Social and political issues

[PsYcNeT]

The only argument I'm seeing here is that "decorum" is important as long as the xenophobic white supremacist is a nimble line-dancer who is able to retain an air of relevance through deflection, dissemination proxies, and lying.

Deplatforming #######s is good. Stop trying to play moderate when those being deplatformed are Steve "progressives don't like conservative women because they aren't a bunch of dykes" Bannon.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by New Era

And the proposed conservative system is an even worse system. Conservatives want to eliminate the entire social safety net and make social mobility a thing of the past. They want a return to the robber baron era where the rich owned everything, the poor were endured servants and had to buy from the company store, and people stayed in the damn class they were born into. Conservatives care ONLY about THEIR special interest groups and the top 1%.


The Clintons are far from the "liberal" agenda. They are centrists and more Third Way thinkers. They are definitely more friendly with corporations than they are individuals.


I don't disagree with you. But given the two choices that exist in the United States, there is no choice. If you are looking for anyone to represent the poor or those looking for social mobility, the only choice are the Democrats. Republicans have no interest in social mobility. Their only desire is to enrich themselves and make certain they maintain that economic advantage.


Again, I don't disagree, except to say that the Republicans have done NOTHING for the working class in my lifetime. Not a damn thing except to disenfranchise and eliminate their access to the mechanisms that would allow for the mobility we all hope to achieve, and that which is central to the American dream. Things are much different in Canada and I strongly support the greater focus on social responsibility that all Canadians embrace. This is one characteristic that I wish Americans understood and would embrace with greater zeal. But they don't, and they are entrenched in their ways, which is very dangerous indeed. What is even more dangerous are those who don't know how the system works, think they can view the American system through their social lens, and apply their systemic understanding to the behaviors of the political parties in this country. This is almost a form of appeasement and allowing the absolutely abhorrent behaviors of a Party set on pillaging the country's coffers from the many, for the benefit of the few, to become acceptable and condoned.


This is true, but in a binary system you must choose sides. But to choose sides you must understand the responsibility of those in power and the ability to affect change. Democrats held power of two branches of the government for two years, and yes were ineffective (and to clarify, the Democrats have held the majority in zero years of the last eight). This was in part because the Republicans used the filibuster to bring Washington to its knees. I mean, what part of Mitch McConnell coming right out and stating that Republicans would not cooperate with Obama, nor aid him in passing any legislation, did you miss? How did you miss the Republicans preventing a President from nominating his Supreme Court Justice, while ramming their through just two years later? One Party has done everything in their power to govern, while the other has been central to destroying every norm of governance! But it is the Democrats who let the working class down?

The problem is that the current liberal philosophy also does nothing for the working class.

If you're part of various special interest groups, liberal politics are great, but the people in the middle pay for these benefits. So you've got a situation where the upper class is tax sheltered, the very lowest class is benefiting, and the middle are paying for everything.

Conservative politics currently works with a filter down economic model. So working class people might benefit from that, as there theoretically should be job creation. Although, you are correct, the conservative model does nothing for the working class directly, it might benefit them indirectly, which is better than what the liberal model is offering, which is no benefit and potentially a detriment. On top of that you've got liberals making the working class out to be ignorant bigots at every turn.

So the current paradigm creates a situation where under the liberal philosophy, the working class won't benefit, but they might benefit under the conservative model.

If the liberals want to bring back the working class, they actually need to do something that helps them. Bernie Sanders attempted to do this, but was struck down by his own party.

The excuse about not being able to elect Supreme Court members is pretty lame too. That occurred in 2016, which was at the very end of Obama's presidency. I also fail to see how having one more supreme court judge would have created jobs for American workers. Obama also enjoyed a democratic majority in the Senate for the vast majority of both of his terms of presidency.

Once again, I'm not stating that Trump is the cause of the USA's current prosperity. It could be just luck and external factors. However, the US will continue to vote Republican as a long as things are going well and until the Democrats change their tune and actually start putting forward a platform that appeals to working people.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Caveat here is you can't compare them to today's left and right positions as none of them will look good, such is the beat of progress.

