasonable. But I also point out that that has no relevance to the message of the protestors in this case, especially because they're not staging the protest here to contest traffic laws, so we're not even dealing with the corner case of staging protest actions to push on the laws or enforcement practices that are being protested. This is a completely different issue and trying to pretend that ever protest must be judged on anything but it's own message (never mind based on every possible injustice that might be protested) is and absurd degree of concern trolling.

Quote
  If you focus only on the message and ignore law enforcement cracks down you put yourself in danger and may miss that the corruption of law enforcement is a graver threat than the message which drew them to act.
Which is why it's important to protest against abuses by law enforcement when it occurs, or laws taht are abusive. But taht doesn't mean that all law enforcement and laws are abusive, or that one should opposen them when they're reasonable and allied in the context of a protest that's violating them in order to communicate its message.

Quote
If proponents of a cause choose a method that vilifies them in the eyes of the majority they can do grievous damage to their cause.  Does the average citizen care about your cause if you murdered 10’s or 100’s to get the attention; or do they just see a terrorist and ignore the message?
This only matters when the protest is intended to evoke the direct sympathy of the average citizen, rather than to reach out to those that are actually receptive and perhaps able to take action in regards to the content of the message. Particularly when protesting supremacy- tyranny of the majority/majorian group- is part of the point of the protest. How is does it even make sense to tell someone who is objecting to being oppressed by the majority that they should only do so by bowing down to that majority and doing things to make it happy?

Our system of governance has systems and safeguards built in so that it's not simple majority rule- so that a group that is right can press its case and be protected _even if_ the majority doesn't like them. So hat they're not forced to subserviently bow down to oppression in order to gain respect. Protests are actions that put pressure on those systems to to their job, they're not marketing campaigns for majority approval.

If something is unjust, does it become less unjust because you've behaved poorly as well? THe validity of a complaint about an unjust system has nothing at all to do with the behavior of the messenger, though the extremes they have to go to in order to be heard can say a lot about the degree of suppression or denial of their message within a given system.

(And this does not mean that all messages are equally valid. Not all messages actually highlight an injustice, just the nominal perception of it by the person trying to speak. But against, that validity has noting to do with the tolls used to express it; dismissing it because of them rather than based on the independent merits of the message is suppressive and exactly the kind of behavior that leas to an escalation in the extremity of protest actions.

Quote
The method of protest IS the message (or at least a large part of it).
Only when it's explicitly meant to be.  Otherwise it's not. It's an indication of the degree of action the speakers felt was necessary to be heard, but the validity of the message itself has inherent relevance to the tolls used communicate it. Slavery is not more unjust is I write a sternly worded letter to the editor about it, it's not less unjust if I lead rebellion against it; it's injustice is an independent feature of the system, not a variable based on how polite I am when I make my objections.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 21, 2016, 05:30:22 PM
Quote
    The method of protest IS the message (or at least a large part of it).

Only when it's explicitly meant to be.  Otherwise it's not.

Protest is a form of uninvited participation done to override exclusion for the purpose of delivering a message that otherwise would not be heard or heeded.  It's not always disruptive, which is what I think saying it "IS the message" implies, but is almost tautologically an interruption of whatever activity wants to exclude it.  Protest can be both the delivery of a message and a disruption, as well. In this case the protesters disrupted the rally to deliver a message, but I wouldn't say the disruption *was* the message.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: D.W. on March 21, 2016, 08:57:40 PM
The nature of the disruption tells you a lot about the desperation of the messenger(s).  It can tell you if they are angry or somewhat annoyed or just trying to educate you.  Are they just telling people who are receptive and willing to listen or are they forcing you to pay attention?  Is the "act" of disruption the message itself?  It can be. 

Holding up a sign across the street from an Apple store to protest the negative impact technology has on our country is different from blowing up buildings.
Telling someone that our foreign policy is inciting violence over seas and ruining lives is different than opening fire on complacent civilians. 
Marching in a large group to draw attention to a cause is different than a riot.
Taking up arms and defending your country or an ally is different than writing an editorial condemning a hostile government.

All messages can change meanings depending upon how you relay the information.  Some corrupt the message in the eyes of others.  Some dilute the urgency or import of the message.  Some inform you about the messenger.  Some are necessary if anything is to change.   

I wasn't trying to criticize protest.  I was criticizing the notion that the stated goal can excuse the methods used in the name of conveying it.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 22, 2016, 06:23:17 AM
Quote
I wasn't trying to criticize protest.  I was criticizing the notion that the stated goal can excuse the methods used in the name of conveying it.
I was trying to say something similar but I managed to bury my message in the way I presented it :).
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 10:56:22 AM
Quote
  I was criticizing the notion that the stated goal can excuse the methods used in the name of conveying it.
That's not a point anyone has tried to argue. Just the opposite- I pointed out taht they should be held culpable for those methods without regard to the message.

The problem is saying that the methods chosen have any bearing on the message itself and should be used as an excuse to shut down or derail discussion of the message. There's a huge difference between saying that the methods should not be used to dismiss the message and saying taht the message should somehow make the methods legal in its own right. The message needs in either case, to be judged on its own merits, as does the legality of the methods used. As noted, the methods can speak to the desperation of the person speaking,  but desperation isn't a direct indicator of validity of the content, though it can be a commentary on the degree to which people feel taht their voice is not being heard and suggest an additional discussion on how to make even peopel who happen to be wrong, feel like their messages are being heard and given consideration, even if that consideration does not, ultimately go their way.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Greg Davidson on March 23, 2016, 11:18:50 AM
Quote
I just want to add one thought, disruption is not a legitimate form of protest.  Political speech is actually intended to be the most protected from of speech we have, and deliberately disrupting a political rally to the point that you prevent it from occurring should be condemned by all parties.  I have no doubt, that nearly everyone supporting the protestors, who are clearly engaged in disruption, not protest, would completely flip their position if it were disruptors at a Bernie convention or disruptors at a "safe space" and that represents a fundamental flaw in your comprehension of what free speech actually means.

Seriati, I 100% endorse the first part of your comment that disruption is wrong.  I disagree with your certainty that nearly everyone supporting their position would clearly flip their position if the action were at a Sanders rally.  I would have a stronger level of certainty based on past actions that Trump himself would be the more hypocritical on this issue were the tables turned
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: D.W. on March 23, 2016, 11:22:47 AM
Quote
The message needs in either case, to be judged on its own merits, as does the legality of the methods used.
Couldn't disagree more strongly.  The first part for reasons I already described.  The second part because illegal acts should have their motives investigated rather than simply actions punished.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Wayward Son on March 30, 2016, 11:15:14 AM
And for today's event,  Trump has reneged on his promise to support the eventual Republican nominee (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-takes-back-pledge-to-support-gop-nominee-221363), because he had been treated "unfairly."

Which opens him up to actively oppose the nominee if he isn't it.  Which opens him up to run his own, third-party campaign if he decides to.  Which opens him up to thoroughly sca-roo the Republican party by siphoning away votes.

Stay tuned, folks, for the next exciting episode. :)
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on March 30, 2016, 11:26:42 AM
Definitely less predictable and more fun than watching Demolition Derby.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on April 01, 2016, 10:27:37 AM
So, here is the transcript of Trump discussion abortion rights and laws with Chris Matthews.  This morning he said that he may have misspoken...

Quote
QUESTION: Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women’s rights and their right to choose in their own reproductive health?
 
TRUMP: OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I’m pro-life. Right, I think you know that, and I -- with exceptions, with the three exceptions. But pretty much, that’s my stance. Is that OK? You understand?
 
MATTHEWS: What should the law be on abortion?
 
TRUMP: Well, I have been pro-life.
 
MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law -- I know your principle, that’s a good value. But what should be the law?
 
TRUMP: Well, you know, they’ve set the law and frankly the judges -- I mean, you’re going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it’s a real tipping point.
 
MATTHEWS: I know.
 
TRUMP: And with the loss of (Supreme Court Justice Antonin) Scalia, who was a very strong conservative...
 
MATTHEWS: I understand.
 
TRUMP: ... this presidential election is going to be very important, because when you say, "what’s the law, nobody knows what the law’s going to be. It depends on who gets elected, because somebody is going to appoint conservative judges and somebody is going to appoint liberal judges, depending on who wins.
 
MATTHEWS: I know. I never understood the pro-life position.
 
TRUMP: Well, a lot of people do understand.
 
MATTHEWS: I never understood it. Because I understand the principle, it’s human life as people see it.
 
TRUMP: Which it is.
 
MATTHEWS: But what crime is it?
 
TRUMP: Well, it’s human life.
 
MATTHEWS: No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?
 
TRUMP: Look...
 
MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.
 
TRUMP: It’s a -- no, no...
 
MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?
 
TRUMP: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and conservative Republicans would say, "yes, they should be punished."
 
MATTHEWS: How about you?
 
TRUMP: I would say that it’s a very serious problem. And it’s a problem that we have to decide on. It’s very hard.
 
MATTHEWS: But you’re for banning it?
 
TRUMP: I’m going to say -- well, wait. Are you going to say, put them in jail? Are you -- is that the (inaudible) you’re talking about?
 
MATTHEWS: Well, no, I’m asking you because you say you want to ban it. What’s that mean?
 
TRUMP: I would -- I am against -- I am pro-life, yes.
 
MATTHEWS: What is ban -- how do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it?
 
TRUMP: Well, you know, you go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places --
 
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
 
TRUMP: But you have to ban it.
 
MATTHEWS: You banning, they go to somebody who flunked out of medical school.
 
TRUMP: Are you Catholic?
 
MATTHEWS: Yes. I think...
 
TRUMP: And how do you feel about the Catholic Church’s position?
 
MATTHEWS: Well, I accept the teaching authority of my church on moral issues.
 
TRUMP: I know, but do you know their position on abortion?
 
MATTHEWS: Yes, I do.
 
TRUMP: And do you concur with that position?
 
MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question -- here’s my problem with it...
 
