PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by photon

Yesterday people get a little bit of hope when Trump says there might be some man made component to climate change.

Today Trump wants to defund NASA's earth science division, because he wants to crack down on "politicized science". Uh, if you want to crack down on science becoming politicized, then crack down on the politicization, not the science.

There's a list on the NASA site of all of the global science bodies that support the theory of man made climate change. There's probably about 100. I'm sure he will think they are undermining him.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Whoa, if Hitchens said it then it must be true? He was an amazing wordsmith, but his opinions are far (FAR) from infallible.

Slow your roll, I didn't say he was infallible. I said he responded to the criticism. I found his response to be pretty compelling. The short version is that there's nothing about humanism that was implicated in Nazism, and in fact, the aspects of those movements that permitted the atrocities that were carried out were much closer to religious in nature, not unlike North Korea today. Another way to put it is that no such regime has ever come to power by championing rationalism and skepticism.

Really I was just observing how crazy it is that the world view of people on the far left has gotten to such a point that they're criticizing rational humanism in exactly the same terms that the far right evangelicals used to. I think that's noteworthy and should give people pause.

Feel free to make the case that humanism was forced to evolve since rise and fall of Hitler (or that nazism distorted the intent), but it doesn't change history.

I reject your premise that you've accurately described history, is I guess what I'm saying here.

Nobody wants to be associated with nazis. But that doesn't mean they have a problem with slagging the SPL for calling attention to white nationalism and extremism as a problem, as we've just seen.

I think he was doing what I did earlier, which was to say that for all the good the SPLC has done over the past four decades or so, it's become a highly political entity that's more agenda-driven than it used to be and this detracts from the credibility of its pronouncements. Which of course isn't to say that it's wrong in this case, but that an appeal to the authority of the SPLC is misguided not only because as you just said, appeals to authority don't get you very far but also because the SPLC has eroded some of its own authority over the past couple of years.

That, or he didn't even look at the point of the post or the link itself and just had to add something negative about the SPL because... because?

Pretty much, I think.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by New Era

The SPLC calls him what he is. If you read the reports instead of listening to this guy whine about the classification he deems as being unfair you would understand the classification. sometimes these classifications are for the individual's protection so when, as a person of interest, he comes into a. Immunity the local LEOs know what type of crap can possibly go down. When a guy labels himself as an activist, and he goes against the vast majority of his community to the point they view his views as extreme, you get to deal with a label. You know, kind of like some of the environmentalist out.

You have to be kidding me, he's a Muslim reformer, who has to fight both the right and left simultaneously because on the right you have those alt right and Islamaphobes, and on the left you have those who dare not criticize Islam for fear of being labeled Islamaphobe.

I have read the reports, I also know about Maajid extensively, he's about the most reasonable and sincere guy out there. The Quilliam foundation is doing truly excellent work trying to at the same time fight against the right and its demonization of Islam, while trying to get the left to help him work for reforming Islam by at least acknowledging there is a real problem.

The SPL has done so much good work, but they have faced a ton of criticism for this, deservedly so. You do not classify a reformer as a extremist anti-Muslim! How the hell are we to encourage and get more like him out there fighting for reform when they get attacked from both the right AND left.

Its infuriating, and shameful.

http://heatst.com/world/un-official-...lim-extremist/



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...im-extremists/

Like I said, if Hirsi Ali and Nawaz are considered anti-Muslim, then when are they going to add other atheists to that list? What about ex-Muslim group leaders who frequently point out the problems with the Islamic holy texts and who work to help those who have left the religion only to fear for their lives?

I spend a lot of time on this site criticizing Christianity (and other religions). But I would never want to take away Christians’ civil rights. I just want to persuade them to leave the faith, while helping people understand that the Bible is hardly a “good book.” Does that make me an extremist, too?
The SPLC is making the mistake of equating fair criticism of Islam with unfair bigotry against Muslims. No one has to agree with what Hirsi Ali and Nawaz say about Islam, but it’s absurd to claim that they hate Muslims to the point of being extremists.

Stay tuned. It won’t be long before the SPLC adds all those threatened Bangladeshi bloggers to the extremist list, too.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Really I was just observing how crazy it is that the world view of people on the far left has gotten to such a point that they're criticizing rational humanism in exactly the same terms that the far right evangelicals used to. I think that's noteworthy and should give people pause.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Where has that occurred? What are you talking about?