I agree with cliff about LBJ and his 'great society', but there is also the hawkish militarism. jFK same deal. The fact that LBJ knew this at the time I think adds more weight to it as a negative outcome or positioning relative to 'the left'. It has irrevocable distinction in tarnishing his progressive legacy.

Bill Clinton was a southern democrat which has its own baggage, but I believe in many ways should actually indicate more credit. Being comfortable with black people. Being the first sitting president to visit south africa and having his VP and wife in attendance for Mandela's inauguration (as compared to Reagan's support for apartheid....)

Hell, admitting he smoked pot in college was such a massive departure, to the progressive side of the coin, and yet it's all but forgotten, even as a punch line.

Many of his steps to free the market may ultimately appear less than progressive, and I would be inclined to agree, but the context of emerging from the Cold War and jump-starting the us economy plagued by deficits from the previous Republican administrations. Raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting defense spending don't seem to be very conservative policies but he did those things in his first term.

He 'Changed' the welfare program, he didn't 'dismantle' it, and while various issues have since been exposed stemming from those decisions, the changes had positive outcomes for some, perhaps even many, or most. This is probably in if the weaker points of his legacy to be sure, but when taken alongside cutting black unemployment in half, I think it is neutral outcome for his progressive legacy. He was also working with a GOP controlled Congress, and the nation wasn't in mourning to the extent that LBJ was able to capitalize on. Theres a pragmatism necessary there.

Hillary was firmly to the left of obama economically and it was more than just union support. She was for the individual mandate for healthcare that Obama never ended up endorsing as an example.

Like LBJ, her centrist appearance is mostly due to her hawkish foreign policy, and that conflicts a bit with her progressive credentials. Oil exploration, fracking, pipelines, these are all foreign policy markers for the Clinton's, not progressive back patters.

The reason Putin interfered on behalf of Trump has little to do with Trump in my mind and everything to do with preventing Hillary from becoming president and moving swiftly to.cripple Russia's energy economy. That won't win her any progressive environmental atagirls but it represents an existential turning point for.our society.

So while none of them are Karl Marx, I think calling Obama the most liberal or lefteing.president to be massive overstatement bordering in hyperbolic.

Obama was a bob dole presidency if Bob Dole were a younger black man in 2008.

I'm not going to get too much into this, as it's obviously just a matter of personal viewpoint.

However, I will say that Bill Clinton moving the welfare state from the federal to the state level was, in effect, a dismantling. Various US states do not charge income tax and don't believe in any kind of welfare state, whatsoever. When you go from having all Americans qualifying for various benefits to having only those in liberal states qualifying for them, that's a dismantling. Welfare, by definition, should apply to all citizens.

[Ozy_Flame]

https://www.macleans.ca/canadas-most...s-places-2019/

MacLean's rates Canada's most dangerous places. Alberta sweeps the podium, and takes 7 out of the Top 10 spots.

At least we don't have as many ####ty kids committing crimes as Saskatchewan or BC!

[Nyah]

That's the five year change. So some of our cities are getting up there. If you look under the 'All Crime' category, the results show the overall crime levels. Only two AB cities in the top 10, with North Battleford remaining at #1 as the most dangerous city.

I didn't' realize crime in Red Deer was so high??

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Nyah

That's the five year change. So some of our cities are getting up there. If you look under the 'All Crime' category, the results show the overall crime levels. Only two AB cities in the top 10, with North Battleford remaining at #1 as the most dangerous city.

I didn't' realize crime in Red Deer was so high??

High unemployment. Lots of 'toys' around.

My parents who live just outside of town are getting tons of people 'prowling' their property now. Also people ring the doorbell asking to use phone and such trying to get a handle on who is home and what not. Lots of break-ins in the acreages around them etc.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Weitz

High unemployment. Lots of 'toys' around.

My parents who live just outside of town are getting tons of people 'prowling' their property now. Also people ring the doorbell asking to use phone and such trying to get a handle on who is home and what not. Lots of break-ins in the acreages around them etc.

