62% of Americans are afraid to speak their minds on politics

Cato national survey from early July.

A new Cato national survey finds that self-censorship is on the rise in the United States. Nearly two-thirds—62%—of Americans say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive.
...
Self-censorship is widespread across demographic groups as well. Nearly two-thirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share. Majorities of men (65%) and women (59%), people with incomes over $100,000 (60%) and people with incomes less than $20,000 (58%), people under 35 (55%) and over 65 (66%), religious (71%) and non-religious (56%) all agree that the political climate prevents them from expressing their true beliefs.

No self-respecting people can or should accept such circumstances for or about themselves.

That means that in our time, whether admitted openly or not, many Americans are keeping a shameful fact about their own lack of self-respect to themselves.

A moral-rot left unaddressed eventually rots everything it touches.

That is where we are today, watching the rot spread, afraid to speak openly about it in any great or influential numbers.

That can't suit Donald Trump and it doesn't suit him. Joe Biden, on the other hand, apparently doesn't mind it at all.

No self respecting people would take or put much credibility into a CATO survey.

This moral-rot is borne of one of the worst, most virulent and stupidly-destructive of capital-"L" "Liberalisms" in a very long time.

>3 lriley: And yet you agree with Cato's position on immigration.

(By the way, there are two pdf files with the poll's methodology at the link, if you really are curious about that.)

#5--if Cato's position is for open borders? Sure.....but so what?

It should be said that a lot of people don't really know where their minds are on politics in the first place. They'll repeat something someone says but won't put any work in to knowing what they're talking about and someone will call them on it. For loads of people in the United States politics is more about celebrity or personality than anything else---lots of people don't really look at issues at all.

If it is racists who are ashamed of their sick beliefs and thus do not share them publicly, then maybe that should be seen as a good thing.

Maybe they should also just go crawl under a rock.

>8 JGL53: If it is racists who are ashamed of their sick beliefs and thus do not share them publicly, then maybe that should be seen as a good thing.

You know it's not. Having the positions that Barack Obama had on e.g. immigration and gay marriage about a decade ago could get people attack-swarmed as "Nazis" etc. today.

>9 Carnophile:

You're asking someone who aligns with Fascist principles, intervening in an election via lockstep with die-hard Liberals; liberals which claim to be the base of the party and claim the Democrat party that chooses the Biden type is not in agreement with their principals, and somehow also wants to put more control in the government's hands, despite the fact that their party doesn't even care about their principals. The, why does this keep happening, smacknut types...

You are asking those types to reason? Paint them red and they'll stand with only the nice bulls.

People might not speak their minds for a lot of reasons.

1) they know they're ill informed of what they speak and might be shut down for same if they open their mouths
2) they're outnumbered in the company they're in by people who don't like what they think
3) they're not good at formulating and carrying on an argument
4) they're physically afraid of someone they don't agree with

This study is like asking people if they have any insecurities at all and most everyone has some kind of insecurity. That includes sociopaths including one who wonders why Fauci is so popular and he isn't. Maybe the people at Cato are feeling a little insecure now too. Keeping in mind they love austerity and privatization at that institute and they don't seem to me all that empathetic when out to create chaos in the public sphere to others usually. Just saying it's curious. There may be other reasons but none of the above are exclusive to any particular kind of political ideology. This Cato study is just as bullshitty as the Harper's letter.

> 9

Dredging up the past is, like, so last year.

E.g., if my 20 year-old self from 1969 existed today I would be called out for being a racist, for many different reasons. That was because I WAS a racist in 1969. Obama changed his mind on gay stuff. I did too and also changed my attitude on race. So - may we all meet now together in 2020 to discuss all the shit?

In 2020 there are people who are racist - right now, today - and thus are a problem today. David Duke comes to mind. dOnaLD tRUMP does too. Ditto asshats who joyously look forward to voting for tRUMP - again - in 2020.

Bottom line - what per cent of racist scum are keeping quiet and what per cent are marching with tiki torches - that is not so important - what is important is that normals get out and vote on Nov. 3, in greater numbers than does the racist scum. Otherwise we will all continue on pace to become just another banana republic - or maybe a god damn fucking satellite of Mother Russia.

>12 JGL53:

Not so, you can't just change your mind, it's in your DNA they say. You're a racist and a homophobe, and no longer have a place at the table. And you're right, with the Democrats on pace to gain control, we are on pace to be a banana republic. You should see all the bitching about the Democrat platform, and you think they're going to change anything? It is a ridiculous scam and so many are falling for it.

>13 Cubby.R.S.:

You're very dismissive of JGL's experience. Virtually all of us of his age bracket were brought up in a society which was systemically racist, sexist and homophobic, whether we are black or white, male or female, straight or not, and that adversely affected all of us. There are things which we (and most of the dominant strand of society) took for granted then which we now realise are false, dysfunctional, offensive and often hateful. At least some of us have tried to make that change, as JGL says. Others haven't.

no longer have a place at the table

One thing I've learned in my day job in peacebuilding is that for a peaceful, just and reconciliatory resolution of any conflict, every voice has to be represented at the table. The current struggle is not about excluding voices from the table, no, not even the rich and powerful, the aggressors and perpetrators, those who benefit from the system, but rather making space at that table for the voices which are customarily excluded, those who are marginalised and disadvantaged, and giving due weight to their experience, wisdom and needs.

#14--which also means those who are most advantaged need to give. Just societies are built from the ground up---not from the penthouse down. In the United States the question of reparations shouldn't be about whether it should happen---it should be about how to go about doing it and FWIW it wouldn't exactly be unprecedented--the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 signed by Ronald Reagan gave reparations for the unjust internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. People of color are disadvantaged from birth and it is a legacy from our days of slavery. It also extends into other thing like women's, Native American and gay rights---but the playing field isn't and has never been fair. Unfortunately I don't think either of our two major political parties are ready for a serious discussion on it.

>14 John5918:

I'm sure you feel that way. Even Obama is considered an elitist who doesn't do enough. We are witnessing your prototypical gobbling up of all that is not woke.

Just so you're aware, that's your team that will remove him.

>16 Cubby.R.S.:

I have no idea what you are talking about.

>17 John5918:

That is part of the problem John.

>18 Cubby.R.S.:

Indeed. Either you don't want to communicate with people who are trying to take you seriously, or you're not a very good communicator.

>16 Cubby.R.S.: Please clarify.

A. You’re sure that John feels what way? That he feels that all people, including every sector from the economic and social top to the economic and social bottom, should have a voice in what happens and in how our collective (as in we are all in this, not as in the Russian model of collective)? Because that’s exactly what he said in his post at >14 John5918:.

B. Please explain the relevance of Mr. Obama to his remarks. Please explain what you mean by “your prototypical gobbling up of all that is not woke.” That is precisely the opposite of what his post clearly expresses.

C. Just what is John’s “team”? Would that be the team that, as he clearly states, would include everyone? If so, then how can anyone be removed? And who is “being removed”? From what “table”? What is this team doing this removing?

Your post is completely unresponsive to his remarks. And it’s unclear. To have a discussion we all need to understand each other. Please help us understand exactly what you mean.

>20 Matke:

A. Yes, I honestly believe John would like to see everyone treated as well as humanely possible and be heard.

B. If you're familiar with revolutions, and make no mistake the U.S. is building one, the progressive crowd will split when it comes to going too far or not far enough. Those that show reason and experience has value, will be judged. Obama has learned, John has learned, those types will be eaten first.

C. John is a Progressive, but he won't go off the cliff, he will learn eventually that ultimate freedom doesn't exist in laws but in the mind. He knows that already, but he thinks there can be a change in people via government action. What he'll learn is, people need to sacrifice to make a change without force. That is where true freedom lives.

I think the relevant point here is that tens of millions - some very large plurality if not majority - of (past and potential) American voters are not nearly as politically partisan as many are on this forum and this thread.

I have heard and read many times that most people just vote for the candidate they estimate poses the LEAST threat to themselves as individuals and the American way of life in general, as each person evaluates such. That seems about right.

So, in a nutshell, most of us vote for (who we perceive as) the lesser of evils - i.e, most people are not just mindless hero-worshipers or great lovers of any particular political party.

I might add here that many Americans of lesser native intellect and political astuteness are drawn to voting for the candidate they find most likable in their personal view - who looks like them, has a similar background, comes from their region of the country, is the tallest and most impressive looking, who they would most like to have a beer with, etc., etc.)

So that is why we can never bet our lives or life savings today (July 30) concerning who will be elected in 96 days on November 3. We can only vote, hope, and pray (if we are religious). - Plus, the winner will be the one who receives 270+ electoral votes and Jesus himself doesn't even know how those chips will fall.

So, arguing is fun and is much safer for all than pistols at dawn. But we the passionate are a decided minority. The hoi polli will settle the score as they determine. The hoi polli call the final shot - we the passionate, on both or all sides, just live in their world.

>21 Cubby.R.S.: What he'll learn is, people need to sacrifice to make a change without force

Well yes, I learned that a long time ago. The Sudanese nonviolent revolution is one example. People sacrificed - they were killed, raped and beaten. Martin Luther King was assassinated. Gandhi's salt marchers were beaten by British soldiers, and the people in Amritsar were machine-gunned. The book Why Civil Resistance Works by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, which I have quoted often, is full of examples of how people sacrificed to bring about change. Noviolence is not passive, it is active, and demands a high price (sacrifice) from those who practice it.

he will learn eventually that ultimate freedom doesn't exist in laws but in the mind. He knows that already, but he thinks there can be a change in people via government action

I wouldn't disagree that ultimate freedom exists in the mind, but a pragmatic freedom that we can all live with can be brought nearer by removing some of the obstacles to freedom, creating space for people to be free, by levelling the playing field, bringing more equality in opportunities, listening to and acting on voices other than our own narrow identity group.

