29
   

Rising fascism in the US

 
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Sun 13 Aug, 2017 04:21 am
@Lash,
Because I defend free speech, I'm a fascist? Say what you will. It won't make it true.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Sun 13 Aug, 2017 07:29 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
we were taught to hide under our desks from commie missiles

Duck and Cover is good common sense. When North Korea nukes us I wonder how many American lives will be lost because we no longer practice it.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Sun 13 Aug, 2017 07:48 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
I am a BIG cheese eater, not a little one.

I remember during the 2003 Iraq war there was a news article about how people in America were boycotting a French Cheese vendor.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/13/france.jonhenley

I'd never heard of this vendor before, so the boycott served as advertising in my case.

I'm ashamed to say I've never gotten around to ordering any of their cheese, but that's because I'm lazy not because I'm boycotting. I still remember their website and look them up whenever I'm reminded of the boycott.

I see they're still offering interesting cheese selections.
Lash
 
  -2  
Sun 13 Aug, 2017 09:24 am
So thankful to find someone I respect taking an unpopular position on difficult issues...when I wholeheartedly agree.

Thanks, Greenwald.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/02/free-speech-twitter-france

What happens when the censorship laws you crave are turned on YOU?

Excerpt:

I've written many, many times about the odiousness and dangers of empowering the state to criminalize ideas - including the progressive version of that quest, especially in Europe and Canada but also (less so) in the US - and won't rehash all those arguments here. But there is a glaring omission in Farago's column that I do want to highlight because it underscores one key point: as always, it is overwhelming hubris and self-love that drives this desire for state suppression of ideas.

Nowhere in Farago's pro-censorship argument does he address, or even fleetingly consider, the possibility that the ideas that the state will forcibly suppress will be ideas that he likes, rather than ideas that he dislikes. People who want the state to punish the expression of certain ideas are so convinced of their core goodness, the unchallengeable rightness of their views, that they cannot even conceive that the ideas they like will, at some point, end up on the Prohibited List.

That's what always astounds and bothers me most about censorship advocates: their unbelievable hubris. There are all sorts of views I hold that I am absolutely convinced I am right about, and even many that I believe cannot be reasonably challenged.


But there are no views that I hold which I think are so sacred, so objectively superior, that I would want the state to bar any challenge to them and put in prison those who express dissent. How do people get so convinced of their own infallibility that they want to arrogate to themselves the power not merely to decree which views are wrong, but to use the force of the state to suppress those views and punish people for expressing them?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Sun 13 Aug, 2017 11:37 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

When someone calls me a racist or something else which I am not, I just rebut them, period. If someone is called "alt-right" and finds it offensive or innacurate, he's welcome to explain how he differs from the alt-right...

Or are you saying that there should be a thought police specially dedicated to journalists?


I do believe that journalists should hold themselves to high ethical standards. Of course, in a democracy it is up to them and their employers to police themselves. As a listener there are some outlets I trust more than others... but I question everything anyway.

The big problem with the labels such as "racist" is that they reinforce the political ideological bubbles. When someone in the liberal bubble hears "racist", it is an intellectual shortcut for forming an opinion without thinking about it. Some people question this... but many people don't.

Olivier5
 
  4  
Sun 13 Aug, 2017 03:55 pm
@maxdancona,
And I believe that everybody should hold themselves to high ethical standards, not just journalists. I also believe in calling a spade a spade.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  4  
Mon 14 Aug, 2017 05:13 am
@oralloy,
Meanwhile, US cheese import does not stop growing...
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Thu 17 Aug, 2017 05:56 am
And, here we go...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/aclu-first-amendment-trump-charlottesville.html?referer=https://t.co/mdgUfKReOf?amp=1

Change free speech...
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Thu 17 Aug, 2017 01:08 pm
Bill Moyers
"Contrary to the narrative put forth in the mainstream — and even some left — media, some of the most significant work confronting homophobia, sexism and racism has been done by working-class people of all ethnicities through collective struggle in the labor movement," writes union organizer Gabriel Kristal

for more go to Bill Moyers.com
0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  -4  
Fri 18 Aug, 2017 08:31 am
Apparently "free speech" is not allowed anymore for people who think that being white skin color makes them "superior" over people of a different color of skin.