(Laughter in the audience.)
 
TRUMP: No, no, but let me ask you, but what do you say about your Church?
 
MATTHEWS: It’s not funny.
 
TRUMP: Yes, it’s really not funny. What do you say about your church? They’re very, very strong.
 
MATTHEWS: They’re allowed to -- but the churches make their moral judgments. But you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States. Do you believe...
 
TRUMP: No, but...
 
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
 
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
 
MATTHEWS: For the woman.
 
TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form.
 
MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?
 
TRUMP: I don’t know. That I don’t know. That I don’t know.
 
MATTHEWS: Why not?
 
TRUMP: I don’t know.
 
MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else.
 
TRUMP: Because I don’t want to -- I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It’s a very complicated position.
 
MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you’re pro-life, meaning you want to ban it.
 
TRUMP: But wait a minute, wait a minute. But the Catholic Church is pro-life.
 
MATTHEWS: No, let’s not talk about my religion.
 
TRUMP: No, no, I am talking about your religion. Your religion -- I mean, you say you’re a very good Catholic. Your religion is your life. Let me ask you this.
 
MATTHEWS: I didn’t say very good. I said I’m Catholic. And secondly, I’m asking -- you’re running for president.
 
TRUMP: No, no...
 
MATTHEWS: I’m not.
 
TRUMP: Chris -- Chris.
 
MATTHEWS: I’m asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion?
 
TRUMP: I’m not going to do that.
 
MATTHEWS: Why not?
 
TRUMP: I’m not going to play that game.
 
MATTHEWS: Game?
 
TRUMP: You have...
 
MATTHEWS: You said you’re pro-life.
 
TRUMP: I am pro-life.
 
MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion.
 
TRUMP: And so is the Catholic Church pro-life.
 
MATTHEWS: But they don’t control the -- this isn’t Spain, the church doesn’t control the government.
 
TRUMP: What is the punishment under the Catholic Church? What is the...
 
MATTHEWS: Let me give something from the New Testament, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." Don’t ask me about my religion.
 
TRUMP: No, no...
 
MATTHEWS: I’m asking you. You want to be president of the United States.
 
TRUMP: You told me that...
 
MATTHEWS: You tell me what the law should be.
 
TRUMP: I have -- I have not determined...
 
MATTHEWS: Just tell me what the law should be. You say you’re pro-life.
 
TRUMP: I am pro-life.
 
MATTHEWS: What’s that mean?
 
TRUMP: With exceptions. I am pro-life. I have not determined what the punishment would be.
 
MATTHEWS: Why not?
 
TRUMP: Because I haven’t determined it.
 
MATTHEWS: When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it. Because...
 
TRUMP: No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life...
 
MATTHEWS: OK, here’s the problem -- here’s my problem with this. If you don’t have a punishment for abortion -- I don’t believe in it, of course -- people are going to find a way to have an abortion.
 
TRUMP: You don’t believe in what?
 
MATTHEWS: I don’t believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion.
 
TRUMP: OK, fine. OK.
 
MATTHEWS: Of course not. I think it’s a woman’s choice.
 
TRUMP: So you’re against the teachings of your church?
 
MATTHEWS: I have a view -- and a moral view.  But I believe we live in a free country, and I don’t want to live in a country so fascistic that it could stop a person from making that decision.
 
TRUMP: But then you are...
 
MATTHEWS: That would be so invasive...
TRUMP: I know, but I’ve heard you speaking...
 
MATTHEWS: So determined of a society that I wouldn’t be able -- one we are familiar with. And Donald Trump, you wouldn’t be familiar with.
 
TRUMP: But I’ve heard you speaking so highly about your religion and your church.
 
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
 
TRUMP: Your church is very, very strongly, as you know, pro-life.
 
MATTHEWS: I know.
 
TRUMP: What do you say to your church?
 
MATTHEWS: I say, I accept your moral authority. In the United States, the people make the decision, the courts rule on what’s in the Constitution, and we live by that. That’s why I say.
 
TRUMP: Yes, but you don’t live by it because you don’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it.
 
MATTHEWS: Can we go back to matters of the law and running for president because matters of the law, what I’m talking about, and this is the difficult situation you’ve placed yourself in.
 
By saying you’re pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion. How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction? Then you get in that very tricky question of a sanction, a fine on human life, which you call murder?
 
TRUMP: It will have to be determined.
 
MATTHEWS: A fine, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant?
 
TRUMP: It will have to be determined.
 
MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion?
 
TRUMP: Well, it hasn’t -- it hasn’t -- different feelings, different people. I would say no.
 
MATTHEWS: Well, they’re usually involved.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 01, 2016, 11:15:40 AM
I watched this segment yesterday. As far as I'm concerned Trump humiliated Matthews on this subject, as the question is not only a trap (Trump calls it a "game") but Matthews is, indeed, espousing a hypocritical position. You cannot literally think that abortion is murder and that said murder should be perfectly legal. Trump is right that Matthews isn't taking his own stated moral position seriously. That doesn't mean, mind you, that Trump's position is consistent either, but I think Trump did a fine job of keeping control of the conversation and showing how underhanded the questions were. They were a cheap attempt to get a sound bite indicting Trump in the eyes of all women, and even though Trump wouldn't play ball I still saw trending 'viral' BS quoting "there has to be some kind of punishment," with the dishonest headlines reading "Trumps wants women punished for having abortions." But of course that's not what he said, what he said is that it should be punished IF they become illegal, the status of which he says (and Matthews even agreed on) could be determined by the next Supreme Court assignment. Well duh, of course if something is illegal it should be punished, what the heck other conclusion could one draw? And likewise if it's legal there should be no punishment, which is another reason why the questioning is pathetic.

It's one thing for a religious person to accept separation of Church and state and to believe that moral dogma should never become law; of course that's true. But that doesn't mean that moral principles should never inform legal decisions! That is a preposterous argument. Swearing on the Bible shouldn't be a legal requirement; believing in God shouldn't be required; cursing in God's name shouldn't be banned; all of this is true. But then you'd have to be an idiot to say that stealing should be legal because since "Thou shalt not steal" is one of the ten commandments having a law against theft would breach the division between Church and state - that's just ridiculous. Likewise is it idiotic to claim that murder should be legal since it's religion that says it's murder. It's entirely possible, first of all, for a non-religious person to think it's murder, and second of all, the notion that something is murder just because the religion says so isn't a reason to ignore that proposition, it just means the proposition shouldn't be accepted right away either.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on April 01, 2016, 11:27:38 AM
Quote
I watched this segment yesterday. As far as I'm concerned Trump humiliated Matthews on this subject, as the question is not only a trap (Trump calls it a "game") but Matthews is, indeed, espousing a hypocritical position. You cannot literally think that abortion is murder and that said murder should be perfectly legal.
You're saying that he can't challenge Trump to say what he thinks because he may or may not believe that the position of his Church should apply to everyone?  I don't understand how you can seriously say that.  As far as I'm concerned, Trump completely bumbled his responses, which he kept repeating.  When he ran out of runway he started attacking the interviewer.  How was that even relevant?

Quote
But of course that's not what he said, what he said is that it should be punished IF they become illegal,...
But, of course abortions *are* illegal in many places except under certain conditions.  So it's not a hypothetical.  Trump expanded the scope to include a broader hypothetical, but illegal is illegal, and Trump said the woman should be punished if she has an illegal abortion.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 01, 2016, 11:40:13 AM
You're saying that he can't challenge Trump to say what he thinks because he may or may not believe that the position of his Church should apply to everyone?

Of course he can. If he had wanted to rationally discuss Trump's views on abortion he could have done so, but it sounded even to me (no less to Trump) that he was trying to catch Trump out in saying something that would get him flamed in the press. As far as I could tell Trump was trying to expose this maneuver by showing that Matthews believed the same thing as him regarding abortion. Once it was established they both agreed on the moral position they could then discuss amongst themselves what to do about that position, rather than have the subject discussed in an adversarial context as if they were on artificially opposite sides on the issue. What Trump did make clear is that it's very hard to tell someone who believes something is murder that the law has no place enforcing that.

Quote
But, of course abortions *are* illegal in many places except under certain conditions.  So it's not a hypothetical.  Trump expanded the scope to include a broader hypothetical, but illegal is illegal, and Trump said the woman should be punished if she has an illegal abortion.

Explain how something illegal shouldn't be punished? How do you define 'legal', as a mere suggestion?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on April 01, 2016, 12:26:23 PM
I'll just say that you're showing remarkable sympathy for the candidate and a lot less for the interviewer.  Which one of their opinions matters more?  Matthews is a dogged interviewer, often frustrating his "guests", so if Trump didn't want to be challenged, why did he agree to participate?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Wayward Son on April 01, 2016, 12:34:29 PM
Actually, I thought Matthews nicely humiliated Trump by showing that Trump really didn't have a position on abortion, no matter how often he declared he was "pro-life."

Because there are different types of "pro-life."  From the discussion, it appears that Matthews may be pro-life (adhering to the position of the Catholic Church), but he is not willing to impose his beliefs on others by advocating that abortions are declared illegal in practically all cases.  This would be called "pro-abortion" by certain pro-lifers.

Trump would not clarify if he wanted to go that far, and instead tried to turn it around on Matthews and make him say it.  But, as Chris pointed out, it doesn't matter what Chris thinks, since he's not running for President.  He wanted to know what Trump thinks.  And Trump tried to weasel out.

It's this double standard--taking a position but not wanting to take a position--and blaming it on the media instead of taking responsibility himself, is one of the reasons Trump is so annoying.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2016, 01:41:14 PM
The disconnect of, "If illegal you don't punish the woman doing the illegal thing" has always struck me as horribly calculated political cowardice. 

So you criminalize abortion and prosecute medical professionals who provide them.  Then you prosecute unlicensed people who provide them.  All of which already punish the woman, yet she bears no responsibility for the act?  How does that do anything but make abortions less safe? 

