As an EU citizen, I feel this is pretty much a no-brainer. Politics based on compromises between parties, rather than single-party majorities, slows the political process down and it definitely opens the door for a whole lot of different issues, but it kinda works. Switching from extreme to extreme every 4/8 years feels like it's just going to increase political polarization until societal cohesion breaks and something bad happens.
Yes, we Europeans whine a lot about the EU and there's a shitload of things that need to be improved about it, but the last few years' circus on the other side of the Pond has convinced me that the alternative isn't that much better.
When viewed from a dispassionate distance I feel that the desire for 'political expedience' is a major factor in the extreme polarization of US politics today.
I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left.
In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”.
dunk on the other tribe
Anecdotal.
There are tens of millions of GOP voters, I have many friends that support GOP, non of them is a fasict.
i'm not from US - we've got a multiparty system that seems to kind of work - but I've done one of those political alignment tests for parties, got a result, and then proceeded to do a political alignment test for politicians. None of the folks I was supposedly aligned with were members of the party I was aligned with best. make of that what you will.
No, its full of corporatocrats [0]. Corporatism [1] is a political position (Wikipedia calls it an “ideology”, but it may be better to be viewed as a facet of ideology found in lots of very different ideologies; e.g., fascism includes corporatism as a component), but its not one that is particularly popular among Democrats, either in leadership or the base, neoliberal or progressive (though there definitely is a progressive corporatism that has some support.)
All of them?
All of them?
This is not, however, a violation of free speech, even if you believe in the general concept that a private company should allow dissenting opinions on its platform. This user has violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" exception to free speech, which even the most ardent supporters of the concept admit is important to protect.
These private institutions aren't perfect, and judging if speech breaks the one exception to the moral concept of "free speech" is hard. We'll get it wrong. The alternative, however, is to let the panic incited to occur unabated, which seems substantially worse.
The US president, perhaps the one with the most platform and audience and reach, couldn't even summon a properly armed militia, it was only a small group of mostly unarmed rioters. Their best efforts achieved precisely nothing: they did not seize any power, they did not hold any territory. It wasn't even a battle. Far from an insurrection, it was just some smashed windows and an instagram moment and now they're all in jail. Calling what happened an armed insurrection is factually inaccurate, even if a few of the rioters brought weapons.
If platform and reach are proportional to messaging effectiveness (the presumption that this sort of censorship makes) then everyone else's efforts along these lines (who isn't the president of the United States) will be substantially less effective than even this massively ineffective display in DC.
Let them squawk. Misinformation and lies simply aren't that dangerous, otherwise we would have had to ban the church centuries ago.
Americans are inundated constantly with bullshit messaging from large, powerful organizations. They aren't nearly as malleable as the pro-censorship people seem to think they are.
This isn't a legal opinion but a personal one: people who decide unilaterally for other adults what they should be allowed to read or see are assholes.
My web host is in many senses like my ISP: I don't pay them to editorialize.
In the US there is already a huge and well- (and perhaps over-)funded machinery for investigating and enforcing the law. If the laws are being broken, why not let them handle it? (This has the added benefit of applying the existing body of legal wisdom regarding state censorship.)
If the laws aren't being broken, what's the problem?
What are corporations allowed to do then, in your mind?
If gigantic multinationals and infrastructure providers stop hosting anything that might be unpopular or generate bad PR, then we quickly approach a world where the tyranny of sheep logic[1] (not what people think, but what people think other people think) will dictate the very narrow range of what products, services, media, literature, and art are available.
That world sucks and we should avoid it.
This has already mostly happened for concert venues in the US, as well as video hosting.
Already we've made a world where the basic human unclothed form is all but outlawed except in clinical (or apparently yoga) settings online. I don't think there's any upper bound to what a culture can contort into believing is unacceptable.
Wouldn't another definition of "sheep logic" just be "society", and don't we kind of all agree that society (though not without drawbacks) is vastly superior to no society?
This argument feels like frustration with the price we pay for allowing others to exist alongside us.
Having non-mainstream beliefs or opinions isn't illegal, and I don't think people should be losing their accounts and data for things that aren't illegal.
We already take that approach for public utilities; your water can't be shut off because of your political affiliation or membership in some unprotected class like BDSM practitioners.
Perhaps web and infrastructure hosting (app stores and communications systems (ie social media) included) should be approached in a similar fashion.
The pro-trumps will raise the question: "what are the other-side so afraid of, that they are trying to shut us off?" So instead of calming them down, it'll actually have the opposite effect - the feeling that the other side is much more evil than imaginable.
And the questions for bystanders will be "If the powers-that-be can snuff that side, what guarantees that I/we won't be snuffed?"