This is about "opinion" and they have the right to think so.

Same as well, men who believe they are women, even when a simple blood test will show clearly that they are not women but men, these individuals have the right to think and express that they are women.

In the recent incident in Charlottesville, we can compare it to a family who ask for a permit to cross red lights in the city traffic because the transportation of a dead family member to his burial place at the cemetery.

They have the official permit to cross red lights with the correspondent care of not causing accidents and using the proper signs to indicate the funeral activity.

No matter if the dead person was a good or a bad person, the permit was allowed by the city.

However, some people who opposed to such honor given to that dead person, decided to brake the law and intercept the funeral caravan in the intersections of the streets in the city.

This braking of the law made by the protesters caused a reaction and conflict reaching attacks between the two sides ended with extreme reactions and some people died.

What happened in that day in Charlottesvilee was provoked by those extremist liberals who have no respect of the law and in my opinion, if they never intercepted the rightful rally of the white supremacists, no incidents should ever happened.

My condemnation is against the liberal activists and I think an investigation should be made to put in jail the leaders of that illegal protest made by liberals.

Freedom of speech must be respected and honored, regardless if we agree with what others think when they express their opinions.
0 Replies
 
zeroyanke7
 
  1  
Wed 23 Aug, 2017 06:36 pm
@djjd62,
Quote:
i prefer my fascism unleavened


A 28 year old Japanese man died in an eating contest. Is this the news? Glenn Beck talking out of the side of his mouth saying I feel well no so smart now. Glenn Beck flipping through a book. Who does feel like Glenn beck?
Now I need an Amtrak train horror story. To match my horror story for Greyhound bus. The wheels on Ezekial's machine are falling off. The wet stuff was rolling down my face, says J. Allen Hynek.
I think I am more Dwayne Johnson than Dwayne Johnson is. Yeah guess what bostonman. Most media firms make outsized investments to acquire smaller media firms. And They don't care about the content or the truth. They care about hit potential. Now MSNBC is mentioning clown sightings on the scroll bar at the bottom. Doesn't Carson daly look like he should be an employee at Wendys? Most people are fascinated by giants, says Vince McMahon. umm. ok. You see the occult is gaining prominence. I am getting sick. I am getting sick of these pundits on TV and in politics. All of them are lawyers. What good do they do. All lawyers are trying to do is destroy us.
Phrequelyku do you think that this has anything to do with the microchip? I do. Or the Mark of the beast? They don't care about me. Dumb news. But hey we are still there in Afghanistan! I have no official ties. here. Take a gene from the Tomato and turn it on its head, says Sheldon Krimsky.
Now I need an Amtrak train horror story. To match my horror story for Greyhound bus. Maybe the amount of turds I see are the amount of alien spaceships that are coming. Let's talk about devil worship, says George Knapp.
The United States of Incompetency, says my friend Scott. Better and better and better. And it's going to get better. It's better, says John Cornyn. Nope.
What is the New Germany Fund? What is Ark Invest?
Bostonman I like Clayton Morris. Does it matter. We are all dead.
A 28 year old Japanese man died in an eating contest. Is this the news?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Wed 30 Aug, 2017 07:44 am
Watch out, folks. Big Brother is on the prowl; his name is Google.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-google-new-america.html?referer=https://t.co/L1A0QMh11B?amp=1

Excerpt:

By KENNETH P. VOGEL
AUGUST 30, 2017
WASHINGTON — In the hours after European antitrust regulators levied a record $2.7 billion fine against Google in late June, an influential Washington think tank learned what can happen when a tech giant that shapes public policy debates with its enormous wealth is criticized.

The New America Foundation has received more than $21 million from Google; its parent company’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt; and his family’s foundation since the think tank’s founding in 1999. That money helped to establish New America as an elite voice in policy debates on the American left.

But not long after one of New America’s scholars posted a statement on the think tank’s website praising the European Union’s penalty against Google, Mr. Schmidt, who had chaired New America until 2016, communicated his displeasure with the statement to the group’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, according to the scholar.