Your post comes across as extremely condescending, incidentally.

>23 John5918:

Because the person I was responding to loves to chide me.

You cannot offer advantages to certain groups, without people, especially governments willing to steal from the program. It doesn't work. It never has worked. Read this board, and you'll notice that many actually care about others. Why do we have race and cultural issues, because of a system? No, not because of a system.

A culture is struggling, not a color. Education is failing our kids particularly in areas of high crime. I heard that the literacy rate is awful in California, maybe reason enough to ban Unions from education altogether. By large the American culture rejects education, and I think for good reason. 1619 project is just another reason for a kid to slice open their wrists. There is a growing idea of a pointless existence to many children, and you know why.

I disagree that laws (insert programs or handouts) can create fairness, unless it's a list of rights that should be offered to all.

>24 Cubby.R.S.: You cannot offer advantages to certain groups

Who is talking about offering advantages? In fact society has offered advantages to certain groups for centuries if not millennia, and it hasn't worked. We're now talking about equal rights and equal opportunities, a level playing field, not about offering advantages.

I disagree that laws can create fairness

Existing laws are already often unfair, and often discriminate, intentionally or unintentionally, against certain classes of people, usually the poorer ones, and in many cases against women. As Charles Dickens said, the law is an ass (that's a UK ass, not a US ass, although that may also be true). Maybe some of those laws need to be adjusted to try and make them discriminate less and to apply more equally to the whole of society.

a list of rights that should be offered to all

Indeed, which implies some laws or regulations to ensure that they actually are offered to all.

>24 Cubby.R.S.: I disagree that laws can create fairness, unless it's a list of rights that should be offered to all.

You're just spouting your opinions as if they are some holy Truth. What about voting rights laws, or fair housing laws. The civil rights era is full of laws that increased fairness in US society.

#22--I remember having a conversation with my father-in-law who lived in a really really really rural part of Northern Pennsylvania. In fact a very, very, very conservative part of the same state. Yet he was a democrat through and through which didn't mean he wasn't conservative because he was but really he'd be slamming George W. Bush whenever his name came up. GWB was the devil--the same with Dick Cheney and I'm not disagreeing that they weren't really evil because IMO they were but his life was really sitting on a tractor and talking about going to church on Sunday which he hardly ever did. So the day after Rick Santorum lost his Senate seat to Bob Casey he was over to the house and I said to him 'I see Rick Santorum lost his senate seat' and he looked at me blankly and so I repeated the same and he didn't know who the fuck I was talking about. Just his US Senator is all and one of the most right wing ones ever and he didn't have a clue.

It's a dumbed down electorate and lots of...if not most people are going to vote simply on the fact of their own bottom lines---how they and their families are doing and what we're going to have in November is great dissatisfaction and especially if you've just turned 40 million newly unemployed into 30 million newly homeless. That certainly will smarten a lot of people up and they will certainly understand that or at least a whole lot better than they understand medicare for all which for so many has just been tagged as socialist and that's all that's needed to scare them off.

Some democratic incumbents might take a hit for this as well but who is going to take the biggest hit is the party perceived to be in power. That is the Republican party. Warning however to the Democratic party--it will up to them to figure out both the pandemic and what might will be a very serious economic depression. They might not be in power very long if they prove to be as gormless in rectifying those problems as they appear to be right now. Platitudes are fine when you're not the party in power---they're shit when you are.

>25 John5918:

Can you cite a law that is unfair and tell me why it is?

>26 jjwilson61:

We shouldn't need laws about voting, it should be a given that each citizen of age should be able to vote. Those were clarifications and perhaps I should've reiterated handouts or programs rather than stating laws. That is my error. Laws do indeed bring fairness.

>27 lriley:

I like Rick Santorum more than I like Trump. I'm curious, could you please list who you think my favorite Republican nominees were in 2016, let's say, top 7, so perhaps you land my top 5.

>29 Cubby.R.S.: Half of what you type seems to be in some kind of right-wing code that I don't understand, and when I question you about some part that I did understand you say you misspoke. Perhaps you should take more time to make sure what you're writing is understandable to a general audience and is actually what you mean to say.

>Most of the amendments are clarifications, because Americans have been too stupid to get it right. That is what I meant. We shouldn't need to be told that anything as a basic right uses a basis of color or gender is a quantifier for application. As far as any Civil Rights legislation, it should also have been, duh, obvious.

>28 Cubby.R.S.: Can you cite a law that is unfair and tell me why it is?

Yes. Certain abortion laws are widely seen as being unfair to women. A lot of immigration laws are unfair to migrants. A lot of tax legislation is unfair to those who cannot afford expensive accountants. Many countries now have laws which are unfair to journalists. Some Islamic countries have laws which are unfair to women. Israel has laws which are unfair to non-Jews, just as apartheid South Africa had laws which were unfair to non-whites. Laws which allowed a "consensual rough sex" defence in murder and assault cases were widely seen as being unfair to victims, and I believe are being changed in the UK now. The list goes on. You don't need to look very far.

>31 jjwilson61: Half of what you type seems to be in some kind of right-wing code that I don't understand

I get the same feeling.

One of the characteristics of a conversation with some of our right wing friends is not only that you get drawn into red herrings, but also that it's often made to appear as if you are at the extremes of for/against, either/or, black/white, win/lose, zero sum, whereas in fact it is usually far more nuanced than that. Let me clarify that I am not against laws, and as >26 jjwilson61: says, there are plenty of laws which increase fairness. I would add laws giving rights to workers, health and safety legislation, and environmental protection laws. Criminal laws relating to murder, rape, assault, etc are also good, albeit often with flaws in the way they are implemented. And while I can agree with Cubby (or whichever of the right wing posters who said it - they tend to blur into one after a while) that laws do not create good people, nevertheless laws can protect ordinary people from the worst excesses of the "bad" people. Would workers have health and safety protection, a forty hour week, paid vacation and sick leave, health coverage, redress against unfair dismissal or sexual harassment, if it were left to the bosses rather than legislation? (And I'm aware that in the USA they might not have some of those things, but in most modern western democracies they do, by law).

The rule of law is very important for ensuring justice and human rights. Cubby appears to be against laws because governments are corrupt (forgive me, Cubby, if I have misinterpreted your words). While I can agree with them that there is potential for corruption in any government (and the current Trump administration is an obvious example thereof), I wonder how much they know about countries that have no rule of law? Somalia springs to mind, along with parts of Sudan, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Even in a relatively developed country such as Kenya, vigilante lynching still occurs in places where the reach of the law is weak.

But I wonder how we got on to this particular red herring?

How law is applied is also another thing. Because it very often targets certain groups of people for more benevolent outcomes and other groups for far less benevolent outcomes. There is also proportionality and how it is applied. The United States is a society that really is into punishing whenever and however it can. We have the highest incarceration rate for instance of any nation on earth and we disproportionately target black and brown people. Other nations look to treat people for drug and psychological issues. We'll put them away and sometimes for a long time. We have loads and loads of people serving time for 'non-violent victimless crimes'. Should we even have such a categorization of people in prison? It would seem to me that we should let all them out and put those who need treatment into programs that give them treatment.

In the U.S. it's not only illegal to target a person for undue police attention, arrest, charge, indictment & trial, conviction or punishment based solely on the color of his skin, there is ZERO evidence to support a claim that today this is happening on more than fluke occasions which involve individuals acting on personal animus and without official guidance or approval.

I did state that laws allow for fairness and that I should've specifically noted programs or handouts as my main concern, they also end up being abused by people with power in general.

- what abortion law is unfair?
- I agree that immigration seems to be very difficult, could you be more specific on a law that impacts migrants that desire to live and work in the U.S.?
-taxes can be done relatively cheap, keep your papers, too much fraud occurs even still. You'll have to be more specific.

I'm specifically talking U.S., the country addressed in the topic and the one taking shots from liberal ideologues.

Type in anything political into Google. You will end up with left wing sources. Post anything on Facebook that is against the left's narrative, it can be taken down. You wonder why people refuse to speak. When Trump is re elected, you all can blame those companies that lie to everyone.

>37 Cubby.R.S.: what abortion law is unfair?

Ask women.

a law that impacts migrants that desire to live and work in the U.S.

The laws that allow children to be separated from their families. The laws that send asylum seekers back to Mexico while their applications are being processed. The laws that arbitrarily affect migrants from certain countries. Look at the two current threads on immigration in the USA - one on Trump's ban and another on crafting immigration policy in the USA - and you'll find plenty.

>38 Cubby.R.S.: Post anything on Facebook that is against the left's narrative, it can be taken down

As far as I'm aware, Facebook and some other social media sites "take down" misinformation, fake news, lies and certain types of hate speech and incitement, regardless of its political flavour. If it so happens that more right wing stuff is being removed than left wing, which you have alleged without providing evidence, that might be an indication that there are more misinformation, fake news, lies and certain types of hate speech and incitement coming from that side. Facebook, incidentally, is a capitalist profit-making entity, not a left-wing not-for-profit cooperative. And there is no shortage of right wing websites and chat boards for those who fancy that sort of thing. You're free to spout right wing nonsense even here on LT, although of course it will not go unchallenged by rational folk.

