American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS (Archive)

[MBates]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

it's kind of sad. the university should invite everyone and the students learn about all views good and bad

Quoted for the profound simplicity.

In court on occasion it is extremely difficult to sit and listen to one of my opponents speaking at length about something while misrepresenting the law or the facts of the case. Or sometimes they are not doing either of those things but just urging an outcome I seriously disagree with.

But I don't get to yell loud and stop them from speaking.

Poor advocates interrupt to complain to the judge or make faces or sigh out loud during the submissions.

The best advocates sit quietly and listen intently. You try to both limit your outward showing of emotion and control and channel your visceral responses into an objective and fact based devastating reply. The shorter and more pointed the better.

People can be made to change their minds in this format. Watching an ideology or an argument fail to withstand scrutiny in a fair war of words makes it harder to believe in.

Making your opponents go home after having shouted them down fighting like the world would end if their words were spoken out loud only serves to cement in their minds how correct they already knew they were. Oh, and you martyr them in the process.

The 'liberal' schools and their students should be actively seeking conservative far-right-speakers to come to engage in debate. If their views are so wrong then it really ought to be easy to demonstrate.

If hateful and bigoted internet views are too prevalent in today's society I suggest we need more open debates against them at universities and any other 'legitimate' stage (isn't the legitimacy of the stage dependent on it being one of free exchange and debate of ideas not one censored by the current majority world view?).

Less public debate means the hate-filled bigots will stay in their bubble and develop more extreme views. They will not go home and talk themselves out of their internet-fueled ideologies. If you publicly debate them you at least have a chance to make that happen.

And as an aside, I find it pretty odd that university professors would complain about being on the front-lines of fact-checking and dispelling objectively wrong theories to help shape minds through responsible discourse. What did they hope to be able to do when they became professors? It is sort of like a NHLer complaining about being in the Stanley Cup Final because of how annoying it is that the other team tries to score on like EVERY shift. Do you have a more important job to do in your chosen profession?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by New Era

This is a good point, but only if it is a university scheduled event. As a guest lecturer my work must meet rigor. A guest speaker as a invitee of a club, does not. When it is a club event the school's reputation isn't supposed to be lent to the presenter, but I can see how it would work, just because they get to put on their resume they spoke at this institution. I guess the difference is understanding the contrast between guest lecturer and guest speaker.

That was my theory: unsophisticated or casual observer wanders onto university campus and observes Alex Jones speaking and therefore concludes that Alex Jones' id as have some sort of academic legitimacy.

I'm just not sure how serious this issue is.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by MBates

Quoted for the profound simplicity.

In court on occasion it is extremely difficult to sit and listen to one of my opponents speaking at length about something while misrepresenting the law or the facts of the case. Or sometimes they are not doing either of those things but just urging an outcome I seriously disagree with.

But I don't get to yell loud and stop them from speaking.

Poor advocates interrupt to complain to the judge or make faces or sigh out loud during the submissions.

The best advocates sit quietly and listen intently. You try to both limit your outward showing of emotion and control and channel your visceral responses into an objective and fact based devastating reply. The shorter and more pointed the better.

People can be made to change their minds in this format. Watching an ideology or an argument fail to withstand scrutiny in a fair war of words makes it harder to believe in.

Making your opponents go home after having shouted them down fighting like the world would end if their words were spoken out loud only serves to cement in their minds how correct they already knew they were. Oh, and you martyr them in the process.

The 'liberal' schools and their students should be actively seeking conservative far-right-speakers to come to engage in debate. If their views are so wrong then it really ought to be easy to demonstrate.

If hateful and bigoted internet views are too prevalent in today's society I suggest we need more open debates against them at universities and any other 'legitimate' stage (isn't the legitimacy of the stage dependent on it being one of free exchange and debate of ideas not one censored by the current majority world view?).

Less public debate means the hate-filled bigots will stay in their bubble and develop more extreme views. They will not go home and talk themselves out of their internet-fueled ideologies. If you publicly debate them you at least have a chance to make that happen.