If you see the foundations of democracy, 'Freedom-of-speech' is actually a device to ensure no political party can have dictatorial powers over what the public can know. Moreover, democratic societies are actually more resilient due to these 'room-to-wiggle' - the other option will be much more violent 'revolution' experienced by dictator-states at their end.
Anyway, the other side is producing gibberish, then so be it. Just refute them properly inside a shared platform.
The problem is that you're not really addressing the actual issue, which is whether or not I can enter into agreements or not contingent on my own actions.
If I can, then it's fair for the other party of that agreement to exercise that part of the agreement and end our relationship. If I can't, then I'm not allowed agency over my own actions, nor is the other party...
Are you suggesting that groups shouldn't create terms of use that are contingent on how a service is used?
A service can today kick you off without your having ever violated the terms of use they publish.
To answer your question, our society presently restricts several types of businesses from either offering or not offering service to certain groups in various circumstances. This wouldn't really be any more of a stretch than preventing the electric company from denying you service.
But what I hear you saying is that society should not allow people to enter into agreements that would be conditional on what they use that service for, is that right?
If so, I strongly disagree.
I should be allowed to enter into agreements based on how I behave, and I expect people I enter into agreements with to abide by what they claimed they'd do, including if they agreed ahead of time that it was up to me to evaluate their behavior and judge for myself when to stop allowing them access to my service.
To deny me this right would be a violation of the concept of ownership, which I believe is a critical aspect of modern society.
This is a different discussion if you don't think people can own things (which is a fair argument, though I would have disagreements as well).
President Trump, however, played his role well. He refused to call in the military to end the insurrection, giving the rioters several hours to run rampant though the Capitol of the world’s biggest military power.
To compromise is the reaction any troll by original definition aims for. And it didn't even work to achieve any goal.
So, you have banned some controversial users. What now?
The issue is that if Twitter can't qualify how people use their site, then they're losing agency over a resource they spend a lot of time and effort maintaining. They'd have to operate at a loss for the good of the people who use it.
Should the US government run a public version of Twitter? Maybe the UN, even?
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
I agree.
> It’s probably impossible to do away with the career politicians since they are specialists
Again I must emphasize that it is not the career part of this that is the problem. The only alternative that doesn't involve career politicians is electing amateur ones who have no experience navigating the political landscape.
> I think we should do more to keep them accountable like selecting a group of people whose task is to both directly observe and petition elected officials.
I could envision a system like that that I could support but there'd be a lot of complications to work out. We should probably have something like that for police too.
> Basically solving the problem of politicians being so far removed from the people by bringing a sample of the people to the politician
This I just find kinda funny, since that's already how it works. You can get a meeting with your senator or congressman directly, though it isn't easy. Talking to one of their staff is pretty doable. Letters and phone calls are low-effort, but of course they also count for a lot less. The term "special interest groups" gets bandied about frequently in derogatory fashion, and while it does include corporate lobbyists it also covers hobby clubs, activist groups of various kinds, and trade unions, all of which make their cases to senators and congressmen on behalf of their members (which may include you). And of course your locally elected officials also meet with them about their concerns.
Again, wanting a representative who is not experienced at politics to represent you is kinda like wanting a lawyer who isn't experienced at practicing law to represent you. Or a doctor who isn't experienced at medicine to treat you.
What I'm saying is, I think you've latched on to the wrong quality as a focus of your ire. People being career politicians is not the problem, it's people being corrupt power-seeking assholes. That's a difficult problem to solve, I know, which is why it is so tempting to blame the problem on something easier to solve, but I think that sentiment is one pushed largely by career pundits to manipulate people.
Can you explain the compromise possible between "fighting the COVID 19 death toll should be based on science" and "Fauci should be beheaded"?
Replacing Fauci with someone more scientific and less political would probably qualify.
Fauci is one of the most qualified and well respected scientist in the field - who had worked for democrat and republican presidents alike.
Which scientist who is both "more scientific" and "less political" would qualify in your view? How would you assess this?
Right, and he politicized the response to COVID-19 and we don't care if he used to be awesome, we want someone who will put evidence over politics.
> Which scientist who is both "more scientific" and "less political" would qualify in your view?
Probably someone who would be more evidence oriented. I don't have a short list.
> How would you assess this?
By comparing their public statements and actions with those of other physicians, immunologists, and the evidence.
I'm not convinced that its technically correct to call Bannon a terrorist or call his words a threat. So your hyperbole has estopped your criticism of Bannon's hyperbole.