>39 John5918:

Some will say abortion is unfair to the baby altogether, and some will say kill the little fuckers if you don't like'em by 5 years old. I think I'll let a law, treating all equally, put into place by those selected to represent the population as being fair enough.

I'm not going to read a bunch of tripe on misrepresented bullshit, Obama deported more people than anyone. I didn't really care much for Trump, but the more I read idiotic threads on Trump hating, the more I'm excited to vote for him.

Okay, and I will just say that choosing what misinformation is, is a bit funny. Especially when some of these things, including info about COVID, etc., isn't necessarily settled science. This is nowhere near scratching the surface, but the fact that these social media companies and search engines typically act in concert against certain things is really ridiculous. It takes me a long time to find information from both sides, that I would deem credible. No fucking wonder the leftists around here harp on anyone's sources...

Don't worry about responding to this post. A Catholic that supports abortion, doesn't seem to me as someone I need to get viewpoints from anyway. Watching this 'he's just spouting right wing propaganda' bullshit you guys keep spewing, is enough to know you're not interested in any discussion outside your feed anyway.

#36--LOL! Zero evidence. Like prison populations don't reflect disproportionate outcomes.

You're going to have to try harder but that's one of the best William Barr impersonations I've ever seen.

“One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them.”
― Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

#42--Jesus. Some people.

You can take up your Aldous Huxley quote with statistics cited by the World Atlas and the Bureau of Prisons then. How's that work for you?

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/incarceration-rates-by-race-ethnicity-and-ge...

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp

Keep in mind they're counting Hispanics as white and that the Trump administration certainly doesn't see Hispanics as white.

>43 lriley:

So, laws are harder to follow for blacks? Or do laws say, arrest only blacks for doing these things?'

You want real disparity, looking at gender statistics, how does that work for you? Let's work on that first then. Or, do men just commit more crimes? Noooooo waaaaayyy, fuck that, laws are against men, right?

#44--so would you like to discuss cocaine and crack sentencing disparities?

>45 lriley:

Watch this video, from the new legislation that Obama passed. This was before race was a left wing propaganda point. Or, at least they weren't using blacks at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKQxdhXkAcs

But don't worry, Trump has your back

https://www.drugpolicy.org/press-release/2018/12/president-trump-signs-first-ste...

A testimony on Google censorship and the new internet vision, from Epstein. Surely mocked and criticized by the left as unreliable.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Epstein%20Testimony.pdf

>40 Cubby.R.S.: I'm not going to read a bunch of tripe on misrepresented bullshit, Obama deported more people than anyone

I'm not interested in partisan finger-pointing but rather with justice for migrants. To that extent the finger needs to be pointed at the current incumbent who can actually do something about it for the present and future, not the past. And incidentally, if someone is currently doing something wrong, claiming that others have also done something wrong does not excuse the current behaviour.

>47 Cubby.R.S.: Read Epstein's testimony. Read about doctors with dissenting opinion regarding Covid and treatment losing their job. You can pretend that all the science is settled or you can look all of these things up. Even if, after people using an FDA approved drug for 60 plus years, they thought it wasn't going to work for Covid, why are these doctors getting fired and silenced? Drew Brees was put into submission for not walking in lock step with BLM. All the negative and purposely so, reporting on anything Trump and you think Americans wouldn't be afraid to speak up.

Of course they know people are afraid to speak up (except in criticism of Trump which is cinematographically-approved)—all those with some precious position which, by speaking against witch-hunt-style stuff against Trump—because Trump is one of the media's approved scape-goats here—should imperil these positions and all that depends on them.

Their own anti-Trump baying and chanting is, to an extent far beyond what they'd dare admit to themselves, itself a resort to the cover, the safety, of group-think.

They're gunning for Trump in part because that's their little protective badge of political-correctness in their circles of closed and safe group-think.

Fucking cowards. It's the same, very old, story. The cowardice of human herds and herd-like thinking.

____________________



Springer (Publishers) Nature (journal) Retracts Paper Called "Overtly Racist" |
by Adam Marcus, Retraction Watch | 31 July 2020

The worst thing about it all is, they'll elect factually criminal politicians, praise politicians complicit in murdering the elderly to heighten Covid deaths, support sick fucking pedifiles, all in an ends justify the means attempt of progress. Science killing, history revising, self serving sheep.

>10 Cubby.R.S.: You are asking those types to reason?

I know it’s futile but I like to be able to say I tried.

>11 lriley: People might not speak their minds for a lot of reasons. (E.g.) they know they're ill informed of what they speak and might be shut down for same if they open their mouths...

You know that’s not it. For example, from the poll, “32% Worry Their Political Views Could Harm Their Employment.”

Additionally,
“Although strong liberals are the only group who feel they can say what they believe, the share who feel pressured to self-censor rose 12 points from 30% in 2017 to 42% in 2020.”

So “strong liberals” suddenly became 12 percentage points less confident in their ability to mount an argument over the last three years, did they?

>9 Carnophile: Having the positions that Barack Obama had on e.g. immigration and gay marriage about a decade ago could get people attack-swarmed as "Nazis" etc. today.
>12 JGL53: if my 20 year-old self from 1969 existed today I would be called out for being a racist, for many different reasons. That was because I WAS a racist in 1969. Obama changed his mind on gay stuff. I did too...

But how did you fail to notice all the horrid Nazi ideology - and actually vote for it - 12 years ago? It calls into question your moral compass that you failed to notice the Naziism. And it makes me question whether I should let Nazi-voting people like you decide who gets to speak.

Cato:

“A slim majority (52%) of liberals feel they have to self-censor...”

So your position is that 52% of liberals are racist. Thanks for the admission, I guess.

>14 John5918: One thing I've learned in my day job in peacebuilding is that for a peaceful, just and reconciliatory resolution of any conflict, every voice has to be represented at the table.

“...and we guarantee every voice will be heard by having people we disagree with fired, etc.”

The current struggle is not about excluding voices from the table

Another breathtakingly audacious lie from you. The entire point of cancel culture is excluding some voices.

...but rather making space at that table for the voices which are customarily excluded

“We must silence certain points of view, to make sure all points of view are heard. Really, censoring people is actually fighting censorship.”

When Orwell portrayed totalitarians as saying things like “Freedom is Slavery” and “War is Peace” he was not exaggerating.

>54 Carnophile: “having people we disagree with fired, etc.”

Well, that's certainly what Trump is doing. But the rest of your post, as usual, mischaracterises what is actually happening, at least in the mainstream.

>55 John5918:

No, not really. Maybe the spin you read but not in reality. The same 4 sources that lead every Google search might give you that idea, but he's dead on. Trump is firing some crooked individuals that the left decided to have clean up some mess, but I'm sure as the election nears, some fun stuff will be out.

>56 Cubby.R.S.:

Two posts in different threads this morning have referred to Lt Colonel Vindman. Is he a "crooked individual"?

"dead on" (>56 Cubby.R.S.:) and "breathtakingly audacious" (>54 Carnophile:) were such choice expressions and all that followed was so aptly pointed out.

I'm going to borrow them from time to time.

The thing is, while breathtakingly audacious is so correctly seen, in it you quote someone who has, so very clearly has, absolutely no insight into this fact about himself. He's what's called "clueless" on this point. Others would say "blind" to it. And this is one of the strangest parts of the whole matter. Even when very expressly, even painstakingly, pointed out, such people remain clueless, as if nothing of key importance has been added.

It's that which makes these circumstances so shitty.

"Here be dragons,"
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

We're amidst such biblical insanity as that, in 2020, since, let's not kid ourselves, human nature is today the very same as it was when these words were rendered in the English of King James II, or earlier, in the Hebrew of their time.

"Witch" for the Hebraic "sorcerer"* ( וּמְכַשֵּֽׁף׃ )

(Exodus 22:17)
( R. to L.)
יז מְכַשֵּׁפָה, לֹא תְחַיֶּה.
17 "Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live."

(R. -- L.) (Deuteronomy 18: 10)
י לֹא-יִמָּצֵא בְךָ, מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ-וּבִתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ, קֹסֵם קְסָמִים, מְעוֹנֵן וּמְנַחֵשׁ וּמְכַשֵּׁף.

("10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that useth divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, ")
__________________

* A "sorceress" is a caster of spells, chanter of incantations, a maker of potions and practitioner of the arts of fire and alchemy, or, more realistically, anyone given to displays of faith-healing, given to making prognostications which appeal to or summon intervention of supernatural forces, or, more generally, anyone who does and can be seen to do things which mystify and befuddle general observers who cannot otherwise make sense of what they observe.

>56 Cubby.R.S.: Trump keeps firing people he hired, as well as people who served through several administrations. But blame the left.

LOL!

Hiring & Firing-- is sort of an executive's wheelhouse-work, it's what they do, especially when one reflects on the fact that all the Executive's "appointments" --clue-term, there, key-word, there--in the "Executive branch of government" are directly or indirectly the president's responsibility--clue-term, there, key-word, there.

No small part of why Obama's tenure was such a bust was due to his shit-poor judgment & what it led to in "appointments" which, too often, were left "appointed" rather than, as with Trump's example, "fired".

>57 John5918:

Freakin Vindman, helped a BS waste of time for political gain. The military wouldn't investigate the scum bag so they don't have to admit corruption. He's lucky that he got to retire instead of being investigated. Freaking give me a break, innocent martyr I'm sure.

Some people are new here I suppose but Obama's deportation record has been brought up in this group numerous times in the past. It's appalling. Barack managed to do his shit with a whole lot less public scrutiny because he wasn't trying to play himself into a hero and ran his program under the radar on the matter and not like Trump who has continually turned to and has centered his racist and toxic demagoguery around publically cheerleading at rallies and news events 'building (of) the wall'.