And as an aside, I find it pretty odd that university professors would complain about being on the front-lines of fact-checking and dispelling objectively wrong theories to help shape minds through responsible discourse. What did they hope to be able to do when they became professors? It is sort of like a NHLer complaining about being in the Stanley Cup Final because of how annoying it is that the other team tries to score on like EVERY shift. Do you have a more important job to do in your chosen profession?

My first thought: judicial and quasi-judicial forums in Canada have a lot of rules that have developed (over hundreds of years) for the sole purposes of fairness and truth-seeking. Therefore, these forums (hopefully) provide a relatively even battleground for ideas and arguments to fight it out. I'm not sure that these ad hoc guest speaker lectures provide the same.

Not saying that I disagree with your underlying point but I think there are some legitimate challenges in this area.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by MBates

In court on occasion it is extremely difficult to sit and listen to one of my opponents speaking at length about something while misrepresenting the law or the facts of the case. Or sometimes they are not doing either of those things but just urging an outcome I seriously disagree with.

False equivalency is false. In court you have very specific rules of conduct by which you are expected to follow. Failure to comply would lead to contempt charges and a fine or jail time. This is what happens when you have an ultimate authority figure in the room who has the power to judge behavior and adjudicate penalties on the spot. That doesn't exist in the classroom. Instructors are but a cog in the machinery, and one that the administration will throw under the bus before a paying customer.

But I don't get to yell loud and stop them from speaking.

Yet students have that ability. They can become disruptive in the classroom/theater and the only way to diffuse the situation is to immediately debunk their points. I hope you can appreciate that a lesson plan which has a 65 minute lecture in a 75 minute class is greatly impacted by time consuming interruptions. To put into your context, how effective would your opening or summation be if you were constantly interrupted by the gallery or the jury?

Poor advocates interrupt to complain to the judge or make faces or sigh out loud during the submissions.

And this, and worse, is exactly what lecturers must endure in the classroom.

The best advocates sit quietly and listen intently. You try to both limit your outward showing of emotion and control and channel your visceral responses into an objective and fact based devastating reply. The shorter and more pointed the better.

So do the best students. Unfortunately, there are students very much like Stephen Miller who are there to disrupt more than learn. When you try to make them accountable they just launch a grievance and the administration does what it can to placate the individual and move them along, just so they don't have to deal with the lawyers.

People can be made to change their minds in this format. Watching an ideology or an argument fail to withstand scrutiny in a fair war of words makes it harder to believe in.

That's what you hope, but when you have 30-100 students in a room, all with expectations of learning the subject matter in question, you have to try and stick to the lesson plan, which as stated, is difficult with a disruptive force in the room. Many times there is no option to ignore these people.

The 'liberal' schools and their students should be actively seeking conservative far-right-speakers to come to engage in debate. If their views are so wrong then it really ought to be easy to demonstrate.

How about the conservative students keeping their yaps shut, respect the classroom, the other students, the faculty, the school, and the process?

If hateful and bigoted internet views are too prevalent in today's society I suggest we need more open debates against them at universities and any other 'legitimate' stage (isn't the legitimacy of the stage dependent on it being one of free exchange and debate of ideas not one censored by the current majority world view?).

Less public debate means the hate-filled bigots will stay in their bubble and develop more extreme views. They will not go home and talk themselves out of their internet-fueled ideologies. If you publicly debate them you at least have a chance to make that happen.

I completely agree. We need more of this. Just not in classrooms not focused on rhetoric. I love debate, so long as rules are observed. When they can't play within the rules, which includes presenting these things called facts - not lies - then debate breaks down to nothing more than a pissing match.

And as an aside, I find it pretty odd that university professors would complain about being on the front-lines of fact-checking and dispelling objectively wrong theories to help shape minds through responsible discourse. What did they hope to be able to do when they became professors? It is sort of like a NHLer complaining about being in the Stanley Cup Final because of how annoying it is that the other team tries to score on like EVERY shift. Do you have a more important job to do in your chosen profession?