> So your meet in the middle position is, just to be clear,
My meet in the middle position is that a scientist needs to be evidence-based and open to the possibility of his own error. I was disappointed in how Fauci handled the diversity of opinion and the mask issue. He went on the cover of In Style magazine and vainly refused to wear a mask. Masks are important and this magazine cover is seen by millions yet he declined the opportunity to set a proper example.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
I've long been convinced that this is true, thanks.
By putting politics over science.
> "an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984"
His resume means no one in the professional world is more scientific? He couldn't have possibly put politics over science because he has degrees and a job?
> Seriously, do you even pay attention to what you regurgitate?
I'm not sure why you're so confident but its entirely possible for scientists to play politics.
Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left?
> Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise?
What consensus and compromise do you want when the President of the US wants to "find" the votes or when calls the rioters good people and we love you?
>Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left?
I really am befuddled at the inability of people to avoid beng taken in by bad faith arguments like this.
It is exceedingly difficult to understand your position that this represent a 'bad faith argument'.
The comparison is one comparing the role played. It not a comparison of one's opinion of the person playing the role.
I really am befuddled at the inability of people to be taken in by bad faith arguments like this.
I remember the internet at the time used to feel like there were tons of Truthers that would argue and argue on all sorts of forums. Where did all those people go anyway?
In these interviews, he indicates that there are reasons to believe that Bush administration had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. These statements came long before the "28 pages", which removed any doubt that there was a cover-up after the fact and provided more evidence that Bush and his terrorist friends organized the whole thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRNti8P_o-I
I'm for banning anyone who's inciting violence like what we saw at the capital regardless of political leaning, so it's not a rhetorical question
I want to know who to report
Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected these cases.
Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected the case because there is nothing there.
And yet, even after Barr released his summary of the report, 84% of Democrats and 41% of Independents believed that Trump had colluded with the Russians.[2]
Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians. If the past is any guide, many of you will attempt to defend the lie by replying with distracting "whataboutisms" regarding Paul Manafort, or obstruction, or what have you, willfully ignoring the fact that that *the overwhelming majority of Democrats* were, less than two years ago, convinced of a lie that is eerily similar to right's lie-de-jour regarding the results of the 2016 election.
[0]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/schiff-... [1]https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2... [2]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/des...
And yet, the vast majority of adult human beings do this everyday, multiple times per day, without any regard for whether others think they should or not.
No that is wrong. "The investigation found there were over 100 contacts between Trump campaign advisors and individuals affiliated with the Russian government, before and after the election, but the evidence was insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy"
> Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians.
Many of you also believed that Hillary was responsible for Benghazi and Republicans wasted millions of dollars and time on that investigation and yet she was not guilty.
> replying with distracting "whataboutisms" regarding Paul Manafort
So he and many other broke the law and went to jail for that, why is that a bad thing. Why did Trump pardon them though?
How many people in the US went to jail because of the Benghazi investigations?
Mueller did not say that Trump was innocent, why didnt he say that?
The fact that presidential advisers, among the US Senators, former diplomats, and foreign advisors, had contact with foreigners is not surprising in the least. I'd be happy to discuss any specific contacts that you find to be troublesome, though.
> Many of you also believed that Hillary was responsible for Benghazi and Republicans wasted millions of dollars and time on that investigation and yet she was not guilty.
The Benghazi investigation was undeniably an attempt, in part, to damage Hillary Clinton politically. The question of who was "responsible" for Benghazi is a matter of opinion. The question of whether there is evidence for Trump-Russia collusion is one of fact. That's an important difference.
Another important difference is the fact that the the lie-de-jour of the right--that the 2016 election was stolen--is currently being panned as anti-democratic, fascist, a danger to the very fabric of our nation, etc, etc., and we're told that his is because it is undermining our sacred institutions. Well if that's the case, it's odd that nobody seemed to give a shit that the Democrats did the exact same thing four years ago. After all, the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians is effectively the same lie--it's simply a different side of the same coin. This is very different from the Benghazi issue, which is, at worst, a run-of-the-mill political hatchet job.
> So [Manafort] and many other broke the law and went to jail for that, why is that a bad thing. Why did Trump pardon them though?
I never said that it was. Criminals should, of course, be punished. But this has no bearing on my point about Trump-Russia collusion, which is why I specifically mentioned it as a distraction. As for the pardons, who can say why Trump does what he does?
> How many people in the US went to jail because of the Benghazi investigations?
No idea...?
> Mueller did not say that Trump was innocent, why didn't he say that?
Who cares whether Mueller himself said Trump was innocent? In a system where the accused are innocent until proven guilty, his report said it for him. "[The report] did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the fact that almost 90% of Democrats were still convinced of the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians, and how that differs from the current right-wing mania about the 2016 election, which affects a much smaller proportion of the country.
