They're gunning to kill the rule of law. The argument from the memo that the NYT recently published showed their argument was that the president couldn't obstruct justice because he IS justice....
They're gunning to kill the rule of law. The argument from the memo that the NYT recently published showed their argument was that the president couldn't obstruct justice because he IS justice.
Yeah, midterm elections. If we get some new folks, even more reasonable Republicans, we might see Congress actually enforcing the law and reigning in this stuff.
Yeah, midterm elections. If we get some new folks, even more reasonable Republicans, we might see Congress actually enforcing the law and reigning in this stuff.
Sorry to be the skeptic here, but I think partisanship will beat down any serious threat of impeachment or reigning this behavior in. Democrats in the senate will be likely in the range of 48-51...
Sorry to be the skeptic here, but I think partisanship will beat down any serious threat of impeachment or reigning this behavior in. Democrats in the senate will be likely in the range of 48-51 seats, far short of what they'd need to successfully impeach the president. That's even before we get into the likelihood of Democrats winning the house (which is greater than the chance they win the senate, but only so long as their advantage nationally is greater than about 5 points, again far from guaranteed and polls showed this advantage being as low as 4 points on May 23rd).
Democrats have a long, hard slog ahead of them to convince people to vote against this behavior in November. Anyone who says otherwise is probably selling too hopeful a view of things.
As the Pod Save America guys say, Trump has immunity by congressional majority. Neither Ryan nor McConnell have drive, whether it's lack of spine, morals or whatever, to really stand up to the...
As the Pod Save America guys say, Trump has immunity by congressional majority. Neither Ryan nor McConnell have drive, whether it's lack of spine, morals or whatever, to really stand up to the Combover in a chief
Clinton was lying under oath. The issue here is the staunch refusal of the republican congress to hold a republican accountable for their actions. We're seeing a blatant disregard for the law. I'm...
Clinton was lying under oath.
The issue here is the staunch refusal of the republican congress to hold a republican accountable for their actions.
We're seeing a blatant disregard for the law. I'm a believer that the FBI will make their case known to the public, and then let the public hold congress accountable for their inaction.
I just hope The State of New York (and I pray OTHERS!) will bring forth charges. I want Stupid Watergate to come to an end already.. it's so exhausting.
I just hope The State of New York (and I pray OTHERS!) will bring forth charges. I want Stupid Watergate to come to an end already.. it's so exhausting.
I am beyond fatigued seeing the sheer unwillingness of congressional republicans to uphold ethics laws and criminal laws. It's beyond embarrassing as a country to have the president deem Canada a...
I am beyond fatigued seeing the sheer unwillingness of congressional republicans to uphold ethics laws and criminal laws.
It's beyond embarrassing as a country to have the president deem Canada a national security threat but completely capitulate to Russia.
Agreed. I (anecdotally) see tons of people on my Facebook feed talking about various congressmen, heads of committees, and deputies to various governmental agencies. I'm not hopeful yet but...
Agreed. I (anecdotally) see tons of people on my Facebook feed talking about various congressmen, heads of committees, and deputies to various governmental agencies.
He was impeached for two charges-- one for perjury as you said, a second for obstruction of justice as per Wikipedia Regardless, I truly hope the public is able to hold Congress accountable for...
He was impeached for two charges-- one for perjury as you said, a second for obstruction of justice as per Wikipedia
Regardless, I truly hope the public is able to hold Congress accountable for this. Either that or that there are enough Democrat victories in the midterms that we'll have a Congress that isn't willingly complicit in the greatest criminal abuse of Presidential powers in the modern era.
IIRC, Clinton never lied under oath. They had such a narrow definition of sex and a few other questions that his opponents were essentially out-lawyered.
IIRC, Clinton never lied under oath. They had such a narrow definition of sex and a few other questions that his opponents were essentially out-lawyered.
I was thinking about politicians and D&D alignments yesterday. I think that Trump would probably be chaotic neutral if not straight up chaotic evil. Muller is lawful good, but so would be Obama....
I was thinking about politicians and D&D alignments yesterday. I think that Trump would probably be chaotic neutral if not straight up chaotic evil. Muller is lawful good, but so would be Obama. Maybe we need a third alignment descriptor for party. "Lawful Good Republican."
I'd call Obama Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good at best depending on whether you think the increase of the surveillance state and executing American citizens was rules lawyering or an executive...
I'd call Obama Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good at best depending on whether you think the increase of the surveillance state and executing American citizens was rules lawyering or an executive overreach.
My friends and I have been joking that Rudy is really an FBI plant (since no lawyer would be just this bad) but it’s less and less of a joke every day.
My friends and I have been joking that Rudy is really an FBI plant (since no lawyer would be just this bad) but it’s less and less of a joke every day.
Giuliani's comments and behaviour since joining Trumps legal team has been reckless and ridiculous. They're trying to get the idea of self-pardoning into the national discussion so that if it...
Giuliani's comments and behaviour since joining Trumps legal team has been reckless and ridiculous. They're trying to get the idea of self-pardoning into the national discussion so that if it comes to that they already have a base of support for it.
I know this is offtopic and you already said you don't like the word, but could you maybe refrain from using it? It's considered a slur not just for mentally ill people but intellectually disabled...
I know this is offtopic and you already said you don't like the word, but could you maybe refrain from using it? It's considered a slur not just for mentally ill people but intellectually disabled folks, so using it to mean "stupid" reinforces all those historical connections and the idea that being less intelligent (however you define that) is bad or immoral.
Trying to censor a word because you don't like the connotation it comes with is a very silly way to try and change the word. At best, people will find another word that will get the same meaning,...
Trying to censor a word because you don't like the connotation it comes with is a very silly way to try and change the word. At best, people will find another word that will get the same meaning, but isn't the exact word you have banned from use. In which case you'll have to ban that word, too, and you get a cycle of people adopting new words and you banning them.
I'd also like to point out that historical connections are called "historical" for a reason. Language changes, and the way a word was used before doesn't need to have the same meaning today. In addition to that, context matters. In the context @Ten used the word "retarded", it doesn't look like he was trying to make fun of disabled people. He even added that explicitly.
I consider trying to censor or otherwise regulate speech in this manner to be bad and immoral.
I didn't try to censor anyone. I asked @Ten to consider not using a word that is used to hurt people today (not just historically), especially given that they said that they don't even like the...
I didn't try to censor anyone. I asked @Ten to consider not using a word that is used to hurt people today (not just historically), especially given that they said that they don't even like the word. I would do the same people if I saw people using the n-word or a slur for trans or gay people.
People are free to use whatever words they like. And if I know that a word is considered a slur by a group of people, I'm free to chime in and point it out.
(Also, I don't know if your mirroring of my use of "bad and immoral" means you think I was calling @Ten's comment bad and immoral, as you called mine. I wasn't.)
Trying to get people to not say a certain thing is trying to censor it. It doesn't necesarily have to be a government doing it through laws. And as I in other comments, for some reason, it doesn't...
Trying to get people to not say a certain thing is trying to censor it. It doesn't necesarily have to be a government doing it through laws. And as I in other comments, for some reason, it doesn't seem to be such a major effect, and trying to be upset for others (which clearly aren't as upset) is silly.
People are free to use whatever words they like. And if I know that a word is considered a slur by a group of people, I'm free to chime in and point it out.
Do you actually know this, though? Or is this just something some vocal minority has shouted a couple times and you took over. How many people of the group you're trying to defend with censorship did you actually talk to and discuss the matter seriously with? What's the reason they aren't collectively upset, why do you have to take up that responsibility?
I have actually spoken with people in this category, both mentally and physically disabled people (mostly people I've met through my mother and her job), and it seems like it's a very little issue to them. They're generally more worried about being able to get assistance to live their lives properly, not about a word that could possibly describe them being used by someone they don't know on the Internet in an unrelated context.
Criticism is not censorship. You could use Google to discover this. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. You'll also notice that censorship is exclusively related to...
Criticism is not censorship. You could use Google to discover this. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
You'll also notice that censorship is exclusively related to institutional or systemic modes of censorship, involving people in authority who may regulate speech. People in authority do not ask nicely. Free speech is not threatened by people who simply ask nicely.
No one has mentioned a ban except you. No one who has participated in the thread so far has the authority to enforce a ban. There are far bigger threats to free speech than people asking nicely.
Indeed, and I'm taking this freedom of criticism too, to be critical of those trying to enforce censorship. I'm not saying that you're not allowed to call out things you dislike, but just as they...
Criticism is not censorship. You could use Google to discover this. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
Indeed, and I'm taking this freedom of criticism too, to be critical of those trying to enforce censorship. I'm not saying that you're not allowed to call out things you dislike, but just as they have a right to do so, so do I.
You'll also notice that censorship is exclusively related to institutional or systemic modes of censorship, involving people in authority who may regulate speech.
From the very first hit through Google on "dictionary to censor": "a person who supervises conduct and morals". Censorship isn't necesarily institutional in the idea that it must be executed by a government of sorts. A person or group of people can actively try to censor others without being in political power.
Maybe I do. But I actually looked up the words I'm using in my arguments, which you told me to do. And it seems that I'm using the words as they are defined, actually. Here's the first hit from...
You have a fundamentally different understanding of what "supervising" means I guess.
Maybe I do. But I actually looked up the words I'm using in my arguments, which you told me to do. And it seems that I'm using the words as they are defined, actually. Here's the first hit from Google on "dictionary to supervise": "to watch a person or activity to make certain that everything is done correctly, safely, etc."
These definitions I've looked up to ensure I'm doing my part in a civil discussion aren't "semantics", and they seem to be defined in a way I used them. The person I responded to which sparked this outburst of politically correct nonsense was trying to supervise (they were trying to watch the actions on Tildes to ensure people are not using the "wrong" words. They intend to make the original poster stop using a certain word, because they believe it is in conflict with their sense of morals. Ergo, they're trying to censor people.
First telling me that I need to look things up on Google, then saying you don't want to "argue semantics" because I actually did and the definitions are in line with how I used them is very cheap, and most certainly not condusive to a civil discussion.
If you want to change people's views, it'd would certainly help if you were at least acting as an honest person. Don't tell people they should research things, then when they do and proceed with proof that they weren't wrong at all, tell them that you're not even interested. This will only generate a dislike for you and the cause you're trying to fight for. It'll have the exact opposite effect that you were most likely trying to achieve (to get people to understand your side and possibly have them join you).
Research on the nature of censorship is not looking up the dictionary definition of the word. That way leads to an argument of semantics. I did not recommend that. I suppose if I mention using...
Research on the nature of censorship is not looking up the dictionary definition of the word. That way leads to an argument of semantics. I did not recommend that. I suppose if I mention using Google I should say I don't mean just using the "I Feel Lucky" function.
You've already accepted my premise that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism. You have not given an argument that says that criticism is censorship. You have instead discarded my suggestion that censorship requires a systematic or institutional enforcement to have any meaning in this argument by conflating systems and institutions with governments. That is incorrect and misrepresenting my argument, intentional or not.
You can reject the request to avoid words that others perceive as hurtful and enforcing a historical system of oppression. That's your choice. I'd say it's insensitive and tone deaf, but that's your choice. You cannot- in the same breath- conflate criticism with censorship, decry censorship, admit that you are doing the same thing, and elsewhere use "slippery slope" arguments, without putting on display an argument that appears to either be in bad faith or so incoherent that it's indistinguishable.
This is something that you told me to look up on Google, which I did, and it did not agree with your idea of censorship. If you want to keep arguing that literally every dictionary in the world is...
You have instead discarded my suggestion that censorship requires a systematic or institutional enforcement
This is something that you told me to look up on Google, which I did, and it did not agree with your idea of censorship. If you want to keep arguing that literally every dictionary in the world is wrong, you'd have to come up with some proof. I did go out and come up with some basis for my use of the word. You don't get to discard reality for the sake of undermining someone else's argument, especially not if you first told them to "go Google it" (which you clearly did not).
You cannot- in the same breath- [...]
That's why I'm not doing it in the same breath. I'm adjusting the way I represent the argument based on what spin the social justice camp gives it. And they are very good at spinning things around and rewording it to make them look like some holy knight that bravely protect the innocent, when all they're doing is hurting the freedom of society to simply talk about things.
Your argument was that there's freedom of criticism, and I say that I agree. It's part of freedom of speech. That means you can criticise me, I can criticise people that try to censor (or "try to criticise the use of certain words", if that description is more to your liking), and @alednarra is allowed to criticise the use of certain words to make a point.
I mean, yeah. As a disabled person myself I'm more concerned about being able to find a job that I can physically do and won't put my resume in the trash the moment I mention accommodations. I'm...
Do you actually know this, though? Or is this just something some vocal minority has shouted a couple times and you took over. How many people of the group you're trying to defend with censorship did you actually talk to and discuss the matter seriously with? What's the reason they aren't collectively upset, why do you have to take up that responsibility?
I have actually spoken with people in this category, both mentally and physically disabled people (mostly people I've met through my mother and her job), and it seems like it's a very little issue to them. They're generally more worried about being able to get assistance to live their lives properly [...]
I mean, yeah. As a disabled person myself I'm more concerned about being able to find a job that I can physically do and won't put my resume in the trash the moment I mention accommodations. I'm more concerned about forced institutionalization of disabled folks, about cuts to Medicaid, about how difficult it is for people to get on SSI/SSDI (and how SSI is less than minimum wage). I'm more fired up when the ACA and its protections for things like pre-existing conditions are threatened. I'm more worried about HR620 which threatens the accessibility of public places (some of which are still not up to ADA standards after nearly 3 decades).