I don't know why it is that people still confuse Obama with the left. He pretty much had totally abandoned the left two months after his inauguration.Let's consider his Vice President Biden who is a right wing democrat. Let's consider the bailing out of Wall St. instead of Main St. Let's consider that he fooled most people actually on the left into believing he was going to pull the troops out of both Afghanistan and Iraq--put an end to the regime change bullshit and shut down Guantanamo--none of which really happened. Did he support the Occupy Movement? Fuck no. He coordinated instead with Mayors and police departments around the country to harass and arrest those protesters---odd to me anyway considering his hands off approach to the tea party movement. The DAPL protest?--Obama washed his hands of that too--watched the brutalizing of protesters and then passed it along to Trump. He even codified the Bush tax cuts which were great for the wealthy and corporations but shit for 99% of the population. Obama hangs out with movie stars and wealthy people--his signature Obamacare is a fucking joke. He didn't go nearly far enough.

Obama is not left. He is a center--somewhat to the right establishment democrat and his entire presidency was a failure as far as I'm concerned. Not nearly as catastrophic as this fucking yokel we have now though.

> 53 "....But how did you fail to notice all the horrid Nazi ideology - and actually vote for it - 12 years ago? It calls into question your moral compass that you failed to notice the Naziism. And it makes me question whether I should let Nazi-voting people like you decide who gets to speak.....Cato: “A slim majority (52%) of liberals feel they have to self-censor...” ...So your position is that 52% of liberals are racist. Thanks for the admission, I guess."

What in the fuck are you yammering about? Do you even have a clue as to what you are yammering about or is the above just a random collection of words?

If you are calling me a nazi then such is the psychological equivalent of you calling me a doodoohead. It is not even an ad hominem, it just raises the question of whether I am possibly conversing with a schizophrenic. Or perhaps your are merely projecting? Have you participated in a rally or march lately while wearing a brown shirt and carrying a tiki torch?

lol.

>1 Carnophile: I find it interesting that you don't mention the partisan split; "Majorities of Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share." I'd expect that to be skewed by the fact that "cancel culture" is a big talking point among Republicans.

>2 proximity1: I'm not sure I'm familiar with this Donald Trump fellow you're talking about, or his relevance to this discussion? There's a President Donald Trump, but given that he's supported violence against protestors and threatened to shut down media organizations that disagree with him--most brutally, lawsuits against small TV stations that ran political ads against him, a tactic that might work--it's clear that's not the guy you're talking about.

>62 lriley:

And some people clamour for government controlled everything and then proceed to bitch about everyone in government being corrupt. Did you just wake up and decide to be an ideologue?

>65 Cubby.R.S.: That's the way it should work, isn't it? If you want the government to have a big role then you should be vigilant against corruption. The act of calling it out is part of ensuring good governance.

>66 jjwilson61:

All the Marxist types say that crap and just like all the rest they get corrupted. Obama had a soul once too. Think about it.

>61 Cubby.R.S.:

Just so we're clear, your position is that Lt Col Vindman is a "scum bag" who "helped a BS waste of time for political gain", not a serving military officer and Purple Heart holder who obeyed a formal summons to give evidence under oath at an official hearing?

>67 Cubby.R.S.:

"Think about it."

If only!

"We're sorry, the number you have reached is no longer in service."

__________________

>66 jjwilson61: "The act of calling it out is part of ensuring good governance."

"Ensuring good-governance"!??!

Of all the fucking pig-blind arrogance!

You have the nerve to claim you have anything to do with "good-governance"?!?!

The electorate as a whole, not you and your tiny band of arrogant fools, decide what constitutes "good governance." Their decisions--majority decisions according to established rules--are the sine qua non of good-governance. There's no potential for good-governance when, by and through the efforts of people joined in criminal conspiracies, electoral choices which are conducted according to due and lawful form are denied their proper occasion to be legally exercised.

The people you hold up as examples of actors in good governance properly belong under criminal indictment for a slew of felonies.

When a few people decide they'll lie, cheat and steal, perjure themselves, corrupt established legal practices and principles, all in order to undermine and thwart the tenure of a duly-elected serving president, these people and their defenders are barred from appeals to things called "good-governance."

Alexander S. Vindman, is the archetype example of what I mean when I say these people presume to substitute their personal views for those of their official superior officers.

Vindman: "In Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false and alternative narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the inter-agency," ... "harmful to U.S. national security" ... "undermined U.S. Government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine." (Wikipedia / Alexander Vindman)

Such is the thinking of the creepy anti-Constitutional morons whose designs are to distort fact and honest truths (as did Vindman); because they disagree with the course resulting from policy-making by elected and appointed officials, they presume to substitute for their superiors' views their own personal opinions.

>68 John5918:

Just so we're clear, serving in the military makes you a good person no exceptions?

Do you know how he received his purple heart. Let's not conflate the matter, I would heartily thank him for his service, but your stance is groundless.

#65--FWIW I think you have the political acumen of an infant which pretty much figures into your sycophancy for the current dipshit in chief who is pretty much at that same level. I have expectations for people I vote for and when they don't meet them or even try they don't get praise for it from me. I'm not looking for excuses from them for why they don't do what they say they will or why they won't do the right thing when they have the chance. But if you're not willing to do a hard critique on the people you vote for I don't even know why'd you bother voting at all.

But if you want to say I'm an ideologue that's fine---I do have this one bit of ideology---I never vote for republicans and that's one rule I'll never break. It's the party of the privileged and the rich and hypocritical religious fanatics and racists.

>71 lriley:

You ought to do some self reflecting. As it is, you vote for more government and get more bad results. I want less government and get stuck with shit, because numbnuts progressives think they've got it all figured out. Like a child, you do the same stupid shit over and over and expect different results. Of an infant? That's not even an intellectually curious insult, but maybe you can get your buddies to flag this post. Think about it for 5 minutes, why, just why YOU and your ilk are making a shitty situation even worse.

Dumbest fucking liberal waste of time shit post. No wonder Carnophile and Proximity bitch all the time on these boards...

I voted in 2016 with 23,000 other people in my State for the Constitutional Party. My guess is, you either voted for the Green Party or Clinton, either way, both represent a gross amount of government control, predicated on self worship while despising the human race. Those groups just like all other Communists feel no qualms over the ends justify the means protocol. The groups you vote for are in every history book, as the end of freedom and beginning of ruin. We do not need more control, it is already crippling enough.

PS, Clinton is not a Communist, but she loves power and money and lacks humanity.

>72 Cubby.R.S.:

Your vote is, of course, your own sacred right to use as you think best for your town, your city, your county, your state and your national government.

November's polling date is just three months away.

In the time which remains, you must determine how best to use the ballot to which your citizenship entitles you. There are two main parties, one of which is virtually certain to be the party of the next occupant of the White House as president of the United States.

The Constitution(al) Party (and others parties apart from the Democratic Party and Republican Party) may well propose a candidate for that office and that candidate may be among those your ballot presents.

I hope that everyone who can vote shall vote in person--whether on polling day or in pre-election-day voting by absentee ballot, marked in person and presented directly to the clerk of records for the district in which the votes are made and recorded.

I very much hope that November's election clearly repudiates the party which, as I see it, took extraordinary measures to conspire to undermine, then thwart, then reverse a lawfully elected president of the United States using every available means, including the most devious, deceitful and illegal short of outright assassination by hired gunman.

The means which these conspirators did employ were only technically different from an outright assassination, for, in their attempts, they committed what amounted to and continues to be an attempted-murder of the rule of law in the United States from mid-way through 2016 until the present.

An election of their candidate, the Democratic Party candidate for president, would mean that what was effectively an attempted coup d'état was validated, confirmed and ratified as an accepted practice.

If that happens, there shall remain nothing at all which separates the present-day United States from the very long and sordid list of history's tin-pot dictatorships and "banana-republics" in which laws are mere formalities having no value or meaning beyond being a very bad joke upon the voting public.

#72 and #73--blah, blah and blah. You like each other enough---maybe you two snowflakes should hook up.

>73 proximity1:

This will be the first election in which I will compromise my values, as I have been forced into voting for Trump due to corruption by the Democrats. The larger share of the media, including social media, that runs the minds of all Biden voters, should be held responsible for their role in the game they have made of our elections. I just hope that when the corruption is exposed this fall, the decent liberals, if they still exist, do not vote in the Democrats. It will be the ushering in the acceptance of utter corruption. As they say, they would actually vote for Biden if he raped dead women and underage boys, which explains the approval of the Clintons.

Trump is a 90s Democrat, so not my cup of tea. But, his gross personality is a far cry from the rape of the American people that the Democrats will continue.

One of the interesting things about Ayn Rand (the patron saint of all libertarians) was she wasn't too proud to take government handouts. OTOH she certainly begrudged anyone else taking them.

One of the interesting things about Ayn Rand (the patron saint of all libertarians) was she wasn't too proud to take government handouts. OTOH she certainly begrudged anyone else taking them.

It's typical really. She was also a fan of the coprophagia-ist Friedrich Nietszche.

>76 lriley:

Good for Ayn Rand. She didn't let pride get in her way. By the way, she's not my cup of tea.

Let's tackle this. If I disagree with a policy that forces me to pay large taxes on my income, should I not collect my tax return in revolt?

>70 Cubby.R.S.: Just so we're clear, serving in the military makes you a good person no exceptions?