This sentence is not from the Mueller report, but is from Bill Barr's summary of the Mueller report, which a federal judge characterized as "misleading" and "substantively at odds with the redacted version of the Mueller Report". https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6796353-barr-ruling....
As myself and others have noted, you need to read the actual Mueller report and the Senate Intel Committee report before engaging on this topic further.
For example, the idea that no one in the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians flies in the face of the finding in the (Republican lead) Senate Intel report which shows that Trump's campaign chair was transmitting internal campaign data to a Russian intelligence officer.
Paul Manafort, why is Trump's campaign manager talking and sharing data with Russian agents?
Roger Stone, again why was he coordinating with Assange to leak those hacked emails?
> After all, the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians
His people did collude with Russia though?
> But this has no bearing on my point about Trump-Russia collusion
How is that a distraction, his people did collude.
> As for the pardons, who can say why Trump does what he does?
You can say that Trump pardoned those people who went to jail for him and did not go against him. Why didnt he pardon Cohen because he went against him.
> almost 90% of Democrats were still convinced of the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians
Again his people did collude with Russia and went to jail and Trump pardoned, his son also met with Russians, are you saying those facts did not happen?
> The Benghazi investigation was undeniably an attempt, in part, to damage Hillary Clinton politically.
Many Republicans believe that Clinton was guilty because of that.
I asked what kind of messages the Russians used to influence people on large scale for the election - silence ensued. This is ridiculous, like in a cult.
This is plainly US propaganda at its finest.
I find some Russian espionage operations in the report. It was actually US Americans that told me to expect such things when their mass surveillance went public. I did not find anything too relevant.
I encourage you to actually read the report.
"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."[1]
Note, "collusion" and "conspiracy" are different things. Conspiracy is used in the legal sense here and requires a meeting of the minds between Trump and the Russian Government (i.e. Putin). That didn't happen, and even some of the most ardent pushers of the collusion idea didn't believe that happened. But collusion is a more nebulous term (not a legal term) that, for many, was used to indicate a tacit agreement between the two groups to arrive at a mutual goal - electing Trump. That is absolutely what happened. When we say there was "collusion" and you point out there was no "conspiracy", therefore we are wrong, that's a straw man.
Also note that while this says the investigation did not establish the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russians, this is not entirely accurate. Trump did put out public statements to the Russians (famously "Russia, if you're listening"), and the Mueller report found that, in fact, there was direct response from Russian hackers to that call in the form of attempted hacks on Hillary Clinton. The Special Counsel didn't consider that "coordination" because it was in public, but.... I mean the evidence is there.
A final note, there is stark difference between "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign..." and "the investigation established that members of the Trump Campaign did not...". The former is not a conclusive statement. You seem to be basing your opinions as if the report contains the latter statement.
Remember, Bill Barr put out the second half of that sentence and held back the full Mueller Report from the press so that part would cycle around to news orgs and people would repeat it ad infinitum. A federal judge characterized Bill Barr's summary and public statements as a "misleading" and "lacking candor" (so when you repeat what the AG did by leaving out the first half of that sentence, which really changes the tone and impression left on readers, perhaps take note of how this reflects on you).
"The speed by which Attorney General Barr released to the public the summary of Special Counsel Mueller’s principal conclusions, coupled with the fact that Attorney General Barr failed to provide a thorough representation of the findings set forth in the Mueller Report, causes the Court to question whether Attorney General Barr’s intent was to create a one-sided narrative about the Mueller Report — a narrative that is clearly in some respects substantively at odds with the redacted version of the Mueller Report"
"The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary." [2]
Remember, this is a person who has seen more of the report than you or I have, and he seems to think what Bill Barr wrote is "substantively" inconsistent with what's written behind those black boxes.
Oh, and the other thing you left out is the entire second half of the Mueller report. The first half concludes that the investigation was incomplete due to obstruction from the Trump campaign in the form of lying, destruction of evidence, witness tampering, dangling pardons, and trying to fire the investigators themselves. You can't cite the Mueller Report as a conclusive authority without also acknowledging the Trump campaign and Trump specifically obstructed the investigation repeatedly.
> Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians.
Can you blame us? The Republican lead Senate released a report which shows that Trump Campaign manager was funneling internal campaign data to a Russian Intelligence Officer [3], while the GRU were busy hacking Trump's opponents. The Mueller report showed that Trump's family was meeting with a Russian spy at Trump's home and Trump lied about it. We also learned from Michael Cohen that Trump was attempting to build a Trump Tower Moscow with a penthouse dedicated to Vladimir Putin, and Trump lied about that as well after telling us he had 0 business in Russia and his campaign had 0 contacts with Russians (there were over 100 contacts). What conclusion are people supposed to draw?