If forced to, I would prioritize those issues. But I don't have to. I can care about all those things and still be concerned about the use of a word that people in my community say hurts them, particularly autistic folks or those with intellectual disabilities. (And yes, I have been a participant or spectator in conversations about ableist slurs with "people in this category.")
So I think we agree that someone using some word in an unrelated context on the Internet is not that big of an issue. While you don't have to ignore a certain issue because it's not as big as...
I mean, yeah. [...] nearly 3 decades).
So I think we agree that someone using some word in an unrelated context on the Internet is not that big of an issue. While you don't have to ignore a certain issue because it's not as big as other issues, I do think you're focussing too much on this incredibly little issue when you could spend your effort elsewhere and get much bigger increases in quality of life for disabled people.
particularly autistic folks
Interesting, as I'm autistic myself, yet I don't see any issue whatsoever with people calling people retards. Especially not over the Internet.
I wrote a short post that may (or may not) have prompted some people to consider language that hurts (some) disabled people. Until you replied, it had taken no more than a few minutes out of my...
I do think you're focussing too much on this incredibly little issue when you could spend your effort elsewhere and get much bigger increases in quality of life for disabled people.
I wrote a short post that may (or may not) have prompted some people to consider language that hurts (some) disabled people. Until you replied, it had taken no more than a few minutes out of my day. I don't consider that to be focusing too much on it.
As to the fact that you don't see any issue with the word: great! But some folks do, and by not using it you can avoid hurting them. It's honestly that simple.
By trying to police language you're hurting the ability of the general public to speak freely, which in the long term hurts discourse in general. It's a slippery slope that I don't want to start...
By trying to police language you're hurting the ability of the general public to speak freely, which in the long term hurts discourse in general. It's a slippery slope that I don't want to start on, as it can only get worse with time. By not trying to censor people you can avoid hurting one of the core foundations of democracy itself.
No, and I don't see why I would? Nobody is perfect, and I don't expect anyone to be either. Why should I be somehow protected as a person from insults? I'd rather be treated like a normal person,...
No, and I don't see why I would? Nobody is perfect, and I don't expect anyone to be either. Why should I be somehow protected as a person from insults? I'd rather be treated like a normal person, and called out for being unable to pick up on social cues when needed. I don't want a special treatment when it's not needed. We're all still humans, and we all do silly things from time to time. I don't think someone's mental or physicial condition makes him more (or less) of a human that needs special protection.
It's ableism. I am assuming that you probably wouldn't have an issue if it were racism against a race, phobia against a sexuality, phobia against a gender, or any other use of a slur perjoratively...
It's ableism.
I am assuming that you probably wouldn't have an issue if it were racism against a race, phobia against a sexuality, phobia against a gender, or any other use of a slur perjoratively that harms a minority group.
So why then are you ok with the use of a slur that harms the disabled? The least capable of the population to actually defend themselves.
I don't particularly care what the intention behind the use is. I don't particularly think it would be ok for me to call you a nigger with the intention of it not to mean black people but just something bad. So I don't think it should be ok for me to call you (or anyone) retarded with the intention of it not to mean disabled people but just to say "something bad".
He didn't call for censorship. He explained the issue. Calling for censorship would be bringing in the moderation of it. This is one such instance where we have a commonly used phrase that is used pejoratively that we should explain WHY it shouldn't be. Because it has little difference in effect to the slurs of any other group being used in different ways that aren't targeted that group in intention but ARE harming them indirectly.
You shouldn't make assumptions about people, especially not if they're wrong. I am very strong in my conviction in favour of free speech. You should be able to use whatever word to describe a...
I am assuming that you probably wouldn't have an issue if it were racism against a race, phobia against a sexuality, phobia against a gender, or any other use of a slur perjoratively that harms a minority group.
You shouldn't make assumptions about people, especially not if they're wrong. I am very strong in my conviction in favour of free speech. You should be able to use whatever word to describe a common group. If you want to go use the word faggots to refer to my gay friends, I'm not going to stop you. And if you want to start calling out my black friends as niggers, be my guest. While I may not agree with you doing so, I'll gladly fight for your right to free speech.
So why then are you ok with the use of a slur that harms the disabled? The least capable of the population to actually defend themselves.
Because they don't seem to be harmed in any sense of the word. As I've said in other comments already, having actually spoken to these people, they don't seem to think it's that big of a deal. They have much bigger issues on their hands than some random person saying a certain word in an unrelated context. The world in general has much bigger issues.
He didn't call for censorship.
They did. Trying to regulate speech is censorship. I don't care whether you think they're "morally right" in doing so. Explaining the issue doesn't change the fact of attempted censorship either. It's common to have some reasoning behind censorship. It's also very common to try and bring it as something positive to the community at large, while actively ignoring long term effects of bringing in censorship. It's a very slippery slope, and I'd rather not start falling to begin with.
This is one such instance where we have a commonly used phrase that is used pejoratively that we should explain WHY it shouldn't be. Because it has little difference in effect to the slurs of any other group being used in different ways that aren't targeted that group in intention but ARE harming them indirectly.
So at least we agree that there is no direct harm, if I understand you correctly. I'd also argue there's little to no indirect harm. If I'm going to my friend in a wheelchair tomorrow and tell him someone used the word retard on an online forum in a context that's not related to him or anyone else in a similar condition, will this have any effects at all? I can assure you, he wouldn't sleep less of it.
You are all over this thread making one bad faith argument after another. You are arguing for a commenter to be able say "retarded, " when someone nicely suggested they not, arguing that non...
You are all over this thread making one bad faith argument after another. You are arguing for a commenter to be able say "retarded, " when someone nicely suggested they not, arguing that non partisan sources are biased, accusing commenters you don't agree with of bias, accusing them of condemning others when nothing like that is happening. Arguing that if we want to impeach Trump we don't believe in "innocent until proven guilyy" even though that doesn't apply to impeachment and you are putting words others' mouths.
I find it highly ironic that you're not okay with referring to people with some words, only to start using some other words to try and insult me (in this case transphobe). I'm not advocating for...
I find it highly ironic that you're not okay with referring to people with some words, only to start using some other words to try and insult me (in this case transphobe). I'm not advocating for people to start insulting one another here, let me make that clear. I'm advocating for allowing actual discussions to happen, and that requires free speech. Again, I have to make very clear, context is important in a discussion. A word on itself doesn't carry context. It would be wonderful if you people would understand what context is.
I'd also like to remind you that I've not been calling people names here, like you're doing in an attempt to make me look like a bad person. To quote the actual rules that you refer to:
In general, as long as you treat others with basic civility and try to contribute in good faith, you will be welcome on Tildes.
Calling me names when you know very little of me doesn't sound like "basic civility", whereas I am trying to keep reasonable discussion possible. I don't think trying to police speech in such a manner that words, regardless of context, cannot be safely used without backlash is a healthy environment. However, in your context, you're just going around to call people names. That's harmful to discussion.
To continue on the rules you were talking about, the Golden Rule starts with
There are many variants of the "golden rule", but the base idea is that you should act towards others as you'd like them to act towards you.
It would be much appreciated if you could live by the rules you set out for others. If you can refrain from namecalling, we could surely have a more interesting discussion and maybe try to understand eachothers viewpoint.
Oh, my apologies. I don't keep up the local news much, and I didn't quite catch that you were referring to something out of the scope of the comments in this thread. There's certainly contexts,...
No, sorry, there's been miscommunication there.
Oh, my apologies. I don't keep up the local news much, and I didn't quite catch that you were referring to something out of the scope of the comments in this thread.
Just that there's really no context where your two examples wouldn't be needless for anything except insulting other people which isn't what Tildes is about.
There's certainly contexts, like quotes from other people. If there's a news article about someone calling some other person a "faggot", for instance, we should be able to talk about it. It's still the same word, but the context is a certain quotation. This can happen with literally every word. Hence I must come to the conclusion that trying to remove certain words from speech (whether through legislation, or simple crowd censorship) is impossible if your aim is for honest discussion.
I think we both agree on this issue, to be honest. We both agree it should be context, and that the rules already take care of the bad context in which those words would be harmful to discussion.
There's nothing civil about name calling the other party in a discussion. Yet, this whole discussion isn't sparked out of name calling in a discussion, it's sparked for someone trying to appeal to...
There's nothing civil about name calling the other party in a discussion. Yet, this whole discussion isn't sparked out of name calling in a discussion, it's sparked for someone trying to appeal to "morals" to inform them they're bad persons.
Sadly, this action was done in complete disregard to the context. The one complaining even acknowledges there was a context established already to make the intentions of @Ten clear, but that they chose to ignore it just so they can try to silence a certain word that they take offense from. It should be clear that offense is something that is taken by another party, not given. It's also completely subjective, and therefore impossible to properly police, even if that were something worth to strive for.
It's a lot more than not liking the word, though. That slur can be incredibly offensive to many people. Just because it does not make you hurt and upset in the same way does not mean it doesn't do...
It's a lot more than not liking the word, though. That slur can be incredibly offensive to many people. Just because it does not make you hurt and upset in the same way does not mean it doesn't do that to others. It's also really not at all a big deal to just not say the word. You can say unintelligent and it has the same meaning, without hurting anyone.
It can, yes. But it's not a given that everytime the word gets used, it will offend people. As a matter of fact, offense is actually taken, not something you give to someone. Though people do...
That slur can be incredibly offensive to many people.
It can, yes. But it's not a given that everytime the word gets used, it will offend people. As a matter of fact, offense is actually taken, not something you give to someone. Though people do sometimes say things with the intent to offend people, whether the person in question is actually offended by it is up to the people themselves. Trying to be offended for them seems petty.
To make matters more interesting, my mother has worked her entire life in healthcare, specifically care at home for disabled people. I've met many of her patients, and they actually don't seem to care that much, they often describe themselves with words you'd call slurs.
What's more, a friend of mine, who is in a wheelchair, recently got banned from a Facebook group for making a joke about people in wheelchairs. I simply cannot comprehend how people like you argue for banning certain speech from possibly offending people, if it's the people you supposedly defend themselves that have little issue with it to begin with.
It's also really not at all a big deal to just not say the word.
Surely. Usage of the word itself is also not at all a big deal. There's far bigger issues in the world than "someone used a word that I dislike because it has the potential to offend others". In reality, everything has the potential to offend others. Context, as I've said before, is a very important aspect to take into consideration.
You can say unintelligent and it has the same meaning, without hurting anyone.
To quote someone who's recently spoken out about using "possibly offensive wording":
" Just because it does not make you hurt and upset in the same way does not mean it doesn't do that to others."
Heh, if I'd use the "grow a thicker skin" argument as a reason why people should be able to call eachother "retard" I'd be flaming, and an ignorant bigot. The double standard coming from those...
Heh, if I'd use the "grow a thicker skin" argument as a reason why people should be able to call eachother "retard" I'd be flaming, and an ignorant bigot. The double standard coming from those arguing for social justice and censorship is outrageous.
The fact that you think I'm censoring you when I say "hey, buddy. This is extremely offtopic. Maybe you should take your favorite ranting topic elsewhere" is hilarious. Maybe you should spend more...
The fact that you think I'm censoring you when I say "hey, buddy. This is extremely offtopic. Maybe you should take your favorite ranting topic elsewhere" is hilarious. Maybe you should spend more time wondering why I might consider your behavior to be harmful to positive discussion since I've said it about three or four times now.
Fifth time's the charm I guess: Stop. Give this discussion up and move it elsewhere if you must. This thread is NOT the appropriate place to continue harping about what is clearly a very passionate and separate debate.
Does a black person referring to his/herself by the n-word make it okay for anyone to use that term as long as the intent isn't to offend? How can you be certain that your mother's disabled...
I've met many of her patients, and they actually don't seem to care that much, they often describe themselves with words you'd call slurs.
Does a black person referring to his/herself by the n-word make it okay for anyone to use that term as long as the intent isn't to offend? How can you be certain that your mother's disabled patients "don't seem to care that much"? Couldn't they just be hiding their true feelings as other minorities have done in the presence of offensive language?
The better solution is to just avoid slurs that could be construed as offensive to marginalized groups of people. The English language isn't lacking in acceptable substitutes.
I personally try to not take the person's color into consideration when deducing whether or not I agree with them. I don't think anyone should be unable to use any word, so long as the context is...
Does a black person referring to his/herself by the n-word make it okay for anyone to use that term as long as the intent isn't to offend?
I personally try to not take the person's color into consideration when deducing whether or not I agree with them. I don't think anyone should be unable to use any word, so long as the context is not destructive to a discussion. I believe the context here was not with the intention to insult a certain group of people. The fact that the poster explicitly indicated this is a major part in this.
The better solution is to just avoid slurs that could be construed as offensive to marginalized groups of people. The English language isn't lacking in acceptable substitutes.
The problem is that offense is taken, and highly subjective to the individual whether they feel offended or not. Anything can be construed as offensive to some people who simply like being offended. The "acceptable" substitutes are acceptable to you, but may come with the some negative connotations to someone else, and therefore be offensive. Just using different words isn't the holy grail to solve the problem.
the issue is not the word itself, it's the meaning attached to the word. in no circumstance would using a different word that also refers to the mentally handicapped be less ableist. i don't think...
Trying to censor a word because you don't like the connotation it comes with is a very silly way to try and change the word. At best, people will find another word that will get the same meaning, but isn't the exact word you have banned from use. In which case you'll have to ban that word, too, and you get a cycle of people adopting new words and you banning them.
the issue is not the word itself, it's the meaning attached to the word. in no circumstance would using a different word that also refers to the mentally handicapped be less ableist.
i don't think that politely asking someone to not use a word that is regularly harsh and harmful is censorship or otherwise regulatory. it's just decent etiquette.
