The New American Politics thread

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Suppose I make a science based case that we should stop all fracking. As a result, all the people in the fracking business lose their jobs. Should I be held responsible for the harms I caused to those people with my speech? If not, why should people you disagree with be held responsible, while people who you agree with no be held responsible.

Is there a science based case that Mexicans are rapists and criminals?
Is there a science based case that all Muslims are actually terrorists?

I'm not ever sure I've seen a more textbook example of a false equivalency.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Trump literally tried to paint the population of an entire country as rapists and criminals.

Always with the rhetoric. If you need to be inaccurate about your criticism of Trump, then it harms your point.

He did not say that. Read his actual comments on Mexico. Most people here appear to have not.

He said, at his speech:

- Mexico does not send their BEST people: they send their rapists and their criminals.

Now, I'm not here to say whether that is true, or not true. It doesn't seem reasonable to me.

But what he didn't say is: "literally the entire country of Mexico is rapists."

So much of what Trump says just gets spun up into hysterics.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Buster

Always with the rhetoric. If you need to be inaccurate about your criticism of Trump, then it harms your point.

He did not say that. Read his actual comments on Mexico. Most people here appear to have not.

He said, at his speech:

- Mexico does not send their BEST people: they send their rapists and their criminals.

Now, I'm not here to say whether that is true, or not true. It doesn't seem reasonable to me.

But what he didn't say is: "literally the entire country of Mexico is rapists."

So much of what Trump says just gets spun up into hysterics.

Until you defend your claims of Hillary as a warmonger (which good lord, is that ever rhetoric and hysterics if I've ever heard it) I honestly refuse to respond to another post you make double- or triple-ing down on your support of Trump's awful statements.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Lots of words in this thread defending a guy who incites hate against women, homosexuals.

Do you mean Muhammed?

[Buster]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Until you defend your claims of Hillary as a warmonger (which good lord, is that ever rhetoric and hysterics if I've ever heard it) I honestly refuse to respond to another post you make double- or triple-ing down on your support of Trump's awful statements.

need a hanky? lol

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Just to play devil's advocate, why shouldn't there be limits on free speech?

Ever since humans started banding together into communities, whether it be tribes, towns, nations and countries; there is an intrinsic social contract where you don't do things that are detrimental to the good of the community. These contracts have over time, manifested into laws. I think there is a pretty strong argument that some types of speech can have a huge negative impact on societies. At the same time, full censorship is detrimental as well. Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.

There shouldn't be limits on speech because nobody's ever offered an useful way of setting them in a way that can be applied consistently and not abused by those in authority.

This is why we place the responsibility on actions rather than speech itself.

Nevertheless, I'm not arguing that people should ignore the intrinsic social contract. Rather, I think that without legal restrictions, the social contract and resulting membership in the communities they are implicit in should be where speech should be policed.

A church, club, or other exclusive group should be able to tell it's members they have to agree with a certain code of conduct and dogma to stay members. They should not be able to tell other such what their members should abide by. I think the same is true for speech.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Trump's endorsement of Ryan (and McCain and Kelly Ayotte) was strikingly similar to many hostage videos. Now we'll see how his core reacts, in theory they should be pretty alarmed by laying down to the establishment.

Some comments about this from an uber-conservative site:

Looks like Trump has done a 180 and is now main stream republican. I and my wife will vote for him but that's it, no more money, no more work, no more anything but one vote each on November 8, 2016.
...
You know that Donald Trump got a good deal. We’ll see what it is.
...
He stood up and fought the establishment republicans. He won the primaries because he stood apart from the lifers. He is now supporting the people he fought against. Depressing.
...
Trump is being the bigger man in this issue. He’s extending the hand of peace.
...
Hopefully it'll be enough to squash the Khan story. The media has gotten way too much mileage out of that one at Trump's expense.
...
Indeed! Mr.Trump’s heart is not in this speech tonight. .....we all know him well enough to know this. He does not compromise.......I will not forsake him. I think he is struggling through this whole speech......he KNOWS the let down many are feeling.

