Print

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

[smjjames]

I know I wax snark a lot, but Trump doesn't try to hide his bias against brown and/or non-Christian folks at all.

His first solution to his travel ban was to promise exceptions to Christians coming from that country.

Except it didn't work too well because a Christian family from Syria got caught up in it.

It had all the ham-fistedness of trying to shove a camel through the eye of a needle, at high speed.

[hector13]

Well that and the fact that no religious discrimination is literally the First Amendment.

At least the Republican establishment were sensible enough to say “no no, travel ban, not Muslim ban” before Trump tweeted what we all knew anyway: it was, in fact, a Muslim ban.

Not a very good one, but Trump’s the ideas guy, not the get-it-done guy, I guess.

[Reelya]

*NO I AM NOT*

**FOR EITHER STATEMENT**

You DO realize that flying insect populations, globally, have declined 75% in the past 3 decades, right?
That GLOBAL fish populations are in dangeorus decline from over exploitation?

That this picture is pretty much systemic OVER THE WHOLE DAMN PLANET, right?

---And the REASON for it, is because of the thinking you are proposing?!

"Hey, we just about made atlantic tuna extinct-- Lets fish something ELSE to extinction, because hey, there's always more fish in the sea!! People gotta eat, right!?"

Humans aren't insects. We experience a sustainable curve in population growth. The issue is resource exploitation, and that is being fixed (slowly) from multiple venues into something far more sustainable.

There's no need to call for the collapse of the human race. Climate change is definitely happening, but we're not about to end the whole biosphere quite yet, and it looks less likely by the day.

Duuuude... Do you NOT comprehend the implications of insect decline!??!?!?!

Here, insects are important in the breakdown of complex organic matter, to recycle them in the biosphere. they are essential organisms. In addition to that, the classification of insect most impacted by this ALARMING AS FUCK TREND, are the ones responsible for pollinating our crops.  They die, we dont have food.

Their decline is directly attributable to human actions that were taken to further human interests without serious contemplation of their long term effects, much like your proposed handwavey solutions.

You will find that the consensus opinion among climate and ecological scientists is that "Technology will not save you."
http://e360.yale.edu/features/how_far_can_technology_go_to_stave_off_climate_change

The solution they propose? "Societal change"-- eg, "Hey yo, you dont really need that hummer, you cant have it." et al.  EG, a serious reduction in the conspicuous consumption of mankind. The very thing that is synonymous with "first world living."

Insects breaking down complex organic matter releases a lot of CO2 however. There are good and bad aspects to anything. Complex organic molecules taking longer to break down means it's sequestered for longer.

Also, that article doesn't claim that "Technology will not save you". It's saying that the political will doesn't exist to implement the ideas that are already out there. That's a different argument completely.

Feed cows seaweed. 99% drop in cow's methane output. The are simple low-tech technologies that can cut massive chunks out of our emissions.
https://foodtank.com/news/2017/06/seaweed-reduce-cow-methane-emission/

There are economic incentives here too, since emissions are in fact lost energy. Engineer the right trace amount of this into existing feed then sell it to farmers as a growth-boosting additive. Which means less cows needed in total as well, and thus knock-on effects reducing CO2 emissions from farming. Also fun fact that you can grow the additive in seawater, which is nice because it doesn't impact the supply of fresh water.

[Karnewarrior]

But Reelya, that would impact my assertion that half a planet full of sapients need to die!

We just can't save this planet without genocide; we shouldn't even be trying! It's entropic!

#IncubatorThingsOnly #GriefEnergy #IFailedMyEnvironmentalScienceClass

I know I wax snark a lot, but Trump doesn't try to hide his bias against brown and/or non-Christian folks at all.

His first solution to his travel ban was to promise exceptions to Christians coming from that country.

Thing is, Trump voters don't much care for the first amendment, or any amendment really, unless it effects them. They're mostly the sort of people who think Islam is at war with America and the Koran says to bomb all Americans.

There's basically two significant sections to his base: the "Anyone but Hillary" crowd, who hate him but hate Hillary more, and the "Easily Influenced by Memes" crowd, who mostly just wanted to vote someone "strong" into the white house.