It is a frightening trend. I know many people who are impacted by this. It is difficult to say what the the solution of this problem is, but I can imagine that it will only get worse.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by blankall

The problem is that the current liberal philosophy also does nothing for the working class.

If you're part of various special interest groups, liberal politics are great, but the people in the middle pay for these benefits. So you've got a situation where the upper class is tax sheltered, the very lowest class is benefiting, and the middle are paying for everything.

Conservative politics currently works with a filter down economic model. So working class people might benefit from that, as there theoretically should be job creation. Although, you are correct, the conservative model does nothing for the working class directly, it might benefit them indirectly, which is better than what the liberal model is offering, which is no benefit and potentially a detriment. On top of that you've got liberals making the working class out to be ignorant bigots at every turn.

So the current paradigm creates a situation where under the liberal philosophy, the working class won't benefit, but they might benefit under the conservative model.

If the liberals want to bring back the working class, they actually need to do something that helps them. Bernie Sanders attempted to do this, but was struck down by his own party.

The excuse about not being able to elect Supreme Court members is pretty lame too. That occurred in 2016, which was at the very end of Obama's presidency. I also fail to see how having one more supreme court judge would have created jobs for American workers. Obama also enjoyed a democratic majority in the Senate for the vast majority of both of his terms of presidency.

Once again, I'm not stating that Trump is the cause of the USA's current prosperity. It could be just luck and external factors. However, the US will continue to vote Republican as a long as things are going well and until the Democrats change their tune and actually start putting forward a platform that appeals to working people.

I'm going to add one more piece here. The Republicans make politics into an all or nothing game. Black and White. Liberals have the big tent philosophy to include everyone.

Immigration: we either let everyone in or nobody in
Guns: There are either guns or no guns.

Obviously the Liberals aren't letting all immigrants or asking to ban all guns, but unless they come up with a solution and not outraged every time, the voter then gets trapped into the republican playbook. Of course if given the choice of letting nobody in or letting everyone in, you'll vote to let nobody in, or else you no longer have a country. These two choices are of course false and not the reality since there is an immigration/refugee/international law policy. However, the republicans will grandstand and portray it that way to get your vote.

Like your scenario above, liberals won't help me but conservatives might. That's not true but that's how Republicans win.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

... illiberal ...

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

[posts]

This is like a real life version of when you're trying to tell someone about an Amazon Echo and accidentally call it an "Alexa" and it starts responding. "Illiberal, make my point for me." "OK, I'm posting to CalgaryPuck now."

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Deplatforming #######s is good.

For who? It's not as though Bannon's views aren't already disseminated across the web as it is.

Have you ever changed your mind before? On any subject? Did you come to that conclusion by yourself, or did you get introduced to an idea from another person or source? Have you ever held a position that you now believe to be untenable in the face of the information you have now? I know I have, and it wasn't by putting my fingers in my ears and shielding my precious views from criticism.

As Frum says in the article, Bannon's views are in the open. The difference is that most of the time, you'll see said views on alt-right YouTube videos, ripping on "snowflake ####s" or whatever, being presented without opposition. Deplatforming Bannon in this instance also deplatforms Frum who opposes his views.

Now, having a left-leaning debater take on an alt-righter like Bannon is hardly a novel concept, and frankly I don't see it having much impact on people already in Bannon's camp. I can just imagine the YouTube comments now, tons of "libtard" remarks I'm sure.

The value in this discussion, in my opinion, is having a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like David Frum repudiate someone like Bannon in an open forum. Two people on the right side politically. Both debaters being on the right is a good thing if only because the opposition to the anti-Bannon debater is immediately reduced by way of him being a right-wing conservative.

I've watched debates between people like Anjem Choudary and Majiid Nawaz. Choudary, of course, is far, far worse than someone like Bannon. Hell, he went to prison for five and a half years for inciting people to support and join ISIS through his Islam4UK organization (literally a terrorist group). Sounds like a pretty big ####### to me. Should he have been deplatformed? Why? I found watching the debate interesting, because it revealed the true nature of Choudary's immoral and disgusting views, and gave Nawaz a platform to soundly and swiftly repudiate them. And it gives people a chance to learn, reconsider their position, and ultimately change their minds.

