Print

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

[MrRoboto75]

They also argued that a President cannot be impeached (a political trial) and removed after already having left office, and that he wasn't given due process as a now private citizen that a legal trial would require.

Removal and banning from elections is separate from having an impeachment trial.  This is like saying I cannot hold a trial because I cannot sentence someone to house arrest when they are already under house arrest.  I do not see how a private citizen's trial would be any different, other than that the jury wouldn't be tainted by biased republican senators.

Moreover, repubs deliberately delayed the trial until after inauguration, then argued they can't have a trial after all because they delayed the trial themselves.  Then they voted it was constitutional after all, because being stupid enough to say otherwise means Biden could do whatever he wants his last week of presidency and the senate couldn't do jack about it.

And once again, repubs said no to any witnesses nor evidence.  Because it doesn't matter to them and to them the votes are already cast.  Trump's defense lawyer could've been a literal ape, and repubs would acquit after the defense rests and eats a banana.  It doesn't matter to them a mob threatened to rape and pillage them, and hang the VP for not using a non-existent power to nullify an election.

At least Kong, esq. would've been less depressing, as you might actually see the repubs pay attention to the trial, if only to see the ape fling poo at Pelosi.

[Frumple]

Nazis also engaged in censorship, so their ideas couldn't be challenged in debate. Republicans aren't the ones doing that. They end up in the occasional echo chamber, but they don't deplatform others.

Horseshit they don't. Rightwing platforms are banhappy as hell, and the GOP and American conservatives in general are the major sources of censorship stateside, and have been since at least the bloody Cold War. Everything they blame others of doing on that front, they're doing as hard or harder.

[Random_Dragon]

At this point it's overtly clear to anyone with common that the republican reactions to the second impeachment were generally made in bad faith to undermine them, and at this point I'd write off anyone defending those actions as arguing in bad faith themselves.

[MrRoboto75]

At this point it's overtly clear to anyone with common that the republican reactions to the second impeachment were generally made in bad faith to undermine them, and at this point I'd write off anyone defending those actions as arguing in bad faith themselves.

Hey, the GOP owns at least seven backbones.

[wierd]

At this point it's overtly clear to anyone with common that the republican reactions to the second impeachment were generally made in bad faith to undermine them, and at this point I'd write off anyone defending those actions as arguing in bad faith themselves.

Hey, the GOP owns at least seven backbones.

More if you count the skeletons in the closet.

Spoiler: Oh My! (click to show/hide)

[Vector]

I think what bothers me is that people don't view policies like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as deplatforming.

Protecting free speech means the right to say controversial opinions like "all lives matter" or "just grab 'em by the pussy" without career consequences. Deplatforming other people from saying "I'm gey" is seen as a matter of religious liberty.

[Bumber]

Removal and banning from elections is separate from having an impeachment trial.  This is like saying I cannot hold a trial because I cannot sentence someone to house arrest when they are already under house arrest.  I do not see how a private citizen's trial would be any different, other than that the jury wouldn't be tainted by biased republican senators.

The primary intended purpose of an impeachment is to remove a President who is a present danger to the republic if they remain in that position. The Senate is expressly forbidden from applying any penalties beyond removal and, optionally, barring from public office. That should make it clear that Congress is not the body responsible for holding a President accountable for any crimes. They remove the immediate threat, and allow the courts to try the former President as a citizen. Trump was already out of office and no longer able to cause harm through Presidential powers by the time the Senate took up the articles of impeachment.

I don't see how that analogy fits in any way. It's more like a landlord going to court to evict a tenant for noise complaints after the tenant reached the end of their lease and moved out.

Tainted jury goes both ways. Democrat Senators, including the one acting as Judge, declared Trump's guilt before hearing the case. Democrats also used hearsay evidence, such as news reports. That isn't sworn witness testimony, and would be rejected. They also presented edited video clips of Trump that left out important context. Any lawyer who did that would be in serious trouble.

Moreover, repubs deliberately delayed the trial until after inauguration, then argued they can't have a trial after all because they delayed the trial themselves.  Then they voted it was constitutional after all, because being stupid enough to say otherwise means Biden could do whatever he wants his last week of presidency and the senate couldn't do jack about it.

They weren't in session, and didn't bend over backwards to get back in session, because... Trump was already leaving office. 44 Senators voted against it being constitutional. That's 88% of the Republicans.

And once again, repubs said no to any witnesses nor evidence.  Because it doesn't matter to them and to them the votes are already cast.

If the House had obtained sworn statements from witnesses, and transmitted those to the Senate by Feb 8th (i.e., during the delay,) then I'm pretty sure the Senate would've had to use those witnesses. The House, instead, claimed the evidence was irrefutable, and decided to send the articles of impeachment without any witness deposition.

[Bumber]

Nazis also engaged in censorship, so their ideas couldn't be challenged in debate. Republicans aren't the ones doing that. They end up in the occasional echo chamber, but they don't deplatform others.