That's what the Dems need to fix next time around. Someone similar to Trump but saner and preferably less prone to diplomatic fuck-ups. Someone who might sway the easily influenced portion of Trumps base by being brash and bold, while preferably having significantly fewer nazi leanings. If Trump can't be the strong one in an argument (and he doesn't debate, only argue) then he loses.

[redwallzyl]

Personally I would rather not even attempt to appeal to those kind of extremists with another populist. I have had quite enough of that brand of politician we don't need another one.

Speech time:

Now I'm going to channel some anthropological theory into a suggestion for pulling ourselves out of this. Step one is to take back the Discourse. The Neoliberal Right and to some extend Left has had a hand in warping the meaning of words surrounding both the Neoliberal economic approach and the vocabulary attached to the Social Democrat section of the left. Basic words such as liberal have been both disconnected from the rest of the worlds definitions and had negative connotations attached for millions of Americans. Whether we like it or not the very word is a negative. Along with this the vocabulary we use to discuss economic issues is totally and deliberately biased in connotations. Words like Capitalism, Free trade, Free market and Regulation and Bureaucracy are all similarly saddled with connotations in the mind of Americans that make them extremely hard to either support or argue against. Capitalism is not synonymous with Neoliberal policy but many do not knows that word or that there can be multiple different approaches to Capitalism. Free trade and Free market mean specific Neoliberal policies of the removal of impediments for corporate capital movement but is not really understood and free is is good in the mind of America. Regulation is a poison word that conjures up images of poor suffering businesses and government impediments but hardly ever is it discussed as protections against both exploitation, corruption, environmental damage and dangers to the public health. Bureaucracy is seen as a giant slow inefficient thing that sucks money but the legions of experts carefully researching, planning and organizing the complex systems of the country are hardly mentioned. This could go one and on with more examples. If this is the medium we are forced to discuss with we are playing with a handicap from the get go. Our very language unwittingly shapes out thoughts and the thoughts of those we try to reach.

Step two, move the debate from the Hegemony of normality to the active debate of Ideology. As long as something is part of the hegemonic background it can not be changed as it is hardly noticed except by those few who see to oppose it. It was weaknesses however, sense it has become normality it has become its own enforcement mechanism. If it can be raised quickly to the stage of debate in ideological conflict it can upset the old order before it can draw up its full defenses. Racism, Sexism, Oppression, Fundamentalism, Corporatism can all be moved from the thing we unthinkingly accept as the natural order to strong movements that send the institutions of perpetuation tumbling for they to have ceased to pay attention.

Step three, Give people ideas, symbols, understand and a goal that they can see. You must harness the power of a unitary goal and the physical manifestation of that must be in the minds of everyone. you must however have a strong foundation that can be explained to everyone and that they can understand. If the public lacks understand you will fail so explain it and explain it over and over again. everyone must know. Your end goal must be clearly in sight, obtainable and appealing to those who want a better future and it must become hope.

Alright that's my speech I hope people like it. how too lead a movement and win in three steps, results may vary.

[Frumple]

That's what the Dems need to fix next time around. Someone similar to Trump but saner and preferably less prone to diplomatic fuck-ups.

Do they, though? Dems have enough trouble taking the election when they win the popular vote. Moving towards what lost it seems a bit sketchy as a proposition.

So far as what parts of trump's vote share (probably not his base, mind) can be redirected, you probably just need someone decently effective at highlighting GOP economic bullshit as bullshit. Which'll prooooobably be a bit easier come 2020, heh. Or go full blunt and run a white dude that's marginally competent, not running after eight years of sustained racist vitriol aimed towards their party, and consequently somewhat more effective at shutting down dogwhistle dickery.

[smjjames]

That's what the Dems need to fix next time around. Someone similar to Trump but saner and preferably less prone to diplomatic fuck-ups.

Do they, though? Dems have enough trouble taking the election when they win the popular vote. Moving towards what lost it seems a bit sketchy as a proposition.

