Print

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

[SalmonGod]

This isn't about doubling down on moral condemnation to squeeze every drop of righteousness out of the opportunity.  It's about acknowledging the material consequences of large numbers of people making passive alliance with a smaller number of people who are actively fascist.

Once again, my argument is that that passive alliance didn't exist, at least not in significant numbers, until it was forced to exist by the divisive identity politics wedge that was forced down the middle. Granted, Fox News and similar organizations can take a lot of blame for that, but the left has done it as well with their attitude (That you've shown blindingly well in your last few posts) of "If you're not with us you're against us."

You've got people who wouldn't have stopped the injustices you speak of. But also wouldn't have stopped you from directly trying to stop it either, now caught in the middle. Instead of just walking by the ones not helping you're shoving them out of chairs, saying "HELP ME!". And instead of wanting to help, they're now angry at you for shoving them out of their chair.

Does this excuse their passivity? No. But it explains their anger and their willingness to be a little less passive and a little more active against you now. It explains the idea that they're willing to ally with reprehensible people. Those people never shoved them out of their chair or called them evil simply for wanting to sit in it.

And you can't just pull out an MLK quote and expect to win. Things have changed so much from MLK's day. Those strategies which were vital to getting a foothold toward justice and equality are not the strategies to use to try to gain the last few inches.

The MLK quote didn't describe any strategy to win.  It described a force that was weighed against him.  Not just on the sidelines having no effect on the issue.  And history shows the same dynamics at play in any case of a malicious group taking control of state apparatus to harm another group.  I never said a word that faulted someone for not being directly involved in resisting racism.  I said that casual participation and alliance with racism is a much heavier, more dangerous force than fully deliberate, malicious racism.

[smjjames]

So, I for one have always wondered what, specifically, was broken about Congress. Every time you ask you get a laundry list of all the things they don't do, but that never actually explains why they don't do anything.

Turns out it's due to massive power consolidation. To put it simply, the entire power structure of the House has been re-drawn such that the Speaker selects literally every chair position, and has absolute authority over what bills come up and which don't. Additionally, the actual structures of committees and what they have control over is completely fucked. There are 7 committees responsible for healthcare. 7!. How can you figure out what the hell needs funding if you can't figure out who the hell handles the funding?

So, yeah. House is fucked, and it won't matter who controls it. To un-fuck it requires some serious effort. Right now the House just acts as a megaphone for the Speaker, who also holds strong influence of the party in control (and therefore removes the power of any Representative who voices any opinion different from the party line); hence, we get a crapton of political polarization because anything not accommodating specifically to party lines will ever become law or even discussed publicly. How does that lead to polarization? Simple- it means that, say, being a conservative Democrat is worthless because you can never get a bill passed (or even brought up in committee) whatsoever. You're literally powerless, at least when it comes to bringing up any legislation that does not match the party line. Hence, the only thing that matters next to a House candidate is whether there's a D or an R next to their name- the nuances don't matter, because the nuances are excised by the party.

I read a while ago that there is a bipartisan effort to try and make the selection of Speaker more bipartisan and try to fix the House. So, there is definetly a movement to try and fix things. It wouldn't fix all of the problems, but it's certainly a start.

There's probably a silver lining here in that there really isn't anywhere else to go but deconsolidate from here. It'd probably take a less partisan environment than we have now to accomplish that, but the fact that there is some movement despite the hyperpartisan environment is a good sign.

[PTTG??]

Month? A quick google reveals the same thing was happening during Obama, and an Obama official accidentally tweeted Obama-era photos of children in cages under the belief that they were from the Trump era.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/migrant-children-in-cages-2014-photos-explained-2018-5?r=US&IR=T

Several former Obama administration officials took to social media and news outlets last month to explain a gallery of years-old photos that showed immigrant children sleeping in shoddy conditions at a government-run holding facility in Arizona.

The images, which the Associated Press first published in 2014,resurfaced recently for reasons that remain unclear, and quickly prompted viral outrage on Twitter. One particularly disturbing image showed two children sleeping on mattresses on the floor inside what appeared to be a cage.

A number of prominent liberals – and even a former Obama administration official – shared the photos, mistakenly believing they depicted the Trump administration’s treatment of immigrant children who were forcibly separated from their parents.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/08/trump-deportations-behind-obama-levels-241420

From Feb. 1 to June 30, ICE officials removed 84,473 people — a rate of roughly 16,900 people per month. If deportations continue at the same clip until the fiscal year ends Sept. 30, federal immigration officials will have removed fewer people than they did during even the slowest years of Barack Obama's presidency.

In fiscal year 2016, ICE removed 240,255 people from the country, a rate of more than 20,000 people per month.

"Children in cages" in the USA isn't exactly a new thing, considering that the Feds did something similar during the golden Obama era. While Trump's things are shitty, I don't really buy that they're the line between Hitler and Not-Hitler.

