Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Greiger]

Posting to watch just so I can at least still keep track of some of what's happening.   This whole thing is straining a very long 20 year friendship.  Me hating what's happening, and my friend agreeing with disbanding the epa and [agreeing with] the immigration ban for reasons I will not get into.

I figure if I watch this thread I'll still keep track of what's happening and still get the warning of when to buy mountains of mres and move underground without being tempted to check my usual news sites to see what's happening and finding bias evidence to use in a 'see I'm right I told you, this is stupid'.   At least here there's some dissenting opinion in the main page instead of tucked away in comments.

Edit: Clarity

[Rolepgeek]

People on the left use SJW to refer to themselves. It is not just an anti-buzzword, and rather than just say "you're suspicious for using this term", you could instead ask in what manner they're using the term.

[Descan]

Honestly, just the fact that you, FD, use the term SJWs kind of makes you seem like you're either lacking information or have an agenda. It's a anti- buzzword that doesn't really have a meaning beyond "leftists that I don't like," so one can throw it at pretty much anybody to shut down a discussion remotely related to that sphere.

Would you say the term is problematic?

Your wit knows no end. :U

People on the left use SJW to refer to themselves. It is not just an anti-buzzword, and rather than just say "you're suspicious for using this term", you could instead ask in what manner they're using the term.

Yeah. They do. Like I said, I've predominantly seen it used in reclamation. "A proud SJW!" and such-like. Still doesn't actually hold any semantic meaning besides "Vaguely leftist on social issues."

And I didn't just say that. I also said "That term is annoying as fuck." There's a difference!

[misko27]

ITT: I don't let arguments die easily.

Well the fact is, a lot of states are arguing that Trump's order breaks the law.

An executive order labeled unconstitutional is not in-and-of-itself, an impeachable offense.

While you are right that unpopularity and desire for impeachment are not themselves causes for impeachment, it's a bit different in this case. Typically, as far as I know, people opposed to the President won't say the President deserves to be impeached on principle.

From where I'm standing this is essentially the vote of no confidence metric, since we don't actually have that in the US system normally. Trump is not just taking actions I am politically opposed to, he is demonstrably unfit for office. And getting more so every day...

The US does not have a vote of no confidence because in the US the President is directly elected. What you're talking about is the results of a direct election (and in fact, the only election which everyone in every state may vote in) being overturned by an act of Congress, on the basis that Congress believes that America made a bad decision. That is not a precedent I wish to see set, period. If you believe America should have recall elections for President (which is what the alternative to no-confidence is in the states), that's fine; but we don't right now so it's an academic point at best.

Clinton was nearly impeached on far more nebulous grounds than Trump is providing.

Clinton was impeached. Impeachment is not removal from office; if the measure fails in the Senate they are acquitted and maintain office, but the impeachment itself still stands. There have thus been two impeachments in American history, both on purely political grounds: the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (which failed in the Senate by 1 vote, exactly enough Republicans crossed party lines to stop it), and Bill Clinton (Nixon resigned before they had a chance). But this is not relevant.

What is relevant is that the argument that there were more spurious impeachments in the past is unconvincing; you're asking to set a precedent here (no President has ever been removed from office, ever, period), and a better reason is needed. I want someone to explain to me why this won't be used again as a weapon in the future by Congress to remove Presidents they don't like, given they've already tried it twice and nearly succeeded once. I want someone to explain to me why Trump supporters won't take to the streets and express their opposition through violence (or failing that, why precisely having violent people in the streets is something I shouldn't be worried about, which is what Ispil's "If they want to, let 'em" argument implied).

A way of solving all of those problems at once is for Trump to be found guilty of some Watergate-tier crime. This may be right around the corner for all we know, and perhaps the world would be better for it. But impeachment for anything less than absolutely ironclad, "throw-away-the-key" level criminality would tear the country apart. I say they let Trump have his rope, and if he should hang himself with it, life will be much smoother for all involved

Devil's Advocate time: does Trump deserve to be impeached, really?