As soon as this bit of info from the Republican lead Senate Intelligence Committee gets cleared up, I'd love to hear how the Trump campaign was completely innocent in 2016:
> The Senate Intelligence Committee assessed that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's "high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services" was a "grave counterintelligence threat". The foremost individual was Manafort's employee Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian. The committee identified Kilimnik as a "Russian intelligence officer"; describing that Manafort and Kilimnik had a "close and lasting relationship" even through the 2016 election. Manafort repeatedly tried to "secretly share internal Campaign information with Kilimnik", including "sensitive internal polling data or Campaign strategy".
> The Senate Intelligence Committee introduced a new allegation regarding Kilimnik, that he "may have been connected" to the Russian military intelligence's hack and leak of Democratic Party material. However, the report's discussions on this topic are redacted. Manafort's connection with the Russian hack and leak operation is "largely unknown", but possible, given "two pieces of information" the committee found; the details of such information were also redacted. [4]
[1] https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-sea... (The actual Mueller Report)
[2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6796353-barr-ruling....
[3] Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election, Volume V.
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...
Steve Bannon was arrested for fraud and, while on bond, used his podcast to call for beheading Fauci and FBI director Wray and putting their heads up on pikes. The both sides-ism doesn't work when one person is suggesting upholding the law and the other routinely suggests killing people who they disagree with politically.
>“Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man... I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you’re gone – time to stop playing games.””
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading...
It's also hard to compare the two as Olbermann is a sports presenter turned Political Opinion show host while Bannon was the head of a news organization, became head of a party's Presidential campaign and then served in the White House. I'm not sure there's any insider who has made anything close to the kind of unsubstantiated rhetoric Bannon has or used their journalistic positions (rather than Opinion show) in the way he has. There are a few podcasts by former Obama staffers but I can't recall any of them ever calling for murder.
Oh yeah, he hasn't.
You'd have to go considerably further out.
So, when you say "Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise?", in my opinion that already goes against what conservatives and right leaning people value. An individual having to compromise for "the greater good" goes against their core values.
Now, I do think that life is more complex than simply choosing one side. Because life isn't necessarily copatible with "human rationality". Sometimes there are situations where it is more rational to be hypocritical or sometimes it is more rational to let conflicting opinions exist.
I think it comes down to what humans learn at a young age and in school. If we were able to focus more on ethics and helping people find a purpose to live at a young age already, it would make a big difference.
The right values order and stability even if at the expense of those at the bottom.
I don't think either side is against compromise but first each side has to see where each other is coming from and that there is some value in the opposite view.
Demonizing and miscaracterizing the opposite view, and failing to actually see why they think how they do, is a big problem right now.
As another outsider, I get the impression US conservatives are selective about the groups they consider worthy of those rights and freedoms. They oppose women's choice to abort. They oppose rights and freedoms for immigrants. They came out in support of cops who had violated rights of their own african-american citizens.
1) "Pro-life" conservatives believe that fetuses are human lives (persons) worthy of protection and prioritize that over the right of the mother to control her own body. That might sound bad, but there is a logic to it.
"Pro-choice" advocates would argue that the fetus is not a person and that ultimately the mother should have full rights to her own body. Leaving aside the argument about the definition of personhood, outside of cases of rape (even among pro-lifers opinions differ on whether or not that changes anything), the mother had engaged in activity fully cognizant that creating a human life was a possible outcome. By engaging in the activity anyway she can be said to have accepted the risk and that acceptance further diminishes her right to avoid the consequences. Pro-lifers would argue the right to life of the person (fetus) outweighs the mother's right to control her own body in this circumstance. There are of course many other arguments to be had either way because this issue is an enormous one and is ultimately about many fundamental philosophical issues.
2) Anti-immigrant conservatives would argue that immigrants (specifically illegal immigrants, mind you) are not citizens of the United States and therefore do not have many of the same rights as citizens of the United States. The argument is largely over which rights are inalienable human rights and which are rights exclusive to US Citizens. They would further argue that illegal immigrants are actually criminals by virtue of being here illegally and restricting the rights of criminals is not exactly unprecedented or unreasonable.
3) Conservatives would argue that many[0] of those cases are not being reported factually, and that the officers involved were not actually violating the rights of those citizens unduly.
What I'm trying to say is, the selection is not arbitrary.
[0] Floyd is not among these. At least I can't find anyone who makes a good-faith argument why that wasn't basically straight-up murder.