The "demand" for abortions will not vanish.  It doesn't work for the sex trade nor the drug trade.  Why should it work for a life altering decision on whether to have a child or not?  Your morality has no diminishing impact on the (by your view) immoral behavior of others. 

Trump was right to call BS on illegal but unpunished.  Even if he stumbled into it.  Him backtracking the position to the less sensible "mainstream" conservative view was the real embarrassment though.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 01, 2016, 01:55:32 PM
Trump was right to call BS on illegal but unpunished.  Even if he stumbled into it.  Him backtracking the position to the less sensible "mainstream" conservative view was the real embarrassment though.

I agree that Trump's position is not rock solid on this, but my main point was that Matthews came off as more sleazy to me in the clip than Trump did.

Just to clarify, what exactly do you mean about Trump backtracking?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: beefprime on April 01, 2016, 02:03:56 PM
Matthews is, indeed, espousing a hypocritical position. You cannot literally think that abortion is murder and that said murder should be perfectly legal. Trump is right that Matthews isn't taking his own stated moral position seriously.

Murder is unlawful killing, if abortion is currently legal then it is by definition not murder, even if you consider it killing. If you consider it killing (which is probably what they mean here), then you can easily recognize that our society accepts killing people in some situations. In the event of self defense, state condoned killing via execution, and some other instances which currently include abortion with some restrictions.

There's no hypocrisy between not wanting to kill someone yourself and not making it illegal for everyone. Its comparable to being unwilling to kill in self defense but not being willing to make self defense killing illegal across the board.

If you read Matthew's position in legalese: its not hypocritical, its just nonsensical. You cant have legal murder, its an oxymoron if you know the legal definition of murder. I would assume for the sake of actual dialog and understanding that he means killing.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 01, 2016, 02:09:36 PM
For the sake of dialogue assume that "abortion is murder" should be read as "abortion ought to be considered as murder." It is obviously killing, that's not what's in dispute. As an analogy to "abortion should be considered as murder" and concordantly should be illegal, consider the position of someone in a society that employs ritual child sacrifice. That person might claim that it's wrong to murder children for any reason, and as you might imagine the defence that "it's not murder because it's legal" would be missing the point entirely.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: beefprime on April 01, 2016, 02:30:56 PM
Quote
For the sake of dialogue assume that "abortion is murder" should be read as "abortion ought to be considered as murder."

Except that doesnt make sense at all, if you think abortion should be considered murder, then you by definition want to make abortion illegal, which is directly contradicted by matthew's statement. Killing makes sense in the context of the conversation, murder does not.

Quote
As an analogy to "abortion should be considered as murder" and concordantly should be illegal, consider the position of someone in a society that employs ritual child sacrifice. That person might claim that it's wrong to murder children for any reason, and as you might imagine the defence that "it's not murder because it's legal" would be missing the point entirely.

Of course that would only be an accurate analogy if 1. child sacrifice was currently legal (aka it is 'only' killing) and 2. the person who is against sacrificing children in his own life is also against making it illegal for everyone. Only when those two cases are met would Chris Matthew's stated views on abortion match a sacrifice analogy, and AGAIN only if you assume murder means killing.

What if we're in a society that truly believes if they dont sacrifice children they will be destroyed by some vengeful god, its entirely reasonable to assume at that point that child sacrifice, while clearly KILLING children, would also not be considered MURDER, which would convey illegality and potential punishment for the sacrificer. While Achcuatli Matthews, famous news reporter in this somewhat theologically dystopian society, would not sacrifice a child on his own, he understands that to please Megaqoatl and prevent the destruction of their civilization, some people will choose to sacrifice children, and that that should be up to them to decide and should not a decision forced on them by the state one way or another.

There is no analogy or situation where taking their usage of murder here to literally mean the legal meaning of murder (aka unlawful killing) makes sense, since he is saying it should be considered murder but not be illegal. The only meaningful way you can interpret this is "killing" unless your intent is to smear instead of understand.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2016, 03:16:05 PM
Just to clarify, what exactly do you mean about Trump backtracking?
[/quote]
The complete 180 from this:
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
 
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
 
MATTHEWS: For the woman.
 
TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form.


To his statement within 24hrs saying that the woman shouldn't be punished.  I do agree that Matthews came off as more sleazy.  Almost badgering until he got the sound bite he wanted.  That said, a politician should be ready for this and Trump wasn't.  I'd say part of why it comes off as more sleazy than the norm is, with Trump, it will work.

Meaning you will get the sound bite.  Not to say that it will be particularly damaging to Trump.  :P
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 01, 2016, 03:40:13 PM
Cool, I get what you meant now, DW. I originally thought you meant he backtracked within the context of this interview.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Wayward Son on April 01, 2016, 03:49:53 PM
For the sake of dialogue assume that "abortion is murder" should be read as "abortion ought to be considered as murder." It is obviously killing, that's not what's in dispute. As an analogy to "abortion should be considered as murder" and concordantly should be illegal, consider the position of someone in a society that employs ritual child sacrifice. That person might claim that it's wrong to murder children for any reason, and as you might imagine the defence that "it's not murder because it's legal" would be missing the point entirely.

One can believe that abortion is wrong and still not consider it murder.  It all depends on how "sure" you are that it is wrong.

Consider Matthew's position.  He acknowledges that the Catholic Church considers abortion murder, and he is a practicing Catholic.  So he probably believes it is wrong.

But does he expect everyone else to abide by his church's judgment?  Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, and from having to follow religious precepts that one doesn't agree with.

So Matthews can believe that abortion is wrong, just like he believes eating meat on Friday used to be wrong (until the Church changed its stance), or that divorce is wrong, and still not require that those things become illegal.

So until he is convinced that abortion is wrong on a basis more firm than religion, he can believe it is wrong and still not require it to be "murder."  Because if his belief is primarily driven by his religious beliefs, then he has no right to impose it on other people.

So, again, what is Trump's stance on this?  Does he believe it should be illegal (in almost all circumstances), and if so, shouldn't then the woman who has an abortion (and thus participating in an unlawful killing) be punished?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 01, 2016, 04:06:45 PM
But does he expect everyone else to abide by his church's judgment?

This is always the argument made, and I don't get it. What does 'abiding by' his opinion have anything to do with it? Law is a collective agreement based on mutual understanding of what is best and what is bad. If a person thinks a thing is bad, and another person thinks it's good, they are at a stalemate in terms of values. But if the majority of people believe a thing is bad and agree to ban it for the sake of the greater good, then that's the end of it. It's not that they 'expect' anyone to 'abide by' their values, it's the majority desired position. If the minority belief doesn't have its way then so be it. 'Expecting' others to agree is irrelevant; you weigh the issue and, to grossly state the matter, you vote and that's that. Declining to put forward your opinion as relevant because you don't expect others to abide by your opinion is just a silly notion. You may as well say that people ought to never fight for their beliefs on anything since it would just cause them to 'expect others to abide by them.'

Quote
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, and from having to follow religious precepts that one doesn't agree with.

Where did you get this idea from? It's wrong. Freedom of religion means the state cannot make a religion mandatory, or exclude by fiat some religion. It does not mean that people of a religious conviction should not have their opinion weighed in the balance. What you're saying is that if someone's opinion comes from religion they should keep it to themselves and not try to employ it in the public sphere, and this makes the classic error of thinking that a religious belief can somehow be divorced by 'non-religious' aspects of life. There is no non-religious aspect of life for a religious person. Their belief is their belief, it doesn't matter where it came from.

Quote
So until he is convinced that abortion is wrong on a basis more firm than religion, he can believe it is wrong and still not require it to be "murder."  Because if his belief is primarily driven by his religious beliefs, then he has no right to impose it on other people.

Again you suppose that fighting for your belief means imposing something on others. Actually it just means saying your piece and allowing others to do the same. Your idea that an idea being a religious one disqualifies it as being a legitimate idea in some sense is quite bizarre. It's pretty hair-brained, if you ask me, to consider killing a person to be 'wrong' in the abstract but to be ok with other people doing it, as if it's a sexual preference or something.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on April 01, 2016, 04:12:53 PM
That interview was gold fro Trump. He got the context for a completely outrageous comment, without regard for context that got help a surge of free media. At the same time, that quote appealed directly to his core audience, showing that he's wiling to say exactly what they're thinking, without pulling any punches. THen, once the frenzy is well and up, he backpedals with a wink to the more conventional position, forcing other pro-life advocates to have to try to talk about him a lot to try to explain how he just doesn't get it. But all the while, he's got the original technicalities of the context- what should happen _if
_ it were illegal that he can, when he needs to, point to later when he's got to grab the general electorate and suggest taht he wasn't actually advocating illegality, but rather helping point out the disastrous results of making it illegal.

Lots of outrage, lots of free media, and enough wiggle room to completely turn his position inside out when he needs to. (With tons of free media, outrage, and winks at different desired constituents all around)
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on April 01, 2016, 04:19:39 PM
Quote
Law is a collective agreement based on mutual understanding of what is best and what is bad.
No- law is a collective agreement on what actions have a material cost to society or do harm to others than the community needs to take action to try to protect others from or compensate people who have been affected for.

THere are plenty of good or bad things that should have nothing to do with law, but simply be a matter of personal judgment, because it's not the business of the community to formally intercede.

"It's wrong" or "it's bad" aren't justification to make something illegal. "Others are hurt by this and need to turn to the community for resource" is the baseline standard.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on April 01, 2016, 04:23:13 PM
Quote
Where did you get this idea from? It's wrong. Freedom of religion means the state cannot make a religion mandatory, or exclude by fiat some religion. It does not mean that people of a religious conviction should not have their opinion weighed in the balance. What you're saying is that if someone's opinion comes from religion they should keep it to themselves and not try to employ it in the public sphere, and this makes the classic error of thinking that a religious belief can somehow be divorced by 'non-religious' aspects of life. There is no non-religious aspect of life for a religious person. Their belief is their belief, it doesn't matter where it came from.
Sure, but if they try to use state power to enforce it on the basis of the fact that that its their religious dictate, then they are making their religion mandatory. The state can only act when there is a compelling _non-religuos_ justification. You seem to be trying to take the argument that something should not be put into law _solely_ on religious justifications and miscasting it as people trying to say that any coincidental parallel to religion disqualifies it.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 01, 2016, 04:40:31 PM
Sure, but if they try to use state power to enforce it on the basis of the fact that that its their religious dictate, then they are making their religion mandatory.