From this I gather that you are against the use of words that refer to any group of people that you deem too weak to defend itself. I personally don't think that words that refer to certain groups...
in no circumstance would using a different word that also refers to the mentally handicapped be less ableist.
From this I gather that you are against the use of words that refer to any group of people that you deem too weak to defend itself. I personally don't think that words that refer to certain groups of people are inherently bad. It is often useful in a context to refer to be able to refer to the group itself with a single word.
Besides that, trying to police words because you believe the group being described is so weak that they can't even speak up for themselves is very demeaning to the group you're trying to protect. If they have an issue, they can speak up about it. The way you come across to me is that you think these people are so defective compared to yourself, that they require your guidance to understand their very own feelings.
i don't think that politely asking someone to not use a word that is regularly harsh and harmful is censorship or otherwise regulatory. it's just decent etiquette.
This too depends on the context, which the original poster already established. Yet their was still a need to still rub it in that he's a morally corrupt person, simply for using the wrong word. There's a big contextual difference with just calling people names, and establishing a context in which a word is used. @Ten explicitly went for the latter. It's not "decent etiquette" anymore in this context, it's just trying to bully people into what you think is "progression" (which I'd call "regression").
This idea that everything and everyone should be policed in terms of what they can and cannot say, no matter the context is harmful to open discussion. There's a good reason most people clearly seperate "justice" from "social justice". Social justice has nothing to do with justice in any sense of the word, and all it does is try to control speech (and eventually, thought), seemingly in a bid to shut up people you don't agree with.
i feel that you are inferring my justifications based on some prior conclusions that you have about social justice, rather than what i've actually said. i don't appreciate the implication that the...
i feel that you are inferring my justifications based on some prior conclusions that you have about social justice, rather than what i've actually said. i don't appreciate the implication that the only reason i don't like the term 'retarded' is that i see myself as some sort of noble savior of the disadvantaged, and i think that's an extremely close-minded and simplistic view to take of anyone asking the same thing.
I personally don't think that words that refer to certain groups of people are inherently bad. It is often useful in a context to refer to be able to refer to the group itself with a single word.
this is not what the context is and you know it. the current context is using the term in a derogatory way towards a group, further cementing the connotation that 'retarded' = 'bad'.
Yet their was still a need to still rub it in that he's a morally corrupt person
This idea that everything and everyone should be policed in terms of what they can and cannot say, no matter the context is harmful to open discussion
It's not "decent etiquette" anymore in this context, it's just trying to bully people into what you think is "progression" (which I'd call "regression").
at no point did anyone say @ten was a bad person for using the word 'retarded'. @eladnarra simply asked them if they could refrain from using a word that often hurts. i don't understand why you are assuming so many things about folks' motivations, when ultimately it just boils down to wanting to keep tildes a nice place for everyone.
There's a good reason most people clearly seperate "justice" from "social justice". Social justice has nothing to do with justice in any sense of the word, and all it does is try to control speech (and eventually, thought), seemingly in a bid to shut up people you don't agree with.
this tells me that you're not actually interested in any sort of civil discussion on the merits of using historical slurs in common conversation, and instead you are out to make some sort of noble stand against the demons of political correctness and social justice through willful misunderstanding and bad-faith argument. were you actually interested in open discussion, you might have asked 'why would one want to refrain from using the word retarded in this context? it doesn't seem to be hurting anyone" after which those responding would have the opportunity to explain their reasoning. instead, you have accused @elednarra of attempting to censor discussion and that they are bad and immoral for having done so.
You say this, but the original post that started this social justice outburst actually contains this sentence: It was explicitly mentioned that it was not being used in a derogatory way towards...
this is not what the context is and you know it. the current context is using the term in a derogatory way towards a group, further cementing the connotation that 'retarded' = 'bad'.
You say this, but the original post that started this social justice outburst actually contains this sentence:
Not in the mentally ill kind of way,
It was explicitly mentioned that it was not being used in a derogatory way towards mentally ill people.
@eladnarra simply asked them if they could refrain from using a word that often hurts.
And I simply requested people refrain from trying to censor others. I don't understand why this is for some reason a highly offensive remark, whilst @eladnarra asking not to say certain words is hailed as being progression and protection of other people. There's a very clear double standard being used here.
this tells me that you're not actually interested in any sort of civil discussion
This whole paragraph is just trying to undermine my character. If I were not interested in a civil discussion, I wouldn't be commenting here trying to defend my point of view. I "accused" someone of attempting to censor because that's literally what they were trying to do, by the very definition of the word "to censor".
If you continue on the page you linked to me, you may come across this part:
I'm never going to refer to the site as a "safe space"
There's a reasonable middle ground between those extremes—I believe that it's possible to support the ability to freely discuss important and controversial topics without also being obligated to allow threats, harassment, and hate speech.
Trying to censor everyone for using words that could potentially make someone have hurt feelings when context is completely ignored sounds like you're trying to create a safe space. The idea I got from Tildes is that it is intended to allow civil, mature discussion between people sharing different views. But from what I gather from most of these comments here, these different views aren't much accepted among many users, because those views conflict with theirs.
I strongly believe that blatant censorship destroys the ability to have civil discussion. That is not to say that I think that unmoderated discussion is the solution, which you seem to think is the only alternative.
Wait, what? I was trying to stay out of this because I figured our discussion had run its course and clearly wasn't going anywhere, but absolutely no where in my post did I call @Ten morally...
yet their was still a need to still rub it in that he's a morally corrupt person, simply for using the wrong word.
Wait, what? I was trying to stay out of this because I figured our discussion had run its course and clearly wasn't going anywhere, but absolutely no where in my post did I call @Ten morally corrupt. I said (with new formatting to make it clearer, because I guess it wasn't clear the first time):
using it to mean "stupid" reinforces:
1. all those historical connections and
2. the idea that being less intelligent [...] is bad or immoral
Point 2 wasn't me saying @Ten was bad or immoral. I didn't tell them to shut up. I didn't call for them to be banned. I didn't say their post should be removed or censored or edited. I asked them if they would reconsider their language because I thought they might be open to it based on on things they said in their original comment and elsewhere.
Anyway, now that I've hopefully clarified that I wasn't insulting anyone or calling them a terrible person, I'm out. (@Ten, in the unlikely chance that you're still watching this, I'm sorry this has turned into such a shitshow. I honestly don't think you're a bad person.)
I very much appreciate you commenting in a positive manner. The rewording does make your point much clearer to me, at least. I still disagree that you should call out the word "retard" being...
I very much appreciate you commenting in a positive manner. The rewording does make your point much clearer to me, at least.
I still disagree that you should call out the word "retard" being inherently offensive, but that's my take on the issue, and there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. We hold different views on the matter, and through discourse we may be able to understand eachother's viewpoint more clearly.
For what it's worth, my intention was not to derail this entire thread, my intention was to voice my view on the issue. And I believe sharing views is important for people to understand eachother better and to progress as a civilization.
You should probably heed the difference between politely asking someone to reconsider using a hurtful word and censoring someone. Censorship requires authority. Politely requesting something of...
You should probably heed the difference between politely asking someone to reconsider using a hurtful word and censoring someone. Censorship requires authority. Politely requesting something of someone is just something everyday people do.
Except when it does not. When groups of people go out to get certain speakers no-platformed, that too is censorship, even though the people starting the riot have no authority of themselves. And I...
Censorship requires authority.
Except when it does not. When groups of people go out to get certain speakers no-platformed, that too is censorship, even though the people starting the riot have no authority of themselves.
Politely requesting something of someone is just something everyday people do.
And I politely request you do not try to censor people. For some reason, my request is abhorrent, but the request to actively censor oneself is not.
You responded to one person telling one other person that the word they choice is hurtful in the exact context that it was used. Give it up already. The context of your request is inflammatory....
When groups of people
You responded to one person telling one other person that the word they choice is hurtful in the exact context that it was used. Give it up already.
For some reason, my request is abhorrent, but the request to actively censor oneself is not.
The context of your request is inflammatory. This is a thread about Giuliani talking about what the President can or can't do, which need I remind you a tweet from teh president himself has added to this morning. THIS ENTIRE discussion is offtopic, and you getting outraged at this offtopic but politely expressed comment is ridiculous. The fact that you think this is an appropriate use of your and @eladnarra's time troubles me.
If you want to talk about this, make it its own thread. But stop derailing this one.
I don't see my request as being inflammatory. Unless @eladnarra's request is also inflammatory to you. Both request the other to not say certain things. I agree this is offtopic. But calling me...
I don't see my request as being inflammatory. Unless @eladnarra's request is also inflammatory to you. Both request the other to not say certain things.
THIS ENTIRE discussion is offtopic, and you getting outraged at this offtopic but politely expressed comment is ridiculous.
I agree this is offtopic. But calling me "outraged" sounds like a bit of an overstatement. I believe I've written out my points as to why I believe the offtopic request I responded to was uncalled for. Trying to attack my person, calling me outraged and questioning the use of my time to fight for what I think is important is a cheap shot at best.
If you want to talk about this, make it its own thread. But stop derailing this one.
There are degrees of offtopic that are discouraged but fine. I would say one layer of that is enough. The three or four or five layers deep that you have brought this is not fine. I am speaking up...
There are degrees of offtopic that are discouraged but fine. I would say one layer of that is enough. The three or four or five layers deep that you have brought this is not fine. I am speaking up to tell you that if you wish to debate this particular topic, you should make it isn't own ~talk thread. Do not continue using this thread for this debate. It's too far off topic.
And your getting so defensive about this simple request shows just how outraged you are. Your refusal to see anyone else's actions in this discussion as anything but group censorship of the BRAVE individual standing up for his fellow man's right to call someone else "retarded" is demonstrative of your passion, but it's also keeping people from thinking about anything else that relates to THIS thread's topic. Your insistence on getting the last word anywhere you can illuminates just how attached you are to this offtopic derailment.
I am telling you point blank to make another thread and go there with this passion. I am not telling you to shut up. I'm telling you to redirect your passion to a more appropriate place. Your inability to do that makes you a harmful substance that is debating in bad faith.
So my suggestion to you is to take a deep breath, make your stand-alone debate thread in ~talk, and then if people want to keep engaging you here, link them the new thread so they can debate with you in a more appropriate place. That's not so hard, is it?
In short, stop being so PC with stuff. @Ten was not trying to be offensive, but you're trying to erase all usage of the word, because some snowflakes could be offended. As @Tyil said "Trying to...
In short, stop being so PC with stuff.
@Ten was not trying to be offensive, but you're trying to erase all usage of the word, because some snowflakes could be offended.
As @Tyil said "Trying to get people to not say a certain thing is trying to censor it."
Let those affected save their own outrage for when they are truly wronged.
Until then, don't try to make unrelated discussions politically correct.
I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting to someone who has claimed in other threads, as Ten has, that they are concerned about such language. You seem to be projecting a bit here.
I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting to someone who has claimed in other threads, as Ten has, that they are concerned about such language. You seem to be projecting a bit here.
The amount of stuff Trump has gotten away with (and in all likelihood will continue to get away with for the remainder of his term, unless the midterms change the landscape significantly) by...
The amount of stuff Trump has gotten away with (and in all likelihood will continue to get away with for the remainder of his term, unless the midterms change the landscape significantly) by exploiting loopholes in the system is fascinating. A president pardoning himself would be akin to political suicide, something so absurd that it apparently was never even considered as a possibility by most (sane) actors in society. So absurd that there's no actual provision against it, because who would even think of doing that, right? Or a president having his family members act as government representatives and negotiate on his behalf, gleefully speeding past the definition of "nepotism". A president openly attacking the press and demanding his political opponents be investigated, with the White House dismissing concerns because he's just exercising his right to "free speech"? And now we're at the stage where the president can't obstruct justice "because he is justice"?
If you can ignore for a second what all of this means for American politics, American society, and indeed the world... it's truly a fascinating—and mildly terrifying—state of affairs.
It's not so much "hope" as it is the fact that I'm seeing all of this happen from outside. I'd be significantly more worried and less fascinated if I were an American, but at least for now I can...
It's not so much "hope" as it is the fact that I'm seeing all of this happen from outside. I'd be significantly more worried and less fascinated if I were an American, but at least for now I can watch the show from a distance. Not a safe distance, mind you, but from a distance nonetheless. It's also made me pay more attention to politics in my country, because I believe the Trump model can definitely appear and take root in other places without most people noticing.
Isn't this something that's pretty common among wealthy and powerful people, though? It's often part of the reasons they got into their position. I'm not from the USA, but I find it remarkable...
The amount of stuff Trump has gotten away with (and in all likelihood will continue to get away with for the remainder of his term, unless the midterms change the landscape significantly) by exploiting loopholes in the system is fascinating
Isn't this something that's pretty common among wealthy and powerful people, though? It's often part of the reasons they got into their position. I'm not from the USA, but I find it remarkable that you get upset when Trump does something which other people have been doing for ages already. Sure, Trump is a silly person, but I can't say that their are sane alternatives in your political climate. It's been detoriated to a "pick your poison" situation.
And I don't think that his attacks at the press are unwarranted. The mainstream media seems very biased towards the left, and that should be called out. And yes, calling out bullshit when you see it should be protected under free speech, it's what you have that particular right for. You shouldn't be censored for having an unpopular opinion, and you should be able to talk about things people don't like to hear. It's how you can achieve progress.
That is not to say that I don't agree here, that a president being able to pardon himself sounds pretty dangerous.
Fox News Channel is the most watched cable network in the United States, but somehow they get left out of "mainstream media." Sean Hannity is the most watched cable news host. They are very biased...
I didn't mean to imply that it is only biased to the left (I don't think I said that). Also, just because there's a couple of alternatives in the sea of heavily left-wing biased media outlets...