I hear things like this, and I think it would be great if corporate policy in general were appeal-able to the government the banned person resides in. People get put into corporate jails and excluded from service wrongly all the time. That's a conversation I'm willing to have. But the like of Bannon and Giuliani have just been fleeing from platform to platform as their detestable ideas and statements finally catch up with the strong stomachs of advertisers. The government shouldn't be overriding private corporations who make an ethical objection in the face of boycott, without a very clearly laid out due-process.
I'd strongly suggest taking a harder look at the systems like HN, and consider how-- for example-- the posting speed it encourages works against you in this respect.
E.g., what made you write "equivalent person on the left" since that turns out not to be a relevant detail to you?
I think the system here-- like Twitter et al-- encourages posting too quickly in this context. Sure, it works great if I'm just complaining from memory about the SVG spec or something. If I get it wrong, someone will call out the error and I can double-check the spec and confirm the mistake.
But it's a royally bad idea wrt large political issues like this one. Instead, the entire system should go slower in general, encouraging one to reflect on their current knowledge and current blind spots before finalizing a post. That process could even be piecemeal over the period of days. A UI could easily be designed that makes it an enjoyable process to slowly build a post out of more meaningful little "lego-like" blocks.
To me there's a frightening disconnect here on HN. A significant portion of the users know about or perhaps even work on dark patterns like recommendation algos where one can fairly accurately predict the number of users who will fall down into conspiracy rabbit holes. Yet with HN's opaque posting/sorting/scoring system that knowledge goes down the memory hole; for some reason "personal responsibility" always seems to stand in for any serious attempt at analyzing the system.
Edit: clarification
I can't name democrats who facilitated ilegal insurrection in regards to this past election, but I can name democrats who facilitated illegal insurrection against their own communities after the George Floyd incident. The democrats who refused to call out rioting and looting (as a separate incident from the peaceful protesting), those who called for the short-sighted defunding of police departments in cities with high crime (look up the uptick in shootings and murder in NYC after the city removed $1 billion from the police department) have meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection in their own communities, in my opinion.
I agree that Bannon does make egregious comments, but I tend to think the media blows his comments out of proportion. Due to his military background, he often uses war analogies, which make for the detestable quotes you mention. For example, in the Fauci "head-on-a-pike" comment that he made, it was clear to me that he was not suggesting for folks to literally murder Fauci. He was suggesting for an example to be made out of Fauci by removing him from power. It's similar to when athletes say they want to "kill" the opposing teams. Regardless of this, I agree with you that comments such as the one I mentioned are in bad taste.
On the other hand, left-leaning celebrities who posted picture depicting Trunp's dead body (e.g. Snoop Dogg) did not seem to face similar consequences from big tech.
I think it takes a particularly steelman interpretation to see the content of Giuliani's "trial by combat" speech as not insurrectionist.
“So let’s have trial by combat! I’m willing to stake my reputation, the president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there.”
> last summer
Sure, there are democrats who turned too much of a blind-eye to violence over the past summer. But I find it fallacious in the extreme to equate reducing a police budget with insurrection. For the particular New York exception, the budget cut to NYPD came to about 10% of the budget, which very closely tracks New York's budget shortfall as a result of the Covid exodus from the city (12% budget shortfall) [0].
> head-on-a-pike
“I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I’d put the heads on pikes. I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats,” he explained, as Media Matters for America first reported.
“You either get with the program or you’re gone ― time to stop playing games,” Bannon added. “Blow it all up.”
“That’s how you win the revolution,” Bannon said. “The revolution wasn’t some sort of garden party. It was a civil war.”
Even when one takes that statement as charitably as you do, it doesn't help the level of discourse.
> Left leaning celebrities
I said upthread, I believe we should be moving corporate moderation etc into a local government due process. IMO the Texas DA (for example) should be able to ask Twitter to moderate a statement like that, and have the moderation heard in court. But Snoop Dogg doesn't hold nuclear codes, or hold the ear of the person who does.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-city-budget-police-d...
If the content is criminal to knowingly carry, they can. (And not just “ask”, they can notify Twitter and inform them they will file criminal charges otherwise.)
If its lawful content, law enforcement at any level has no business getting involved, that’s kind of the point of the First Amendment.
But Twitter also isn’t (unless it has a contract in place obligating it to someone) required to carry any content, just because they aren’t legally prohibited from doing so. That’s also what the First Amendment is about.
> But I find it fallacious in the extreme to equate reducing a police budget with insurrection.