I would agree with you if this was about something esoteric and irrelevant to secular life that religious people were trying to push on others, like mandatory prayer. There is no issue of how to conduct prayer in secular life and therefore the issue of how to mediate prayer in secular life is irrelevant; any attempt to legislate about prayer would inevitably be an attempt to introduce prayer into secular life, which is a different kettle of fish entirely than what I'm discussing. Here we're talking about issues that are already part of secular life - killing and personal autonomy. These issues do need to be mediated and agreed upon, and various people have various beliefs about them. As an analogy, some people think it's wrong to spy on citizens for any reason, other think it's ok as long as it increases national security. Each side will try to have its opinion put into law, and ideally the majority will have its way (as opposed to a small but powerful minority). In the case of certain kinds of killing - and this can include wars of various types, regime change, drone attacks, suicide, euthanasia, etc. etc. - a decision has to be made about what kind of killing is ok and what kind isn't. Someone can base their opinion on this on science, on religion, on their fairy godmother; it doesn't actually matter. Democracy is about all voices being heard, not only 'correct' voices. In an area that already must be deliberated on, such as killing, everyone is entitled to (actually should be encouraged to) voice their opinion and try to make what they see as right become the law of the land.

The idea that because an opinion on this comes from religion means that adopting it would be mandating religion - that's just incorrect. The law should basically reflect majority values, wherever those come from, within certain parameters that don't violate the constitution. If people are against stealing because of their faith in the Bible, that doesn't mean that outlawing theft is mandating of religion. The one really has nothing to do with the other. In the case of abortion it is really a red herring to write off a pro-life position based on it being potentially religious; its metaphysical foundation is irrelevant. A person doesn't even need a metaphysical foundation to say they think it's right or wrong.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on April 01, 2016, 04:57:59 PM
Quote
If people are against stealing because of their faith in the Bible, that doesn't mean that outlawing theft is mandating of religion.
Only because there is non-religious justification for the laws. If they only reason they're against it is because of their religion, then their input on whether or not it should be illegal is not useful. They have to bring reasoning to the table that's not grounded in religious assumptions, or else they are simply mandating religion. There's no problem with secular law paralleling religion, but at no point can religion be the core argument for a given law.

(That's different from saying that religion can be what motivates you to find a secular justification for a given law. There's a difference between religion being why _you_ chose to do something and being what you decide to try to make others do through legal force.)
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Wayward Son on April 01, 2016, 05:01:03 PM
Quote
I would agree with you if this was about something esoteric and irrelevant to secular life that religious people were trying to push on others, like mandatory prayer.

But who decides if something is "esoteric and irrelevant to secular life?"  The adherents of the religion?  Or the minority who are not adherents?

If a town is 51 percent Hindu, does that mean they can ban the slaughtering and eating of beef because the majority decides that it is wrong, and relevant to secular life?  After all, it's a cow's life... ;)
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 01, 2016, 06:38:53 PM
There's no problem with secular law paralleling religion, but at no point can religion be the core argument for a given law.

What I'm discussing is the law mirroring public sentiment, which has nothing to do with what the justification is for such a law. For example, the decision to first allow and then completely open up the door to gay marriage is not based on any metaphysical justification or new fact that was learned that overturned previous understanding of what it would mean for two people of the same sex to marry. The long and short of it is that public opinion had come to the point where a majority (or very close to it) of people were clamoring for the law to change, and the law accorded itself with the public's wishes. I know you will say that the decision was really made because of human rights or natural law or whatever, but let's get real - the truth is that the law turned when the will of the people turned, and that's fine. That's the way it should be. If a person in favor of gay marriage was using logic bound in science, in political philosophy, in religion, or even based in nonsense, none of that matters. What mattered was that many people began to think allowing it would be the right thing to do, and that's what happened. Again, there are parameters within which the will of the people can be accepted into law, but in this case the will of the people didn't violate the constitution or the criminal code and so it was totally fair play.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 01, 2016, 06:50:54 PM
But who decides if something is "esoteric and irrelevant to secular life?"  The adherents of the religion?  Or the minority who are not adherents?

If a town is 51 percent Hindu, does that mean they can ban the slaughtering and eating of beef because the majority decides that it is wrong, and relevant to secular life?  After all, it's a cow's life... ;)

I see what you're saying, but your objection doesn't quite touch on exactly what I'm talking about. The issue is not about the majority deciding which issues matter and which don't, or whether to ban beef or not. The issue is about whether a given activity or area of concern is necessarily part of public life or isn't. Whether a person should have to pray or not, or say Hail Mary's, is only part of public discourse if people have chosen to do those things. It is not the case that any given society has to manage or deliberate on how to legally effect a correct Hail Mary or when to pray. Some societies might, but that would be a particular attribute of that culture rather than a basic necessity of any culture. The issue, however, of whether a given action is illegal, and more specifically, murder, is necessary for any culture whatsoever to address and tackle. For every single conceivable action it must be established whether or not that action is murder, theft, or whatever else. You can't have an act that is nebulously neither murder nor not murder, and this would be true for any culture that employs rule of law. Therefore the issue of discussing which actions should count as murder and which should not is not in any way in imposition of a religion, as for example the forced deliberation on how best to say the name of God would be. Rather, it is an absolute requirement to discuss in detail what constitutes murder, and within the confines of this necessary discussion various people might have different ideas about what should count and what shouldn't count. You seem to be saying that only people whose opinion is 'secular' should be able to contribute to this discussion, and I see no basis for that assumption at all. No one is talking about a minority of people forcing their view on anyone, but rather just people with opinions putting them forward and saying their piece. If the majority believe X action should count as murder then that's their opinion; maybe the law will eventually come to reflect that, maybe not if sentiment changes. It's not for you to dictate which rationale a person may use to back up their opinion on the subject; that would actually constitute outlawing religion for all intents and purposes, because what you'd really be doing is disenfranchising anyone whose convictions in life are religious. You'd be saying that they can't vote on issues or affect public policy because their views are 'tainted' by religious undertones in some sense.

What I'm saying is that religious people have a right to participate in and inform public policy just as much as anyone else. They don't have the right to dominate it a priori just as atheists don't. I can say I believe X should count as murder whether I base my belief on the man in the moon's say-so or whatever other reason I want. My voice counts as 'one vote' (so to speak, since it doesn't directly work like that) and nothing more or less than that. I am not imposing anything on anyone but putting that in as my vote. Unless, of course, you are going to take the position that democracy is actually just organized violence and that any vote for anything is employing a small quantum of force on everyone else and that the most forceful position wins in the end. There would be merit to this position however somehow I don't think this is the argument you're making.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 01, 2016, 07:03:14 PM
WS, just to make it more clear how my explanation pertains to your example of banning beef, think about what a beef ban on moral grounds would mean. It would have to be stated that it's wrong to eat cows, for example. Now if this sentiment came from Hindu roots, for instance, you might not like it due to its religious significance for them, however consider at the same time that certain foods are illegal to eat in the U.S. to the best of my knowledge. It is legal to slaughter and eat dogs and cats? If not, why not? Is there some moral imperative protecting cute animals? Then why not rabbits? It is pretty easy to see that these decisions are based in tradition and public sentiment, and if you think a ban on slaughtering dogs for food is ok then I don't see how you can rightly be against a similar ban on beef for similar reasons if that's actually what the majority of the public supports. You may not like their reasons, but that's also not really your concern. You don't have to like the reasons of people who disagree with you, so long as what they're asking for isn't a violation of your rights. You don't have a right to eat beef or dog meat, so taking away the ability to do that isn't an unconstitutional thing. If, however, the majority of people decided to enslave you then that would not be a legitimate thing to want since it violates other laws and rights you are guaranteed.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on April 02, 2016, 08:52:05 AM
Quote
The disconnect of, "If illegal you don't punish the woman doing the illegal thing" has always struck me as horribly calculated political cowardice. 
I can't find any self-declared activist on either side of the abortion issue who wants women to be punished for violating abortion laws.  Frankly, I would find it disgusting and cruel to punish the woman, because doing so not only claims that your right to deny her the abortion takes precedence over hers to have it, but even more because it explicitly ignores whatever personal situation led her to make that choice.

Arthur Miller's play The Crucible is suddenly seen as relevant in this election.  Every major candidate has at least one article written about them with the word "Crucible" in the title.  It's not all that surprising, I think, given that Trump and Cruz would be tagged with that label because of their avowedly unfriendly rubrics against all sorts of different groups of people.  Cutting closer to the heart of the matter, both of them in particular demonize (like witches once were) members of those groups, which include Mexicans, blacks and Muslims most prominently.

It's a little different when the label is applied to Clinton or Sanders.  For them the intent is more like the traditional meaning of a trial by fire, where if you lose that test you die.  That's appropriate when thinking about them having to "conquer" people's negative perceptions of them in debates and on the campaign trail.  I don't think the email investigation carries quite that connotation, but instead she is being pursued by a pack of hyenas on the GOP side and a pack of hound dogs on the FBI side (117 of whose agents are assigned to the investigation -- so far).

Of course you can make the argument that the mother should have the baby and give it up for adoption, but statistics say that adoption rates are far short of the need (only 50% of those waiting are eventually adopted between 2005-2014 (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/trends_fostercare_adoption2014.pdf)), and foster care parenting is failing even worse with a precipitous drop recently (25% between 2002-2012 overall and almost 50% for black children - but only 2% for Hispanic children (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/data_brief_foster_care_trends1.pdf)).  Where's the love?