I hope you can appreciate there is a time and a place for being put on the front line and having to engage in fact-checking. The lecture hall should not be that place. As I said, how effective would you be at presenting your case if the gallery were able to just shout out ignorant noise during your presentation or examination? Do you think the jury would be open to accepting your theory of the case if gallery were shouting out conflicting and erroneous information at their whim, and the judge allowed it? I love fact-checking papers and engaging students during office hours, but in a room full of other students, that is not the place to be airing your views on the subject matter, unless asked by the facilitator. A time and a place for everything. Unfortunately these student don't believe in these rules or protocols. This is part and parcel in many classrooms these days.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Makarov

My first thought: judicial and quasi-judicial forums in Canada have a lot of rules that have developed (over hundreds of years) for the sole purposes of fairness and truth-seeking. Therefore, these forums (hopefully) provide a relatively even battleground for ideas and arguments to fight it out. I'm not sure that these ad hoc guest speaker lectures provide the same.

Not saying that I disagree with your underlying point but I think there are some legitimate challenges in this area.

I get your point for sure. But I guess what I am advocating is universities should not find themselves looking back on hundreds of years of a developed practice of 'he who screams with the most approved voices wins'. I fear state-approved thought and belief systems far more than I fear legitimizing a racist or a bigot by letting them speak.

(Noting by the way, if they do not speak at a college forum they are still racist bigots just less non-racist non-bigots know about them).

Instead we need to openly embrace these controversial debates. Add some rules and procedures if you need to, but why are we teaching an entire generation of people to fear words?

And in this particular case, there was a professor prepared and loaded to try to dismantle the so-called bad-guy. It sounded to me like a major missed opportunity and speaking personally I am only more interested now in what the bad-guy was supposed to say that was so evil it could apparently not be allowed to be spoken even with a vocal opponent being part of the discussion.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by MBates

Add some rules and procedures if you need to,

And when those rules are not followed? Then what?

but why are we teaching an entire generation of people to fear words?

We aren't. We encourage debate. We encourage thoughtful discussion. We encourage people to research issues, look at matters from all perspectives, and come to conclusions based on the facts. Sadly, some students don't believe in the ideals of a liberal education and would instead prefer to fight against anything that does not comply with their perspective.

[rubecube]

I find it amusing how conservatives have duped liberals again by trying to frame this as a free speech issue. These people don't give a crap about free speech but will hide behind it when it fits their agenda to do so.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by New Era

How about the conservative students keeping their yaps shut, respect the classroom, the other students, the faculty, the school, and the process?

...


I hope you can appreciate there is a time and a place for being put on the front line and having to engage in fact-checking. The lecture hall should not be that place. As I said, how effective would you be at presenting your case if the gallery were able to just shout out ignorant noise during your presentation or examination? Do you think the jury would be open to accepting your theory of the case if gallery were shouting out conflicting and erroneous information at their whim, and the judge allowed it? I love fact-checking papers and engaging students during office hours, but in a room full of other students, that is not the place to be airing your views on the subject matter, unless asked by the facilitator. A time and a place for everything. Unfortunately these student don't believe in these rules or protocols. This is part and parcel in many classrooms these days.

Well, I guess I had no idea that the problem was way worse than I could imagine and we have allowed screaming idiocy to replace respectful debate on campus both in and out of the classroom.

But with all respect why allow it? Disallow it and take every single complaint to 'administration' and win it with reference to the academic and non-academic misconduct policies of the institution.

There is no way the type of disruptions you are describing are 'allowed'.

Expose it and stand against it or you are in fact facilitating it.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by New Era

And when those rules are not followed? Then what?

PM me. I will provide pro bono service to fight to restore order in the lecture hall. All I need is a client willing to fight to uphold the decorum required for freedom of expression to work properly.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I find it amusing how conservatives have duped liberals again by trying to frame this as a free speech issue.

Invited speaker and guest are going to give a lecture, thugs prevent them from doing so. Those are simply the facts of the event, it's not a matter of "framing" them a particular way. There may be other aspects to this, but the prevention of public discourse is the part that matters most from where I stand.