Well he doesn't respect the independence of the courts, also he's gutted the state department, thus allowing his inner circle to basically write doctrine without any input from existing foreign policy experts, and all the executive orders have not had any vetting or feedback from the various organizations authorized to carry them out. None of that is normal. He also removed the military from having any input in the NSA, while his senior advisors also float the idea that he gets his own personal secret police unit. So basically, they're cutting out all the upward flow of information and basically trying to be dictators who rule by fiat / decree, with the monkeys expected to merely carry out orders without question.

"Deserves" to be impeach? Fucking definitely deserves it.

Poor wording on my part. Deserve is a moral judgement. Impeachment is a political/legal judgement.




Reminder: It's on all of us to keep this thread calm if it is to survive the Trump age; things are more heated now than ever, and it would be better to keep this thread open if possible, and that demands more patience, not less. Arguments directed at individuals is counter-productive. And people are wrong on the internet; we all have to live with that, at least until I learn how to deliver punches through wifi (oh, but after that, all bets are off).

[Dorsidwarf]

Wifi beat downs will bring a new age of civility and bruises to the internet.

[EnigmaticHat]

I don't think that article is as compelling as you think it is... the core thrust is that liberals live up in their ivory towers but the people they claim to represent live down in the mud.  Not wrong, but not new either.  Everyone remembers the Communist Manifesto, no one remembers the academic essays...

That counter-example might not be as "counter" as you think. What was Marx's exact profession, and was he a factory worker? yet he did claim to speak for all factory workers, despite never being a manual labourer.

So who was Karl's dad, a staunch working class man? Nope, a wealthy lawyer. The "grassroots" story already unravels before Marx is even born. Let's not even go there to his educational background, he earned a doctorate in Philosophy by age 23, then went on to edit a liberal newspaper. Basically Marx had zero connection to the working class whatsoever.

We do in fact remember the academic essays, because the writer of the Communist Manifesto did in fact have a cloistered privileged upbringing then straight into academia without ever having worked for a living.

I'm well aware, that was my point.  Its an ancient conflict that has nothing to do with SJWs or trigger warnings or safe spaces.  I'm sure there were senators in Rome that sought to speak for the plebs while still being distant from them.  Well-meaning elites are nothing new, and they're unlikely to go away, for better or worse.

People on the left use SJW to refer to themselves. It is not just an anti-buzzword, and rather than just say "you're suspicious for using this term", you could instead ask in what manner they're using the term.

I'm on the left, I went to a liberal arts college, I have a tumblr and I have literally never encountered anyone who self-identified as a SJW.

[Descan]

I have, but it's a very *small* number of people, always only on the internet, and so few that it's an honest (and memorable) surprise when they do.

[misko27]

I'm sure there were senators in Rome that sought to speak for the plebs while still being distant from them.

Yes and no. Yes in that Rome actually institutionalized such a position, no as in it was actually held by plebs, yes as in tribunes were (eventually) senators, no as in the power of the Tribune was partially dependent on the Plebs themselves. The held the interesting power that if anyone were to lay hand on them, they were to be declared outside the law, and the plebians of the city would be allowed to tear them apart; as well they had the ability to veto any law whatsoever, as well as the fact that any plebian could call upon the tribune to appeal the actions of a magistrate (and violation of this was automatically illegal). The limit on their power was they had to be physically present to veto things, and as soon as they left the vetoed action could be undertaken, as well as the fact that their power was dependent on the Plebians of Rome and thus had no influence beyond the city.

[Reelya]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/former-chess-champ-who-tackled-the-president-over-travel-ban-and-won/news-story/c74b35e058c75098933d90645561c0df

Lists some of the people affected by the travel ban, just the ones mentioned by Amazon in their support of the anti-ban lawsuit. One example is a director from Iran who film is distributed by Amazon. He has an oscar nomination, but wouldn't be able to attend the ceremony because of the ban. I'd argue that the negative economic effects from the provable loss of commerce opportunities vastly outweighs the hypothetical risk of letting those already approved of visa and greencards travel to the usa.