And last, a surprisingly open-minded article from The Federalist (http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/02/a-literary-guide-to-our-orwellian-nightmare/) on the importance of individuality in a culture of mass-market ideas.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2016, 12:01:43 PM
Frankly, I would find it disgusting and cruel to punish the woman, because doing so not only claims that your right to deny her the abortion takes precedence over hers to have it, but even more because it explicitly ignores whatever personal situation led her to make that choice.

You may as well argue that it's disgusting and cruel to punish poor people who steal because they don't have money. Maybe on some humane level that's coherent, but it completely disregards the purpose of law. If not enforced a law is actually not a law at all. If you're going to allow illegal behavior without punishment then that would indeed be a disgrace, and the law should be changed. But if you're going to keep the law then it needs to be taken seriously.

Quote
Of course you can make the argument that the mother should have the baby and give it up for adoption, but statistics say that adoption rates are far short of the need

I don't know what statistics you've read but from what I know there is a massive supply shortage of children up for adoption, to the point where if you want to adopt you not only need to look to Asia to do so, but you'll face years of waiting time even if you do. A friend of mine recently adopted a child from China, and the waiting time even over there was so long he was obliged to adopt a special needs child (from a service specializing in that) just so that he could expedite these years of waiting down to around one year.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on April 02, 2016, 01:46:07 PM
Quote
You may as well argue that it's disgusting and cruel to punish poor people who steal because they don't have money. Maybe on some humane level that's coherent, but it completely disregards the purpose of law. If not enforced a law is actually not a law at all. If you're going to allow illegal behavior without punishment then that would indeed be a disgrace, and the law should be changed. But if you're going to keep the law then it needs to be taken seriously.
So, you're actually looking to impose penalties on women where there are none now.  What would the crime be? 

If the unborn fetus is a person, it's first-degree murder, since it is done with pre-meditation and malice.  There's no way for the woman to talk herself out of that jam, since she clearly knows what she did and did it anyway.  In most states that gets a very long prison term.  Would you sentence a woman to 20 years to life for having an abortion?

It's hard to make the crime less severe if you believe the fetus is a person, so we should consider what the penalty would be if the fetus is *not* legally a person.  That creates a whole different set of issues, since if the fetus isn't actually a person, then how can you argue that the mother doesn't have control over it because it's an extension of her own body.  In other words, I don't see how it's a crime at all.

But pretend the fetus is not a person but it's still a crime.  If you want to go in the direction of originalism, which you have to do because you are rejecting the argument that abortion is a right women are entitled to exercise, then you have to consider what abortion meant in the era of the country's founding.

Back then it was looked at and handled pretty similarly in every one of the original 13 states.  That is, it wasn't a crime at all if the abortion (or miscarriage) happened before "quickening".  After that stage, which presumably would have to be checked by someone before the abortion took place, the punishments varied from state to state.   But it still wasn't a crime until the first abortion laws appeared (circa 1821), after which legal penalties for the woman or doctor were exceedingly rare.  When the woman suffered because she had the abortion, it was mostly at the hands of the Church she belonged to.

Most abortions through the first half of the 19th Century were for middle- or upper-class women.  The earliest laws (as far as I can tell) were enacted because the popular method of the times were medical/chemical ingestion rather than by surgical extraction and the medicines taken killed many women by poisoning.  So, most abortions were done by the woman herself, sometimes with either a midwife or doctor attending.  Keep in mind that doctors weren't the high-minded scientifically oriented surgeons they are today and mostly dispensed advice and "tonics" to their patients.  Anybody with a saw or an elixir could hang out a shingle until the early part of the 20th Century.

Other laws were enacted because the rate of abortion among US citizens was much higher than the rate among immigrants, and isolationists were worried that the country was going to be taken over by "aliens".  Another important driver for promulgating laws was differences between religious groups; Protestants were afraid that Catholic laws prohibiting abortion would cause the number of Catholics to rise in proportion to the Protestant ranks. It continued to be rare for a physician to be penalized for performing an abortion, and even more rare for the woman to suffer legal consequences.

You can see that almost none of that was based on particularly moral grounds.  I've read that the rate of abortions around 1900 was 5-10 times higher than any time since Roe v. Wade was made the law of the land.

Quote
I don't know what statistics you've read but...
I provided a reference in my post, and there are many others out there.  You can (and should) do your own reading, since the research on 19th and 20th Century laws and restrictions on abortion haven't been studied systematically enough that all of the articles say quite the same things.  For instance, you'll find that religious groups with a strong "pro-life" bias emphasize (and exaggerate) the prohibitions without providing reliable statistics.  That's a characteristic of lots of different religious arguments based on so-called moral grounds that are intended to prevent people who don't share their beliefs from behaving differently than they do.

The bottom line is that you are fighting against 240 years of US history, and longer if you reach back into colonial American times, if you want to insist that "it only makes sense" for the woman to be punished for having an abortion, whether it is legal or not.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2016, 02:07:01 PM
So, you're actually looking to impose penalties on women where there are none now.  What would the crime be?

I'm not looking to do anything. I never said anything about whether it should be a crime. Why is doing something illegal necessarily a crime? But let's say it is, in fact, to be treated as a crime in all circumstances (i.e. disregarding abortion law). Does it not follow that committing a crime should have some penalty? This is a general proposition rather than a specific comment about abortion. Again, if you think it is unjust to have any penalty for disregarding abortion law then what you are really saying is that the law should be disobeyed with impunity, which I suppose is an argument for civil disobedience here. Maybe there's something to that, but as a matter of enforcement it seems hypocritical to me to have a law and yet wink and nod when it's broken and do nothing about it.

Quote
If the unborn fetus is a person, it's first-degree murder, since it is done with pre-meditation and malice.  There's no way for the woman to talk herself out of that jam, since she clearly knows what she did and did it anyway.  In most states that gets a very long prison term.  Would you sentence a woman to 20 years to life for having an abortion?

Who said if it's a crime that the crime must be murder? Why can't it be violation of that specific law prohibiting abortion in certain cases? Maybe that would be a misdemeanor; I really don't know. For it to be murder I think more laws would have to be passed than merely a ban on abortion in those cases. You'd most likely have to have to have a Supreme Court ruling specifying that human rights apply to fetuses, at the very least. Maybe even an amendment.

Quote
It's hard to make the crime less severe if you believe the fetus is a person, so we should consider what the penalty would be if the fetus is *not* legally a person.  That creates a whole different set of issues, since if the fetus isn't actually a person, then how can you argue that the mother doesn't have control over it because it's an extension of her own body.  In other words, I don't see how it's a crime at all.

People-killing isn't the only option as a designation for such a crime. There's no reason a law can't enforce protection of 'nearly people' or something to that effect. The idea that only 'real persons' can be protected under the law seems to me a made-up premise. Heck, laws in various places even protect pets and farm animals even though they're not legal persons. Pretty much anything can be given protection under the law without violation of that law necessarily being murder, which is defined only as killing of persons.

Quote
I provided a reference in my post, and there are many others out there.  You can (and should) do your own reading, since the research on 19th and 20th Century laws and restrictions on abortion haven't been studied systematically enough that all of the articles say quite the same things.  For instance, you'll find that religious groups with a strong "pro-life" bias emphasize (and exaggerate) the prohibitions without providing reliable statistics.  That's a characteristic of lots of different religious arguments based on so-called moral grounds that are intended to prevent people who don't share their beliefs from behaving differently than they do.

The bottom line is that you are fighting against 240 years of US history, and longer if you reach back into colonial American times, if you want to insist that "it only makes sense" for the woman to be punished for having an abortion, whether it is legal or not.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. Your reply seems not to be an actual response to what I said. I was talking about adoption and you're mentioning things about abortions.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on April 04, 2016, 11:22:06 AM
Quote
You may as well argue that it's disgusting and cruel to punish poor people who steal because they don't have money.
It absolutely is and that's why its actively unjust to punish someone in that state instead of helping them find a way to make restitution and providing them with the necessary support to not be put in that situation again.

Quote
Maybe on some humane level that's coherent, but it completely disregards the purpose of law.
No, blindly punishing people without regard for circumstances disregards the purpose of the law. The purpose is to give people public protection from theft and recourse to get restitution when it does occur instead of needing to provide such enforcement out of their personal resources. It's purpose is not, in any way, to inflict further harm on desperate people.

Quote
If not enforced a law is actually not a law at all.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that we should be blindly vindictive, just that we should seek to provide justice to both parties when the law has been violated. Restitution the the person hurt, protection to society from repeat violations here that might be likely, and, if relevant, resources to the person who violated the law so that they aren't put in a situation where they feel they have no other choice in the future.

Blindly punish people without regard to the justice a given law is supposed to provide and you encourage people to show it the same disregard that you show them. It's only when people feel taht tehy law is there to help them, not oppress and punish them that they respect it.

 If you're going to allow illegal behavior without punishment then that would indeed be a disgrace, and the law should be changed. But if you're going to keep the law then it needs to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 04, 2016, 11:56:14 AM
No, blindly punishing people without regard for circumstances disregards the purpose of the law. The purpose is to give people public protection from theft and recourse to get restitution when it does occur instead of needing to provide such enforcement out of their personal resources. It's purpose is not, in any way, to inflict further harm on desperate people.

Pyr, you're not really disputing what I said, but rather seem to be making a case for changing the law. If you think at present it serves to enforce a vindictive agenda much of the time then I'll probably agree with you, and that would be a good reason to try to evolve certain laws. However, that doesn't speak to whether the law as it stands at present should be obeyed or not, and whether it should be enforced. If you think the law is only a suggestion for most people and that those for whom it would be unfair to apply should be able to ignore it without impunity - well, I won't agree with you on that.