What you just did here:

Then again, humanism did give rise to nazism and genocide, so it's hard to tell where humanists fall on the celebration of white nationalism.

It's the "greatest crimes of the 20th century" objection to humanism that made the rounds a decade ago from the Jerry Falwell brigade rearing its head. The implication is that humanism is prone to blinding itself to morality in favour of cold scientific analysis, and as a result, is susceptible to the absolute worst sort of evil. It represents revisionist history and an attempt to attribute the blame for these atrocities to a non-causal factor. I'm not going to re-litigate the whole argument that I had thought was dead and buried years ago, but that's what I was talking about.

Good use of the Truman meme, though.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nik-

What actions of his would you classify as extreme in the context of society as a whole?

I personally do not consider his views as extreme. It is what his culture says about his views where the problems come into play. To some, Westboro Baptist has a very benign message. Those people are majorly ####ed up in my mind, but there are those who consider their message as being non-extreme. There are others who see them as an extreme organization and think they could be trouble, even though Westboro preaches a non-violence message with their flock. Because if the visceral reaction that people have towards their message they are categorized extremists and a threat. The threat is actually a result of the possible actions others may take to counter their protest and claims.

This is the same with other individuals who hold what are considered extreme views compared to the majority of their culture. They get identified a certain way maybe not on their own actions, but as a result of the reaction they may bring about. You can apply this to many people on the alt-right for example. Does this give you a little more insight into the classification?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I saw a program on TV about Alabama getting rid of all of the illegals, just like all of the Conservatives want to do, and the effect it had on the agriculture industry.
First the farms couldn't hire anyone that would do that work for the money.
Next the state was going to try to make prison workers fill the jobs, and they got out into the fields and stood around, they weren't going to do physical labor, like POW's or a Gulag.
All of the crops rotted in the fields.
Alabama rescinded their decision on illegals, who came back and picked the crops and lived fairly crime free uneventful lives.

So isn't it a problem that the only way agriculture is viable in the U.S. is with rock-bottom wages paid to illegal immigrants? Agriculture in France, Canada, Australia seem to do okay without illegal immigrants doing that sort of work. Maybe it would be better for the U.S. if prices in the grocery and restaurant industries were higher.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Trump is actually nominating a Secretary of Education (he said the department would be eliminated) and the person he nominated is a huge supporter of common core (which Trump said he'd get rid of and his supporters hate). It's getting harder to not laugh your ass off everyday as he betrays his supporters even more rapidly than expected.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So isn't it a problem that the only way agriculture is viable in the U.S. is with rock-bottom wages paid to illegal immigrants? Agriculture in France, Canada, Australia seem to do okay without illegal immigrants doing that sort of work. Maybe it would be better for the U.S. if prices in the grocery and restaurant industries were higher.

Sure, fair enough, but by that thinking they could raise taxes and pay off their debt. maybe start with the mortgage tax deductions.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by New Era

I personally do not consider his views as extreme. It is what his culture says about his views where the problems come into play. To some, Westboro Baptist has a very benign message. Those people are majorly ####ed up in my mind, but there are those who consider their message as being non-extreme. There are others who see them as an extreme organization and think they could be trouble, even though Westboro preaches a non-violence message with their flock. Because if the visceral reaction that people have towards their message they are categorized extremists and a threat. The threat is actually a result of the possible actions others may take to counter their protest and claims.

This is the same with other individuals who hold what are considered extreme views compared to the majority of their culture. They get identified a certain way maybe not on their own actions, but as a result of the reaction they may bring about. You can apply this to many people on the alt-right for example. Does this give you a little more insight into the classification?

I guess my problem with this is the qualifier of "their culture". Nawaz aims to be part of a western secular culture, so is he being judged against that or against the culture of a much more devout religious culture? He's never done the things that are part of the standard playbook of a Westboro Baptist which result in them being considered extreme in our society.

For the most part SPLC is fine, but I agree with Thor that this is silly. Their reasoning is pretty thin. He claims to be a devout muslim but went to a strip club? I mean come on.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What you just did here:

It's the "greatest crimes of the 20th century" objection to humanism that made the rounds a decade ago from the Jerry Falwell brigade rearing its head. The implication is that humanism is prone to blinding itself to morality in favour of cold scientific analysis, and as a result, is susceptible to the absolute worst sort of evil. It represents revisionist history and an attempt to attribute the blame for these atrocities to a non-causal factor. I'm not going to re-litigate the whole argument that I had thought was dead and buried years ago, but that's what I was talking about.