No of course it doesn't, but it does tend to make you follow legitimate orders, such as being summoned to give evidence to an official enquiry, just as he followed orders to go and serve in a pointless war. It doesn't really matter whether he was a supporter of either the official enquiry or the pointless war, he followed his orders, for which you label him a "scum bag" and for which he has now sacrificed his career.

Do you know how he received his purple heart.

Yes, as a matter of fact it is in the public record. He was injured by an IED while serving as an infantry officer in Iraq. Is it relevant?

your stance is groundless

Which stance would that be? That Vindman is not a "scum bag" but is probably a very principled person who inadvertently got drawn into this politicised dispute and has paid the price?

Look, I don't know the bloke from Adam, and I assume you don't either, but what I don't understand is why it is necessary to vilify a stranger just because they have done their duty as they see it, even though you disagree with them. Neither do I think someone should be forced out of their job because they are a whistleblower, or because doing their duty was inconvenient for someone higher up the chain of command (or in this case, right at the top of the chain of command). That's how checks and balances work. Allegations were made against the president, they were investigated, and as a result no action was taken against the president. Don't vilify the people who were called to give evidence to that investigation.

>78 Cubby.R.S.:

Oh, actually, she did. No one racks up a novel of the length of Atlas Shrugged without having a serious problem of misplaced pride and a deficit of a writer's due humility. Of course, all writers are going to have to have something in pride and ought to have something in humility—and not too much of that.

But, clearly, in Rand's case, an overabundance of writer's humility was never the great danger.

(I admit that I read (long ago, now) only a tiny fraction of this book before having to set it aside as unreadable.)

..."she's not my cup of tea."...

speaks well for your literary taste, then.

>79 John5918:

Which is why his political interjection was not investigated and he got to retire. The impeachment was nonsense, his involvement was politically motivated, and he should have reported his findings through the chain of command rather than conflating his idea of a phone call. The military is perfectly capable of keeping quiet the rape and beating of fellow soldiers, but he not so much political ideology.

>81 Cubby.R.S.:

Just because the impeachment process did not result in any action against the person impeached does not make it "nonsense". Indeed it fulfilled its constitutional purpose - allegations were investigated and a result was achieved. How was his involvement "politically motivated"? He was called to testify and he did so.

If you are called to testify as a witness in a court case and you do so, does that make you a "scum bag"?

>81 Cubby.R.S.:

... "The impeachment was nonsense, his involvement was politically motivated, and he should have reported his findings through the chain of command"...

Quite right.

Vindman was, as a politically-useful agent, virtually grown like a fragile plant in a hot-house environment. He got off lightly for his gross misconduct where plenty of others of higher and lower rank were treated a good deal harsher for a good deal less in insubordination.

Not only that, but, while entirely free to exercise their personal right to vote, members of the military are formally, under military regulations, forbidden from taking active, open part in partisan campaigning. There's a simple, sound and good reason for that. The military has a duty to perform and open partisan activism gets right in the way of that duty.

Vindman is himself one among numerous examples of the dangers and why they must be guarded against.

Both of my own parents were military officers and they both had careers --and political opinions--and always kept them separate. My father served under Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. I never saw or heard and can't imagine him (or my mother) ever questioning official orders for anything of a political character, domestic or foreign, supposedly behind or informing those orders.

Officers' orders come from and in the name of the president of the United States.

>72 Cubby.R.S.: The groups you vote for are in every history book, as the end of freedom and beginning of ruin.

As if the history books don't mention the Gilded Age, The Jungle, and Hoovervilles. As if the governments we want to emulate haven't been doing this for seventy years with no problems. We can discuss why we may or may not want to emulate Norway and the UK, but not while you're acting all drama queen about the "beginning of ruin".

I voted in 2016 with 23,000 other people in my State for the Constitutional Party.

So you behaved in a way that would minimize your impact on the election, and chose to blame other people. I'm not going to say the two party systems doesn't have problems, but you want to get best results, you play the game as it is set up.

Oh, and the Constitution Party says "We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing all laws against obscenity. ... While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that government plays a vital role in protecting all citizens, particularly our most vulnerable, women and children, from exploitation."

An organization that doesn't believe the government should have a minimum wage or regulate medication claims to believe that "government plays a vital role in protecting all citizens, particularly our most vulnerable, women and children, from exploitation."?

Likewise, "We reject the notion that homosexuals, transgenders or those who are sexually deviant are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior." This is exactly what we're complaining about; you say you want less government, but actually support less protection of us and more government intrusion into our lives.

... " but you want to get best results, you play the game as it is set up." ...

Fine advice. Too bad it was lost on Hillary Clinton and her campaign and numerous official and serving members of the Obama administration, including, hardly least, President Obama and Vice-President Biden, who, when faced with serious prospect of and, later, the fact of Trump's election to the presidency, responded with a clandestine criminal conspiracy deliberately hatched to prevent his election and, when that failed, to thwart, undermine and reverse it. All grievously illegal.

Senior F.B.I. agent for Counter-intelligence, Peter Strzok to F.B.I. attorney Lisa Page:

In early August 2016, after Page asked Strzok, "(Trump's) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!", Strzok responded: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." (Wikipedia)

Spare us your lectures.

>84 prosfilaes:

Ah yes, you think because a group does not want to make a special project out of special interest groups; they are automatically against them. I see. So you think voting for the party that aligns best with your principals is foolish. IF you do have a conscience, you should vote with it. This would inflate the numbers of those that are voting outside the two major parties and perhaps increase the likelihood of others. Perhaps if people weren't so fucking stupid as to continue to vote for these two major parties, and understand the real change takes more than a swift night, perhaps we would see it. But no, idiotic Americans are too spoiled, want the government to do their bidding and wipe their ass.

Not fine advice, ridiculous advice and in fact the course of destruction. Yes, drama queen, sure, but not as ignorant as you would have it be thought.

>81 Cubby.R.S.: he should have reported his findings through the chain of command rather than conflating his idea of a phone call.

He reported an illegal phone call to the legal council of the National Security Counsel. How is that not the appropriate place to report an illegal phone call? You have all these complaints about corruption; one of the responses to corruption is reducing the power of any single individual or organization, and provide a way for people to report their boss exceeding or abusing their power. How is corruption improved by having no recourse for people to report illegal acts?

The military is perfectly capable of keeping quiet the rape and beating of fellow soldiers, but he not so much political ideology.

That's quite the pro-corruption statement.

>87 prosfilaes:

An illegal phone call? Even if you think it was inappropriate by any standard, it was not an illegal phone call. Vindman decided to use an animated description of the events, expressed concern over Ukraine's political situation and furthermore...

"In her criticism of Vindman, Blackburn referenced a lengthy Twitter thread posted in late October by Vindman’s former commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jim Hickman, who had alleged that Vindman had behaved inappropriately in his discussions with Russian soldiers: “He was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly, & really talked up Obama & globalism to the point of uncomfortable.”

Hickman admitted to verbally reprimanding Vindman after allegedly witnessing the behavior: “Do not let the uniform fool you…he is a political activist in uniform.” Regardless of whether one believes these claims, it’s worth acknowledging they exist and may color how someone views Vindman’s role in the impeachment hearings.

Blackburn also pointed out Vindman’s role in leaking information from the July 25 phone call to the whistleblower and thus “breaking the chain of command.” As one former Trump National Security Council official expressed to the Washington Examiner back in October, “How is an active-duty military officer allowed to go to a different branch of government to take down the president with scurrilous claims? I think the Army should be very concerned about what this means for discipline in the force. Basically, you have a political disagreement so you vomit mutiny.”

...

"Vindman has not been honest in the process, making the Schiff’s praise an odd fit. In his opening statement during the impeachment inquiry, Vindman claimed to be the “principal advisor to the National Security Advisor and the president on Ukraine and the other countries in my portfolio.” However, when approached by Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio as to the veracity of this claim, Vindman conceded that he had never met, spoken with, or advised the president on anything."

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/24/marsha-blackburn-is-right-alexander-vindman...

Vindman was politically motivated, almost undoubtedly. He's lucky to have been able to retire, honorably.

>86 Cubby.R.S.: Ah yes, you think because a group does not want to make a special project out of special interest groups; they are automatically against them.

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to any judicial ruling or amending the U.S.
Constitution or any state constitution re-defining marriage with any definition other than the Biblical standard.

...

We reject the notion that homosexuals, transgenders or those who are sexually deviant are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through any courts or legislatures. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior or stifle public opposition to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual or civil unions.

I think they're pretty explicit about objecting to homosexuality and gay marriage.

You neglected to reply to the section about pornography. It's a big part of why people don't respect or trust groups that present themselves as "small government"; so many are against regulation, except when it comes to legislating morality. And not morality like "don't poison your customers" (they want to eliminate the Food and Drug Administration); it's banning porn and legislating what goes on in the bedroom.

So you think voting for the party that aligns best with your principals is foolish

In a system where there are more than two options and the one with the most votes wins, getting the best result you can does not correspond with voting for the result that you prefer. I suggest you read For All Practical Purposes: Introduction to Contemporary Mathematics, particularly the chapter "Social Choice: the Impossible Dream"; there's a lot of careful mathematics here, but the basic theory is pretty easy.

It's said that in a parliamentary system, the members of parliament have to compromise, but in the US system, the voters have to compromise. There will be one president, and while a Prime Minister may have to form a government of many parties, the President doesn't.

