American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Ped]

Laura Loomer is a vile human being.


She and Trump are probably spiritual soulmates.

[direwolf]

How bats*** crazy do you have to be for Marjorie Taylor Greene of all people to say that you're a problem.


Also, Greene's comments about how "this doesn't represent MAGA or Trump" are f'n hilarious.



https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/12/polit...aga/index.html

GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized far-right activist Laura Loomer on Thursday, saying that her “rhetoric and hateful tone” is concerning and a problem and “doesn’t represent MAGA as a whole.”



The comments from Greene, a Georgia Republican who has her own high-profile history of incendiary and inflammatory remarks, come after the congresswoman called on Loomer to take down an X post, in which Loomer said if Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, who is half Indian, wins, “the White House will smell like curry & White House speeches will be facilitated via a call center.”



Greene called the post “extremely racist,” and wrote in response on X, “This does not represent President Trump.”

[2Stonedbirds]

We need to restrict enshrined rights, so that people can't spread what we deem BS.

Also, Trump is banging Laura Loomer.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Rumours are that Trump and Laura Loomer are having an affair. On one hand it wouldn’t surprise me as they’re constantly together but she’s a homely woman and doesn’t seem like she’s the type to be his “chosen one.”

If Trump’s also screwing the country, does that make it a threesome?

Guess he finally got the hint from Ivanka.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

There are...it's called libel and slander.

Fox News knows all about them after the Dominion voting machine settlement.

The problem is, when the lies are produced like a fire hose, there aren't enough lawyers in the world to fight those battles, and it becomes hard to prove damages in a lot of cases.

Dominion had them dead to rights for a trial case. I understand why they settled but damn I wish that had gone to trial.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

As others have pointed out, there are laws against defamation, and there are also laws against inciting violence. Fraud is also a crime. So free speech absolutism is already not a thing and never has been, regardless of what the free speech absolutists would have you believe.

Like it or not, there is a line drawn somewhere (even in the most free societies) between allowed speech and disallowed speech. I think it should be drawn in a slightly different place from where it is now. Things like climate change, for example, (where there are entire mountain ranges of peer reviewed scientific journals backing the conclusion that climate change is real and due to human activities), should not be open to random ####wits spreading confusion and uncertainty on the topic.

Same thing with the big lie, that the 2020 election was supposedly stolen. No elected official should be allowed to spread that kind of rumor without providing evidence to back it up; continuing to spread that lie should be an complete disqualifier from ever running for office again.

As for the Barfleson segment regarding the debate, the problems I have with it are:

- saying Trump is a successful businessman, but failing to mention his 6 business bankruptcies and fraudulent charity and "university"
- saying he's a really sharp guy, without giving evidence of it
- didn't ask why Trump wouldn't have prepared for this debate given its obvious importance
- didn't mention that Trump told most of the lies in the debate, including the most egregious ones (hence the need for moderator fact checks)
- didn't mention what relevance it has that Harris wasn't at the capitol during the Jan 6 attack (hint: none)
- making a definitive statement about someone ("she's an airhead") without preceding it with "I believe" or "I think".
- saying that she got the questions in advance when there is zero evidence that she actually did


So I'm not sure what the solution is to all this. But I sure as hell know that it can't simply be allowing ####wits like Tucker Barfleson continue to hypnotize the American people with his nonstop stream of horse####.

You can't legislate people having bad ideas and stupid opinions. You go too far down that road and you end up in the realm of "the one true opinion", or "the true believer".

That's very cultish and counter to the open society you hope to have. It's also the same problem you have with MAGA people.

Listen, I hate it too, but the reality is that you can't police thought, and you can't police speech in that way, at least not without major consequence and restriction of freedom. The other thing of course is that if Tucker is able to convince people that Trump won that debate, and they actually watched that debate with their own eyes, well those people were always going to bend that way, and he really didn't do a whole lot to change their minds.

I know that America is full of a lot of people who don't know a whole lot, and think even less, but it's also full of a lot of very bright people who have very sharp critical thinking skills. And yes, media does warp people sometimes. But the reality is that it's up to the individual to make sense of things and use their cognitive faculties to find the truth. It'd be nice if there were no malicious actors out there, but it's not the reality, and people have to guard against bad ideas with their own brains.