I didn't mean to imply that it is only biased to the left (I don't think I said that).
Also, just because there's a couple of alternatives in the sea of heavily left-wing biased media outlets doesn't change the status quo of most popular, mainstream media outlets being heavily biased to the left in general. Taking a small sample and basing your entire view just on that seems shortsighted to me.
Disclaimer: I'm not from the USA myself, so my insight in the matter may surely be biased as well. If you can bring actual numbers from the whole spectrum, and not just a small subset taken for confirmation bias, we could discuss it further.
Fox News is not a small sample at all. They are a mega corporation with wide reach. Since you reside outside the US, and you are obviously hearing that the MSM is left leaning, you might be...
Fox News is not a small sample at all. They are a mega corporation with wide reach. Since you reside outside the US, and you are obviously hearing that the MSM is left leaning, you might be getting some biased info. I am not a member of a political party myself. Some of the outlets are biased. But most of the time when I see accusations getting thrown around, they are reporting straight up facts that Republicans just don't like. And those are real numbers. That's actual data about Q1 viewership. Not confirmation bias.
I'm not saying Fox News on itself is not a small sample, what I'm saying is that Fox News is just a single entity. When looking at the bigger picture, Fox News is not the only news outlet, and...
I'm not saying Fox News on itself is not a small sample, what I'm saying is that Fox News is just a single entity. When looking at the bigger picture, Fox News is not the only news outlet, and focussing all your attention just on them to prove that the entire category is not biased to the left is shortsighted.
That's what I mean with "a small subset taken for confirmation bias". You're ignoring everything but this very small set (only a single media outlet) from the large category (the mainstream media) to prove your point.
I don't think @MidnightMadness was trying to disprove a left-leaning bias. They were pointing out that the most mainstream outlet (by viewership numbers) is biased in the opposite direction,...
focussing all your attention just on them to prove that the entire category is not biased to the left
I don't think @MidnightMadness was trying to disprove a left-leaning bias. They were pointing out that the most mainstream outlet (by viewership numbers) is biased in the opposite direction, something that was left out of your previous comment.
You're ignoring everything but this very small set (only a single media outlet)
If you have, let's say, 10 media outlets and one of them is the single most watched news outlet in the entire country, does it still count as a "small set"?
For the purpose I was trying to demonstrate, yes. But also in practical terms, this would ignore much of the real world. Let's continue on your example of 10 media outlets, and you only look at...
If you have, let's say, 10 media outlets and one of them is the single most watched news outlet in the entire country, does it still count as a "small set"?
For the purpose I was trying to demonstrate, yes. But also in practical terms, this would ignore much of the real world. Let's continue on your example of 10 media outlets, and you only look at the top one in order to try and disprove the claim that the media in general is biased to a certain ideology. The first one reaches 45% of the country, and is biased towards the right. The second and third most popular reach 30% and 25% respectively, and are biased towards the left. That means if we extend our sample to the top 3 outlets, now the bias to the left reaches 55% of the people, whereas only 45% of the people are keeping track of the right-wing biased media.
This is why I don't consider looking only at a partial set is accurate. Yes, they're the largest, but if the rest of the big outlets together reach a much bigger target together, it doesn't really matter much. This is why I'd like to see unbiased statistics of the whole spectrum, not just a small subset that doesn't tell much on itself. I'd also like to point out that it's next to impossible to get unbiased sources, especially in this age of disinformation.
Again, nowhere in this comment chain has anyone said anything about trying to disprove a left-leaning bias, so I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by repeating that over and over.
and you only look at the top one in order to try and disprove the claim that the media in general is biased to a certain ideology
Again, nowhere in this comment chain has anyone said anything about trying to disprove a left-leaning bias, so I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by repeating that over and over.
Perhaps not directly, but to bring only the argument "b-but this one over there isn't left-leaning therefore you are wrong" does seem like a pretty big implication that my assesment of a...
Perhaps not directly, but to bring only the argument "b-but this one over there isn't left-leaning therefore you are wrong" does seem like a pretty big implication that my assesment of a left-leaning bias is to be wrong. I originally joined tildes for the sake of having discussions and becoming more informed. I don't quite recognize most comment chains as being productive discussions, but more of a "you're wrong kiddo" environment, simply for holding a different opinion. I even stated explicitly that I am not from the USA and could be biased, and would like to continue with a more sane sample set, but that hasn't been provided.
I also don't think this discussion is going to turn into a conversation where either party will walk away satisfied at this point, so I'll just drop it.
Again, an argument no one has actually made in this discussion. I'm with you on this one. Hard for a conversation to go anywhere when one side keeps trying to refute arguments that the other side...
but to bring only the argument "b-but this one over there isn't left-leaning therefore you are wrong"
I also don't think this discussion is going to turn into a conversation where either party will walk away satisfied at this point, so I'll just drop it.
I'm with you on this one. Hard for a conversation to go anywhere when one side keeps trying to refute arguments that the other side never made. Oh, well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Why aren't Americans protesting on the streets. The overall vibe seems like anti Trump sentiment is at an all time high since his election but I not seeing any news of coordinated protests. Trump...
Why aren't Americans protesting on the streets. The overall vibe seems like anti Trump sentiment is at an all time high since his election but I not seeing any news of coordinated protests. Trump is making a mockery of every rational american and they seem to be just lying down and letting him run all over them.
At first, they were (as you may recall with the Women's march on washington, protests in airports over the travel ban, and the rally to end gun violence or whatever it was called). But I think...
At first, they were (as you may recall with the Women's march on washington, protests in airports over the travel ban, and the rally to end gun violence or whatever it was called). But I think people realize that unless there is a specific mission for the protest, there is little to be gained from it. What should people go out and protest? Trump's existence? That's hardly an affront to humankind (even if he is an asshole). Should we protest America? We believe that being critical of your country is what being a patriot is all about.
If there is a specific cause to rally around, we will have such a protest. And people in America are protesting more these days than basically any non-Vietnam-related time. So I don't know what you're expecting from us. Trump is still president. Do you expect a protest to depose him?
Until Trump acts to pardon himself, I will watch and wait. Until he acts to fire Robert Mueller, I will watch and wait. Posturing and protesting the posturing is meaningless.
This is something I don't see covered in the international media. Yes. Why not. There are severe implications that he came to office under suspicious circumstances and several actor directly...
And people in America are protesting more these days than basically any non-Vietnam-related time.
This is something I don't see covered in the international media.
So I don't know what you're expecting from us. Trump is still president. Do you expect a protest to depose him?
Yes. Why not. There are severe implications that he came to office under suspicious circumstances and several actor directly involved in his campaign have been indicted. Or how about the fact that he refuses to appear before a Senate hearing. Those are reasons to go out and protest, to make your voices heard. To keep up the pressure. If not now, are you sure that the American public will stand up and protest if Trump pardons himself or fires Mueller. The implications are there and Trump has shown that he will go as far as he can get away with and he's getting away with it.
Deposing Trump with just a protest would be disastrous. And currently there are not enough people in congress who could be persuaded by a protest to do things the "proper" way. So yeah, we wait,...
Deposing Trump with just a protest would be disastrous. And currently there are not enough people in congress who could be persuaded by a protest to do things the "proper" way.
So yeah, we wait, unfortunately. People are still protesting individual issues, like gun rights, DACA, immigration in general. But a protest saying "Trump is probably a criminal and also terrible for this country" isn't going to change the minds of the Republicans currently in power.
Probably not but it would be a public display of disapproval. Civil disobedience is one of the cornerstones of a functioning democracy and it seems to me that with what has been going on there...
Probably not but it would be a public display of disapproval. Civil disobedience is one of the cornerstones of a functioning democracy and it seems to me that with what has been going on there should be noise.
I'm probably to far removed to properly judge what the general atmosphere is though. A single event that sparks outrage might trigger the population like if he'd pardon himself. I keep comparing this with the situation here in Iceland 10 years ago. It seemed to me that it took a lot less back then for people to get out and take to the street but there was also a single event that sparked everything.
The women's march was a public display of disapproval. And the others are as well, just targeted at specific issues. @BuckeyeSundae mentioned reporting fatigue, but there's also participant...
The women's march was a public display of disapproval. And the others are as well, just targeted at specific issues.
@BuckeyeSundae mentioned reporting fatigue, but there's also participant fatigue. You do what you can without burning out (hopefully). You focus on issues where you know you can make a difference or have the passion to keep going, on building up an organizational structure for November, on keeping track of all the crap we're going to have to fix when we get the chance (if we even can).
And there are various organizations looking for the "right" time to protest, when things tip the scale from "wow this shit is sketchy" to "okay, yup, definitely criminal." Every time a hint of Mueller being fired starts going around, I get an email from some organization that got my address at some point about their protest plan if he gets fired. That sort of event will spark something; whether it has a long-term effect we'll just have to see.
That's the great thing about a democracy, even if it's stifled in a way. As long as you have an avenue to make yourself heard there is always hope. Long term effect is only achieved through long...
That's the great thing about a democracy, even if it's stifled in a way. As long as you have an avenue to make yourself heard there is always hope. Long term effect is only achieved through long term activism.
I'm beginning to think that the entire western world is entirely desensitized and have come to accept that nothing can be done about corruption. I'm certainly seeing similar things here. It seems that people are fatigued.
Hope is good~ I'm actually fairly pessimistic about the long term, although trying to combat that and do what I can. One of the reasons I feared a Republican presidency (not just Trump) was the...
Hope is good~
I'm actually fairly pessimistic about the long term, although trying to combat that and do what I can. One of the reasons I feared a Republican presidency (not just Trump) was the effect it will likely have on our Supreme Court. With terms for life, a few new conservative judges tip the balance for decades. And issues such as climate change needed action a decade ago, not whenever we get the next Democratic president/congress.
A protest saying that someone is probably a criminal shouldn't have any implications against the supposed criminal. An important aspect of the judicial system is the innocent until proven guilty...
A protest saying that someone is probably a criminal shouldn't have any implications against the supposed criminal. An important aspect of the judicial system is the innocent until proven guilty mantra. It's there for a reason. If you are going to change this system to "guilty until I say otherwise", you're literally going against the very fundament of justice that we have.
I'm not really sure why you're telling me this. It doesn't really seem to follow from what I said, which is that deposing Trump in an improper way (through protest only) would be disastrous. What...
I'm not really sure why you're telling me this. It doesn't really seem to follow from what I said, which is that deposing Trump in an improper way (through protest only) would be disastrous. What did I say that indicated I don't believe in innocent until proven guilty?
No worries. I've been commenting over a couple threads in the past few moments, and I'm trying to stay concise with my comments. I could've done better to convey my stance here.
No worries. I've been commenting over a couple threads in the past few moments, and I'm trying to stay concise with my comments. I could've done better to convey my stance here.
You probably saw it when the events happened. The Women's March and the travel ban protests both happened within the first month of Trump's presidency, so it's been a while. Protests since then...
This is something I don't see covered in the international media.
You probably saw it when the events happened. The Women's March and the travel ban protests both happened within the first month of Trump's presidency, so it's been a while. Protests since then have spurned up repeatedly, drawing sizable crowds but also reporting fatigue (who wants to cover another protest advocating for women's rights?).
The gun control rally's coverage would have been back around march this year, and also drew a large enough crowd to pierce through into national media here. That was covered in large part because of who organized it (survivors of the Parkland shooting) just as much as how many showed up.
Yeah, I remember those. I guess I expected more. How is the atmosphere in regards to protesting in America, in general? Are people afraid of the police state that America has become. Will you guys...
Yeah, I remember those. I guess I expected more.
How is the atmosphere in regards to protesting in America, in general? Are people afraid of the police state that America has become. Will you guys ever see a demonstration on the scale of The Vietnam protests or the million man March?
The atmosphere within the protests is usually pretty good (I've been to a couple locally, and I was in DC for the giant Women's march), but it's almost always framed as a launching pad for...
The atmosphere within the protests is usually pretty good (I've been to a couple locally, and I was in DC for the giant Women's march), but it's almost always framed as a launching pad for organizing more generally. The protest is the social event that gets like minded people together to share information so that they can help elect people who will end this shit.
I do think that a lot of people misunderstand what protests really are in the US (organizing social events), but I think apathy, disagreement with approach ("what will a protest accomplish"), and just people who feel uncomfortable around so many people who are angry about something are bigger factors than any real fear of suppression.
As far as scale is concerned, the Women's March on Washington easily beat both of the protests you mentioned, so ... I'm not sure how to answer that, lol. You had all sorts of protests literally all across the globe that day, not just in DC where you saw an absolute fuckton of people (I don't remember exact numbers off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure that tallies for the day across just the US were around 2-3million conservatively).
Yeah, the global noise probably drowned it out. We had had about 10% of the nation on the streets then so that was dominating any global numbers in the local media.
Yeah, the global noise probably drowned it out. We had had about 10% of the nation on the streets then so that was dominating any global numbers in the local media.
Honest question: what could the American people realistically do if Trump actually pardoned himself, or if he fired Müller? There are mechanisms to remove a sitting president, but they require...
Until Trump acts to pardon himself, I will watch and wait. Until he acts to fire Robert Mueller, I will watch and wait. Posturing and protesting the posturing is meaningless.
Honest question: what could the American people realistically do if Trump actually pardoned himself, or if he fired Müller? There are mechanisms to remove a sitting president, but they require Congress or the president's own cabinet to act, and at this point both scenarios seem highly unlikely to happen.
The American people aren't really a cohesive unit right now, as you might have noticed, but a large number would be protesting in the streets, and those protests might even be durable and violent...
The American people aren't really a cohesive unit right now, as you might have noticed, but a large number would be protesting in the streets, and those protests might even be durable and violent unlike the highly organized, overwhelmingly peaceful affairs of the past year and a half.