"Since there was at least one incidence of racism in the Weimar Republic, the Holocaust wasn't worse." Or, to be less snide, the comparison you made only stands if you ignore the scale, intention, and context of the incident.

[Dunamisdeos]

Wow guys it's almost like we don't have a single boogeyman party to blame all our problems on.

[nenjin]

We'll always have communism.

[Kagus]

We'll always have communism.

The party that can always find you!

[EnigmaticHat]

So, I've heard that Nancy Pelosi might face some opposition in being elected democratic speaker of the house.  I don't expect her to lose (if for no reason other than if someone runs against her they could face retaliation once she becomes speaker), but I hope she does.  We need a younger face, and Nancy's talk about how we're going to cooperate with Republicans is absolutely not what I want out of the House (read: subpeona everything).  The conflict between the new wave of democrats and the old guard is setting us up for a mirror of the how the Republican party fractured in 2017, the right speaker could nip that at the bud.

There's also the issue that Nancy Pelosi is a Hillary-style Republican boogeyman, but I don't really care about that.  Nothing democrats do is going to get republicans on their side in the short term.  Whoever becomes speaker is going to be demonized by Fox and Friends just as much as Nancy Pelosi would be.

[Trekkin]

There's also the issue that Nancy Pelosi is a Hillary-style Republican boogeyman, but I don't really care about that.  Nothing democrats do is going to get republicans on their side in the short term.  Whoever becomes speaker is going to be demonized by Fox and Friends just as much as Nancy Pelosi would be.

She's not exactly beloved by progressives, either. A lot of Bernie (and, now, Ocasio-Cortez) supporters' recollection of Nancy Pelosi is her mocking assertion that we're capitalists, full stop, and any suggestion of socialism is laughable. It also doesn't help matters to see her now defend her presumptive Speakership on the grounds that it would look ridiculous to oust a woman, which evokes similar appeals by Hillary -- and we know how well that went over nationally.

Pelosi will almost certainly become Speaker, if only because there's nobody coming forward to oppose her, but I suspect the coming term might well be her last in that position.

[sluissa]

I think the big problem is that nobody really WANTS to be speaker.

If you remember Paul Ryan had to basically have his arm twisted into the position.

Pelosi is fine with it because she's survived all the crap thrown at her and is in a very solidly safe seat anyway.

Speaker doesn't convey as much power under the current circumstances. Yes, there is power within the house, but without a Senate willing to work with you, your life is much more troublesome for very little bottom line gain.

And especially now with every reasonably charismatic democrat considering a run for president in 2020, nobody's going to want the negative attention Speaker brings when they put their foot in that competition.

[Starver]

I think the big problem is that nobody really WANTS to be speaker.

If you remember Paul Ryan had to basically have his arm twisted into the position.

In the UK, it is actually traditional for the Speaker (of the House Of Commons*) to be dragged, 'protesting', into his or her role. For various reasons. Which is not to say the current incumbent isn't suffering under accusations of 'holding onto power'.

(And this mostly happens after behind-the-scenes establishment of who would be supported as the new Speaker (to which any number of people may have put themselves forward, thus definitely seeking the role). Current rules require twelve (unique, non-overlapping) endorsers of any nominee, three of whom should be not be of the party of the Speaker-to-be. This was not a problem for John Bercow, the current one, as he actually had very little support from his native Conservative Party, and had even been rumoured to have been on the verge of changing to Labour at one point.)



* The House Of Lords has a Lord Speaker, nominally the equivalent, now a position separated out from the Lord Chancellor, a more cover-all position of authority. Though, in reality, the House Of Lords - not being filled by politicians (those politicians of note that have now been ennobled are no longer quite so pushed to the braying and politicking behaviours of the other House) - does not run under the 'control' of their current Speaker or Deputy, and all members when accepted to speak by the room as a whole formally address their fellow Lords rather than the Commons principle of talking 'through' Mr Speaker. Another reason I think justifies the differences between them on the red seats and the elected mob on the green ones.

[Loud Whispers]

House of Lords is pretty much a reward given to politicians retiring from the House of Commons
House of Commons speaker is selected amongst the MPs who have the strongest banter, as they have to inspire bipartisan confidence. Only the strongest banter is acceptable

[Starver]

House of Lords is pretty much a reward given to politicians retiring from the House of Commons

But also to many others who have been ennobled for other reasons (merit, ostensibly, though there are). And, until recently, a duty upon hereditary Lords, but now they have instituted limitations and internal elections from among the pool which rather spoils their appeal.

That there are around 25% of the HoL who are Crossbenchers (apolitical/unaffiliated to a party) is an improvement upon the HoC.

House of Commons speaker is selected amongst the MPs who have the strongest banter, as they have to inspire bipartisan confidence. Only the strongest banter is acceptable

And that's what our American cousins want, bipartisan confidence. (Those that don't want The Other Party to crawl off and die. But bowing to their opinion, whichever angle they're coming from, wouldn't exactly lead to mass satisfaction.)