GOD BLESS HIM But if anyone thinks the press will give him any kudos or stop demonizing him.......we know they won’t He knows they won’t. Let’s just get him Elected!

The basic sentiment is "ugh ... still voting for him."

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Is there a science based case that Mexicans are rapists and criminals?
Is there a science based case that all Muslims are actually terrorists?

I'm not ever sure I've seen a more textbook example of a false equivalency.

Please just answer the question.

Your assuming I'm making an equivalency where I'm not making one. You should note I didn't say anything about the quality of the science, or how strongly it was based on science.

Climate denialists, 911 truthers, Deepak Chopra and the like also make science based cases. It's just the science is either not good, cherry picked, or poorly applied.

I'm making the equivalency around likely false or at least exaggerated, but sincerely held beliefs that the person holding them think they hold for rational reasons.

Further, you don't have to make the case that all Muslims are actually terrorists. You only have to make the case that enough of them are. You can definitely make a science based case that is the case. Indeed, many conservative website have done just that. A science based case doesn't mean it's automatically a good case.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

That's akin to singing Mussolini's praises as a train schedule planner and ignoring his other actions.

BTW, in reality Mussolini didn't even get the trains run on time. (To any significant degree. Won't bore you with the details. Essentially it was just Fascist propaganda.)

The Nazis weren't really great logisticians either. You can easily argue that both the Yanks and the Brits beat them in that game.

It's a fact I happen to like because it just underlines the actual point of the saying.

No good comes out of Fascism. Not even punctual trains.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Buster

need a hanky? lol

You whine of the anti-Trump crowd using rhetoric.

You use only rhetoric and conservative talking points in your attacks against Hillary.

Explain to me why Hillary is a warmonger, explain to me why Hillary is any less trustworthy than any other politician (and especially Trump). Explain to me why you will tie yourself in knots to defend Trump and refuse to look at anything past what Fox News says about Hillary.

Explain to me why it's important to overlook all of the awful things that Trump has done and said in his past, but at the same time you refuse to look past Benghazi and the emails to see Hillary's actual history in politics and the many good things she has accomplished.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Please just answer the question.

Your assuming I'm making an equivalency where I'm not making one. You should note I didn't say anything about the quality of the science, or how strongly it was based on science.

Climate denialists, 911 truthers, and the like also make science based cases. It's just the science is either not good, cherry picked, or poorly applied.

I'm making the equivalency around likely false or at least exaggerated, but sincerely held beliefs that the person holding them think they hold for rational reasons.

Further, you don't have to make the case that all Muslims are actually terrorists. You only have to make the case that enough of them are. You can definitely make a science based case that is the case. Indeed, many conservative website have done just that. A science based case doesn't mean it's automatically a good case.

Fracking is not going to end because of one study based on weak science.

Fracking hasn't ended despite actual science proving how bad it is. If fracking ever did end, it wouldn't happen for a very long time. It would likely be a slow regression in the way that the coal industry is slowly regressing. It would be sad that people would lose jobs, but if they're paying attention, they should see the writing on the wall and attempt to find jobs in another industry.

If this did happen, the science that would stop fracking would have to be heavily researched first, and it would have to be proven ad nauseum that the risks of fracking dramatically outweigh the economic benefits of it.

Thus, if the jobs lost due to fracking meant that many people didn't have their health destroyed by the dangers of fracking, it's basically a balancing act. Yes, people would lose jobs. Other people would regain drinkable water that didn't potentially give them cancer.

It's still a really, really awful argument in response to my original post.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Fracking is not going to end because of one study based on weak science.

Fracking hasn't ended despite actual science proving how bad it is. If fracking ever did end, it wouldn't happen for a very long time. It would likely be a slow regression in the way that the coal industry is slowly regressing. It would be sad that people would lose jobs, but if they're paying attention, they should see the writing on the wall and attempt to find jobs in another industry.

If this did happen, the science that would stop fracking would have to be heavily researched first, and it would have to be proven ad nauseum that the risks of fracking dramatically outweigh the economic benefits of it.

