Problematic Stuff

[Jason]

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal...

[Scot Dutchy]

Some more equal than others. There is no free speech in America. There are no civil rights. This illusion is put about by the right wing just to pursue gun ownership and takeover of society. Fear is the biggest weapon used by the alt-right. The fear of freedom is the greatest.

[Animavore]

This was brilliant.



The comments on this video are so hateful. Lots of triggered white men talking about how they're being discriminated against. But the show beautifully highlights what it's like to actually be discriminated against.

[Forty Two]

I defend the far right and the far left's respective rights to say what they want to say, and I find such individual liberty to be essential to the functioning of a healthy republic.

Oh, please. You only defend free speech when it comes from the far right bigots.

That is untrue, as I have always defended free speech even for political ideologies I loathe.

Benedict Donald might just be the most anti free speech president we've ever had.

So what? That has nothing to do with what I believe or my defense of free speech, which is content neutral. The Presidents tend to favor media that they get value from, and they tend to freeze out or oppose the media they don't like. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... vey-117140 “All hype and spin.” “Restrictive in every sense of the word.” “Cramped and windowless.” “Locked.” - quotes re Obama's dealings with the press.

And, the press thought Obama was the worst for press freedom when he was here. http://washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/obam ... story.html

The New York Times said so too - https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/p ... eedom.html

Few presidential candidates enjoyed better news coverage than Barack Obama in 2008. He promised unprecedented “openness in government” and a new era of transparency.

He appears to have fallen far short of the promise. This administration has prosecuted more whistle-blowers for leaks and gone after more journalists than any of its predecessors.

Why has this once-media-friendly administration turned? Insiders say it’s the pressure of the powerful national security apparatus and the fear among Obama aides that the president could face the wrath of the intelligence community if he fails to act tough.

The C.I.A. and others invariably contend that leaks imperil the nation.

The Obama administration has pursued more journalists than other administrations, secretly looking at phone records and credit card transactions and surreptitiously tracking their movements.

Newspapers? Well, Obama may be the least newspaper-friendly president in a generation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... b05445a74a



But, what Obama or Trump have done to freeze out media personnel they don't prefer to deal with, or the prosecution and surveillance of journalists, whatever - I don't support any of it. I'm for a broad free press, regardless of who is President.

[Forty Two]

The kind advocacy for limiting or removing the rights of others which I asked if society should condone and support was obviously that engaged in by certain white supremacists groups - those groups who agitate for the limiting or removing the rights for members of non-white ethnic groups. Although that might seem obvious within the context of the discussion, I'll ask the question again, and more specifically to avoid confusion, in the hope that it receives a more charitable reception.

42: Do you think society should support white supremacist groups' rights to advocate and agitate for limiting or removing the rights of those who do not fit their desired racial profile? The matter can also be addressed by considering if society should support Muslim groups' rights to advocate and agitate for limiting or removing the rights of those who do not fit their desired religious profile.

I think loading or tilting the question to refer only to "white supremacists" advocacy for limiting the rights of others renders the question unbalanced and unfair. What of black supremacists? Japanese supremacists (there are such in Japan)? What of non-supremacists of every stripe who advocate limiting the rights of others? Like when some extreme feminists advocate that men should be metaphorically at the back of the bus, and women be called on first, given the podium first, or that all men should be killed or that they should be taxed more just for being men?

I also think phrasing the question "society should support...?" is unfortunate, because society is not one thing. American society, for example, is well over 300,000,000 people, with many differing factions and viewpoints. Some parts of society are racist, some aren't. Which should "society" support? In what way?

Nevertheless, I don't want to be pedantic - and I will try to answer the question as posed as directly as possible.

But, the question as posed "Do you think society should support white supremacist groups' rights to advocate and agitate for limiting or removing the rights of those who do not fit their desired racial profile?" --- I answer the question as follows: I think that equal protection of the law means that white supremacists can "advocate and agitate" for whatever they want. Perhaps they want to legalize murder. Perhaps they want to amend the constitution to give white people greater rights. Yes, they have the right to ADVOCATE and AGITATE for these things. Advocate means to "publicly recommend or support." If that's what they think, then say it publicly. I'd like to hear the argument. The last thing I want is to drive that viewpoint underground as forbidden, which tends to empower it as a kind of "truth" that "they" don't want "us" to know. Shine the light of truth on it.

To "agitate" means to "campaign to arouse public concern about an issue in the hope of prompting action." Again, the white supremacists are and I think should be free to campaign to arouse public concern about any issue in the hope of prompting action. Whatever nonsense they want, they should be able to publish (in whatever publication will have them, or whatever publication they create), stand on soapboxes, march in the street, sing songs, carry signs, whatever.