The issue you're raising here is a bad analogy anyhow; I find your analogies tend to distract from rather than illuminate discussions in general. In your example a law against theft, which protects the majority of people but hurts those few who are so poor that they must steal, we'd be talking about a fringe case where the law is improperly tuned in the case of a small group of people who are an exception. In the case of abortion, however, when certain types of abortion are illegal and a woman goes out precisely to have that type of abortion, that's not a fringe case but rather the exact case the law was meant to address. Maybe the law is bad or unfair, but saying that is different from arguing that the law is not meant to be enforced. Selective enforcement of law is a tool employed by oligarchs and plutocrats, and I see only danger coming from a philosophy of injustice (literally employing the law unevenly depending on who you are).
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on April 04, 2016, 12:51:35 PM
Quote
I find your analogies tend to distract from rather than illuminate discussions in general.
A telling comment in a way that you didn't consider.  When someone gives an analogy that doesn't fit your argument they're offering their own view of the scenario under discussion.  My view is that this analogy is a better fit to the circumstances than what you have offered.  You are arguing that the law provides punishment and so must be respected, but Pyrtolin is talking about what the purpose of having laws is.  The US punishes far more people than any other country in the world (i.e., the highest incarceration rate in the world).  In the US the states with the highest incarceration rates are all in the south, closely correlated with the states with the highest rates of poverty and the highest rates of non-white residents.  Incarceration rates rose by 7x between 1970-2005, while crime rates rose by 33% during that period but were the same in the beginning and ending years.

Incarceration in the US is punitive rather than rehabilitative.  That's what the laws prescribe, but not what the legal system was supposed to provide.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 04, 2016, 03:20:09 PM
When someone gives an analogy that doesn't fit your argument they're offering their own view of the scenario under discussion.

I explained exactly why the analogy doesn't apply. I understood his argument, but the analogy didn't help it. To be fair I felt a bit bad after the fact of telling him this, since now that I think about it most of the analogies offered in these threads tend to derail into arguing about the applicability of the analogy rather than helping elucidate the arguments being made. Many of us are probably guilty of offering unhelpful analogies in this sense. Since we're all pretty smart here it it seems to me we do better when we just stick to discussing the actual facts rather than trying to explain them using an imaginary set of facts.

Quote
You are arguing that the law provides punishment and so must be respected, but Pyrtolin is talking about what the purpose of having laws is.

Yes, and philosophy of law has nothing to do with executing a given set of laws. The philosophy behind the purpose of laws is a matter for jurisprudence and legislation to consider, not enforcement. Choosing not to enforce a law because you personally don't like it is not the proper legal avenue for a dispute with the law as it stands, with the exception of civil disobedience on the part of citizens. But law enforcement should not selectively pick and choose which laws to enforce even if it's based on some moral idea. From what I've seen selective enforcement is usually a symptom of corruption and abuse rather than enlightened mercy.

Quote
The US punishes far more people than any other country in the world (i.e., the highest incarceration rate in the world).  In the US the states with the highest incarceration rates are all in the south, closely correlated with the states with the highest rates of poverty and the highest rates of non-white residents.  Incarceration rates rose by 7x between 1970-2005, while crime rates rose by 33% during that period but were the same in the beginning and ending years.

Again, you are arguing for a reform of the criminal justice system. Guess what? I'm on board with that. But that has nothing to do with arguing that illegal acts should be ignored because some people think they shouldn't be illegal. That's not how law ought to work. In a broken system it probably does work like that some of the time, and if so that's another part of the problem. You don't fix one problem in the system by exacerbating another problem in it. Requiring lawful behavior on the part of law enforcement is part and parcel of why it's so important for the police to have body cams, and the last thing we want right now is to indicate to the law enforcement community that it's ok to pick and choose which crimes are really crimes, and which laws to enforce.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on April 04, 2016, 04:20:57 PM
Quote
Requiring lawful behavior on the part of law enforcement is part and parcel of why it's so important for the police to have body cams, and the last thing we want right now is to indicate to the law enforcement community that it's ok to pick and choose which crimes are really crimes, and which laws to enforce.
Sure, that's not contested here. You're just forgetting that law enforcement doesn't get to decide what the results of that enforcement are; it is explicitly not part of the judicial system and has to request penalties that it thinks are appropriate. It can't choose to punish people, it can only enforce the law and let the justice system sort out if some punishment that the legislature has suggested is an appropriate consequence or if other measure better serves justice and the overall intent of the law.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 04, 2016, 04:30:02 PM
Sure, that's not contested here. You're just forgetting that law enforcement doesn't get to decide what the results of that enforcement are; it is explicitly not part of the judicial system and has to request penalties that it thinks are appropriate. It can't choose to punish people, it can only enforce the law and let the justice system sort out if some punishment that the legislature has suggested is an appropriate consequence or if other measure better serves justice and the overall intent of the law.

Right. I only mentioned the police in particular because of all areas of law enforcement and the justice system the police have been the subject of a lot of scrutiny recently in the area of selective enforcement (which can include corruption, racism, excessive violence, etc.). But my general point is that we don't want to encourage the mentality in any part of the enforcement/justice system sphere that they can pick and choose which laws to enforce. If something (whether that's a certain kind of abortion, or anything else) is illegal, then there should be a method of enforcing that which doesn't refer on a case-by-case basis to having compassion or understanding for someone. That compassion and understanding should be built in to the law, ideally, and if anything at least exercised by a judge who has access to all the facts. But a blanket notion that there should be no punishment (read: repercussion) for breaking a certain law across the board sounds very bad to me.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on April 04, 2016, 05:11:07 PM
Quote
But my general point is that we don't want to encourage the mentality in any part of the enforcement/justice system sphere that they can pick and choose which laws to enforce. If something (whether that's a certain kind of abortion, or anything else) is illegal, then there should be a method of enforcing that which doesn't refer on a case-by-case basis to having compassion or understanding for someone. That compassion and understanding should be built in to the law, ideally, and if anything at least exercised by a judge who has access to all the facts.
It doesn't have to be built into any laws because it's inherent in the nature of judicial powers. Judges can choose what, if any penalties should apply, including punishment up to the limits that the legislature have but on sentences.

Quote
But a blanket notion that there should be no punishment (read: repercussion) for breaking a certain law across the board sounds very bad to me.
No one has claimed that there should be no repercussions, just that punishment shouldn't be blindly applied as a repercussion. In many cases, simple restitution and rehabilitation make for more reasonable repercussions, not inflicting further harm on people that have nothing to lose.

Keep in mind that the question here is "If abortion was illegal, _should_ the law punish women who seek it?" Saying that such laws must be punitive to the women receiving the operation isn't just saying that violations of _current_ law should have repercussions- it's arguing that theoretical laws should be punitive in the first place. It doesn't make sense to say that we can't implement legal reforms when the thing in question _is_ a legal reform.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 04, 2016, 05:57:07 PM
No one has claimed that there should be no repercussions, just that punishment shouldn't be blindly applied as a repercussion. In many cases, simple restitution and rehabilitation make for more reasonable repercussions, not inflicting further harm on people that have nothing to lose.

Now you're talking about something entirely different, which is the notion of not using punishment in general as a repercussion to an offense. It's completely non-sequitur to this topic, since we're discussing whether the normal repercussion (whatever that is) should be applied to people who break this law. Whether the actual repercussion is a punishment or something else is a different discussion and not relevant to the issue of whether to go after people who break an abortion law in one form or another.

But just so we're clear, while judges do have latitude in extenuating circumstances I do not think they should be granted the authority to simply decide not to give any punishment/repercussion in the case where the person blatantly broke the law full stop. The idea that a judge will be left to decide whether or not the law as stated applies to a given person would be the very definition of injustice.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on April 05, 2016, 11:11:54 AM
Now you're talking about something entirely different, which is the notion of not using punishment in general as a repercussion to an offense.
That's pure nonsense. There's a long tradition of penalties that don't go further than simply making restitution to an individual or the community as appropriate, or assigning someone to rehab or other kinds of training. It's nothing new at all to say that not every offense must be met with punitive measures; we do plenty of enforcement without punishment, that kind of enforcement is generally far, far more effective than punishment.

Quote
It's completely non-sequitur to this topic, since we're discussing whether the normal repercussion (whatever that is) should be applied to people who break this law.
There is no "normal" repercussion, because this is a theoretical law. The question at hand is what the normal repercussion should be and who it should apply to. 

Quote
Whether the actual repercussion is a punishment or something else is a different discussion and not relevant to the issue of whether to go after people who break an abortion law in one form or another.
It absolutely is, because it defines not only _who_ is breaking the law in such cases, but what "going after them" means. You're outright begging the question when you assert that such theoretical laws should be punitive to the patients, then trying to use that as evidence that the only way to uphold theoretical abortion laws would be to punish patients.

Quote
But just so we're clear, while judges do have latitude in extenuating circumstances I do not think they should be granted the authority to simply decide not to give any punishment/repercussion in the case where the person blatantly broke the law full stop.
THey absolutely should be if it's clear that punishment will do more harm than good and serve no public benefit. I mean they can't change the fact that the person has already felt repercussions from the act, so that's not really even a relevant thing to qualify. If the experience so far is sufficient to maintain the purpose of the law- which is to prevent undesirable or harmful behavior, then they should absolutely be free to dismiss additional punitive measures.

Quote
The idea that a judge will be left to decide whether or not the law as stated applies to a given person would be the very definition of injustice.
No, that's essential to justice. It's impossible for a system to be anything but unjust if it cannot ensure that the law works to benefit of all and instead applied punitive measures without regard to damage done. Justice is about restoring wholeness to those that have been harmed and working to prevent future harm. If you're doing more harm to people and society than good though blindly punishing them without regard to circumstances and ensuring that sentences actually serve to put things right, rather than just using them as a vengeful way to compound injustice by adding more damage on top of what was already done.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 05, 2016, 11:39:31 AM
Quote
The idea that a judge will be left to decide whether or not the law as stated applies to a given person would be the very definition of injustice.
No, that's essential to justice. It's impossible for a system to be anything but unjust if it cannot ensure that the law works to benefit of all and instead applied punitive measures without regard to damage done. Justice is about restoring wholeness to those that have been harmed and working to prevent future harm. If you're doing more harm to people and society than good though blindly punishing them without regard to circumstances and ensuring that sentences actually serve to put things right, rather than just using them as a vengeful way to compound injustice by adding more damage on top of what was already done.