[Rolepgeek]

Except it was 'reclaimed' long before it had enough power to be an effective slur, so it's just people embracing the label. Furthermore, it's got a decently specific definition spectrum, even if the point on that spectrum differs from use to use (much like 'Libertarian', except more specific). People who advocate for social justice,  usually over other things.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The US does not have a vote of no confidence because in the US the President is directly elected.

This is very much not the case, as we should all remember from the outcome of this election just now. The EC is not a direct election at all, the general expectation that electors not be faithless is the only thing dividing it from being understood that way.

What you're talking about is the results of a direct election (and in fact, the only election which everyone in every state may vote in) being overturned by an act of Congress, on the basis that Congress believes that America made a bad decision. That is not a precedent I wish to see set, period. If you believe America should have recall elections for President (which is what the alternative to no-confidence is in the states), that's fine; but we don't right now so it's an academic point at best.

Gee, that sure does sound like not at all what I posted. Trump is plainly unfit for the job, is already committing at least one major crime in the form of the conflicts of interest, and has been pretty open about his desire to commit further such crimes as well as subvert the established responsibilities of the government in favor of him ruling America. And there's the matter of not actually appointing the staff of the executive agencies. All of this together is not utterly damning, but certainly could be depending upon what's gone on behind closed doors. So don't get all bent out of shape when people recognize that as general cause for impeachment. I don't have any specific evidence-based criminal accusation against El Chapo, that doesn't mean I'm required to self-lobotomize and abandon understanding that he's a drug lord.


Also, since we're having the "is using SJW wrong and/or are there bad leftists" conversation again, I'll just go ahead and link my post about it again since I don't think I'm likely to improve it: 1, 2, 3

[Reelya]

Also, the distinction between bad left and bad right is often only incidental. There's a definite type of person who latches on to whichever is the establishment point of view (in their social circle) and uses that to beat other people over the head and socially advance themselves. They'll latch on to whatever is the orthodox set of beliefs, so it's not a surprise that some people at colleges use the "liberal consensus" for self-promotion, while others use christian fundementalism for self-promotion, or some in the old USSR used adherence to leninist doctrine for self promotion. In fact, these types don't actually turn out to be any different I think, from what psychological studies have been done.

If a belief is the norm of a group, then sheep will parrot that belief. There are actually some articles discussing the idea of tolerance, and how we should understand this to be relative, e.g. a guy in a rightwing christian fundamentalist town who is slightly less anti-gay than his fellow rightwing christians is in fact showing more effort at tolerance that someone in a liberal culture who just repeats standard pro-LGBT memes. Since tolerance of LGBT is the default if you're in a liberal culture, it's no effort to just go along with that, because you're neither challenging yourself nor those around you, you're just fitting in.

[Sergarr]

Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election. Sorry, people want border security and extreme vetting.

I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone knows it. Some FAKE NEWS media, in order to marginalize, lies!

cool

[Hanslanda]

Reminder: It's on all of us to keep this thread calm if it is to survive the Trump age; things are more heated now than ever, and it would be better to keep this thread open if possible, and that demands more patience, not less. Arguments directed at individuals is counter-productive. And people are wrong on the internet; we all have to live with that, at least until I learn how to deliver punches through wifi (oh, but after that, all bets are off).

This. Let's not let the great big Orange Bastard make us into shit-slinging primates. We're reasonable, civilized individuals, all of whom have reasons for holding the positions we espouse. Let's not conflate difference with enmity. Diversity is good, m'kay?

[Reelya]

Well Trump could avoid all bad news by sacking everyone in the department of labor, and the Congressional Budget Office and putting Bannon in charge of distributing all the economic data from now on. Don't trust those so-called economics professors and their fake data.