Perhaps if people weren't so fucking stupid as to continue to vote for these two major parties

Of course. Call people "fucking stupid", and it makes them more likely to listen to you. The two major parties do a better job of representing most Americans desires than other parties; certainly with 60% of Americans supporting gay marriage and 83% supporting US involvement in the UN, the Constitution Party isn't going to get anywhere.

Key Trump impeachment witness Alexander Vindman says coming forward ‘ended my career’ in scathing op-ed (Independent)

Congress subpoenaed Lt Col Vindman to testify during the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry... “During my testimony in the house impeachment inquiry, I reassured my father, who experienced Soviet authoritarianism first-hand, saying, ‘Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.’ Despite Trump’s retaliation, I stand by that conviction”... After Lt Col Vindman’s testimony, he was denounced by the president and subject to repeated attacks from Republicans...

>88 Cubby.R.S.: Even if you think it was inappropriate by any standard, it was not an illegal phone call.

18 U.S.C. § 208, 18 U.S.C. § 666 and 18 U.S.C. § 872 all seem appropriate. It seems quite reasonable to ask a lawyer whether the phone call violates them. I'm glad you think it appropriate for a politician to use his political power to try and dig up dirt on his opponents.

>89 prosfilaes:

My choices were, as I mentioned above -- bad and worse. I chose to vote as closely as I could to my principles. If more people would stop throwing their votes to the same machines, something might change. Nobody is going to walk in lock-step, that's not the point. The point is, everyone is doing exactly the same thing and expecting different results.

To your point, I would agree that their stance is wrong. My principals align more closely to theirs than the two major parties. I do not agree that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Although I do not agree that anyone should be receiving any benefit for being married, at all. It is only a benefit to society if there are children, otherwise marriage is an advantage to a couple.

--

I also do not expect anyone to listen to me, and or would I encourage them to do so. They should observe and seek. If they do not seek, they end up doing the same thing over and over. I get called all kinds of names, and I read what the individual has typed and I attempt to gain what I can, simple process. Your opinion and my feelings have absolutely no tie.

>91 prosfilaes:

Trump was not receiving money, and Vindman never mentions a threat aside of a tone to end funding. Vindman even felt it prudent to throw in a typical partisan Covid jab on his way out. I don't think Vindman's issues with promotion, even prior to his heroic political escapade, were unintentional.

>93 Cubby.R.S.:

Once again, Vindman gave evidence to an official investigation when called to do so. That's the actual situation, no matter how you try to twist it. What you think about the investigation is no reflection on those who did their duty and testified at it when summoned.

You haven't got round to answering my question in >82 John5918: yet. If you are called to testify as a witness in a court case and you do so, does that make you a "scum bag"?

>94 John5918:

https://youtu.be/ooJOFrGWwsE

The whole of the show was a game. The entirety of the US government is a shit show. Vindman cooperated with whom he saw fit. If he would have been non-partisan, it would have been a bit more believable.

And, and, and then good people of the Senate, he grew very dark and threatened, oh my good lord, he threatened the Ukrainian government.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/18/vindmans_claims_dont_hold_...

>95 Cubby.R.S.: The whole of the show was a game

That may be your opinion. But someone summoned to testify under oath to an official enquiry is duty bound to do so regardless of your opinion of the case.

Vindman cooperated with whom he saw fit. If he would have been non-partisan

Vindman gave evidence in an official investigation. He cooperated with the official system which summoned him to do so. I'm not sure how much more non-partisan one can get.

>96 John5918:

Look at both sides for once.

>97 Cubby.R.S.: I think we've all looked at the side that you're trying to sell. The idea that members of the US government should have more loyalty to the president than to the laws and the government that they act for is not one that you've managed to make a case for so far. Try harder.

>98 kiparsky:

Liar. Vindman outright lied, and purposely twisted the story. That's not about anything but lies.

>99 Cubby.R.S.:

How are you so sure that he lied? Isn't that rather a partisan attitude to take about someone who testified under oath?

>100 John5918:

see

>95 Cubby.R.S.:

Read the link, watch the video. Read other stories about his testimony and you'll see. I forget that many of you do not have access to all sources, or do not recognize them as legit.

>99 Cubby.R.S.: I'm going to take Vindman's word over yours any day of the week. He's got a record of service that to me implies he deserves an assumption of credibility, his statements conform with the overall picture of corruption that we've seen in the ongoing Trump fiasco and specifically with the details known so far about the Ukraine scandal, and frankly, you're in the habit of believing and re-telling lies that you find comfortable, so your word is worthless.

>102 kiparsky:

Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell both have long-standing records of service as well. You don't have to take my word for it, read the other responses, in which I use very little of my own words.

We know he used some lies, how many, we don't know. But, if you take him at his full word, and compare them with the facts, that's good enough for me dear ...arsky.

>103 Cubby.R.S.: Well, I have to say it's the first time anyone's made that pun on my name since I was in junior high school. I suppose the only retort on your level would be to call you an "R.S. Hole", right?

>104 kiparsky:

Sort of like TMCJ? Besides, you're such a humorless prick most of the time, I figured the ridiculousness would fit right in.

Look at the barrage I take on these boards...

Read the topic headline, and ask yourself a question.

>105 Cubby.R.S.: So you're saying that conservatives are a bunch of pathetic snowflakes who need a safe space (tm) where they can spew their nonsense without being bothered by troublesome facts, or by being asked to actually state a concrete position rather than airy hand-waving?

I could buy that. But don't you think it'd be better in the long run to force them to engage in honest debate rather than cosseting them in a sort of intellectual playpen forever? I mean, you've seen how that's worked out - there isn't a conservative idea worth a damn out there anymore, because of this sort of childish hiding from reality. Surely you'd like to see your intellectual movement get out of diapers someday, no?

>63 JGL53: You and the rest of the lefties were telling me the fate of the planet hung on voting for Obama the Savior in 2008.

Four years later, after he changed his position on gay marriage, his old position suddenly became Satan-level bigotry and hatred.

Alas, I cannot take seriously the moral lectures from people who admit they voted for Satan-level bigotry and hatred.

And I am certainly not willing to let such people decide who gets to speak.

>54 Carnophile: having people we disagree with fired, etc.
>55 John5918: But the rest of your post, as usual, mischaracterises what is actually happening, at least in the mainstream.

Gosh, then I guess I’m just hallucinating things like the guy who re-tweeted a paper (by someone else) that said that non-violence works better than violence, and then had the cancel culture mob get offended, contact his employer, and get him fired.

Well, that's certainly what Trump is doing.

Really? Trump has had someone fired for e.g. tweeting about academic findings he doesn’t like?

Or he has intimidated an author into withdrawing their book because it featured a villain of INCORRECT demographics?

Or canceled The Vagina Monologues because it excludes transvestites?

>64 prosfilaes: I find it interesting that you don't mention the partisan split; "Majorities of Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share." I'd expect that to be skewed by the fact that "cancel culture" is a big talking point among Republicans.

In that last sentence you're getting cause and effect backwards. It's more of a topic of discussion on the right because we're the ones who are disproportionately the targets of this sort of thing. We have been for years.

Although as I have noted, it's becoming more equal opportunity as the left's eternal "the Revolution devours its children" dynamic starts to intensify.

>109 Carnophile: It's more of a topic of discussion on the right because we're the ones who are disproportionately the targets of this sort of thing. We have been for years.

When people whose voices haven't been taken seriously for centuries begin to be listened to, it usually feel threatening to those who have previously dominated the conversation. You are not victims, you are simply finding out what it means for your voice not to dominate and having to be considered equally with other voices.

>109 Carnophile: Speaking of which, remember that quote that like half of lefty college professors have on their doors?

Here's a modified version:

First they came for the conservatives, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a conservative.

Then they came for the centrists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a centrist.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Also, all the conservatives and centrists couldn't move to help you even if we wanted to, because we all had schadenboners the size of the M31 galaxy watching you be eaten by the monsters you sicced on us.

>110 John5918: When people whose voices haven't been taken seriously for centuries begin to be listened to, it usually feel threatening to those who have previously dominated the conversation.

The problem isn't people speaking. The problem is people being driven out of their jobs, etc., in order to punish them for speaking.

>112 Carnophile:

Ah, like Lt Col Vindman, you mean?

>106 kiparsky: So you're saying that conservatives are a bunch of pathetic snowflakes who need a safe space (tm) ...

Excuse me? Who invented the concept of "safe space"?

where they can spew their nonsense without being bothered by troublesome facts

The problem is not leftists citing facts. The problem is leftists trying to silence other points of view INSTEAD of refuting them with facts.

But don't you think it'd be better in the long run to force them to engage in honest debate...?

Never mind forcing a debate; how about allowing debate?

>113 John5918: No, not like Vindman, who retired - he wasn't fired.

That this is the best poster boy you can come up with proves my point.

>107 Carnophile:,
>108 Carnophile:,
>109 Carnophile:,
>111 Carnophile:,
>112 Carnophile:,
>114 Carnophile:,
>115 Carnophile:

It's amazing what you have to explain, point out, etc. to these people. They have no fucking clue and no fucking clue that they have no fucking clue.

How the fuck do they get through breakfast?

>116 proximity1: While it's hard to tell about some of them, I'm pretty sure "John5918" is a troll. How else could one say things like cancel culture "is not about excluding voices from the table"?

>113 John5918: Well played, sir.

>114 Carnophile: Y'all seem to be weeping and wailing about the mean old liberals won't leave you alone. Are you sure you don't want a nice safe space to cuddle with your teddy bear?

The problem is not leftists citing facts.