You need to understand that what you're talking about isn't justice. Justice quite literally means nothing more or less than even and equal treatment under the law. Historically the term had various meanings, which included "righteousness" or more generally "application of the law" but in modern parlance it means applying the law equally without employing preferential treatment or different standards for different people. What you are talking about is a system that seeks 'goodness', rather than 'justice', as these are not the same. While it may not be the case that justice always yields the best result, it does have the virtue of being an honest and fair method of avoiding various corrupt practices.

The idea that we should tailor make each judgement after a breach of the law to best suit the person in question and create the 'best outcome' (which hearkens back to the impossible utilitarian calculus problem) may sound generous and compassionate but it is also most definitely unjust. That doesn't necessarily make it bad, but you need to know you are espousing a system of injustice here, where individual autocrats would have the right to unilaterally decide who gets the preferential nice treatment and who gets the hammer.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on April 05, 2016, 12:25:59 PM
Quote
Justice quite literally means nothing more or less than even and equal treatment under the law.


Even and equal treatment requires even an equal consideration of circumstances. If you do not consider circumstances then you are treating people extremely unequally, because the same consequence can be trivial to one person and crippling to another.

The simple cost of showing up to court is higher for a poor person than the maximum allowable fine many offenses is for someone who is financially well off. To ignore such facts is to actively treat people unequally and very unjustly.

Quote
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Anatole France
It's pure classist privilege to suggest that blind treatment without regard to circumstance is equal treatment; it's outright blaming those hurt by societal inequity for not being in the dominant class.

Justice is the correction of wrongs in society. Law is a _tool_ of justice, but it does not define justice.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on April 05, 2016, 12:50:54 PM
Quote
It's pure classist privilege to suggest that blind treatment without regard to circumstance is equal treatment; it's outright blaming those hurt by societal inequity for not being in the dominant class.
It would be like a hospital treating all patients with stomach problems with the same treatment regardless of the illness, and then the next hospital treats them all with a different standard for care.  One of the findings of the Justice Department in Ferguson was that the poor were being forced to pay "court costs" when they couldn't even pay the fine and were sent to jail for failure to pay those costs, but not for the fine for the infraction for which they were convicted.  Michigan has a similarly high court cost regimen.  In neither state (or others) are the court costs in any way associated with the crime for which they were charged.  Does that make sense to you (Fenring)?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 05, 2016, 01:35:11 PM
Quote
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Anatole France
It's pure classist privilege to suggest that blind treatment without regard to circumstance is equal treatment; it's outright blaming those hurt by societal inequity for not being in the dominant class.

You seem to be ignoring what I'm saying by trotting out this favorite quote of yours. In the example of the quote about bridges we have a case not showing why the law should be applied unequally depending on who you are, but rather showing that certain laws can themselves be inherently unjust or discriminatory. Since no one here is arguing against that it's not relevant. If there is a bad or discriminatory law it should be changed, which is what I've been saying all along. The argument that a bad law should be fixed by ignoring the law when convenient is literally an unjust solution, even if it seems to serve good in the short term.

Quote
It's pure classist privilege to suggest that blind treatment without regard to circumstance is equal treatment; it's outright blaming those hurt by societal inequity for not being in the dominant class.
It would be like a hospital treating all patients with stomach problems with the same treatment regardless of the illness, and then the next hospital treats them all with a different standard for care.

What you are discussing is a triage system, which indeed is not even supposed to be 'just' or 'fair' but rather is specifically designed to give preference to more severe cases. As a private business or operation that is a completely legitimate thing for them to choose to do, and as a function of medical practice it's entirely normal. Medicine isn't an application of law but rather an application of care, and care isn't particularly dependent on the just/unjust scale. It properly operates in a different scale - that of need. A 'need-based' system is certainly another way of doing it, and as applied to legal and economic affairs is nicely lampooned in Atlas Shrugged. While Rand's argument is that sorting by need is always wrong, I think it would be more balanced to say that it's sometimes wrong and sometimes correct. In a medical triage environment it's obviously correct, but in a court of law I would say it's wrong. At least, I say this regarding what we now think of as law. In a totally novel system of law and justice no doubt there could be other mechanisms to deal with cases.

Quote
One of the findings of the Justice Department in Ferguson was that the poor were being forced to pay "court costs" when they couldn't even pay the fine and were sent to jail for failure to pay those costs, but not for the fine for the infraction for which they were convicted.  Michigan has a similarly high court cost regimen.  In neither state (or others) are the court costs in any way associated with the crime for which they were charged.  Does that make sense to you (Fenring)?

In the Ferguson case there were two things potentially at play. One thing was that the law was already inherently discriminatory, as it frankly is in most major cities where police forces often act as little more than tax collectors and shakedown artists. This kind of environment always hurts the poor more than the rich, and is corrupt for multiple reasons. The other element in play may have been an uneven application of the laws where the police in Ferguson reportedly gave a harder time to black people and were more likely to charge them irrelevant fines. If this is true then that entails both an oversight problem as well as a general issue with inconsistent application of law based on the person in question. In the case of someone who obtained an illegal abortion Pyr would like preferential treatment, and in the case of Ferguson there has supposedly been anti-preferential treatment against black people. The thing is these are two sides of the same problem, and there is no effective moral difference between giving preferentially better rather than worse treatment under the law based on the whim of the officer or court. Going in either direction is unjust, where the better aim should be to rectify laws that improperly bolster public goodwill and health. And I'm not even getting into the issue of the sorts of corruption that can be inherent in inconsistent application of law, which in law enforcement includes the now infamous quota system that both increases unjust ticketing and decreasing pursuing real cases that don't help with the quota.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on April 05, 2016, 01:41:23 PM
Quote
In the case of someone who obtained an illegal abortion Pyr would like preferential treatment
I argue that it's perfectly sensible to say that laws that ban abortion could only penalize providers and not the people seeking abortions, while you insist that they can only be just if tehy punish abortion seekers, and that magically becomes preferential treatment?

I've not once argued for any preferential treatment of anyone, only for equitable treatment, making that assertion completely false in any context.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on April 05, 2016, 01:48:07 PM
Quote
In the Ferguson case there were two things potentially at play. One thing was that the law was already inherently discriminatory, as it frankly is in most major cities where police forces often act as little more than tax collectors and shakedown artists. This kind of environment always hurts the poor more than the rich, and is corrupt for multiple reasons. The other element in play may have been an uneven application of the laws where the police in Ferguson reportedly gave a harder time to black people and were more likely to charge them irrelevant fines. If this is true then that entails both an oversight problem as well as a general issue with inconsistent application of law based on the person in question. In the case of someone who obtained an illegal abortion Pyr would like preferential treatment, and in the case of Ferguson there has supposedly been anti-preferential treatment against black people. The thing is these are two sides of the same problem, and there is no effective moral difference between giving preferentially better rather than worse treatment under the law based on the whim of the officer or court. Going in either direction is unjust, where the better aim should be to rectify laws that improperly bolster public goodwill and health. And I'm not even getting into the issue of the sorts of corruption that can be inherent in inconsistent application of law, which in law enforcement includes the now infamous quota system that both increases unjust ticketing and decreasing pursuing real cases that don't help with the quota.
As near as I can tell, you're agreeing with me but explaining to me something you think I don't understand.  This is after you disagreeing with me about what the purpose of the legal system should be.  I guess I'm lost.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 05, 2016, 02:07:57 PM
I argue that it's perfectly sensible to say that laws that ban abortion could only penalize providers and not the people seeking abortions, while you insist that they can only be just if tehy punish abortion seekers, and that magically becomes preferential treatment?

I wish you'd just said that before so we could have saved some time. If what you're saying is that any breach of the law in this case should be attributed to the provider rather than the client then that makes sense, although I'm not sure how the law would accord with your preference. If the woman goes in not knowing the type of abortion she wants is illegal and the doctor performs it anyhow I can see how one would argue that she's done nothing wrong since it was the doctor who broke the law without the woman being aware of it. However if the woman intentionally goes to a shady doctor because she knows it's illegal and they do it, how do you square that with only him being guilty of breaking the law? Or are you saying they're both guilty but he should be punished while she should be reprimanded in some more lenient way?

Al, it seemed to me you were agreeing with Pyr that equal treatment isn't fair or just when that treatment disproportionately harms the poor, for instance, as it does in the case of various court costs in cities. What I'm saying is that the problem there isn't the fact that the treatment is equal, but rather that the law is designed in such a way that equal treatment harms some people. The issue then is not to apply the law unequally in order to benefit some class of people who were suffering, but rather to change that law so it ceases to produce unequal results when applied equally. But it should still be applied equally either way, which means not deciding whether or not someone has to pay the court costs on a case by case basis depending on the mood of the bailiff that day.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on April 05, 2016, 02:25:34 PM
I wish you'd just said that before so we could have saved some time. If what you're saying is that any breach of the law in this case should be attributed to the provider rather than the client then that makes sense, although I'm not sure how the law would accord with your preference. If the woman goes in not knowing the type of abortion she wants is illegal and the doctor performs it anyhow I can see how one would argue that she's done nothing wrong since it was the doctor who broke the law without the woman being aware of it. However if the woman intentionally goes to a shady doctor because she knows it's illegal and they do it, how do you square that with only him being guilty of breaking the law? Or are you saying they're both guilty but he should be punished while she should be reprimanded in some more lenient way?
More clear? That was the context that you initially disputed that I was responded to.

As for how the law would handle it, that's simple- you writhe the law to say "It is illegal to _provide_ an abortion" not to say "it is illegal to _get_ an abortion"

Quote
Al, it seemed to me you were agreeing with Pyr that equal treatment isn't fair or just when that treatment disproportionately harms the poor, for instance, as it does in the case of various court costs in cities.
Disproportionate harm _is_ unequal treatment. That's what "disproportionate" means.