It's not just the reduction of the NYC police budget that I am referring to as insurrection. It's the post-George-Floyd rioting, and the extreme comments made by certain leaders of these movements that I see as insurrectionist. In many cities across the country, government buildings were vandalised/looted, the Portland Federal courthouse set on fire being an example [1]. In another example, Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of the BLM organization, has referred to herself and another co-founder as "trained marxists", and cites Mao Tse-tung as political inspiration [2][3]. In another case, the BLM Chicago organizer Latrell Allen publicly supported looting, likening it to a form of reparations [4]. And, I want to be clear, I am not criticizing entirety of the BLM movement, simply the factions that have made extreme statements or engaged in violence. Would you classify these as insurrectionist as well?
> the budget cut to NYPD came to about 10% of the budget, which very closely tracks New York's budget shortfall as a result of the Covid exodus from the city
Even taking into the consideration the budget shortfall, the NYPD was defunded significantly out-of-proportion in regards to other agencies. In fact, from your quote alone, it seems like the NYPD bore the entire brunt of the NYC budget shortfall. So even though there was a budget shortfall, I would still consider the NYPD to have been intentionally defunded. FYI, here are statistics on the NYC crime rate after the budget cuts [5].
> But Snoop Dogg doesn't hold nuclear codes, or hold the ear of the person who does.
Yes, thank you, Snoop Dogg indeed doesn't hold the nuclear codes, but celebrities and Hollywood in general holds influence amongst the population, and they certainly hold the ears of politicians as well.
> Even when one takes that statement as charitably as you do, it doesn't help the level of discourse.
I don't think I'm taking the statements charitably, I'm trying to separate analogy from intent; however, I agree that such rhetoric certainly doesn't help discourse. I would even go on to say that in the ears of extremists, such rhetoric is dangerous and provocative. But, in the Bannon quotes you mentioned, I personally don't interpret him as speaking in a literal sense. As someone who occasionally tuned into Bannon's show, Bannon's ultimate objective seems to be to take down the CCP. Since we are already engaged in a political/cyber/information war with China (which hopefully doesn't escalate into a kinetic war), Bannon tends to frame everything leading up to a confrontation with China with war analogies. But again, such rhetoric will not help his cause, and I agree that it can be dangerous.
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/police-declare-riot-...
[2] (go to 7:03 for the quote) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCghDx5qN4s&feature=emb_titl...
[3] https://www.dazeddigital.com/politics/article/39587/1/black-...
[4] https://www.wbez.org/stories/winning-has-come-through-revolt...
[5] https://abc7ny.com/nyc-crime-shooting-nypd-defund-the-police...
Shouldn't you be? It's kind of important to defending him...
> In fact, from your quote alone, it seems like the NYPD bore the entire brunt of the NYC budget shortfall.
That isn't how percentages work. Say NYPD is 20% of the NYC budget, a 10% cut to NYPD would be 2% of a cut to the entire budget.
1. The left is generally good; the right is generally evil.
2. The goal of leftists is equality and harmony for all. The goal of rightists is to eliminate Jews/blacks/LGBTQ/etc.
3. Leftist rhetoric must be taken at face value, or at least as innocuously as possible; rightist rhetoric must be treated as a secret coded dogwhistle message that actually calls for war, genocide, or other unspeakable horrors. When a rightists uses conflict-related metaphors they are certainly to be taken at face value, whereas a leftist going on about "slicey bois" is certainly not a threat.
4. Accordingly, leftist violence must be considered either the relatively harmless or completely justified actions of a single individual or relatively small group of individuals with no coordination larger than a single cell taking place ("antifa is not a group, it's an idea"). Rightist violence must be considered to be highly coordinated, with individual attacks receiving secret coded dogwhistle instructions, directly or indirectly, from the top thought leaders on the right including the POTUS if he be Republican. ("stochastic terrorism").
5. Therefore, leftist violence is to be grimly tolerated at worst -- hopefully actively supported and encouraged as an essential step toward a more just society. Rightist violence is to be met with swift punishment not just for the offender, but their family, pets, and anyone caught displaying any sympathy for them. Anyone questioning the narrative that these are terrorist operatives taking orders from the top are to be shunned and shut out of decent society by decent people, and certainly not allowed to communicate.
I make no statements as to the truth or falsity of the above.I think it's a bit more nuanced than the extremes of either side will care to admit. But these are the rhetorical rules you have to deal with because if you don't, louder voices will drown you out and eventually shun you.
The power matters, burning down the government is different than burning down a Wendy’s.
No one was planning the looting of a store three weeks in advance, and this is a really large difference being a riot representing the (unproductive) language of the unheard, and an insurrectionist plot.