And who are these mysterious arch-conservatives who are pulling the wool over everyone's eyes by "framing" this as anything from behind the scenes? Authors from the noted right-wing think tank that is The Atlantic? Or Bloomberg, which published its own rebuke?

This is pure paranoid delusion.

EDIT: Incidentally, here is the statement of principles that Middlebury's faculty (to their great credit) put together in response to this incident. See if you think they see free speech issues as being implicated: https://www.wsj.com/articles/middleb...ple-1488846993

Originally Posted by Middlebury Statement of Principles

The principles are as follows:

• Genuine higher learning is possible only where free, reasoned, and civil speech and discussion are respected.
• Only through the contest of clashing viewpoints do we have any hope of replacing mere opinion with knowledge.
• The incivility and coarseness that characterize so much of American politics and culture cannot justify a response of incivility and coarseness on the college campus.
• The impossibility of attaining a perfectly egalitarian sphere of free discourse can never justify efforts to silence speech and debate.
• Exposure to controversial points of view does not constitute violence.
• Students have the right to challenge and even to protest non-disruptively the views of their professors and guest speakers.
• A protest that prevents campus speakers from communicating with their audience is a coercive act.
• No group of professors or students has the right to act as final arbiter of the opinions that students may entertain.
• No group of professors or students has the right to determine for the entire community that a question is closed for discussion.
• The purpose of college is not to make faculty or students comfortable in their opinions and prejudices.
• The purpose of education is not the promotion of any particular political or social agenda.
• The primary purpose of higher education is the cultivation of the mind, thus allowing for intelligence to do the hard work of assimilating and sorting information and drawing rational conclusions.
• A good education produces modesty with respect to our own intellectual powers and opinions as well as openness to considering contrary views.
• All our students possess the strength, in head and in heart, to consider and evaluate challenging opinions from every quarter.
• We are steadfast in our purpose to provide all current and future students an education on this model, and we encourage our colleagues at colleges across the country to do the same.

A-####ing-men.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I find it amusing how conservatives have duped liberals again by trying to frame this as a free speech issue. These people don't give a crap about free speech but will hide behind it when it fits their agenda to do so.

Isn't their 'agenda' to espouse their far-right conservative beliefs? Is that not by definition a free speech issue?

While I don't identify as a 'liberal' am I one of those who has been duped? If so, as a dupe, can you please explain to me what went wrong and how I was tricked?

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by peter12

Case in point.

I don't mean to be insulting, but how is not a serious issue that posters continually attack opinions as being categorically evil, deserving of punishment, and then, discard them without addressing substance once.

You just did insult people with your condescending argument. And you don't want expect or want us to fire back? Yes liberals are politically correct. Perhaps that's why we take the 'high road' and straight up call you an idiot and a walking human rights violation. What else do you do when people like you deny fact, science and reality? I'm super surprised I haven't banned myself because of you and perhaps that day will come. Because I am furious at your statements and misguided propaganda, but my pc conscience causes me to fall short of flat out ripping you.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Donald J. Trump‏@realDonaldTrump
Buy American & hire American are the principles at the core of my agenda, which is: JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! Thank you @exxonmobil.

This is the guy who gets his suits and stuff for his hotels made in other countries, right? Including the steel to make the hotel itself in Vegas?

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

This is the guy who gets his suits and stuff for his hotels made in other countries, right? Including the steel to make the hotel itself in Vegas?

I'm sure what he meant to say was buy American and hire American (unless it's bad for your bottom line, in which case buy Chinese and hire Mexican because personal profit comes first), but Twitter only gives you 140 characters, sooooo....

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by calumniate

Because I am furious at your statements and misguided propaganda, but my pc conscience causes me to fall short of flat out ripping you.

First, you just called him an "idiot" and a "walking human rights violation", which is both hilarious and a bannable offense on here, technically speaking... but also more to the point, I think that conscience of yours is failing you.

But seriously, what has Peter said that makes you "furious"?