And I don't think that would be a good thing either. Violent protests about anything will be put down with violence, and I think we all know which party has more power in this exchange. There would be blood in the streets from violent protest, and most of the blood would be the protesters'.
Knowing this, we more pragmatic and French Revolution-fearing types prefer this situation to resolve legally, with additional checking mechanisms put in place. My suspicion is that even Republicans would potentially be willing to create laws and rules to restrain the president's ability to pardon indefinitely after any such abuse. Firing Mueller depends on when that happens on how likely some republicans are to sign onto a measure that would reinstate him directly or continue the investigation he started through other means (another independent council perhaps; remember it was Nixon's firing of the special council investigating him that spurned the political backlash that ultimately culminated in his resignation).
Definitely. That makes the situation even more complicated, and is one of the reasons why I honestly hope that, if the current abuses do reach the point of threatening to spark (or actually...
The American people aren't really a cohesive unit right now
Definitely. That makes the situation even more complicated, and is one of the reasons why I honestly hope that, if the current abuses do reach the point of threatening to spark (or actually triggering) violent civil unrest, those in power would do the right thing, if only for their own safety.
That scenario (minus the violence) is basically the one I've discussed with friends more than once when talking American politics. Republicans are taking every advantage they can get right now, seeing how far they can push, and how much they can get away with. It's evident that many of the R higher-ups are not so much supporting Trump as they are riding along and trying to reap all the benefits they can while the ride lasts. I can imagine a point where supporting Trump becomes a liability for them, and in an attempt to cut their losses and save face they turn their back on him. It's probably incredibly naive of me, but I don't think those people would actually be willing to throw themselves to the fire (and put their wealth, position, influence, etc. at risk) to support someone like Trump, especially with how fickle and selfish he's known to be.
It's the vocal minority thing. I don't think Trump is as hated by the public as some would like him to be. He didn't get elected by accident. Even with all the mainstream media trying to bring him...
It's the vocal minority thing. I don't think Trump is as hated by the public as some would like him to be. He didn't get elected by accident. Even with all the mainstream media trying to bring him down, he still won. Clearly, the people don't see Trump as the pure incarnation of evil.
You are wrong. He lost the popular vote. We also have polling: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ His fans are a very vocal minority.
Actually, his biggest proponents and his biggest opponents are very vocal minorities. And random polls from random sources are generally biased towards the people that they get to participate, so...
Actually, his biggest proponents and his biggest opponents are very vocal minorities. And random polls from random sources are generally biased towards the people that they get to participate, so I don't consider them valid most of the time. Remember how Trump had a 1% chance of winning? Those polls clearly didn't work out the way some people wanted.
The fact he got elected is quite clear evidence that Trump isn't as hated as you try to make him out to be, no matter how many statistics you try to pull up, fact is he actually got elected. You don't get elected when only a dozen hard-right people vote for you.
It could also be the "pick your posion" mentality, and it's not that people like Trump, they just have even less confidence in the left, and I personally can't say I blame them. Both major candidates were absolute garbage from my perspective. The issue is more that the USA people are so divided, and are now in "camps". And you can't be partially in one camp, you're either against us, or with us. Neither side seems to be willing to listen to the other side, or to reason in general.
And just saying "you're wrong, he lost one vote" doesn't change the reality of the situation. I said he's clearly not haed as much, and he didn't get elected by accident. Both of these statements are objectively true. I'm looking at the situation from a reasoned perspective (at least, that's what I tell myself at night), and I'm not trying to blame a single group for the current situation. Take a step back, look at the entire situation, and don't try to blame it all on a single group. Even if that were the reality of it all, it makes you no better than the people you're trying to condemn.
It's obvious that you aren't interest in real facts, just "alternative facts." The sources I cited are nonpartisan. And I didn't say he lost by one vote. It was lot more than that. I also haven't...
It's obvious that you aren't interest in real facts, just "alternative facts." The sources I cited are nonpartisan. And I didn't say he lost by one vote. It was lot more than that. I also haven't blamed a group for anything. Or condemned anyone.
I find it saddening to see you completely dismissing my wish for actual objective facts as just wanting "alternative facts". You're not going to convince anyone of your points by just dismissing...
I find it saddening to see you completely dismissing my wish for actual objective facts as just wanting "alternative facts". You're not going to convince anyone of your points by just dismissing their view as "alternative facts" and not providing any decent sources of what is to be reality according to you.
And I didn't say he lost by one vote. It was lot more than that.
But he didn't lose the election, he actually won. I've been talking about his election vote all along, which he won. He's president right now. If he didn't win, but he's still president, I think the USA has a bigger problem on their hands right now.
I also haven't blamed a group for anything.
His fans are a very vocal minority.
Those exists on both sides. By ignoring one side, you're implicitly only blaming his fans. If you want to progress beyond the current state of affairs, you'll have to hold all sides accountable, not just the one that doesn't agree with you.
Many reasons, but two big ones are: Many can't just not show up to work and go protesting instead, or they would be fired. Since a job is necessary to pay rent and other expenses, losing a job...
Many reasons, but two big ones are:
Many can't just not show up to work and go protesting instead, or they would be fired. Since a job is necessary to pay rent and other expenses, losing a job could fuck over a lot of people.
Some portion of people are happy to go with the flow as long as society keeps spinning. They're not interested in the finer details.
A lot of people are struggling just to make ends meet and can't afford to go protest. The ones who can are comfortable enough to just wait it out and see. We're experiencing a huge bystander...
A lot of people are struggling just to make ends meet and can't afford to go protest. The ones who can are comfortable enough to just wait it out and see. We're experiencing a huge bystander effect: nobody wants to be the first one to throw in the towel and take to the streets for fear of it being the wrong time.
I think if Mueller and/or Rosenstein is fired and there isn't a huge backlash of protests, we will have officially lost and become a country of sheep ready for a dictatorial shepherd.
I've been cautioned that it isn't a good idea to editorialize headlines. This one clearly is only half of the story, painting things in the worst light possible... By leaving the latter half of...
I've been cautioned that it isn't a good idea to editorialize headlines. This one clearly is only half of the story, painting things in the worst light possible...
Trump can probably pardon himself, but has no plan to: Giuliani
By leaving the latter half of the title out, you're priming people to be angry. This gets clicks, but it's irresponsible.
I completely share your view on editorialized headlines. I must point out however that the article's URL is trump-lawyer-giuliani-says-president-probably-can-pardon-himself (consistent with the...
I completely share your view on editorialized headlines. I must point out however that the article's URL is trump-lawyer-giuliani-says-president-probably-can-pardon-himself (consistent with the headline here) and the article was updated 8 hours ago (almost 4 hours after it was submitted here). This seems to me like a case of Reuters updating the headline to a more balanced one after the article was first published.
Not that I want to kill the discussion, but does (or doesn’t) this qualify as ~politics, which we said we would not discuss, at least for the time being?
Not that I want to kill the discussion, but does (or doesn’t) this qualify as ~politics, which we said we would not discuss, at least for the time being?
Well, since politics are a major feature of discussion in many countries, and can have profound real-life effects on people's lives, I would hope that Tildes gets a dedicated political discussion...
Well, since politics are a major feature of discussion in many countries, and can have profound real-life effects on people's lives, I would hope that Tildes gets a dedicated political discussion section soon.
The conclusions that the President can't be charged with obstruction and that the President can pardon him/herself are facially ridiculous. If you think about it from a middle school civics lesson...
The conclusions that the President can't be charged with obstruction and that the President can pardon him/herself are facially ridiculous. If you think about it from a middle school civics lesson perspective the President can't remove the only meaningful check on his office through the pardon or dictate what Congress can or can't charge him with.
I think that's kind of bogus that they can hide behind that. Well it doesn't say he can't do it so technically he can do it. That kind of logic wouldn't work for the Everyman. If you had a citizen...
Giuliani added that Trump “has no intention of pardoning himself,” but that the U.S. Constitution, which gives a president the authority to issue pardons, “doesn’t say he can’t.”
I think that's kind of bogus that they can hide behind that. Well it doesn't say he can't do it so technically he can do it. That kind of logic wouldn't work for the Everyman. If you had a citizen that did something that is illegal but they didn't know it was illegal because they didn't know there was a law against it they couldn't use that logic. I mean say there's some obscure law and there's no real parameters around that law and someone technically breaks it, that person can't say well technically I did this or this so it doesn't really fall exactly in it. What I mean is, the Everyman could never use gray area like that.
They're gunning to kill the rule of law. The argument from the memo that the NYT recently published showed their argument was that the president couldn't obstruct justice because he IS justice.
November can't come soon enough.
Non-American here, what is the significance of November? Is it midterm elections?
Indeed!
Yeah, midterm elections. If we get some new folks, even more reasonable Republicans, we might see Congress actually enforcing the law and reigning in this stuff.
Sorry to be the skeptic here, but I think partisanship will beat down any serious threat of impeachment or reigning this behavior in. Democrats in the senate will be likely in the range of 48-51 seats, far short of what they'd need to successfully impeach the president. That's even before we get into the likelihood of Democrats winning the house (which is greater than the chance they win the senate, but only so long as their advantage nationally is greater than about 5 points, again far from guaranteed and polls showed this advantage being as low as 4 points on May 23rd).
Democrats have a long, hard slog ahead of them to convince people to vote against this behavior in November. Anyone who says otherwise is probably selling too hopeful a view of things.
I do agree it'll be a long, hard slog. If the rule of law doesn't win in November, I'll just be working that much harder with the DSA.
As the Pod Save America guys say, Trump has immunity by congressional majority. Neither Ryan nor McConnell have drive, whether it's lack of spine, morals or whatever, to really stand up to the Combover in a chief
Good thing the articles of impeachment for both Nixon and Clinton included obstruction of justice!
Clinton was lying under oath.
The issue here is the staunch refusal of the republican congress to hold a republican accountable for their actions.
We're seeing a blatant disregard for the law. I'm a believer that the FBI will make their case known to the public, and then let the public hold congress accountable for their inaction.
I just hope The State of New York (and I pray OTHERS!) will bring forth charges. I want Stupid Watergate to come to an end already.. it's so exhausting.
I am beyond fatigued seeing the sheer unwillingness of congressional republicans to uphold ethics laws and criminal laws.
It's beyond embarrassing as a country to have the president deem Canada a national security threat but completely capitulate to Russia.
Thats why it's so important to vote in November. Get everybody you can to vote for respectable candidates, and hopefully this nightmare will be over.
Agreed. I (anecdotally) see tons of people on my Facebook feed talking about various congressmen, heads of committees, and deputies to various governmental agencies.
I'm not hopeful yet but certainly I'm optimistic.
He was impeached for two charges-- one for perjury as you said, a second for obstruction of justice as per Wikipedia
Regardless, I truly hope the public is able to hold Congress accountable for this. Either that or that there are enough Democrat victories in the midterms that we'll have a Congress that isn't willingly complicit in the greatest criminal abuse of Presidential powers in the modern era.
IIRC, Clinton never lied under oath. They had such a narrow definition of sex and a few other questions that his opponents were essentially out-lawyered.
I agree with you. I personally don't consider a blow job 'sexual relations' I consider it a blowjob. It's completely different to actual sex.
I was thinking about politicians and D&D alignments yesterday. I think that Trump would probably be chaotic neutral if not straight up chaotic evil. Muller is lawful good, but so would be Obama. Maybe we need a third alignment descriptor for party. "Lawful Good Republican."
I'd call Obama Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good at best depending on whether you think the increase of the surveillance state and executing American citizens was rules lawyering or an executive overreach.
Nope
My friends and I have been joking that Rudy is really an FBI plant (since no lawyer would be just this bad) but it’s less and less of a joke every day.
All I can figure is he must be getting the public used to Trump's guilt this way. Also his "ability" to pardon himself.
Giuliani's comments and behaviour since joining Trumps legal team has been reckless and ridiculous. They're trying to get the idea of self-pardoning into the national discussion so that if it comes to that they already have a base of support for it.
'He can but he won't' is but a stop over on the way to 'he can and is doing so'
Traitors.
I do not like this word, but this administration is straight up retarded. Not in the mentally ill kind of way, but just soooo stupid.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/06/rudy-giuliani-says-trump-shouldnt-testify-because-our-recollection-keeps-changing/
I know this is offtopic and you already said you don't like the word, but could you maybe refrain from using it? It's considered a slur not just for mentally ill people but intellectually disabled folks, so using it to mean "stupid" reinforces all those historical connections and the idea that being less intelligent (however you define that) is bad or immoral.
Trying to censor a word because you don't like the connotation it comes with is a very silly way to try and change the word. At best, people will find another word that will get the same meaning, but isn't the exact word you have banned from use. In which case you'll have to ban that word, too, and you get a cycle of people adopting new words and you banning them.
I'd also like to point out that historical connections are called "historical" for a reason. Language changes, and the way a word was used before doesn't need to have the same meaning today. In addition to that, context matters. In the context @Ten used the word "retarded", it doesn't look like he was trying to make fun of disabled people. He even added that explicitly.
I consider trying to censor or otherwise regulate speech in this manner to be bad and immoral.
I didn't try to censor anyone. I asked @Ten to consider not using a word that is used to hurt people today (not just historically), especially given that they said that they don't even like the word. I would do the same people if I saw people using the n-word or a slur for trans or gay people.
People are free to use whatever words they like. And if I know that a word is considered a slur by a group of people, I'm free to chime in and point it out.
(Also, I don't know if your mirroring of my use of "bad and immoral" means you think I was calling @Ten's comment bad and immoral, as you called mine. I wasn't.)