Good use of the Truman meme, though.

I try to keep my memes dank.

The fact is, whether you want to admit it or not, it's the same philosophy behind white nationalism. In a pure philosophical point of view, its oppressive and negative.

I just find humanism to be either a fairly easy gateway to some pretty heinous ideas, or so mundane, pointless, and presumptuous that it's laughable people would even label themselves that way. People who gather in groups or proclaim their humanism tend not to be gathering for nothing, though.

I was mostly laughing at how just being a proponent of human rights and the rejection of a lot of the "this is how the real left should act" diatribe that goes on makes me "far left."

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Trump is actually nominating a Secretary of Education (he said the department would be eliminated) and the person he nominated is a huge supporter of common core (which Trump said he'd get rid of and his supporters hate). It's getting harder to not laugh your ass off everyday as he betrays his supporters even more rapidly than expected.

could he eliminate a department tomorrow (tomorrow meaning Jan 21)? Maybe he just needs a placeholder until the power is given to the states.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I just find humanism to be either a fairly easy gateway to some pretty heinous ideas, or so mundane, pointless, and presumptuous that it's laughable people would even label themselves that way.

Sort of like someone claiming that they're a proponent of human rights? I mean... cool, so are the rest of us. Pretty sure no one around here is about to give a speech about how terrible human rights are.

Anyway, it's true that at this point gatherings like http://reasonrally.org/ aren't as significant as they were in the 1990's or even early 2000's, simply because society has changed and the religious right holds far less cultural power than it used to. But that pendulum can pretty easily swing back, as you've just demonstrated by suggesting that humanism can lead to "heinous ideas", which I think is a pretty clear correlation / causation disconnect. That particular argument has been settled for me for a while, though.

I was mostly laughing at how just being a proponent of human rights and the rejection of a lot of the "this is how the real left should act" diatribe that goes on makes me "far left."

Nothing really turns on it, because ideological labels aren't terribly useful, but I don't think it's unfair to describe your politics in that way, given that not only do you take the left's view on literally every issue as far as I can tell, but also are in favour of identity politics and the like. I certainly wouldn't describe it as centrist. But like I say nothing turns on it and it's totally not worth arguing what if any "category" your beliefs should go in.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I just find humanism to be either a fairly easy gateway to some pretty heinous ideas, or so mundane, pointless, and presumptuous that it's laughable people would even label themselves that way. People who gather in groups or proclaim their humanism tend not to be gathering for nothing, though.

Humanism simply means belief that human progress is possible, and humans are able to recognize what is good and what is bad without resorting to religion.

[Kiran403]

Just a question regarding Donald's request to alternate residences between NY and DC: Is he allowed to do that or can the rest of the government tell him that's it unacceptable or an unnecessary expense/inconvenience?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So isn't it a problem that the only way agriculture is viable in the U.S. is with rock-bottom wages paid to illegal immigrants? Agriculture in France, Canada, Australia seem to do okay without illegal immigrants doing that sort of work. Maybe it would be better for the U.S. if prices in the grocery and restaurant industries were higher.

I know even in Canada, many of the orchards in BC and Ontario bring in Mexicans for the summer to work.

It could work otherwise, but the people at the top won't be making as much money and they are the ones you need to convince. I mean, Trump "could" buy his steel in the U.S. instead of China, but he doesn't because it's not as profitable.

The only way to combat it is to make it less profitable, but then the business will just go elsewhere. Like someone said earlier, no one is going to spend $300 for a toaster or $50 for a bag of oranges. If we are going to go back to 1950s economics, then people better be prepared for 1950s level consumerism.... because we can't have both.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Humanism simply means belief that human progress is possible, and humans are able to recognize what is good and what is bad without resorting to religion.

Pretty close; it also entails humans having the right and responsibility to determine our affairs without resort to the supernatural. So it's also prescriptive.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The only way to combat it is to make it less profitable, but then the business will just go elsewhere. Like someone said earlier, no one is going to spend $300 for a toaster or $50 for a bag of oranges. If we are going to go back to 1950s economics, then people better be prepared for 1950s level consumerism.... because we can't have both.

Where are farmers in Alabama and the Okanagan going to move their farms to?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Where are farmers in Alabama and the Okanagan going to move their farms to?

Mexico.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Mexico.

Exactly (or Central America). For many of them, the land is almost to point where it is worth more to develop on now anyway.