You added - "The matter can also be addressed by considering if society should support Muslim groups' rights to advocate and agitate for limiting or removing the rights of those who do not fit their desired religious profile." I think "society" allows and should allow Muslim individuals and groups of individuals to advocate and agitate for limiting or removing the rights of those who do not fit their desired religious profile. That doesn't mean they aren't opposed by other ideas, advocacy and agitation. Rebuttal is free speech, too, as is ridicule and contempt. The distinction is between advocacy and agitation, vs. illegal or violent action. They can't hit people or threaten people with injury or death - except in generalized ways like carrying signs "death to the infidel" or "death to America" or whatever. Or they can walk around with signs saying "Islam will dominate the West" or whatever. Advocating that it would be a good idea if people suffered death for apostasy, for example, ought to be allowed. Taking overt action toward hurting people for apostasy, however, is not.

Christopher Hitchens said it many ways, including "I could make the case that it [freedom of expression] is the essential liberty, without which all the other freedoms are either impossible to imagine or impossible to put into practice."

Hardened by adulthood, they can always think of reasons to keep quiet and to keep others quiet as well. Should we, say, be able to discuss sex in print? Or publicly disagree with the government in time of war? Or offend the cherished ideas of others? The unfettered tongue and pen do not always produce results that make our lives easier or more comfortable.

https://www.rd.com/culture/christopher- ... of-speech/

My own opinion is a very simple one. The right of others to free expression is part of my own. If someone’s voice is silenced, then I am deprived of the right to hear. Moreover, I have never met nor heard of anybody I would trust with the job of deciding in advance what it might be permissible for me or anyone else to say or read. That freedom of expression consists of being able to tell people what they may not wish to hear, and that it must extend, above all, to those who think differently is, to me, self-evident.

Of all the things I have ever written, the one that has gotten me the most unwelcome attention from people I respect is a series of essays defending the right of Holocaust deniers and other Nazi sympathizers to publish their views. I did this because I think a right is a right and also because if this right is denied to one faction, it will not stop there. (Laws originally passed in Europe to criminalize Holocaust denial are already being extended to suppress criticism of Islam, as a case in point.)

But I could also argue it pragmatically. Hitler’s Mein Kampf is a book that is banned in some countries and very hard to get in others. But the rare translated edition I possess was published by a group of German exiles at the New School in New York in 1938. It is complete and unexpurgated, with many pages of footnotes and cross-references. The Fuhrer’s enemies considered it of urgent importance that everybody study the book and understand the threat it contained. Alas, not enough people read it in time.

Not enough people read it. I join Hitchens' view on this. I first read Mein Kampf when I was about 13 years old when I ran across it in the local public library. I took it out, and read the English translation. Awful book, poorly written (in its English form, at least). But it was freely available on the library shelf.

The trial of Socrates involved the charge that his way of thinking caused young people to disrespect the gods. During the trial of Galileo, his findings about astronomy were held to subvert the religious dogma that our earth was the center and object of creation. The Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee, involved the charge that Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was profane and immoral as well as untrue. We look back on these moments when the authorities, and often the mob as well, decided to blind and deafen themselves and others, and we shake our heads. But with what right? There are many contemporary threats to the principle and the practice of free expression. I would nominate the theocratic one as the most immediately dangerous.

Ever since the religious dictator of Iran sponsored a murder campaign against a British-Indian novelist named Salman Rushdie, this time for authoring a work of fiction, there has been a perceptible constraint on the way people discuss the Islamic faith in public. For instance, when a newspaper in Denmark published some caricatures of the prophet Mohammed a few years ago, there was such an atmosphere of violence and intimidation that not a single mainstream media outlet in the United States felt able to reproduce the images so that people could form their own view. Some of this was simple fear. But some of it took a “softer” form of censorship. It was argued that tender sensibilities were involved — things like good community relations were at stake, and a diverse society requires that certain people not be offended.

Besides, it’s much too easy to see how open-ended such a self-censorship would have to be. If I, for example, were to declare myself terribly wounded and upset by any dilution of the First Amendment (as indeed I am), I hope nobody would concede that this conferred any special privileges on me, especially if my claim of privilege were to be implicitly backed by a credible threat of violence.

See what he is saying there? Hitchens might find it hateful or wounding or injurous to have someone "agitate" or "advocate" for a dilution of his freedom of speech rights. Does that confer upon him a special privilege? Should that "advocacy of the limitation of rights of others" be censored to spare his injury? Would a violent response to such agitation and advocacy be justified?

The same objection applies to what is called hate speech. Here, again, there is no known way of gauging the influence of rhetoric on action. Try a thought experiment. Go back in time and force Sarah Palin, by law, to remove the “target” or “crosshair” symbols from certain electoral districts. Now are you confident that you will have soothed the churning mind of a youthful schizophrenic in Tucson, Arizona? I didn’t think so. Sane people can take a lot of militant rhetoric about politics. Insane people can be motivated by believing themselves to be characters in The Catcher in the Rye, a book I am glad is not banned.

The claim to possess exclusive truth is a vain one. And, as with other markets, the ones in ideas and information are damaged by distortion and don’t respond well to clumsy ad hoc manipulation. And speaking of markets, consider the work of the Indian economist Amartya Sen, who demonstrated that no substantial famine has ever occurred in a country that has uncensored information. Famines are almost invariably caused not by shortage of food but by stupid hoarding in times of crisis, practiced by governments that can disregard public opinion. Bear this in mind whenever you hear free expression described as a luxury.