Trying to get people to not say a certain thing is trying to censor it. It doesn't necesarily have to be a government doing it through laws. And as I in other comments, for some reason, it doesn't seem to be such a major effect, and trying to be upset for others (which clearly aren't as upset) is silly.
Do you actually know this, though? Or is this just something some vocal minority has shouted a couple times and you took over. How many people of the group you're trying to defend with censorship did you actually talk to and discuss the matter seriously with? What's the reason they aren't collectively upset, why do you have to take up that responsibility?
I have actually spoken with people in this category, both mentally and physically disabled people (mostly people I've met through my mother and her job), and it seems like it's a very little issue to them. They're generally more worried about being able to get assistance to live their lives properly, not about a word that could possibly describe them being used by someone they don't know on the Internet in an unrelated context.
Criticism is not censorship. You could use Google to discover this. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
You'll also notice that censorship is exclusively related to institutional or systemic modes of censorship, involving people in authority who may regulate speech. People in authority do not ask nicely. Free speech is not threatened by people who simply ask nicely.
No one has mentioned a ban except you. No one who has participated in the thread so far has the authority to enforce a ban. There are far bigger threats to free speech than people asking nicely.
Indeed, and I'm taking this freedom of criticism too, to be critical of those trying to enforce censorship. I'm not saying that you're not allowed to call out things you dislike, but just as they have a right to do so, so do I.
From the very first hit through Google on "dictionary to censor": "a person who supervises conduct and morals". Censorship isn't necesarily institutional in the idea that it must be executed by a government of sorts. A person or group of people can actively try to censor others without being in political power.
You have a fundamentally different understanding of what "supervising" means I guess. I'm not interested in arguing semantics though.
Maybe I do. But I actually looked up the words I'm using in my arguments, which you told me to do. And it seems that I'm using the words as they are defined, actually. Here's the first hit from Google on "dictionary to supervise": "to watch a person or activity to make certain that everything is done correctly, safely, etc."
These definitions I've looked up to ensure I'm doing my part in a civil discussion aren't "semantics", and they seem to be defined in a way I used them. The person I responded to which sparked this outburst of politically correct nonsense was trying to supervise (they were trying to watch the actions on Tildes to ensure people are not using the "wrong" words. They intend to make the original poster stop using a certain word, because they believe it is in conflict with their sense of morals. Ergo, they're trying to censor people.
First telling me that I need to look things up on Google, then saying you don't want to "argue semantics" because I actually did and the definitions are in line with how I used them is very cheap, and most certainly not condusive to a civil discussion.
If you want to change people's views, it'd would certainly help if you were at least acting as an honest person. Don't tell people they should research things, then when they do and proceed with proof that they weren't wrong at all, tell them that you're not even interested. This will only generate a dislike for you and the cause you're trying to fight for. It'll have the exact opposite effect that you were most likely trying to achieve (to get people to understand your side and possibly have them join you).
Research on the nature of censorship is not looking up the dictionary definition of the word. That way leads to an argument of semantics. I did not recommend that. I suppose if I mention using Google I should say I don't mean just using the "I Feel Lucky" function.
You've already accepted my premise that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism. You have not given an argument that says that criticism is censorship. You have instead discarded my suggestion that censorship requires a systematic or institutional enforcement to have any meaning in this argument by conflating systems and institutions with governments. That is incorrect and misrepresenting my argument, intentional or not.
You can reject the request to avoid words that others perceive as hurtful and enforcing a historical system of oppression. That's your choice. I'd say it's insensitive and tone deaf, but that's your choice. You cannot- in the same breath- conflate criticism with censorship, decry censorship, admit that you are doing the same thing, and elsewhere use "slippery slope" arguments, without putting on display an argument that appears to either be in bad faith or so incoherent that it's indistinguishable.
This is something that you told me to look up on Google, which I did, and it did not agree with your idea of censorship. If you want to keep arguing that literally every dictionary in the world is wrong, you'd have to come up with some proof. I did go out and come up with some basis for my use of the word. You don't get to discard reality for the sake of undermining someone else's argument, especially not if you first told them to "go Google it" (which you clearly did not).
That's why I'm not doing it in the same breath. I'm adjusting the way I represent the argument based on what spin the social justice camp gives it. And they are very good at spinning things around and rewording it to make them look like some holy knight that bravely protect the innocent, when all they're doing is hurting the freedom of society to simply talk about things.
Your argument was that there's freedom of criticism, and I say that I agree. It's part of freedom of speech. That means you can criticise me, I can criticise people that try to censor (or "try to criticise the use of certain words", if that description is more to your liking), and @alednarra is allowed to criticise the use of certain words to make a point.
I mean, yeah. As a disabled person myself I'm more concerned about being able to find a job that I can physically do and won't put my resume in the trash the moment I mention accommodations. I'm more concerned about forced institutionalization of disabled folks, about cuts to Medicaid, about how difficult it is for people to get on SSI/SSDI (and how SSI is less than minimum wage). I'm more fired up when the ACA and its protections for things like pre-existing conditions are threatened. I'm more worried about HR620 which threatens the accessibility of public places (some of which are still not up to ADA standards after nearly 3 decades).
If forced to, I would prioritize those issues. But I don't have to. I can care about all those things and still be concerned about the use of a word that people in my community say hurts them, particularly autistic folks or those with intellectual disabilities. (And yes, I have been a participant or spectator in conversations about ableist slurs with "people in this category.")
So I think we agree that someone using some word in an unrelated context on the Internet is not that big of an issue. While you don't have to ignore a certain issue because it's not as big as other issues, I do think you're focussing too much on this incredibly little issue when you could spend your effort elsewhere and get much bigger increases in quality of life for disabled people.
Interesting, as I'm autistic myself, yet I don't see any issue whatsoever with people calling people retards. Especially not over the Internet.
I wrote a short post that may (or may not) have prompted some people to consider language that hurts (some) disabled people. Until you replied, it had taken no more than a few minutes out of my day. I don't consider that to be focusing too much on it.
As to the fact that you don't see any issue with the word: great! But some folks do, and by not using it you can avoid hurting them. It's honestly that simple.
By trying to police language you're hurting the ability of the general public to speak freely, which in the long term hurts discourse in general. It's a slippery slope that I don't want to start on, as it can only get worse with time. By not trying to censor people you can avoid hurting one of the core foundations of democracy itself.
So you have no problem with people calling you stupid for not being able to pick up on social cues that most others are perfectly capable of?
No, and I don't see why I would? Nobody is perfect, and I don't expect anyone to be either. Why should I be somehow protected as a person from insults? I'd rather be treated like a normal person, and called out for being unable to pick up on social cues when needed. I don't want a special treatment when it's not needed. We're all still humans, and we all do silly things from time to time. I don't think someone's mental or physicial condition makes him more (or less) of a human that needs special protection.
It's ableism.
I am assuming that you probably wouldn't have an issue if it were racism against a race, phobia against a sexuality, phobia against a gender, or any other use of a slur perjoratively that harms a minority group.
So why then are you ok with the use of a slur that harms the disabled? The least capable of the population to actually defend themselves.
I don't particularly care what the intention behind the use is. I don't particularly think it would be ok for me to call you a nigger with the intention of it not to mean black people but just something bad. So I don't think it should be ok for me to call you (or anyone) retarded with the intention of it not to mean disabled people but just to say "something bad".
He didn't call for censorship. He explained the issue. Calling for censorship would be bringing in the moderation of it. This is one such instance where we have a commonly used phrase that is used pejoratively that we should explain WHY it shouldn't be. Because it has little difference in effect to the slurs of any other group being used in different ways that aren't targeted that group in intention but ARE harming them indirectly.
You shouldn't make assumptions about people, especially not if they're wrong. I am very strong in my conviction in favour of free speech. You should be able to use whatever word to describe a common group. If you want to go use the word faggots to refer to my gay friends, I'm not going to stop you. And if you want to start calling out my black friends as niggers, be my guest. While I may not agree with you doing so, I'll gladly fight for your right to free speech.
Because they don't seem to be harmed in any sense of the word. As I've said in other comments already, having actually spoken to these people, they don't seem to think it's that big of a deal. They have much bigger issues on their hands than some random person saying a certain word in an unrelated context. The world in general has much bigger issues.
They did. Trying to regulate speech is censorship. I don't care whether you think they're "morally right" in doing so. Explaining the issue doesn't change the fact of attempted censorship either. It's common to have some reasoning behind censorship. It's also very common to try and bring it as something positive to the community at large, while actively ignoring long term effects of bringing in censorship. It's a very slippery slope, and I'd rather not start falling to begin with.
So at least we agree that there is no direct harm, if I understand you correctly. I'd also argue there's little to no indirect harm. If I'm going to my friend in a wheelchair tomorrow and tell him someone used the word retard on an online forum in a context that's not related to him or anyone else in a similar condition, will this have any effects at all? I can assure you, he wouldn't sleep less of it.
You are all over this thread making one bad faith argument after another. You are arguing for a commenter to be able say "retarded, " when someone nicely suggested they not, arguing that non partisan sources are biased, accusing commenters you don't agree with of bias, accusing them of condemning others when nothing like that is happening. Arguing that if we want to impeach Trump we don't believe in "innocent until proven guilyy" even though that doesn't apply to impeachment and you are putting words others' mouths.
Thanks for pointing that out. Probably best not to waste time on someone who communicates exclusively in bad faith arguments...
Wow, that went straight on the person instead of on the comments themselves. I guess this is a good point to stop the attempted discussion.
I find it highly ironic that you're not okay with referring to people with some words, only to start using some other words to try and insult me (in this case transphobe). I'm not advocating for people to start insulting one another here, let me make that clear. I'm advocating for allowing actual discussions to happen, and that requires free speech. Again, I have to make very clear, context is important in a discussion. A word on itself doesn't carry context. It would be wonderful if you people would understand what context is.
I'd also like to remind you that I've not been calling people names here, like you're doing in an attempt to make me look like a bad person. To quote the actual rules that you refer to:
Calling me names when you know very little of me doesn't sound like "basic civility", whereas I am trying to keep reasonable discussion possible. I don't think trying to police speech in such a manner that words, regardless of context, cannot be safely used without backlash is a healthy environment. However, in your context, you're just going around to call people names. That's harmful to discussion.
To continue on the rules you were talking about, the Golden Rule starts with
It would be much appreciated if you could live by the rules you set out for others. If you can refrain from namecalling, we could surely have a more interesting discussion and maybe try to understand eachothers viewpoint.
Oh, my apologies. I don't keep up the local news much, and I didn't quite catch that you were referring to something out of the scope of the comments in this thread.
There's certainly contexts, like quotes from other people. If there's a news article about someone calling some other person a "faggot", for instance, we should be able to talk about it. It's still the same word, but the context is a certain quotation. This can happen with literally every word. Hence I must come to the conclusion that trying to remove certain words from speech (whether through legislation, or simple crowd censorship) is impossible if your aim is for honest discussion.
I think we both agree on this issue, to be honest. We both agree it should be context, and that the rules already take care of the bad context in which those words would be harmful to discussion.
There's nothing civil about name calling the other party in a discussion. Yet, this whole discussion isn't sparked out of name calling in a discussion, it's sparked for someone trying to appeal to "morals" to inform them they're bad persons.
Sadly, this action was done in complete disregard to the context. The one complaining even acknowledges there was a context established already to make the intentions of @Ten clear, but that they chose to ignore it just so they can try to silence a certain word that they take offense from. It should be clear that offense is something that is taken by another party, not given. It's also completely subjective, and therefore impossible to properly police, even if that were something worth to strive for.
It's a lot more than not liking the word, though. That slur can be incredibly offensive to many people. Just because it does not make you hurt and upset in the same way does not mean it doesn't do that to others. It's also really not at all a big deal to just not say the word. You can say unintelligent and it has the same meaning, without hurting anyone.
It can, yes. But it's not a given that everytime the word gets used, it will offend people. As a matter of fact, offense is actually taken, not something you give to someone. Though people do sometimes say things with the intent to offend people, whether the person in question is actually offended by it is up to the people themselves. Trying to be offended for them seems petty.
To make matters more interesting, my mother has worked her entire life in healthcare, specifically care at home for disabled people. I've met many of her patients, and they actually don't seem to care that much, they often describe themselves with words you'd call slurs.
What's more, a friend of mine, who is in a wheelchair, recently got banned from a Facebook group for making a joke about people in wheelchairs. I simply cannot comprehend how people like you argue for banning certain speech from possibly offending people, if it's the people you supposedly defend themselves that have little issue with it to begin with.
Surely. Usage of the word itself is also not at all a big deal. There's far bigger issues in the world than "someone used a word that I dislike because it has the potential to offend others". In reality, everything has the potential to offend others. Context, as I've said before, is a very important aspect to take into consideration.
To quote someone who's recently spoken out about using "possibly offensive wording":
" Just because it does not make you hurt and upset in the same way does not mean it doesn't do that to others."
So did and do many black people? What point are you getting at that makes it any different?
That the idea that these people need to be protected from certain slurs is completely bonkers.
Who is saying we need to protect anyone from slurs? The idea is to just try not to be an asshole.
"Asshole" is relative. To me, anyone trying to censor other people is an "asshole". It goes against a very important aspect of civil discussion.
You have a very thin skin when it comes to polite requests. That shouldn't be taken out on every person in every thread. Pick your battles.
Heh, if I'd use the "grow a thicker skin" argument as a reason why people should be able to call eachother "retard" I'd be flaming, and an ignorant bigot. The double standard coming from those arguing for social justice and censorship is outrageous.
The fact that you think I'm censoring you when I say "hey, buddy. This is extremely offtopic. Maybe you should take your favorite ranting topic elsewhere" is hilarious. Maybe you should spend more time wondering why I might consider your behavior to be harmful to positive discussion since I've said it about three or four times now.