Horseshit they don't. Rightwing platforms are banhappy as hell, and the GOP and American conservatives in general are the major sources of censorship stateside, and have been since at least the bloody Cold War. Everything they blame others of doing on that front, they're doing as hard or harder.

Do you have any examples of that?

I mean, aside from social media platforms being allowed to police their members, because free-enterprise-blah-blah. For example, CNN hosts and a New Jersey Assemblyman have called for the Fox News channel to be pulled from the air, and I'm unaware of any mainstream conservatives trying to actually shut down CNN. They call it "Fake News", and that's about it.

There have been conservatives calling for Twitter to not remove conservative users, or else apply the standard equally and ban users who say "death to Israel". They have not called for criminalizing instances of disinformation by the left. They have not called for a "Reality Czar", like the New York Times did.

And then you have Big Tech, where liberal-run businesses work together to take down Parler, and then discourage anybody from hosting them or providing payment processing. They say it's due to Parler's lack of moderation and the role of some users talking about storming the Capitol, though planning for the Jan 6th attack was also done on Facebook and Twitter. Censorship by oligopoly.

[delphonso]

Renowned Leftists Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg.

[Loud Whispers]

Labor scandal?

The UK Labour Party had a huge antisemitism row over the treatment of alleged antisemitism within the party. This got even spicier when the UK gov adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism which included criticism of Israel's existence as a Jewish state as antisemitism, which ensured labour was going to commit political suicide as there was no way to reconcile the labour faction which held that a racial nation state was an inherently racist project and the labour faction which held that Israel was held to an unfair standard. This is piled on top of allegations of antisemitism within the party, on top of bizarre things like panels of woke gentiles deciding whether or not Jewish labour party members were antisemites. Amidst this strangeness was the mural scandal, in which the (then) labour party leader Corbyn retweeted some street art of bankers playing monopoly over the backs of a heteregenous humanity. The bankers are the rothschilds, rockefellers and morgans, and after a local Jewish councillor complained it was peddling antisemitic tropes akin to pre-war Nazi Germany, it was to be effaced. This is where Corbyn steps in to defend it, which then embroils him in the antisemitism row, where he apologises saying he didn't know it was antisemitic, whilst the artist maintains it isn't about race but class.`

[scriver]

If anything it seems obvious to me that cancel culture is something the American "left" learned from and took after American conservatives.

[Loud Whispers]

If anything it seems obvious to me that cancel culture is something the American "left" learned from and took after American conservatives.

It's an ouroborous of self-justifying "no bad tactics, only good targets"

[thompson]

Regarding censorship, it’s a complex issue and there’s a bit to unpack here, but as a rule I feel it’s ill advised. Many people do hold racist or sexist misconceptions, and by censoring much of that discussion we’ve effectively bifurcated our sources of information so that Republicans and Democrats are now living in two separate realities. By censor, I am mostly referring to how many media commentators dismiss, say, racist misconceptions as being “obviously wrong” without explaining why.

Talking heads in the media spouting sensationalist nonsense (such as having a competitor shut down) isn’t censorship. They don’t have the authority to make that sort of decision, and are probably just trolling for clicks (or eyeballs). The media is a pretty cynical institution that is more interested in driving advertising revenue than anything.

I find it amusing that we have conservatives equating their arguments on Twitter with “death to Israel” type comments. Says it better than I ever could. We could wax lyrical about the hypocrisy and cynicism of big Tech all day... but if it’s just whataboutism for the hard-right then why bother? Given the events of January 6 I’d say big Tech are concerned they will lose their immunity to liability. They probably should. Make no mistake here: they’re not deplatforming users because they have a liberal agenda: they’re worried about a future regulatory environment where they are no longer free to do whatever they like with impunity. So they’re begrudgingly taking action to show everyone how “responsible” they are.

The “cancel culture” movement is something where you have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Student activism can get a little silly at times, but there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with students making political statements. Where it becomes a problem is with social media lynch mobs, harassment, and bullying which are now all endemic online these days, but now we’re back to social media not being liable for anything.

Thinking about all this... does anyone know a good resource for debunking racist/sexist misconceptions that takes things in a dry, neutral tone and focusses on well-reasoned, well-referenced factual rebuttals? I’d be nice to just have a link to point to. I’ve found unconscious bias stuff is pretty good, but it deals with a very specific issue. That sort of thing, essentially, but for more issues.

Edit: typographic errors

[Vector]

The other thing I want to add is that a lot of the mobbing we see online became the norm during GamerGate, but because GamerGate primarily focused on deplatforming women and LGBT people, we did not see it as deplatforming.

[McTraveller]

Social media "deplatforming" is mob rule, pure and simple.  I don't care what your stance on any view is, promoting the kind of "justice" that we see on the internet is extremely detrimental to a free society.

There is absolutely no due process on the internet, and all it takes is a single post to go viral to irreversibly destroy someone's life.

There is a huge difference between bringing attention to social issues, or even specific potentially criminal behavior by some individuals, and what happens with the internet today.  "Cancel culture" and doxxing are just the more obvious facets of this phenomenon.