I think the vast majority of people see Trump for what he is. I also think that a lot of Americans simply don't like Democratic party policy and leaders, and that's all Trump really has ever tapped into. But the reaction to guys like Tucker spewing BS on tv isn't to create laws to restrict his speech, especially when it's a pure matter of opinion and not hard fact. All you have to do is point out how stupid and sycophantic he is, and most people will see it for what it is.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

MAGA evangelical leader accuses Kamala Harris of witchcraft during the debates

https://x.com/lancewallnau/status/1834069128765751765

LOL, that coming from an evangelical priest is the ultimate irony. ####ing amazing. I don't think the Onion could ever write something that unintentionally ironic and funny.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

You can't legislate people having bad ideas and stupid opinions. You go too far down that road and you end up in the realm of "the one true opinion", or "the true believer".

At risk of repeating what I already said in my previous post, all societies (no matter how free) go down that road to some extent, and it's literally not possible to have a functioning society without going at least partially down that road. We have laws against defamation, inciting violence, fraud. You can't just say whatever you want to say with no restrictions. That's not how civilizations work. And it never will be. All I'm suggesting is that we go and inch or two further down that road than we've already gone.

And no, it's not a slippery slope. Or is having a universal health care system a slippery slope to communism?

That's very cultish and counter to the open society you hope to have.

No it's not cultish to want a solution to a problem that almost finished us as a species (decades of climate change denial; rise of fascist movements around the world). Nothing, and I mean nothing is a more dangerous affront to an open society than movements such as MAGA (except maybe nuclear war).

It's also the same problem you have with MAGA people.

Nope. One side wants to stop the spread of lies, the other wants to embrace them.

Listen, I hate it too, but the reality is that you can't police thought, and you can't police speech in that way, at least not without major consequence and restriction of freedom.

What is this major consequence you speak of other than putting a stop to fascist lies? Seriously, what is it? All I'm asking is some sort of punishment for those who try to sabotage faith in elections without providing any evidence, and spread other horrifyingly dangerous lies such as climate change denial.

The other thing of course is that if Tucker is able to convince people that Trump won that debate, and they actually watched that debate with their own eyes, well those people were always going to bend that way, and he really didn't do a whole lot to change their minds.

In cases such as these, maybe a better solution would be to signal-boost (increase reach in social media algorithms) those who refute the lies. However, I still think those who make a career out of grifting (the Carleson, Alex Jones types) should face some sort of penalty for their pathological lying.

I know that America is full of a lot of people who don't know a whole lot, and think even less, but it's also full of a lot of very bright people who have very sharp critical thinking skills. And yes, media does warp people sometimes. But the reality is that it's up to the individual to make sense of things and use their cognitive faculties to find the truth. It'd be nice if there were no malicious actors out there, but it's not the reality, and people have to guard against bad ideas with their own brains.

Thing is, many of them don't. That's also a reality. And we could be on the precipice of everything we hold dear (freedom, being able to determine our fate as a species) being taken away permanently. If Trump wins this election, humanity is doomed to social darwinism until the end of time (or until unconstrained climate change finishes us off).

I think the vast majority of people see Trump for what he is. I also think that a lot of Americans simply don't like Democratic party policy and leaders, and that's all Trump really has ever tapped into. But the reaction to guys like Tucker spewing BS on tv isn't to create laws to restrict his speech, especially when it's a pure matter of opinion and not hard fact. All you have to do is point out how stupid and sycophantic he is, and most people will see it for what it is.

After 9 years of this MAGA ####, I'm not as optimistic as you are. At least if Harris wins, we have a 4 (hopefully 8) year reprieve, and in that time hopefully more and more Americans can be broken through to and understand that they've been conned by right wing grifters. But, long term, the odds are against us. Doesn't mean we give up though.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Geez, that's a lot of you controlling what others believe and say in that post.

In the end, it's up to people to figure things out for themselves. If they can't tell a lie from the truth, that's on them. If that ends us as a species, well...then...maybe it's for the best? Perhaps we don't deserve saving if even the most rudimentary lies can fool us? I dunno, maybe you need to ponder the fallibility of humans in general for a bit.

All I know is that forcing people to conform to an idea or belief is the exact thing I hate about religious and political groups that espouse that they have the "truth". I want no part of that sort of thing.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Geez, that's a lot of you controlling what others believe and say in that post.

In the end, it's up to people to figure things out for themselves. If they can't tell a lie from the truth, that's on them. If that ends us as a species, well...then...maybe it's for the best? Perhaps we don't deserve saving if even the most rudimentary lies can fool us? I dunno, maybe you need to ponder the fallibility of humans in general for a bit.