Maybe you're okay with being shielded from views that disagree with you. Great. Don't buy the debate tickets, don't watch the video, don't read the article. I am personally okay with hearing alternate viewpoints, including ones I don't agree with, because of the points I mentioned in my last post: I better understand the opposing viewpoint (meaning I can better repudiate it myself), if the viewpoint is well supported by evidence then I can look into it further myself and possibly reevaluate my position if warranted.

[Nyah]

I was curious about when some on here thought about John Oliver's segment on public shaming (I can't find a YouTube video with the monologue, but the linked article shares a lot of the dialogue), and whether or not it actually does any good. I've never been a fan of public shaming, and I think this is one of the few times that I really disagree with him. I think it can be really dangerous and can ruin lives unnecessarily. The Atlantic put out a really great article on the segment and I have to agree with most of it.

John Oliver’s Weak Case for Callout Culture

As an example of the phenomenon’s ostensible upside, he alighted on Tucker Carlson, shamed most recently for resurfaced remarks that he made while talking to a shock jock. “He publicly called Iraqis ‘semiliterate, primitive monkeys,’ compared women to dogs, and basically said that Warren Jeffs, who is serving a life sentence for the sexual assault of his underage brides, wasn’t that bad,” Oliver observed. “Tucker refused to apologize, and all week long there have been trending hashtags like #BoycottTuckerCarlson.”

In The Stranger, Katie Herzog argued that [Tucker] Carlson’s public shaming “may have made the public shamers feel good,” but that it “accomplished precisely nothing.” He did not apologize. He’s still on the air. His ratings aren’t lower.

What was accomplished?

It’s possible that the shaming’s overall societal effects were negative. Offensive remarks that would’ve been lost to memory were resurfaced in a way that perhaps upset some Iraqis, women, or victims of statutory rape, among others. The fact that Carlson declined to apologize while suffering no consequences perhaps undermined anti-bigotry taboos and surely did not strengthen them.

Last Week Tonight depends on a formula that includes a villain, a punching bag, someone to “destroy,” so that audience members can feel that they’re part of a morally and cognitively superior in-group, perennially exasperated by malign idiots in the out-group.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...2T14%3A55%3A00

More and more I'm starting to agree with the bolded issue.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

https://www.macleans.ca/canadas-most...s-places-2019/

MacLean's rates Canada's most dangerous places. Alberta sweeps the podium, and takes 7 out of the Top 10 spots.

At least we don't have as many ####ty kids committing crimes as Saskatchewan or BC!

Shocking that the highest unemployed province has the most crime. Who knew?

[troutman]

Jon Ronson wrote this book in 2015:

So You've Been Publicly Shamed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_You...ublicly_Shamed

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I was curious about when some on here thought about John Oliver's segment on public shaming (I can't find a YouTube video with the monologue, but the linked article shares a lot of the dialogue), and whether or not it actually does any good. I've never been a fan of public shaming, and I think this is one of the few times that I really disagree with him. I think it can be really dangerous and can ruin lives unnecessarily. The Atlantic put out a really great article on the segment and I have to agree with most of it.

John Oliver’s Weak Case for Callout Culture

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...2T14%3A55%3A00

More and more I'm starting to agree with the bolded issue.

I'd imagine there's probably very little crossover between those who watch John Oliver and those who watch Tucker Carlson. Those comments likely further endeared Tucker to the people who already take him seriously.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Shocking that the highest unemployed province has the most crime. Who knew?

That's quite the necro-bump. Holy moly.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

That's quite the necro-bump. Holy moly.

Well the actual necro bump was pretty relevant.

[TorqueDog]

I do enjoy Last Week Tonight, but the bolded portion of Nyah's post certainly is not lost on me, and something I do occasionally remind myself of when watching the show.


That article was a very thought-provoking read. Thanks for sharing it.