In my career, I have visited dozens of countries undergoing crises of war or hardship or sectarian strife. I can say with as much certainty as is possible that, wherever the light of free debate and expression is extinguished, the darkness is very much deeper, more palpable, and more protracted. But the urge to shut out bad news or unwelcome opinions will always be a very strong one, which is why the battle to reaffirm freedom of speech needs to be refought in every generation.

[Seabass]

Trumpism... Canuck style!

WATCH: White man goes bonkers after spotting a Muslim family in public — and threatens to kill them
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/watch- ... tens-kill/

[Animavore]

Not sure where to put this.

[Jason]

This is why I don't discuss politics on Twitter...

I'm going to have to identify the illogic in your juxtaposition there. The second image should read as follows to be consistent:

If person A's ancestors steals all of person B's ancestors money and gives it to person C's ancestors, do person C's descendants have a moral obligation to give the money back to person B's descendants, even if person C's descendants did nothing wrong themselves.

Now, I'm not deciding that question (I've considered the first question and I'm inclined to vote yes), but let's keep things logical.

You're comparing a contemporaneous injustice in the first case and a historical justice in the second case. It is possible to hold different views on these questions.

[JimC]

Not sure where to put this.

As the bishop said to the actress...

[Jason]

Here's a link that might be helpful in informing opinion(s) on the question of historical injustice - it's even apt to the specific question!

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/1 ... -chapter-7

[Seabass]

The fat stupid orange quisling-in-chief is fucking the planet in the ass, but the small tax break he gave me will cover groceries for a few months so WORTH IT!

Under Trump, federal agencies halt reviews of toxic pesticides that endanger wildlife
https://www.revealnews.org/article/unde ... -wildlife/

BORING, Oregon – Right under the highway and wedged between a plant nursery and an auto manufacturer, a toxic trickle flows. This tributary of the Clackamas River is hardly an inviting sight. Once clear and gurgling, its muddy water barely moves, and plastic bags bunch along its shoreline.

Suzi Cloutier clambers toward the water’s edge, dipping a bottle into the creek. She pulls it out, murky and dripping, taking care to keep her hands away from the rim.

“It’s for the sample’s protection, not mine,” she half-jokes over the roar of 18-wheelers and minivans.

Cloutier routinely tests waters in the Clackamas River Basin, home to threatened and endangered species of Chinook and Coho salmon. Last year, every one of her samples from this tributary tested positive for multiple pesticides.

Salmon in this river – and throughout much of the Pacific Northwest – have dwindled from an onslaught of threats, including dams and overfishing. Scientists say pesticides from nearby farms are pushing them closer to extinction.

“It’s like kicking them when they’re down,” Cloutier says.

Under the Obama administration, the government began reviewing the impacts of all pesticides on the nation’s approximately 2,300 endangered and threatened species. Two days before President Donald Trump took office, federal officials issued a preliminary report on three highly toxic and popular agricultural insecticides, concluding that they threaten the survival of nearly 1,800 species protected by the Endangered Species Act, including 18 types of salmon.

Now, under the Trump administration, these reviews have ground to a halt.

Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting has uncovered a close relationship between pesticide companies and federal agencies, mirroring a pattern the Trump administration has followed with many other regulated industries. The pesticide industry has spent years trying to fend off regulations designed to protect endangered species. Under Trump, it is succeeding.

continued:
https://www.revealnews.org/article/unde ... -wildlife/

[Sean Hayden]

Trump is trying to fuck the environment, but local authorities are ignoring him in places...why, given the left leaning nature of the west coast can't they ignore him too?

They have no excuse, do they?

[JimC]

Trump is trying to fuck the environment, but local authorities are ignoring him in places...why, given the left leaning nature of the west coast can't they ignore him too?

They have no excuse, do they?

I'm not sure about your laws, but perhaps if a state banned a given pesticide, the company making it could more easily fight the ban in court than if it were a federal ban?

[Seabass]

Trump is trying to fuck the environment, but local authorities are ignoring him in places...why, given the left leaning nature of the west coast can't they ignore him too?

They have no excuse, do they?

Hopefully they'll pass protections at the state level. Or maybe it's federal land. Dunno.

[Sean Hayden]

Trump is trying to fuck the environment, but local authorities are ignoring him in places...why, given the left leaning nature of the west coast can't they ignore him too?

They have no excuse, do they?

I'm not sure about your laws, but perhaps if a state banned a given pesticide, the company making it could more easily fight the ban in court than if it were a federal ban?

The feds have to want to fight to ruin the environment. I'm betting they don't have the "heart" for that fight.

--//--

Isn't a big part of the reason the US at the federal level is so frustrating that it seems psychotic to have major policy like environmental policy do a possible 180 with every new administration? I used to joke that a deep state had to exist or we'd have failed a long time ago for that very reason.

I don't believe our attitudes change that quickly. We've been moving towards environmentalism for several decades now, and while the move has been resisted the whole way that resistance is far less today than it was. So, Trump and his party don't mind playing mad and flipping policy all over the place, but if they can't manage to change our direction, or force us to give them more power and time, then they are doomed to fail.