I agree. The problem is that white-wingers like yourself can't deal in facts, so you deal in whining instead. "Oh, oh, oh, that mean old liberal just kicked the legs out from under my argument by citing a fact that I can't cope with, wah, wah. I'm so afraid to speak my mind, because those left-wingers are gonna get me".

>117 Carnophile: I'm pretty sure "John5918" is a troll

Why thank you - I think that's the first time I've ever been called a troll. And there was me thinking all along that you were the troll. But the reality is that you and I are constantly talking past each other. We have such different worldviews that there really is no point of connection. There are many people with whom I disagree but I can still at least see where they are coming from. You're one of the few that I can't.

>109 Carnophile: In that last sentence you're getting cause and effect backwards. It's more of a topic of discussion on the right because we're the ones who are disproportionately the targets of this sort of thing. We have been for years.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2020/07/dont-let-the-right-fool-yo...

The American Family Association is a notable boycotter; Kmart, as Libby Anne mentions, and https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2014/11/the-fight-for-christmas/ is them talking about how they boycott buisinesses that don't use the word Christmas.* She also mentions Colin Kaepernick, but doesn't mention that the president of the United States of America, Republican Donald Trump, called for his firing. I can't recall another time a president of the United States has done that. Note that Colin Kaepernick was effectively fired; the general consensus was that the only reason no one picked him up as a free agent was because of Republican cancel culture.

* " “The very word itself – Christmas – is a reminder that this particular holiday is the celebration of Jesus Christ,” AFA president Tim Wildmon said in a guest column for Charisma magazine last December. “Those who promote political correctness and extreme multiculturalism resent this because it is exclusionary in their view.” " These lines blow my mind; dedicating a month to the celebration of one religion's major figure is only exclusionary in some people's view? Maybe if it was mixed in with celebrations of other religions, but it's not, and the AFA doesn't want it to be. This is one place the Civil Rights Movement has really won; the AFA feels they have to tiptoe around the fact they're exclusionary and are fine with making people of other religions feel unwelcome.

>121 prosfilaes:

Kaepernick was regressing in performance. He was also becoming a bit of a whiner, and was benched during a couple of poor performances. He ruined his own career, and then by some chance he received another shot at redeeming it, thanks to progressive activism... IN WHICH HE AGAIN CHOSE ACTIVISM OVER PLAYING.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2584618-colin-kaepernick-reportedly-benched-...

Quote from the article:

"His confidence is completely shot," Glazer said. "It's not that the players don't like him. But he's just alone, on an island in that locker room. There's not a lot of people he connects with. Confidence-wise, he's just buried right now."

As reports of locker-room discord continued to pour in, 49ers legend Jerry Rice suggested a temporary benching might serve Kaepernick and the team well, per TMZ.

But then he turned to activism. The reports on his girlfriend chiming in:

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/baltimore-ravens/ray-lewis-claims-ravens-di...

Kaepernick ruined his own career. One that was overrated from the start, and certainly not worth the headache at the cost of a QB. He wanted 20 plus million to play for the "minor league" before it was shut down. Nobody is going to pay a whiner, who had been under performing, that kind of money. This conversation should be over.

>119 kiparsky: "Oh, oh, oh, that mean old liberal just kicked the legs out from under my argument by citing a fact that I can't cope with"

where by citing facts you mean, "getting people fired for citing facts."

>121 prosfilaes: Boycotts have been around forever and are not the sort of thing I'm talking about. The sort of thing I'm talking about includes, e.g. having someone fired because he mentioned a paper that some people didn't like.

As to Kaepernick, the notion that he lost his job due to Trump is risible. Look at his win-loss record for his last two seasons with the 49ers: 2-6 and 1-10.

I love this notion that Trump said, "Fire that guy!" and that's the reason he lost his job. LOL.

An interesting article that suggests even Trump's military advisors were "afraid to speak their minds":

Trump advisers hesitated to give military options and warned adversaries over fears he might start a war (CNN)

Amid escalating tensions with both North Korea and Iran, President Donald Trump's advisers hesitated to give him military options fearing the President might accidentally take the US to war and deliberately informed their counterparts in both countries that they did not know what the President would do next, multiple former administration officials tell me...

By coincidence this morning I also came across a review of a book about World War II arguing that, despite underlying geopolitical issues, the war started because of one man.

How Hitler Took the World Into War (NYT)

True, one can point to deeper, structural causes of the conflict, but fundamentally, war began on Sept. 1, 1939, because Adolf Hitler desired it, lusted for it, brooked no opposition from inside or outside Germany to launching it. He had hoped at first to keep the struggle a local affair, between Germany and Poland. But even when it became clear that he would very likely have to fight Britain and France as well, he sent his soldiers across the Polish frontier anyway... From the moment Hitler began his saber-rattling, we learn, numerous German officials sought to dissuade him from taking aggressive action. Any such move, they believed, risked a wider war, which Germany would probably lose. Hitler and his loyalists were unmoved... That Hitler might actually desire war was to the prime minister’s {Chamberlain's} rational way of thinking impossible...

oday, we are again in a crisis of democracy, a point Hett stresses from his opening pages. Perhaps he does so with more insistence than necessary, as if uncertain his readers will grasp the parallels between the 1930s and our own day without his firm direction. Still, it’s hard to disagree with his overarching judgment:

“Above all, the world of the 1930s was wracked by a fundamental conflict: Should the world system be open and international, based on democracy, free trade and rights for all, anchored in law? Or should the world be organized along racial and national lines, with dominant groups owing nothing to minorities and closing off their economic space as much as possible to the outer world? Today we face this very conflict once again”...

>123 Carnophile: where by citing facts you mean, "getting people fired for citing facts."

I understand that in your world you say things and mean completely different things. This is part of your problem, and it's the reason you never get anywhere in your arguments. However, when I say a thing, that's what I mean.

You should try it some time.

>124 Carnophile: I love this notion that the President of the United States of America says "Fire that guy!" but the Twitteratti are the more scary bunch.

Bertrand Russell added "Judicially pronounced unworthy to be Professor of Philosophy at the College of the City of New York" to his resume after a court removed him from the seat for his opinions. The Briggs Initiative looked to fire all gay California teachers. Firing someone because you don't like their opinions has been around forever.

I also note that "having someone fired because he mentioned a paper that some people didn't like" isn't reality. Most people who edited up being fired did much more than that. The only way you could fired like that is if you mentioned unionization in a paper.

>127 prosfilaes: Firing someone because you don't like their opinions has been around forever.

One thinks back to the era of McCarthyism as another example.

>125 John5918: Trump advisers hesitated to give military options and warned adversaries over fears he might start a war (CNN)

More bullshit from the usual crowd. As I have documented elsewhere, what seems to piss Washington DC off is the possibility of Trump bringing troops home.

>123 Carnophile: where by citing facts you mean, "getting people fired for citing facts."
>126 kiparsky: I understand that in your world you say things and mean completely different things."

When I say "getting people fired for citing facts" that's what I mean. See #108.

>127 prosfilaes: I love this notion that the President of the United States of America says "Fire that guy!" but the Twitteratti are the more scary bunch.

The difference being that Trump didn't get Kaepernick fired. Twitter assholes do get people fired. See #108 in this very thread.

I also note that "having someone fired because he mentioned a paper that some people didn't like" isn't reality.

It is. See #108 in this thread.

The Bertrand Russell thing is from the 1950s, IIRC. The Briggs Initiative is from 1978 - more than 40 years ago.

>128 John5918: McCarthyism

1950s.

>131 Carnophile: The difference being that Trump didn't get Kaepernick fired. Twitter assholes do get people fired. See #108 in this very thread.

The article which says "Shor told me he has a nondisclosure agreement preventing him from discussing the episode. A spokesperson for Civis Analytics told me over email, “Out of respect for our employees and alumni, Civis does not publicly discuss personnel matters, and we don’t plan to comment further.”" So what did he get fired for? Nobody who knows is saying.

As for Kaepernick, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/colin-kaepernick-is-not-supposed-to-be-unem... disagrees.

So basically we have two situations where the facts on the ground are unclear or disputed, but you've spun them until they matched your perspective.

>108 Carnophile: Or he has intimidated an author into withdrawing their book because it featured a villain of INCORRECT demographics?

Trump or Trump affiliates have sued two authors to try and get their books about his presidency suppressed, Too Much and Never Enough, and The Room Where It Happened.

And threatened CNN with legal action because they published a poll he didn't like. And "Trump campaign sues Wisconsin TV station over critical ad".

>131 Carnophile: The Briggs Initiative is from 1978 - more than 40 years ago.

And "Seattle-area teachers reported fired for being gay; Catholic school says they resigned" is an article from ... 2020.

We could talk about these things, but it doesn't seem very productive while you're denying the most obvious things. It's also weird to have conservatives throw the past under the bus; you have something that a lot of our population remember living through, and probably told their children to be careful about, but it doesn't matter.

Going back to Or he has intimidated an author into withdrawing their book because it featured a villain of INCORRECT demographics?

Nova was going to be serialized in Analog magazine, but John W. Campbell, Jr. explained to the author that it was a very good novel, but the readers didn't want to read a story with a black protagonist. Yes, people aren't as blunt and honest about it today. Around 2013, Nikesh Shukla wrote a short story that a literary blog reviewer enjoyed but criticized because Shukla included South Asian names that the reviewer found “hard to follow.” The article that comes from points out that 73.1% of actors in 2014 were white, and that "Only 17 of the top {100} movies that year featured non-white lead or co-lead actors." Looking at the top 25 most expensive films ever, The Fate of the Furious has Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson as non-white leads (4%), the Lion King has no humans on screen (4%) and the rest (92%) have white leads. (Several have ensemble casts, but it's never questionable whether they have a non-white lead.)