Quote
The issue then is not to apply the law unequally in order to benefit some class of people who were suffering, but rather to change that law so it ceases to produce unequal results when applied equally. But it should still be applied equally either way, which means not deciding whether or not someone has to pay the court costs on a case by case basis depending on the mood of the bailiff that day.
That's nonsensical, because it basically asks for an impossibility. You cannot write a rule that accounts for all situations, and it would be almost impossible to understand one that attempted to do so. Instead, you set the baseline standard and intent of the rule down, then you use judgment and discernment to figure out how best to execute the intent in any given situation. that is the fundamental _puropose_ of the entire judicial system. If what you said was possible, we wouldn't need Judges at all, the police could just cross reference the rule and penalize you on the spot, rather than needing to appeal to a system of intelligent, human judgment to determine what is just in any given case.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Wayward Son on April 06, 2016, 10:30:44 AM
You know what's the problem with Trump?  He's too giving.  He gives and gives and gives, even when we don't want him to give any more.  He just can't help it.

His latest gift?  His plan on how to make Mexico pay for the wall with Mexico.  Trump wants to stop Mexicans from sending money to their relatives in Mexico. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-would-seek-to-block-money-transfers-to-force-mexico-to-fund-border-wall/2016/04/05/c0196314-fa7c-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html)

Quote
Donald Trump says he would force Mexico to pay for a border wall as president by threatening to cut off the flow of billions of dollars in payments that immigrants send home to the country, an idea that could decimate the Mexican economy and set up an unprecedented showdown between the United States and a key regional ally.

One can just imagine the Boarder Patrol checking cars going into Mexico for illegal stashes of cash.  Of registering wallets for the amount of money in them, so we can know it was used to purchase items rather than sent to relatives.  Of people being frisked for bank slips or Western Union receipts to make sure they didn't send illicit funds to families.  ::)

You can almost hear the political cartoonists and late-night comedians now.  "Please, Trump, no more!  We can't handle all this material!  No more gifts!" :)
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on April 06, 2016, 10:49:05 AM
Quite honestly, my big fear is that Trump at this point has indeed jumped the shark and ruined his chances of winning the nomination.  Think of it as death by 1000 bites.  He polls worse among every single demographic category than Clinton (or Sanders), meaning that he would get schlonged big time if he managed to be the GOP candidate in the election.  But if we lose him to Cruz, then we will have Cruz to deal with.  I expect that he would also lose by a landslide, but the outcome is less certain than it would be with Trump.  All I can hope for in that case would be for Trump to fire up his troops and run as an independent.  If Clinton were the Democrat in a 3-way race, all of Trump's votes would come from Cruz.  If Sanders is on the ticket, Trump would draw votes from both him and Cruz, which would also make the outcome a bit less certain.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: D.W. on April 06, 2016, 10:55:57 AM
First:  I thought when he suggested stopping people from sending cash back to Mexico he meant wire transfers not, cash in a brown paper bag in a vehicle...

Second:  There is nothing stopping Trump from telling the nation he didn't mean any of that stuff in the primaries and immediately reversing his positions to appear more mainstream.  It won't convince those who were defiantly voting Democrat but it may get a lot of independents who aren't thrilled with the option for Hillary either. 

And what does Trump gamble?  Does anyone seriously think his followers would feel betrayed?  Even those who did, couldn't be convinced he was just doing what it took to win; are they really going to vote against him because of it?  Or even stay home?  Doubtful.

AI:  do you mean if Sanders was ALSO running as an independent?  Or do you mean if it was Cruz, Trump and Sanders as the nominee?
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on April 06, 2016, 11:40:53 AM
Quote
AI:  do you mean if Sanders was ALSO running as an independent?  Or do you mean if it was Cruz, Trump and Sanders as the nominee?
I meant if Sanders is the nominee instead of Clinton.  There is 0% chance Sanders will run as an independent.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: D.W. on April 06, 2016, 11:50:20 AM
I didn't think that sounded plausible either...
But, neither did the idea that Bernie wouldn't do better than Clinton (rather than the implied vulnerability of loosing independents you seemed to be suggesting), so I figured I'd ask.

Voters don't care that Bernie is an independent in Democrat's clothing.  It's a distinction without a difference to them.  The people who care are the Democratic "team" who he is not a loyal supporter to and don't get the same rising tide raises all ships effect they get with Hillary.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on April 06, 2016, 12:12:56 PM
I agree that rank and file Democrats won't see Sanders as an interloper, but Trump supporters tend to "value" his outsider status.  So I think he'll take votes from Trump if it's head to head, but could either win or lose votes to Trump if it's a three-way with Cruz.  He'd win voters from Trump in that scenario who don't think that Trump is "electable" as an independent, but that notion has even more cognitive dissonance than them liking Trump to begin with.  As a result I would predict that Trump as an independent would likely steal more votes from Sanders than the other way around.

I was listening to a radio show this morning where the hypothetical question was asked of the expert panel of political analysts whether the Republican establishment would be any happier with Cruz as the candidate than they are with Trump.  They didn't have much of an answer, except to say that at least he has a platform.  I wonder what goes on in the minds of GOP faithful who think that Democrats are an inferior race but know that they don't really stand a chance of winning the election because through their policies they are thought of as somewhere between fools and evil.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: LetterRip on April 06, 2016, 12:26:04 PM
In a 3 way race, Trump might still beat Clinton.  There are a lot of blue collar democrats who will vote for Trump and there are a lot of anti-Clinton Republicans who will vote for whoever looks like they have the best chance of beating Clinton.  Plus a lot of Independents and quite a few Democrats stay home if Clinton is the candidate.  It isn't how many votes you win, it is how many delegates you win, and Clinton is extremely vulnerable in the 'rust belt'.

All of the polls showing Clinton winning are using 'likely voter' weightings from previous years, which completely ignore the blue collar vote from Democrats and Republicans because they have stayed home the past 5 elections.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Pyrtolin on April 06, 2016, 12:41:13 PM
Quote
If Sanders is on the ticket, Trump would draw votes from both him and Cruz, which would also make the outcome a bit less certain.
That's not true at all. Sanders vs Trum and Cuz will pick up a lot of the middle that would prefer someone honest that they disagree with over the other two because of their extremism, even if trump tries to tack to center. On the other hand, there are a number of boneheaded Sanders supporters that are actually anti-Clinton voters that will absolutely go for Trump or even just let Cruz win in hopes that they'll be bad enough to set up a mid-term revolt (without any regard for others who will take damage in the meantime) The situation is even more grim for Clinton if the GOP pulls a rabbit out of its hat and squeezes Kasich or Ryan in, even with Trump spoiling.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: AI Wessex on April 06, 2016, 01:32:44 PM
Kasich is the most viable (i.e., electable) GOP candidate, but Trump and Cruz won't change the rules to allow him into the second ballot.  That means that the second ballot will be a 2-man race between Trump and Cruz, so unless delegates are allowed to abstain one of them will win.  I'm not going to check since the convention rules are so byzantine, but Kasich may be eligible on the 3rd ballot, but I don't think Ryan would be eligible until the 4th or even 5th ballot.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Wayward Son on April 06, 2016, 02:02:57 PM
Quote
First:  I thought when he suggested stopping people from sending cash back to Mexico he meant wire transfers not, cash in a brown paper bag in a vehicle...

I was extrapolating as to what would happen after Trump stopped wire transfers.  You think people will stop supporting their families in Mexico?  They'll find other ways, like moving cash across the border and do the wire transfers from there.  At which point, Trump would have to up the ante... :)

A ludicrous imagine for a ludicrous proposal.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: D.W. on April 06, 2016, 02:13:25 PM
So the wall is in place, nobody who doesn't look like a fresh snowfall wouldn't dare go to Mexico for fear of not being let back in.  So we are talking reverse briefcase full of money coyotes?  Willing to bring your money across the border, wire it on and... bring you a receipt for a percentage?  :)

But ya, it gets pretty absurd fast to try and play out how Trump's plan would look in practice.  ;)
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Greg Davidson on April 07, 2016, 10:26:53 AM
I think that a Trump-Cruz ticket is a stable equilibrium. The combined numbers of supporters of Trump and Cruz can dominate the convention; why would the two of them allow any scenario that cuts them both out of the loop when they could combine instead? Clearly, such an alternate would be a deal that Trump could accept. Trump is 69 and Cruz is 45, so there's also multiple opportunities from such a deal for Cruz - he could spend the 2016 campaign building up favors from more of the establishment, and then with a win he's VP; with a loss he is the 2020 front-runner with limited stain since Trump would be blamed for the loss.

Have things have gotten too hostile between the two of them for such a deal? I don't think so - I think that Cruz at least could do a cost-benefit analysis and pick the path that best served his interests.

Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: NobleHunter on April 07, 2016, 10:52:06 AM
The GOP establishment wouldn't like Trump-Cruz any more than just Trump. That, plus Cruz not wanting to abandon his chances too soon, might mean by the time any such agreement was reached, enough delegates would be unbound to that their majority would matter less.
Title: Re: Trump, The Reality Show
Post by: Fenring on April 07, 2016, 11:42:03 AM
Have things have gotten too hostile between the two of them for such a deal? I don't think so - I think that Cruz at least could do a cost-benefit analysis and pick the path that best served his interests.

I don't think so either. The public animosity between them was purely manufactured grandstanding to make a splash. Whatever they think of each other in private, their previous temporary alliance shows that they are both willing to take whatever strategic steps are necessary to beat out the competition, whether that's being bff's or turning on each other when convenient. I also agree that this ticket would likely take the form of Trump-Prez/Cruz-VP, and based on their respective charisma I'm not even sure the other permutation would be logical. Cruz is known as being very smart but hated, which makes him good to have on the team but bad to have as the front man for the group.