The statement disappeared from New America’s website, only to be reposted without explanation a few hours later. But word of Mr. Schmidt’s displeasure rippled through New America, which employs more than 200 people, including dozens of researchers, writers and scholars, most of whom work in sleek Washington offices where the main conference room is called the “Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab.” The episode left some people concerned that Google intended to discontinue funding, while others worried whether the think tank could truly be independent if it had to worry about offending its donors.


Those worries seemed to be substantiated a couple of days later, when Ms. Slaughter summoned the scholar who wrote the critical statement, Barry Lynn, to her office. He ran a New America initiative called Open Markets that has led a growing chorus of liberal criticism of the market dominance of telecom and tech giants, including Google, which is now part of a larger corporate entity known as Alphabet, for which Mr. Schmidt serves as executive chairman.

Ms. Slaughter told Mr. Lynn that “the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways,” according to an email from Ms. Slaughter to Mr. Lynn. The email suggested that the entire Open Markets team — nearly 10 full-time employees and unpaid fellows — would be exiled from New America.

While she asserted in the email, which was reviewed by The New York Times, that the decision was “in no way based on the content of your work,” Ms. Slaughter accused Mr. Lynn of “imperiling the institution as a whole.”

Mr. Lynn, in an interview, charged that Ms. Slaughter caved to pressure from Mr. Schmidt and Google, and, in so doing, set the desires of a donor over the think tank’s intellectual integrity.

“Google is very aggressive in throwing its money around Washington and Brussels, and then pulling the strings,” Mr. Lynn said. “People are so afraid of Google now.”

Google rejected any suggestion that it played a role in New America’s split with Open Markets. Riva Sciuto, a Google spokeswoman, pointed out that the company supports a wide range of think tanks and other nonprofits focused on information access and internet regulation. “We don’t agree with every group 100 percent of the time, and while we sometimes respectfully disagree, we respect each group’s independence, personnel decisions and policy perspectives.”

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 04:16 am
This should be interesting.

Some conservatives at Berkeley (that sounds so funny) have invited Milo and Bannon to speak.

At a Free Speech weekend.

I'll be checking this out.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/us/steve-bannon-berkeley-speech.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=https://t.co/wAcJjEK0Ym?amp=1

Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 04:52 am
@Lash,
Quote:
[...]
"Simply put, the University cannot provide the security and support the student organization has requested, and the campus wants to provide, if we do not receive the essential information. To date a number of key deadlines have been missed. Not a single speaker has connected with the campus or our police department to discuss security arrangements, as is required. Rental fees for venues have not been paid. Contracts with venues have not been signed.

“While campus officials and venue managers are working diligently to assist the Berkeley Patriot group with its proposed events, the group’s failure to meet important deadlines is making it increasingly difficult to ensure a safe and secure program.”
[...]
Source
Lash
 
  0  
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 04:59 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I believe they CAN provide security, but the administration in Berkeley - vehemently opposed to conservative politics - uses this fabrication to deny security to those they abhor.

They stand down as people fight per the last two or three occasions.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 05:14 am
@Lash,
I'm sure they can find another venue somewhere, like a theater or something.
Lash
 
  1  
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 05:36 am
@Olivier5,
Berkeley students invited them , and have a right - just like Berkeley students with liberal opinions - to choose their speakers.

Don't you believe in equal rights for minorities?

Olivier5
 
  1  
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 05:54 am
@Lash,
They also have a duty to arrange for venues and some level of security. Beside, if they don't like the way the University treats them, they can find a venue elsewhere.
Lash
 
  0  
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 05:56 am
@Olivier5,
And if minorities don't like their lack of rights in the US, they can get on a boat... right?
Olivier5
 
  2  
Wed 13 Sep, 2017 07:11 am
@Lash,
That's what Bannon is saying. I say something else: that if they find it unwelcoming at Berkeley, the extreme right can still express itself outside of Berkeley University. So they should stop whining and start planning.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/16/2024 at 01:12:36