Thus, if the jobs lost due to fracking meant that many people didn't have their health destroyed by the dangers of fracking, it's basically a balancing act. Yes, people would lose jobs. Other people would regain drinkable water that didn't potentially give them cancer.

It's still a really, really awful argument in response to my original post.

So your saying that one person's rhetoric can never be enough to cause such an extreme reaction among the general populace to cause politicians to actually act on it. And that if it did, the people affected should see the writing on the wall and find a situation that better suits them.

If that's the case, why isn't that also true of Trump's speech?

Edit: Also, I haven't made an argument in response to your post yet. I've only asked questions based on a hypothetical scenario to get a better understanding of your actual position.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Oh, so your saying that one person's rhetoric can never be enough to cause such an extreme reaction among the general populace to cause politicians to actually act on it.

If that's the case, why isn't that also true of Trump's hateful speech?

Because it's not one person's rhetoric.

It's years of politicians using dog whistle rhetoric against immigrants and Muslims and blacks. Trump just skips the dog whistle and goes for the jugular instead. It's nearly two decades of thinly-veiled claims of Muslim=terrorist by GOP talking heads. It's years of villainizing undocumented immigrants. It's years of railing about black-on-black crime as if black people are just innately more violent, like the systemic racial issues in this country have nothing to do with the increased violence in their communities.

Trump is a very vocal mouthpiece for the same old crap that's been happening for years coming from the Republican side of the aisle.

EDIT: So using your analogy, just as it would take years and years of solid research to prove how awful fracking is, possibly with one blockbuster study that pushes down the final domino that would end fracking, in this scenario you have decades of thinly-veiled vitriol from the Right attacking Mexicans, Muslims, Blacks, Women, etc. Trump is just that last blockbuster to push down the final domino to make all that thinly-veiled hate-speech okay.

[sworkhard]

Oh, so it's not actually a free speech issue then (by which I mean an individuals right to speak freely)

Rather, you have an issue with the culture and beliefs that some people hold.

I'm puzzled how you propose to change minds on these topics without the use of free speech of all kinds, including, but not limited to the mocking, ridiculing, satirical and trolling kind and the well reasoned, good mannered kind.

Do you really think that telling people they can't talk about it like that because some people might get hurt will actually change the sentiments people hold about out groups they feel threatened by?

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Oh, so it's not actually a free speech issue then.

Rather, you have an issue with the culture and beliefs that some people hold.

I'm puzzled how you propose to change minds on these topics without the use of free speech of all kinds, inluding, but not limited to the mocking ridiculing kind and the well reasoned, good mannered kind.

I'm mostly taking issue with the idea that the only people concerned about that kind of rhetoric are whiny college kids who are afraid of ideas they disagree with, that it's the "PC Police" trying to keep people from speaking their minds. Because it's not about that, it's about the actual people who are being disparaged and the fact that those people are legitimately (and rightly) concerned for their safety.

I don't know what the answer is, nor how or if it's fixable, but it's about so much more than overly sensitive types on college campuses.

We've learned that it's not acceptable to call black people the n-word, why can't we learn that this kind of rhetoric is also unacceptable? I guarantee you that people still use the n-word in private and especially in their thoughts--but it's unacceptable in public now. It's not about being PC, it's about not being awful to other human beings.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Itse

The Nazis weren't really great logisticians either. You can easily argue that both the Yanks and the Brits beat them in that game.

Wildly off-topic, but I disagree with this point. Ian Kershaw's book The End:The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler's Germany makes it pretty clear the only way Germany managed to keep fighting so long (and effectively) was through staggering logistical genius on an almost unparalleled level.

https://www.amazon.com/End-Defiance-.../dp/0143122134

Really good book, I recommend it.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

EDIT: So using your analogy, just as it would take years and years of solid research to prove how awful fracking is, possibly with one blockbuster study that pushes down the final domino that would end fracking, in this scenario you have decades of thinly-veiled vitriol from the Right attacking Mexicans, Muslims, Blacks, Women, etc. Trump is just that last blockbuster to push down the final domino to make all that thinly-veiled hate-speech okay.