Fifth time's the charm I guess: Stop. Give this discussion up and move it elsewhere if you must. This thread is NOT the appropriate place to continue harping about what is clearly a very passionate and separate debate.
Does a black person referring to his/herself by the n-word make it okay for anyone to use that term as long as the intent isn't to offend? How can you be certain that your mother's disabled patients "don't seem to care that much"? Couldn't they just be hiding their true feelings as other minorities have done in the presence of offensive language?
The better solution is to just avoid slurs that could be construed as offensive to marginalized groups of people. The English language isn't lacking in acceptable substitutes.
I personally try to not take the person's color into consideration when deducing whether or not I agree with them. I don't think anyone should be unable to use any word, so long as the context is not destructive to a discussion. I believe the context here was not with the intention to insult a certain group of people. The fact that the poster explicitly indicated this is a major part in this.
The problem is that offense is taken, and highly subjective to the individual whether they feel offended or not. Anything can be construed as offensive to some people who simply like being offended. The "acceptable" substitutes are acceptable to you, but may come with the some negative connotations to someone else, and therefore be offensive. Just using different words isn't the holy grail to solve the problem.
the issue is not the word itself, it's the meaning attached to the word. in no circumstance would using a different word that also refers to the mentally handicapped be less ableist.
i don't think that politely asking someone to not use a word that is regularly harsh and harmful is censorship or otherwise regulatory. it's just decent etiquette.
From this I gather that you are against the use of words that refer to any group of people that you deem too weak to defend itself. I personally don't think that words that refer to certain groups of people are inherently bad. It is often useful in a context to refer to be able to refer to the group itself with a single word.
Besides that, trying to police words because you believe the group being described is so weak that they can't even speak up for themselves is very demeaning to the group you're trying to protect. If they have an issue, they can speak up about it. The way you come across to me is that you think these people are so defective compared to yourself, that they require your guidance to understand their very own feelings.
This too depends on the context, which the original poster already established. Yet their was still a need to still rub it in that he's a morally corrupt person, simply for using the wrong word. There's a big contextual difference with just calling people names, and establishing a context in which a word is used. @Ten explicitly went for the latter. It's not "decent etiquette" anymore in this context, it's just trying to bully people into what you think is "progression" (which I'd call "regression").
This idea that everything and everyone should be policed in terms of what they can and cannot say, no matter the context is harmful to open discussion. There's a good reason most people clearly seperate "justice" from "social justice". Social justice has nothing to do with justice in any sense of the word, and all it does is try to control speech (and eventually, thought), seemingly in a bid to shut up people you don't agree with.
i feel that you are inferring my justifications based on some prior conclusions that you have about social justice, rather than what i've actually said. i don't appreciate the implication that the only reason i don't like the term 'retarded' is that i see myself as some sort of noble savior of the disadvantaged, and i think that's an extremely close-minded and simplistic view to take of anyone asking the same thing.
this is not what the context is and you know it. the current context is using the term in a derogatory way towards a group, further cementing the connotation that 'retarded' = 'bad'.
at no point did anyone say @ten was a bad person for using the word 'retarded'. @eladnarra simply asked them if they could refrain from using a word that often hurts. i don't understand why you are assuming so many things about folks' motivations, when ultimately it just boils down to wanting to keep tildes a nice place for everyone.
this tells me that you're not actually interested in any sort of civil discussion on the merits of using historical slurs in common conversation, and instead you are out to make some sort of noble stand against the demons of political correctness and social justice through willful misunderstanding and bad-faith argument. were you actually interested in open discussion, you might have asked 'why would one want to refrain from using the word retarded in this context? it doesn't seem to be hurting anyone" after which those responding would have the opportunity to explain their reasoning. instead, you have accused @elednarra of attempting to censor discussion and that they are bad and immoral for having done so.
tildes is not a space for free speech at the cost of our civility and reasonableness. stop treating it like it is — there are plenty of other spaces on the internet dedicated to such principles.
You say this, but the original post that started this social justice outburst actually contains this sentence:
It was explicitly mentioned that it was not being used in a derogatory way towards mentally ill people.
And I simply requested people refrain from trying to censor others. I don't understand why this is for some reason a highly offensive remark, whilst @eladnarra asking not to say certain words is hailed as being progression and protection of other people. There's a very clear double standard being used here.
This whole paragraph is just trying to undermine my character. If I were not interested in a civil discussion, I wouldn't be commenting here trying to defend my point of view. I "accused" someone of attempting to censor because that's literally what they were trying to do, by the very definition of the word "to censor".
If you continue on the page you linked to me, you may come across this part:
Trying to censor everyone for using words that could potentially make someone have hurt feelings when context is completely ignored sounds like you're trying to create a safe space. The idea I got from Tildes is that it is intended to allow civil, mature discussion between people sharing different views. But from what I gather from most of these comments here, these different views aren't much accepted among many users, because those views conflict with theirs.
I strongly believe that blatant censorship destroys the ability to have civil discussion. That is not to say that I think that unmoderated discussion is the solution, which you seem to think is the only alternative.
Wait, what? I was trying to stay out of this because I figured our discussion had run its course and clearly wasn't going anywhere, but absolutely no where in my post did I call @Ten morally corrupt. I said (with new formatting to make it clearer, because I guess it wasn't clear the first time):
Point 2 wasn't me saying @Ten was bad or immoral. I didn't tell them to shut up. I didn't call for them to be banned. I didn't say their post should be removed or censored or edited. I asked them if they would reconsider their language because I thought they might be open to it based on on things they said in their original comment and elsewhere.
Anyway, now that I've hopefully clarified that I wasn't insulting anyone or calling them a terrible person, I'm out. (@Ten, in the unlikely chance that you're still watching this, I'm sorry this has turned into such a shitshow. I honestly don't think you're a bad person.)
I very much appreciate you commenting in a positive manner. The rewording does make your point much clearer to me, at least.
I still disagree that you should call out the word "retard" being inherently offensive, but that's my take on the issue, and there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. We hold different views on the matter, and through discourse we may be able to understand eachother's viewpoint more clearly.
For what it's worth, my intention was not to derail this entire thread, my intention was to voice my view on the issue. And I believe sharing views is important for people to understand eachother better and to progress as a civilization.
You should probably heed the difference between politely asking someone to reconsider using a hurtful word and censoring someone. Censorship requires authority. Politely requesting something of someone is just something everyday people do.
Except when it does not. When groups of people go out to get certain speakers no-platformed, that too is censorship, even though the people starting the riot have no authority of themselves.
And I politely request you do not try to censor people. For some reason, my request is abhorrent, but the request to actively censor oneself is not.
You responded to one person telling one other person that the word they choice is hurtful in the exact context that it was used. Give it up already.
The context of your request is inflammatory. This is a thread about Giuliani talking about what the President can or can't do, which need I remind you a tweet from teh president himself has added to this morning. THIS ENTIRE discussion is offtopic, and you getting outraged at this offtopic but politely expressed comment is ridiculous. The fact that you think this is an appropriate use of your and @eladnarra's time troubles me.
If you want to talk about this, make it its own thread. But stop derailing this one.
I don't see my request as being inflammatory. Unless @eladnarra's request is also inflammatory to you. Both request the other to not say certain things.
I agree this is offtopic. But calling me "outraged" sounds like a bit of an overstatement. I believe I've written out my points as to why I believe the offtopic request I responded to was uncalled for. Trying to attack my person, calling me outraged and questioning the use of my time to fight for what I think is important is a cheap shot at best.
Practice what you preach.
There are degrees of offtopic that are discouraged but fine. I would say one layer of that is enough. The three or four or five layers deep that you have brought this is not fine. I am speaking up to tell you that if you wish to debate this particular topic, you should make it isn't own ~talk thread. Do not continue using this thread for this debate. It's too far off topic.
And your getting so defensive about this simple request shows just how outraged you are. Your refusal to see anyone else's actions in this discussion as anything but group censorship of the BRAVE individual standing up for his fellow man's right to call someone else "retarded" is demonstrative of your passion, but it's also keeping people from thinking about anything else that relates to THIS thread's topic. Your insistence on getting the last word anywhere you can illuminates just how attached you are to this offtopic derailment.
I am telling you point blank to make another thread and go there with this passion. I am not telling you to shut up. I'm telling you to redirect your passion to a more appropriate place. Your inability to do that makes you a harmful substance that is debating in bad faith.
So my suggestion to you is to take a deep breath, make your stand-alone debate thread in ~talk, and then if people want to keep engaging you here, link them the new thread so they can debate with you in a more appropriate place. That's not so hard, is it?
In short, stop being so PC with stuff.
@Ten was not trying to be offensive, but you're trying to erase all usage of the word, because some snowflakes could be offended.
As @Tyil said "Trying to get people to not say a certain thing is trying to censor it."
Let those affected save their own outrage for when they are truly wronged.
Until then, don't try to make unrelated discussions politically correct.
I don't think there is anything wrong with suggesting to someone who has claimed in other threads, as Ten has, that they are concerned about such language. You seem to be projecting a bit here.
The amount of stuff Trump has gotten away with (and in all likelihood will continue to get away with for the remainder of his term, unless the midterms change the landscape significantly) by exploiting loopholes in the system is fascinating. A president pardoning himself would be akin to political suicide, something so absurd that it apparently was never even considered as a possibility by most (sane) actors in society. So absurd that there's no actual provision against it, because who would even think of doing that, right? Or a president having his family members act as government representatives and negotiate on his behalf, gleefully speeding past the definition of "nepotism". A president openly attacking the press and demanding his political opponents be investigated, with the White House dismissing concerns because he's just exercising his right to "free speech"? And now we're at the stage where the president can't obstruct justice "because he is justice"?
If you can ignore for a second what all of this means for American politics, American society, and indeed the world... it's truly a fascinating—and mildly terrifying—state of affairs.
Mildly terrifying? You're hopeful
It's not so much "hope" as it is the fact that I'm seeing all of this happen from outside. I'd be significantly more worried and less fascinated if I were an American, but at least for now I can watch the show from a distance. Not a safe distance, mind you, but from a distance nonetheless. It's also made me pay more attention to politics in my country, because I believe the Trump model can definitely appear and take root in other places without most people noticing.
Isn't this something that's pretty common among wealthy and powerful people, though? It's often part of the reasons they got into their position. I'm not from the USA, but I find it remarkable that you get upset when Trump does something which other people have been doing for ages already. Sure, Trump is a silly person, but I can't say that their are sane alternatives in your political climate. It's been detoriated to a "pick your poison" situation.
And I don't think that his attacks at the press are unwarranted. The mainstream media seems very biased towards the left, and that should be called out. And yes, calling out bullshit when you see it should be protected under free speech, it's what you have that particular right for. You shouldn't be censored for having an unpopular opinion, and you should be able to talk about things people don't like to hear. It's how you can achieve progress.
That is not to say that I don't agree here, that a president being able to pardon himself sounds pretty dangerous.
Fox News Channel is the most watched cable network in the United States, but somehow they get left out of "mainstream media." Sean Hannity is the most watched cable news host. They are very biased towards the right.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q1-2018-ratings-fox-news-remains-no-1-on-cable-television/360865
I didn't mean to imply that it is only biased to the left (I don't think I said that).
Also, just because there's a couple of alternatives in the sea of heavily left-wing biased media outlets doesn't change the status quo of most popular, mainstream media outlets being heavily biased to the left in general. Taking a small sample and basing your entire view just on that seems shortsighted to me.
Disclaimer: I'm not from the USA myself, so my insight in the matter may surely be biased as well. If you can bring actual numbers from the whole spectrum, and not just a small subset taken for confirmation bias, we could discuss it further.
Fox News is not a small sample at all. They are a mega corporation with wide reach. Since you reside outside the US, and you are obviously hearing that the MSM is left leaning, you might be getting some biased info. I am not a member of a political party myself. Some of the outlets are biased. But most of the time when I see accusations getting thrown around, they are reporting straight up facts that Republicans just don't like. And those are real numbers. That's actual data about Q1 viewership. Not confirmation bias.
I'm not saying Fox News on itself is not a small sample, what I'm saying is that Fox News is just a single entity. When looking at the bigger picture, Fox News is not the only news outlet, and focussing all your attention just on them to prove that the entire category is not biased to the left is shortsighted.
That's what I mean with "a small subset taken for confirmation bias". You're ignoring everything but this very small set (only a single media outlet) from the large category (the mainstream media) to prove your point.
I don't think @MidnightMadness was trying to disprove a left-leaning bias. They were pointing out that the most mainstream outlet (by viewership numbers) is biased in the opposite direction, something that was left out of your previous comment.
If you have, let's say, 10 media outlets and one of them is the single most watched news outlet in the entire country, does it still count as a "small set"?
For the purpose I was trying to demonstrate, yes. But also in practical terms, this would ignore much of the real world. Let's continue on your example of 10 media outlets, and you only look at the top one in order to try and disprove the claim that the media in general is biased to a certain ideology. The first one reaches 45% of the country, and is biased towards the right. The second and third most popular reach 30% and 25% respectively, and are biased towards the left. That means if we extend our sample to the top 3 outlets, now the bias to the left reaches 55% of the people, whereas only 45% of the people are keeping track of the right-wing biased media.
This is why I don't consider looking only at a partial set is accurate. Yes, they're the largest, but if the rest of the big outlets together reach a much bigger target together, it doesn't really matter much. This is why I'd like to see unbiased statistics of the whole spectrum, not just a small subset that doesn't tell much on itself. I'd also like to point out that it's next to impossible to get unbiased sources, especially in this age of disinformation.