The nightly riots in Portland and other cities were planned and organized in advance through messaging and social apps as well as with physical posters. You can find the screen caps and photos online if you look. There were also several instances where groups of people were arrested after crossing state lines to attend riots. Both sides have bad actors and no one is absolved. The main contention here seems to be that many people rightly want the law applied equally to both sides but there is a clear bias evidenced by the amnesia or blindness that people seem to be suffering regarding the last year.
If people just went to a protest expecting some possible light violence, I don't see how that's comparable. Would you make OWS or G7 protests illegal because people going there rightly expect tear gas and batons?
However, while there certainly were some riots in the summer done out of spontaneous rage, there certainly were planned events as well. For example, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle, which lasted 3 weeks:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/7/2/21310109/ch...
Also the 100 consecutive days of protest in Portland, where the federal courthouse was set on fire:
https://apnews.com/article/b57315d97dd2146c4a89b4636faa7b70 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8z0jFxOmFo&ab_channel=Bloom...
As for the peaceful protesters on Capitol Hill, I think they tend to be a bit misunderstood as well. These folks often get grouped into the extreme right, but in reality, they are moreso moderate people who face a harsh economic reality caused by the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, the automation of jobs, and losing jobs to regulations. They also seem to be the population most affected by the Opioid epidemic. However, the left-wing media has an agenda that is increasingly focused on identity politics, and not the economic realities that they face. Instead, these folks are constantly painted as racist, uncultured, and extreme by the left-wing media. So lots of them are left with no choice but to support Trump in spite of his delusions, not for them. So I personally don't paint the entirety of the MAGA crowd as the enemy; many are reluctant supporters.
But again, the insurrectionists and the violent protesters at Capitol Hill should be punished. But for sake of consistency, perhaps we should also be also outraged at the riots that occurred this past summer, especially the ones that caused loss of life and/or damaged government buildings?
This is facilitating illegal insurrection? And NYC is your example...
Surely this could have nothing to do with covid and the whatever else but a 112% increase in shootings must be the consequence of a budget cut of a bit more than 1%.... Have you perhaps considered who it is that is registering this uptick in crime and drawing the connections? Why it was the insanely high to begin with. Like what? Do their janitors earn a million yearly?
Not having a slightly less mindblowing budget is not meaningfully facilitating illegal insurrection it's slightly more sane fiscal policy
The topic is complicated, COVID + "Defund" + Other topics increasing crime in NYC.
To me, the crime is high due to the unfortunate realities of inner city gang culture. Yes, historical factors cannot be ignored, and yes, police misconduct also does exist. Police reform is necessary, but a $1 billion budget cut ignores the reality of urban crime, and seem to cause a greater net amount of deaths, and the victims will unfortunately be mostly black/brown. Listening to a few of the chart-topping, yet violent rap songs should give an unfortunate indication of the current state of gang culture, and why the police provide an imperfect-yet-needed check to gang members.
But on the other hand, why would COVID cause an increase in shootings/murder? I could understand if there was an uptick in robberies, but from the data I’ve seen, the uptick is in shooting and murder.
The related lockdowns and such could play a role. I wasn't putting it forward as the sole factor but to me it seems more likely that this among other things like the police reporting differently because they're mad playing a bigger roll in a bloody 112% increase. That's a whole lot you realise that right?
Which brings me back to some of those questions left unanswered:
How do you tie a bit more than 1% decrease in budget to a 112% increase in shootings?
Do you have any reasonable argument for that?
Why do they spend such a ridiculously insane amount per employee, in total or however which way you want to calculate it?
Can you justify this given the results?
When one side is being banned for not meeting a standard, "both sides, both sides" is an extremely valid argument.
Why do we not treat our general discourse similarly? Why don't we demand a minimum threshold based on, say, the same criteria we use in a court of law: internal consistency, causal-based, preponderance of evidence, etc. If one can't meet this minimum threshold then the others incur a penalty: being robbed the time and attention for those ideas that meet and exceed the threshold.
That is certainly true for the "left". In quotes because I am not from the US, but the effect he had is very obvious.
I am curious how the next term plays out. What would they even complain about?
If so, can you lay out the case for me? Even just a few links for me to check out would be good. Comments like yours, here on HN, would lead me to the conclusion that Trump is the most dangerous leader to come along since the bad old days of the 20th century. And I just don't see it.
He just incited followers to do a coup. How come don't you see that as him being the most dangerous leader of the modern era?
The "coup" was a joke by any standard, the only reason it became such a big deal is because DC cops allowed the rioters into the Capitol instead of doing their job. I for one would've liked to see tear gas and rubber bullets but those were worryingly absent.
-bavell