Would this seem like a reasonable rephrasing to you to match my focus? I'm not actually focusing on if fracking can be or actually is horrible, just the politics and speech around it.

So, using your analogy, just as it would take years and year of rhetoric and discussion to convince the majority of people of how awful fracking is, possibly with one blockbuster study, speech, or event that finally pushes down the final domino to end fracking, in this scenario you have decades of thinly-veiled vitriol from the Right attacking Mexicans, Muslims, Blacks, Women, etc. Trump is just that last blockbuster to push down the final domino to make all that thinly-veiled hate-speech okay.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

I'm mostly taking issue with the idea that the only people concerned about that kind of rhetoric are whiny college kids who are afraid of ideas they disagree with, that it's the "PC Police" trying to keep people from speaking their minds. Because it's not about that, it's about the actual people who are being disparaged and the fact that those people are legitimately (and rightly) concerned for their safety.

I don't know what the answer is, nor how or if it's fixable, but it's about so much more than overly sensitive types on college campuses.

We've learned that it's not acceptable to call black people the n-word, why can't we learn that this kind of rhetoric is also unacceptable? I guarantee you that people still use the n-word in private and especially in their thoughts--but it's unacceptable in public now. It's not about being PC, it's about not being awful to other human beings.

For sure, I think common decency and courtesy are important. I just think that the law and places that are known for or meant to cultivate freedom of thought and really important debate like universities aren't what should be enforcing speech codes and the like.

PC, identity politics, and the like apply just as much to the right as to the left. The are just applied in different ways. To the extent that PC is just another way of saying, don't be a dick, I'm fine with it. To the extent that it becomes intertwined with identity politics (In the how dare you have an opinion on that as a white man sense), I think it's harmful.

Also, this is off topic, but worth mentioning, I think members of both the right and left are perpetrating and partaking in victim culture, engaging in cry-bulling, and so on.

Perceptions of intent matters to people. Consider how people make a big fuss about safe spaces on campus, but don't have a problem with clubs and groups like WISE, for example.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by driveway

Wildly off-topic, but I disagree with this point. Ian Kershaw's book The End:The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler's Germany makes it pretty clear the only way Germany managed to keep fighting so long (and effectively) was through staggering logistical genius on an almost unparalleled level.

https://www.amazon.com/End-Defiance-.../dp/0143122134

Really good book, I recommend it.

I've at least some versions of those arguments, read the criticism and period eye-witness accounts, leaning on the side that the logistical genius of Nazis is wildly overrated. In short they had their successes and screwups.

Not going to die on that hill though, especially since the saying is about Mussolini, who quite definitely did not "make the trains run on time"

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

For sure, I think common decency and courtesy are important. I just think that the law and places that are known for or meant to cultivate freedom of thought and really great debate like universities aren't what should be enforcing speech codes and the like.

PC, identity politics, and the like apply just as much to the right as to the left. The are just applied in different ways. To the extent that PC is just another way of saying, don't be a dick, I'm fine with it. To the extent that it becomes intertwined with identity politics (In the how dare you have an opinion on that as a white man sense), I think it's harmful.

Also, this is off topic, but worth mentioning, I think members of both the right and left are perpetrating and partaking in victim culture, engaging in cry-bulling, and so on.

Perceptions of intent matters to people. Consider how people make a big fuss about safe spaces on campus, but don't have a problem with clubs and groups like WISE, for example.

I don't know that we're actually disagreeing on much here. There's a difference between a college campus being a place to challenge minds and opinions, and I'm not arguing against that at all.

I do take issue with a man trying to be President of the United States purposefully using hateful terminology that incites violence, that there's an entire 24 hour news network that claims to be "fair and balanced" that spews that same kind of speech, just slightly less obvious, that types like Limbaugh, etc are inciting their bases to hate various groups of innocent people.

There's a difference between a college professor challenging his students to think about something from another point-of-view and GOP leaders speaking of refugees as murderers-in-waiting.