Again, nowhere in this comment chain has anyone said anything about trying to disprove a left-leaning bias, so I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by repeating that over and over.
Perhaps not directly, but to bring only the argument "b-but this one over there isn't left-leaning therefore you are wrong" does seem like a pretty big implication that my assesment of a left-leaning bias is to be wrong. I originally joined tildes for the sake of having discussions and becoming more informed. I don't quite recognize most comment chains as being productive discussions, but more of a "you're wrong kiddo" environment, simply for holding a different opinion. I even stated explicitly that I am not from the USA and could be biased, and would like to continue with a more sane sample set, but that hasn't been provided.
I also don't think this discussion is going to turn into a conversation where either party will walk away satisfied at this point, so I'll just drop it.
Again, an argument no one has actually made in this discussion.
I'm with you on this one. Hard for a conversation to go anywhere when one side keeps trying to refute arguments that the other side never made. Oh, well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yup, America's gone. Goodbye land of the free. If Washington is Cinncinatus, Trump is dumb Julius Caesar.
Why aren't Americans protesting on the streets. The overall vibe seems like anti Trump sentiment is at an all time high since his election but I not seeing any news of coordinated protests. Trump is making a mockery of every rational american and they seem to be just lying down and letting him run all over them.
At first, they were (as you may recall with the Women's march on washington, protests in airports over the travel ban, and the rally to end gun violence or whatever it was called). But I think people realize that unless there is a specific mission for the protest, there is little to be gained from it. What should people go out and protest? Trump's existence? That's hardly an affront to humankind (even if he is an asshole). Should we protest America? We believe that being critical of your country is what being a patriot is all about.
If there is a specific cause to rally around, we will have such a protest. And people in America are protesting more these days than basically any non-Vietnam-related time. So I don't know what you're expecting from us. Trump is still president. Do you expect a protest to depose him?
Until Trump acts to pardon himself, I will watch and wait. Until he acts to fire Robert Mueller, I will watch and wait. Posturing and protesting the posturing is meaningless.
This is something I don't see covered in the international media.
Yes. Why not. There are severe implications that he came to office under suspicious circumstances and several actor directly involved in his campaign have been indicted. Or how about the fact that he refuses to appear before a Senate hearing. Those are reasons to go out and protest, to make your voices heard. To keep up the pressure. If not now, are you sure that the American public will stand up and protest if Trump pardons himself or fires Mueller. The implications are there and Trump has shown that he will go as far as he can get away with and he's getting away with it.
Deposing Trump with just a protest would be disastrous. And currently there are not enough people in congress who could be persuaded by a protest to do things the "proper" way.
So yeah, we wait, unfortunately. People are still protesting individual issues, like gun rights, DACA, immigration in general. But a protest saying "Trump is probably a criminal and also terrible for this country" isn't going to change the minds of the Republicans currently in power.
Probably not but it would be a public display of disapproval. Civil disobedience is one of the cornerstones of a functioning democracy and it seems to me that with what has been going on there should be noise.
I'm probably to far removed to properly judge what the general atmosphere is though. A single event that sparks outrage might trigger the population like if he'd pardon himself. I keep comparing this with the situation here in Iceland 10 years ago. It seemed to me that it took a lot less back then for people to get out and take to the street but there was also a single event that sparked everything.
The women's march was a public display of disapproval. And the others are as well, just targeted at specific issues.
@BuckeyeSundae mentioned reporting fatigue, but there's also participant fatigue. You do what you can without burning out (hopefully). You focus on issues where you know you can make a difference or have the passion to keep going, on building up an organizational structure for November, on keeping track of all the crap we're going to have to fix when we get the chance (if we even can).
And there are various organizations looking for the "right" time to protest, when things tip the scale from "wow this shit is sketchy" to "okay, yup, definitely criminal." Every time a hint of Mueller being fired starts going around, I get an email from some organization that got my address at some point about their protest plan if he gets fired. That sort of event will spark something; whether it has a long-term effect we'll just have to see.
That's the great thing about a democracy, even if it's stifled in a way. As long as you have an avenue to make yourself heard there is always hope. Long term effect is only achieved through long term activism.
I'm beginning to think that the entire western world is entirely desensitized and have come to accept that nothing can be done about corruption. I'm certainly seeing similar things here. It seems that people are fatigued.
Hope is good~
I'm actually fairly pessimistic about the long term, although trying to combat that and do what I can. One of the reasons I feared a Republican presidency (not just Trump) was the effect it will likely have on our Supreme Court. With terms for life, a few new conservative judges tip the balance for decades. And issues such as climate change needed action a decade ago, not whenever we get the next Democratic president/congress.
A protest saying that someone is probably a criminal shouldn't have any implications against the supposed criminal. An important aspect of the judicial system is the innocent until proven guilty mantra. It's there for a reason. If you are going to change this system to "guilty until I say otherwise", you're literally going against the very fundament of justice that we have.
I'm not really sure why you're telling me this. It doesn't really seem to follow from what I said, which is that deposing Trump in an improper way (through protest only) would be disastrous. What did I say that indicated I don't believe in innocent until proven guilty?
I'm not trying to argue against that, I'm just chiming in my opinion on the matter.
Apologies. Since you didn't make any note of agreement (or something similar), I assumed you countering something you saw in my post.
No worries. I've been commenting over a couple threads in the past few moments, and I'm trying to stay concise with my comments. I could've done better to convey my stance here.
You probably saw it when the events happened. The Women's March and the travel ban protests both happened within the first month of Trump's presidency, so it's been a while. Protests since then have spurned up repeatedly, drawing sizable crowds but also reporting fatigue (who wants to cover another protest advocating for women's rights?).
The gun control rally's coverage would have been back around march this year, and also drew a large enough crowd to pierce through into national media here. That was covered in large part because of who organized it (survivors of the Parkland shooting) just as much as how many showed up.
Yeah, I remember those. I guess I expected more.
How is the atmosphere in regards to protesting in America, in general? Are people afraid of the police state that America has become. Will you guys ever see a demonstration on the scale of The Vietnam protests or the million man March?
The atmosphere within the protests is usually pretty good (I've been to a couple locally, and I was in DC for the giant Women's march), but it's almost always framed as a launching pad for organizing more generally. The protest is the social event that gets like minded people together to share information so that they can help elect people who will end this shit.
I do think that a lot of people misunderstand what protests really are in the US (organizing social events), but I think apathy, disagreement with approach ("what will a protest accomplish"), and just people who feel uncomfortable around so many people who are angry about something are bigger factors than any real fear of suppression.
As far as scale is concerned, the Women's March on Washington easily beat both of the protests you mentioned, so ... I'm not sure how to answer that, lol. You had all sorts of protests literally all across the globe that day, not just in DC where you saw an absolute fuckton of people (I don't remember exact numbers off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure that tallies for the day across just the US were around 2-3million conservatively).
Yeah, the global noise probably drowned it out. We had had about 10% of the nation on the streets then so that was dominating any global numbers in the local media.
Honest question: what could the American people realistically do if Trump actually pardoned himself, or if he fired Müller? There are mechanisms to remove a sitting president, but they require Congress or the president's own cabinet to act, and at this point both scenarios seem highly unlikely to happen.
The American people aren't really a cohesive unit right now, as you might have noticed, but a large number would be protesting in the streets, and those protests might even be durable and violent unlike the highly organized, overwhelmingly peaceful affairs of the past year and a half.
And I don't think that would be a good thing either. Violent protests about anything will be put down with violence, and I think we all know which party has more power in this exchange. There would be blood in the streets from violent protest, and most of the blood would be the protesters'.
Knowing this, we more pragmatic and French Revolution-fearing types prefer this situation to resolve legally, with additional checking mechanisms put in place. My suspicion is that even Republicans would potentially be willing to create laws and rules to restrain the president's ability to pardon indefinitely after any such abuse. Firing Mueller depends on when that happens on how likely some republicans are to sign onto a measure that would reinstate him directly or continue the investigation he started through other means (another independent council perhaps; remember it was Nixon's firing of the special council investigating him that spurned the political backlash that ultimately culminated in his resignation).
Definitely. That makes the situation even more complicated, and is one of the reasons why I honestly hope that, if the current abuses do reach the point of threatening to spark (or actually triggering) violent civil unrest, those in power would do the right thing, if only for their own safety.
That scenario (minus the violence) is basically the one I've discussed with friends more than once when talking American politics. Republicans are taking every advantage they can get right now, seeing how far they can push, and how much they can get away with. It's evident that many of the R higher-ups are not so much supporting Trump as they are riding along and trying to reap all the benefits they can while the ride lasts. I can imagine a point where supporting Trump becomes a liability for them, and in an attempt to cut their losses and save face they turn their back on him. It's probably incredibly naive of me, but I don't think those people would actually be willing to throw themselves to the fire (and put their wealth, position, influence, etc. at risk) to support someone like Trump, especially with how fickle and selfish he's known to be.
It's the vocal minority thing. I don't think Trump is as hated by the public as some would like him to be. He didn't get elected by accident. Even with all the mainstream media trying to bring him down, he still won. Clearly, the people don't see Trump as the pure incarnation of evil.
You are wrong. He lost the popular vote. We also have polling: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ His fans are a very vocal minority.
Actually, his biggest proponents and his biggest opponents are very vocal minorities. And random polls from random sources are generally biased towards the people that they get to participate, so I don't consider them valid most of the time. Remember how Trump had a 1% chance of winning? Those polls clearly didn't work out the way some people wanted.
The fact he got elected is quite clear evidence that Trump isn't as hated as you try to make him out to be, no matter how many statistics you try to pull up, fact is he actually got elected. You don't get elected when only a dozen hard-right people vote for you.
It could also be the "pick your posion" mentality, and it's not that people like Trump, they just have even less confidence in the left, and I personally can't say I blame them. Both major candidates were absolute garbage from my perspective. The issue is more that the USA people are so divided, and are now in "camps". And you can't be partially in one camp, you're either against us, or with us. Neither side seems to be willing to listen to the other side, or to reason in general.
And just saying "you're wrong, he lost one vote" doesn't change the reality of the situation. I said he's clearly not haed as much, and he didn't get elected by accident. Both of these statements are objectively true. I'm looking at the situation from a reasoned perspective (at least, that's what I tell myself at night), and I'm not trying to blame a single group for the current situation. Take a step back, look at the entire situation, and don't try to blame it all on a single group. Even if that were the reality of it all, it makes you no better than the people you're trying to condemn.
It's obvious that you aren't interest in real facts, just "alternative facts." The sources I cited are nonpartisan. And I didn't say he lost by one vote. It was lot more than that. I also haven't blamed a group for anything. Or condemned anyone.
I find it saddening to see you completely dismissing my wish for actual objective facts as just wanting "alternative facts". You're not going to convince anyone of your points by just dismissing their view as "alternative facts" and not providing any decent sources of what is to be reality according to you.
But he didn't lose the election, he actually won. I've been talking about his election vote all along, which he won. He's president right now. If he didn't win, but he's still president, I think the USA has a bigger problem on their hands right now.
Those exists on both sides. By ignoring one side, you're implicitly only blaming his fans. If you want to progress beyond the current state of affairs, you'll have to hold all sides accountable, not just the one that doesn't agree with you.
Many reasons, but two big ones are:
Many can't just not show up to work and go protesting instead, or they would be fired. Since a job is necessary to pay rent and other expenses, losing a job could fuck over a lot of people.
Some portion of people are happy to go with the flow as long as society keeps spinning. They're not interested in the finer details.
A lot of people are struggling just to make ends meet and can't afford to go protest. The ones who can are comfortable enough to just wait it out and see. We're experiencing a huge bystander effect: nobody wants to be the first one to throw in the towel and take to the streets for fear of it being the wrong time.
I think if Mueller and/or Rosenstein is fired and there isn't a huge backlash of protests, we will have officially lost and become a country of sheep ready for a dictatorial shepherd.
This is the definition of being above the law.
Ain't no rule says a dog can't play basketball.
I've been cautioned that it isn't a good idea to editorialize headlines. This one clearly is only half of the story, painting things in the worst light possible...
By leaving the latter half of the title out, you're priming people to be angry. This gets clicks, but it's irresponsible.
I completely share your view on editorialized headlines. I must point out however that the article's URL is
trump-lawyer-giuliani-says-president-probably-can-pardon-himself(consistent with the headline here) and the article was updated 8 hours ago (almost 4 hours after it was submitted here). This seems to me like a case of Reuters updating the headline to a more balanced one after the article was first published.Good catch! Thank you.
It's a weird thing for an attorney to just announce to the press for no reason.
Not that I want to kill the discussion, but does (or doesn’t) this qualify as ~politics, which we said we would not discuss, at least for the time being?
It also qualifies as a news item. It came directly from a wire service.
Of course it does. I’m just wondering where we will draw the line a) for now, and b) in the future.
Well, since politics are a major feature of discussion in many countries, and can have profound real-life effects on people's lives, I would hope that Tildes gets a dedicated political discussion section soon.
For now, we'll muddle through.
I very much agree.
The conclusions that the President can't be charged with obstruction and that the President can pardon him/herself are facially ridiculous. If you think about it from a middle school civics lesson perspective the President can't remove the only meaningful check on his office through the pardon or dictate what Congress can or can't charge him with.
I think that's kind of bogus that they can hide behind that. Well it doesn't say he can't do it so technically he can do it. That kind of logic wouldn't work for the Everyman. If you had a citizen that did something that is illegal but they didn't know it was illegal because they didn't know there was a law against it they couldn't use that logic. I mean say there's some obscure law and there's no real parameters around that law and someone technically breaks it, that person can't say well technically I did this or this so it doesn't really fall exactly in it. What I mean is, the Everyman could never use gray area like that.