So far as what parts of trump's vote share (probably not his base, mind) can be redirected, you probably just need someone decently effective at highlighting GOP economic bullshit as bullshit. Which'll prooooobably be a bit easier come 2020, heh. Or go full blunt and run a white dude that's marginally competent, not running after eight years of sustained racist vitriol aimed towards their party, and consequently somewhat more effective at shutting down dogwhistle dickery.

And above all, can beat Trump at his own game and effortlessly parry his tactics. Made somewhat easier by the fact that we now know what his tactics are and is unlikely to change them.

You know those classified JFK documents and stuff? Trump says that he plans on releasing them, though he hints at maybe keeping some of them.

[Dunamisdeos]

Well that and the fact that no religious discrimination is literally the First Amendment.

It's, uh, actually not, at least not literally. Unfortunately. The first amendment stops the government from forming a state religion and preventing the free exercise of religion, and is unrelated to discrimination.

However, religious discrimination coming from any level of government is an awful idea and I will never support it. I think part of the scariness was that he was legally allowed to do what he did, and the only thing that stopped him was the supreme court's intervention. Without that it would have held.

Not to jump way back to the travel ban, though. Anyway Trump has the subtlety of a buttered elephant and is hell-bent on catering to his crowd and his crowd alone. I don't think he sees shades of skin, I think he sees shades of potential exploitation.

[Frumple]

Man, if you'd never support that and you're stateside you got a helluva' lot of christian shitkicking to do. Most of it's positive discrimination or whatever the hell the word is but churches get a fair heap of special privileges, and it's damn sure not equally accessible to all religions. Things do seem to be getting a little better in some ways as the churches push away more of the younger generations, but eesh.

[Dunamisdeos]

Man, if you'd never support that and you're stateside you got a helluva' lot of christian shitkicking to do. Most of it's positive discrimination or whatever the hell the word is but churches get a fair heap of special privileges, and it's damn sure not equally accessible to all religions. Things do seem to be getting a little better in some ways as the churches push away more of the younger generations, but eesh.

And I guess Buddhist, Muslim, and Jewish too, right? Was everything-but-Christian omitted by accident there in that paragraph about fighting religious discrimination?

Also to qualify my previous statement about Trump, I think the concept of racism is beyond him, and he sees other people as benefit to himself or no. If dogs has supported his election he would act like he hates cats.

[Frumple]

Ain't no accident omitting those when you're talking about the US. Technically they have access to the same advantages and sometimes even get them, but in practice, things ain't quite so even.

Christian churches got treated the same way non ones do, we'd be dealing with notably less abuses of the extra consideration, heh. General point being if you want religious discrimination to not be coming from the gov't, there's an elephant in your room and it's getting better treatment than pretty much anyone.

[EnigmaticHat]

Its a common thing across many cities that Mosques just happen to be blocked by parking laws and zoning laws.

[Ggobs]

ptw

[Dunamisdeos]

I was able to find similar instances across multiple religions where a church or mosque or synagogue, in the US and out. GIYF.

One Australian incident claimed that it was too risky to have a Jewish synagogue in the area in case terrorists attacked it. Another Christian church in the US claims that the city is requiring more parking spaces for their building than they do of others.

Looks like Muslims aren't the only ones facing religious discrimination, if that's even what's going on in any of these instances because many of them are ongoing cases. There are tons of stories/lawsuits going on about this at any given time, it seems. Though I would be unsurprised to find that there is a bias within the last decade against Muslims for obvious reasons, I find each incident equally problematic no matter what religion is involved.

Here's some more cases including cases of discrimination against Muslims/Christains/Jews, some of which filed suit together

[sluissa]

If I'm remembering a couple of local cases correctly as well, it's not always necessarily that they're being discriminated against either. Sometimes local officials overlook infractions they commit BECAUSE they're a church or otherwise non-profit community organization. One local one was "If you're going to be doing these pancake breakfast fund raisers you really should be following health codes." And while they went on for years with just warnings, suddenly one day someone came along and shut them down and suddenly it was "religious discrimination!" all over the news.

Just an anecdote, but also something to consider.