Banterwise, I think intelligent banter wouldn't be bad. Noting the French who declined to respond to Trump's tweets because "Trump's tweets are intended for Americans. Otherwise they wouldn't be written in English. We have no comment on content that is intended for his own citizens." I'd only argue that they're barely even that, so any Speaker worth his NaCl is going to appear to have top-bantz by comparison. Bring it on!

[RedKing]

Ooh, I see we're having the perpetual "WHAT THE FUCK GUYS?" vs. "Stop calling shitty people shitty people, you'll upset the slightly-less shitty people" debate. 

[Reelya]

That's bullshit: a complete reversal of the actual argument.

I just said "conservative". And conservative = 40% of the nation, plus another 20% who are moderates with conservative leanings. Trekkin then jumps to "they bomb synagogues". Based on one word, "conservative".

Calling out far-right stuff is one thing, but you guys say you can't see any difference at all between a far right person and a center-right moderate. They're all synagogue-bombing murderers - a backhanded way of saying "everyone except our little band of card-carrying liberals are Nazis". Here's a note: there are a higher proportion of self-identifying conservative Democrats than self-identifying liberal Republicans. Go on, drive the "conservatives" out and see how that fares for your party.

Pointing out how dumb this is, is in no way the same as saying "Stop calling shitty people shitty people". You guys assume everyone except for the 20% of the nation who are liberals are just as shitty as the shittiest person, and that's counter-productive to liberalism. It's sweet fucking gold to the far right however. I'm sure they're happy for you to keep carrying on attacking the moderates (who Trekkin apparently considers Nazi-lite).

the problem is the ideological purity bullshit that's taken over. For example, the "two genders" vs "gender spectrum" debate. The liberals have made it clear that anyone who believes there are two genders (a pretty standard belief mind you, since the dawn of history) is now "rebranded" as some sort of Nazi-sympathizer. That's the attitude. That's the sort of thing that is driving the rise of alt-right media on youtube and similar. The issue is that when balanced sources are willing to discuss both sides of the issue they get labeled as "alt-right". Even Laci Green is called "alt-right" now, because she debated people outside the "sjw though bubble". I wouldn't even consider the people she was debating with as being that far to the right. Many of them are skeptics about social justice movements, but their politics tends to be pretty left-leaning, e.g. socialists, anarchists, atheists, etc. By calling Philip DeFranco* or The Amazing Atheist "alt-right" you're basically conceding an entire swathe of middle-ground to the "right" as their territory.

Youtube video: "Philip DeFranco - Alt-Right Racist"

The backstory is a feminist group called a CNN reporter Alt-Right, because he didn't cover a story to their liking, then Philip DeFranco called out that group, because they support a historic black terrorist group who killed police officers. So, videos then get made saying that Philip DeFranco is an "alt-right racist" and that he's whitewashed the history. However, the person making this video makes a number of glaring historical mistakes, for example saying that Cointelpro was by the CIA (actually, it was FBI). And the guy also omits the entire litany of violence acts which the black terrorist group actually carried out, and which includes planting bombs in the funerals of police officers, or setting off bombs as a diversion, then breaking into the near-deserted police station and murdering an officer working at a desk. The problem is that when the Alt-Right label is aimed at just about everyone, including Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, then "alt-right" no longer means Nazi, it means "reasonable person". At that point, you've ceded that ground to the alt-right.

[Trekkin]

Ooh, I see we're having the perpetual "WHAT THE FUCK GUYS?" vs. "Stop calling shitty people shitty people, you'll upset the slightly-less shitty people" debate. 

To be fair, Trumpism introduces a new element to that debate: the Trumpists, if you'll recall, are almost angrier when they win than when they lose, and a great deal of their rhetoric concerns how the fragile liberal snowflakes are saying mean things about them. I'm far from the first person to bring up Lincoln's Cooper Union Address here and say that, like the slaveowning states of 1860 wanted everyone to agree slavery was right more than they wanted any particular policy, the Trumpists would like very much for the rest of the world to agree that their animi toward minorities of all types are possibly justified, because we've changed the world around them until things they've known to be true their entire life are now inexcusably execrable and they feel unjustly excluded.

It's a bit like negotiating with terrorists insofar as a willingness to negotiate with them at all is itself a significant win in legitimacy for them (since legitimacy is in a sense what they want), except even terrorists usually believe in the existence of facts and the default outcome if talks fall through is absolutely unthinkable as regards our own law-abiding citizens so it's difficult to barter that legitimacy for any sort of meaningful concession, but ignoring them got us here in the first place. There's also a time limit on our capacity to reach any accord at all; if ever they completely lose control of even one branch of government, whether to liberals or normal conservatives, the Trumpists go back to being a national punchline but now with even more anger headed their way and ending the culture war becomes much harder.