[Drak]

Was Ben Carson told to say that ridiculous stuff as another desperate distraction?

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

First, you just called him an "idiot" and a "walking human rights violation", which is both hilarious and a bannable offense on here, technically speaking... but also more to the point, I think that conscience of yours is failing you.

But seriously, what has Peter said that makes you "furious"?

Because he's accused the general cp base of being illiterate in the past.. he continually condescends under the guise of intellectualism. And now he's trying to say that we're incapable of holding an argument or debate because we're too pc? It's just such a super weird and combative stance. I'm just sick of the condescending tone he takes, especially given that he's saying he's 'sick of the insults' while at the same time calling people illiterate and incapable of thought or argument. That's quite an island of impunity to find oneself

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by MBates

PM me. I will provide pro bono service to fight to restore order in the lecture hall. All I need is a client willing to fight to uphold the decorum required for freedom of expression to work properly.

Great, another lawyer that thinks they can litigate anywhere they want to make the world comply with their ideals.

[photon]

North Korea was practicing to strike United States military bases in Japan with its latest barrage of missiles, state media in Pyongyang reported Tuesday, and appears to be trying to outsmart a new American anti-missile battery being deployed to South Korea by firing multiple rockets at once.

Kim Jong Un presided over Monday’s launch of the four missiles, “feasting his eyes on the trails of ballistic rockets,” the Korean Central News Agency reported in a statement that analysts called a “brazen declaration” of its intent to strike its enemies with a nuclear weapon if it came under attack.

“If the United States or South Korea fires even a single flame inside North Korean territory, we will demolish the origin of the invasion and provocation with a nuclear tipped missile,” the KCNA statement said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...742_story.html

---

North Korea complains to the UN Security Council

North Korea's UN ambassador, Ja Song-nam, said in a letter to the UN Security Council on Monday the US was using nuclear-propelled aircraft carries, nuclear submarines, nuclear strategic bombers and stealth fighters in the joint exercises that began on March 1.

"Consequently, the situation on the Korean Peninsula is again inching to the brink of a nuclear war."

Mr Ja again urged the Security Council to discuss the US-South Korea exercises and warned if it ignored North Korea's request as it had in the past it would demonstrate the UN's most powerful body was only a "political tool" of the United States.

The ambassador said the United States sought to convince public opinion that the joint exercise was a response to North Korea's nuclear weapons, but said the US and South Korea carried out military drills numerous times before Pyongyang possessed its "nuclear deterrent".

North Korea sent the letter on the manoeuvrers hours after North Korea fired four banned ballistic missiles earlier on Monday, in apparent reaction to the US-South Korean exercises.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-0...saster/8330554

---

North Korea said on Tuesday it has temporarily banned Malaysians from leaving the country to ensure the safety of its diplomats and citizens in Malaysia amid an escalating row over the killing of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's half-brother.

The North's foreign ministry has notified the Malaysian embassy in Pyongyang of the reason for the measure and said it had hoped the case would be swiftly and fairly resolved in order to develop bilateral ties with Malaysia, the North's KCNA news agency reported.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-no...-idUSKBN16E0BD

[Drak]

Pallin' around with terrorists?

The Trump Organization’s Azerbaijan partner supports Iranian terrorists, says the New Yorker


https://qz.com/925067/the-trump-orga...he-new-yorker/

A lengthy piece in the New Yorker reports that the Trump Organization conducted business with the family of Ziya Mammadov, Azerbaijan’s minister of transportation, in order to develop a luxury property in the capital city of Baku. Yet the Mammadov family has a “troubling connection,” author Adam Davidson writes: “For years, it has been financially entangled with a family tied to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which has been identified as a major supporter of international terrorism.”

...

Davidson suggests that the Trump Organization might have violated sanctions placed against Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard for conducting business with the Mammadov family. He quotes lawyers who were astounded by the Trump camp’s claims that the due diligence process revealed no red flags. It’s also possible that the Baku project violates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a law designed to prevent American companies from rewarding foreign governments in exchange for preferential treatment.