All I know is that forcing people to conform to an idea or belief is the exact thing I hate about religious and political groups that espouse that they have the "truth". I want no part of that sort of thing.

Forcing people to conform to some ideas/beliefs is a vital component of any functioning society. Without forcing some conformity/compliance (ie: laws), everyone just does whatever tf they want, and there is just anarchy and chaos.

... for a little while anyway, then the most powerful group emerges from the mess and implements their own form of government, one way or another.

Basically, control and governance is an inescapable reality of life. You can't just hand-wave it away. You can't make it go away simply by saying you hate it.

The beauty of democracy is that it spreads that power and control out so that the people wield it. At least in theory, anyway...

And there are certain truths, inescapably and objectively, whether we like them or not. One of those truths is that faith in election results is essential in order for democracy to work. Without it, democracy falls apart. Another truth is climate change. Please tell me you see the difference between decades of extremely robust scientific research and published scientific journals, vs the manifestos of religious or political groups...

As for rudimentary lies fooling us, that's the thing, they fool some of us but not all of us. It's not ok that those who aren't fooled get dragged into the lava pit that the fooled are pulling us into...

[Mathgod]

Question for you Cali. In Germany it is illegal to deny the holocaust. Should they remove that law in your opinion?

[MoneyGuy]

Just read that people in Springfield are collecting Canada geese for food. Haha, good luck with that. They’re called murder chickens for a reason.

[Senator Clay Davis]

"One man's lie is another man's truth" or some such ####. Anyway...

Mathgod's censorship strategy ignores one crucial factor that won't change even if he gets to moderate content: That Americans will remain the dumbest people on earth. Focusing on improving education and teaching people better critical thinking skills will wield a better return than introducing some kind of Ministry of Truth. Empowering people to think on their own rather than telling them how to think feels like a way better approach, and a more sustainable one long term.

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Also, Trump is banging Laura Loomer.

Yet another Trump crime - bestiality is a felony.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Just read that people in Springfield are collecting Canada geese for food. Haha, good luck with that. They’re called murder chickens for a reason.

There's some really disgusting, racist #### on Twitter right now being directed at Haitians.

[Ped]

There are limits to freedom of speech (the infamous "You can't call out FIRE in a crowded theater just for fun" example), but censoring in general is a bad idea. The issue isn't that we allow people to say stupid things - that is something you will never be able to legislate away, because you can't legislate away stupid or racist or abhorrent. Yes, it is illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany, but does that mean it does not happen? Of course not. It happens, and those people spread it to their children and people around them.


The issue (or one of them) is that there are media that amplify the stupid and racist and abhorrent, while actually throttling or limiting responses to that. That can and should be legislated.


But you're not going to erase racism, etc by telling them it's illegal. You're (hopefully) going to chip away at it with dialogue and counter-arguments.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

All I'm suggesting is that we go and inch or two further down that road than we've already gone.

What exactly are you suggesting? That nobody be allowed to publish or broadcast anything that isn’t factually true? How would you enforce that?

[Bonded]

Yeah, bring the war to the bad actors in Russia/China etc who are pumping the misinformation rather than some wide sweeping censorship law. Sounds great in theory, no more misinformation but that isn't how it will play out. It will be co-opted and then we will see even more of a Russian/Chinese style of controlled media. News media is already consolidated enough.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Question for you Cali. In Germany it is illegal to deny the holocaust. Should they remove that law in your opinion?

Well, no, but I hold extreme bias on that particular issue. My wife and in-laws are all Jewish, and they lost family in the holocaust.

The other issue of course is that one of the law's purposes to generate political good will internationally and indicate contrition of the German state for it's heinous crimes. For that reason it will never be rescinded.

And of course, that law is there because that particular viewpoint being held continues to lead to hate crimes, so there is a strong correlation between the belief and illegal activities. Hence, the crackdown. If no illegal behavior came from the belief, I don't think it would be an issue.

But if you're asking me to put my bias aside and address philosophically whether or not we should have a law like that? I tend to think it's not a good idea. The better thing to do is to expose the terrible nature of that position in open discourse. Letting it hide in a corner without being exposed just creates a festering subculture, often leading to hate crimes anyway.

I think my position is a pretty simple one: Police the actions of people, not their thoughts.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

What exactly are you suggesting? That nobody be allowed to publish or broadcast anything that isn’t factually true? How would you enforce that?

Truth Police