So basically, there's no need for a right wing twitter mob to intimidate authors into not featuring protagonists of INCORRECT demographics; the editors, reviewers, and producers do a perfectly fine job keeping that down. And nonetheless, when John Boyega gets to be a Jedi (not a lead, fifth person on the list of actors in the movie), the right wing twitter mob will rage about the matter; how dare a black person become a Jedi? Leslie Jones, a black female Ghostbuster, got driven off Twitter by the right wing twitter mob.

And as for Or he has intimidated an author into withdrawing their book because it featured a villain of INCORRECT demographics? I'd happily protest a reprint of Brokenclaw, a James Bond novel where, to quote Publisher's Weekly, "Masterminding the villainy here is Brokenclaw Lee, a 64, sexually insatiable, half Chinese/half Blackfoot Indian with rippling muscles." Even in 1990, yet another sexual insatiable Chinese villain was not needed, and no, making him also Blackfoot Indian didn't help. It's offensive.

But hey, let's act like the right wing twitter mob doesn't take after works it doesn't like, and that the publishing houses don't have their own biases in the background, that the fact we have a white English 007 fighting a half-Chinese/half-Blackfoot villain is coincidence, the fact that Sherlock Holmes and 007 and Robin Hood are all white protagonists is history or coincidence. (Watson can be changed to be Chinese, and Little John can be Muslim, but the leads are always white.)

>132 prosfilaes: It's always easier for someone to deny that there's a problem than to deal with a problem. This is why conservatives can't solve problems, and never will.

>132 prosfilaes: “Out of respect for our employees and alumni, Civis does not publicly discuss personnel matters, and we don’t plan to comment further.” So what did he get fired for? Nobody who knows is saying.

The article says,

At least some employees and clients on Civis Analytics complained that Shor’s tweet threatened their safety. ...Civis Analytics undertook a review of the episode. A few days later, Shor was fired.

By sheer coincidence!

As for Kaepernick... fivethirtyeight.com... disagrees.

Right, Kaepernick was released from the 49ers in March 2017 because of a remark Trump made in September 2017. Gosh darn that Trump and his time machine!

And to repeat, Kaepernick was 1-10 his last season.

And threatened CNN with legal action because they published a poll he didn't like.

If Trump sued every media organization that attacked him or published biased polls, he’d be suing several media organizations every day. Obviously that’s not what happened.

Indeed, your link provides no quote of threatened legal action, just a CNN exec claiming there was such a threat. That article links to another CNN article, which quotes copiously from the letter... but doesn't manage to quote the alleged lawsuit threat. In fact, it says this:

The demand, coming in the form of a cease and desist letter to CNN President Jeff Zucker... was immediately rejected by the network.
“We stand by our poll,” said Matt Dornic, a CNN spokesman.

CNN ignored the letter and stood by its poll, so wasn’t silenced, and no one lost their job.

"Trump campaign sues Wisconsin TV station over critical ad".

No, over an ad that digitally spliced together different Trump quotes to make it sound like he said something he didn’t say: That the corona virus is a hoax. Even the Washington Post was forced to admit, “President Trump didn’t say that the spread of the coronavirus itself was a hoax.”

>132 prosfilaes: "Seattle-area teachers reported fired for being gay; Catholic school says they resigned"

In the same post you say that we can’t know why Shor was fired. Now you’re quoting this at me. In any case, it would be completely reasonable for Catholic institution to fire someone for being gay...it’s Catholic. For the same reason it would be reasonable for the Republican National Committee to fire someone for being a Democrat.

We could talk about these things, but it doesn't seem very productive while you're denying the most obvious things.

You even deny the existence of Trump’s time machine, Carnophile, you willfully ignorant bastard!

Nova was going to be serialized in Analog magazine, but John W. Campbell, Jr. explained to the author that... readers didn't want to read a story with a black protagonist.

Let’s take everything you say at face value. I followed your link and looked at the details. It was published, in 1968. So Campbell’s refusal to publish it happened in 1968 or earlier, that is, more than 50 years ago.

And nonetheless, when John Boyega gets to be a Jedi... the right wing twitter mob will rage about the matter; how dare a black person become a Jedi?

Seriously, what fantasy world do you leftists live in? I never heard of even one person complaining about Mace Windu. Also, I noticed you use the future tense here. Have I misunderstood, or are you literally trying to count something that hasn’t even happened, but which you are predicting will happen, someday?

And on and on...

This is ridiculous. Everyone knows the silencing and disemploying, etc., is almost entirely on the left these days. Indeed, the entire point of such is to terrorize people into voicing support for leftist causes. You can't terrorize people who don't know about the threat, so what's the point of denying the threat?

The left, collectively, is acting like a bunch of psychos who want to threaten everyone into acquiescence, but also want no one to be aware of the threats. It's psychotic. You can't have everyone know about the threats, and at the same time have no one know about the threats. Wailing, "But I WANT a four-sided triangle!!!" is not going to produce one.

>136 Carnophile: The thing is, most people don't need to be terrorized into supporting leftist causes. I mean, some of y'all take a little longer to get on the bus, but even most conservatives these days are willing to admit that maybe slavery was a bad idea, and a good number of them are admitting that you can't claim to be a libertarian and tell people who they're allowed to have sex with or marry, and many of them are even coming around to the idea that our way of doing health care just doesn't do health care.

It doesn't take being "terrorized", you just have to be paying attention. And this is why as old codgers like you die off, your ideology will become an artifact for historians to study. "Daddy, what was a conservative?" "Hush child, I'll tell you when you're older"

>136 Carnophile: Everyone knows

Sounds like the archetypal bigot propping up the bar in the UK pub, pint in hand. "I mean, everyone knows. Stands to reason, guv, dunnit? Bleedin' obvious, innit?"

Actually, everyone doesn't know. It's not uncommon for people who have a common understanding of something within the group who share their worldview to assume that it is common everywhere, forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) that there are other worldviews in which things are seen differently.

So before we get into any minutia, let's make this clear:

Carnophile is complaining that a bunch of tweets complaining about a book that got the author to recall it is terrorism.
But that the President of the United States of America calling for someone to be fired is a-OK.
One of the most powerful organization in the US firing teachers for being gay is okay.
I.e. people using the words to convince someone to back down is bad, but incredibly powerful groups using their power to get people fired is perfectly fine.

>134 Carnophile: Right, Kaepernick was released from the 49ers in March 2017 because of a remark Trump made in September 2017.

And wasn't picked up as a free agent.

And to repeat, Kaepernick was 1-10 his last season.

So he only hit the soccer ball through the hoop 1 time last season? I'm smart enough to know where I don't know shit about a subject, and I'm smart enough to notice that you didn't respond to the article written by people who do know something about the subject.

So Campbell’s refusal to publish it happened in 1968 or earlier, that is, more than 50 years ago.

As I said, editors aren't so honest now-a-days. If what you mean by "terrorizing" is racists can't admit they're racists, well, okay, say that.

Again, the numbers are perfectly clear; Hollywood does not spend money on movies with black protagonists. Again, some Twitterati complain about a book with an antagonist with the INCORRECT demographics, and that's outrageous; some of the largest companies in the world make sure none of the big-budget movies have a protagonist with the INCORRECT demographics, and that's okay.

Everyone knows the silencing and disemploying, etc., is almost entirely on the left these days.

"Everyone knows" is not an argument. And we can't even start the discussion as long as you find right-wing firing to be just fine.

>134 Carnophile: No, over an ad that digitally spliced together different Trump quotes to make it sound like he said something he didn’t say:

He sued a TV station over a campaign ad. He didn't sue the group that made and paid for the ad to be run; he sued the TV station because it didn't have as deep pockets and would have a more chilling effect.

And what did he say:

Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right? Coronavirus. They’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. They can’t even count their votes in Iowa, they can’t even count. No they can’t. They can’t count their votes.

One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know, we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We’re 15 people in this massive country. And because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that.

It's cutting a pretty fine line there to say he didn't say coronavirus was a hoax. While not denying the existence of COVID-19 itself, he certainly said that the coronavirus as a danger to the US was a hoax. After 162,000 deaths in the US, the distinction seems pretty moot.

>139 prosfilaes: people using the words to convince someone to back down is bad, but incredibly powerful groups using their power to get people fired is perfectly fine.

Thanks for articulating this so clearly. "Using words to convince people" is well said.

This subject is well documented. Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. recently were questioned in the Senate over the silencing of Conservatives. You would do well to watch it. In the 2016 election, a study performed by a Hilary Clinton voter showed that 2.5 million voters were swayed by these actions by Google alone. If you actually just watch the Senate committee hearing and go from there, you will have a good start.

The major Liberal sources actually just ignore many major news reports. I used to think Liberals were dumb or naive, but that's not true. They aren't given all of the details or many stories.

Do any of you know who Cannon Hinnant is yet? 5 year old boy, shot in the street by his neighbor, murdered in cold blood and CNN, MSNBC, etc. haven't so much as mentioned it. The worst sort of crime, but because the little boy was white, they are ignoring it. The murderer wasn't the color they wanted either.

>142 Cubby.R.S.: because the little boy was white, they are ignoring it

Do you have evidence that this is why they are ignoring it?

Incidentally little boys are murdered every day in Africa but the global (and US) media are ignoring it. Any idea why?

Look up Cannon Hinnant, that story was and is far more atrocious than anything that the media tried to paint on the cops. Darren Shaver was the worst police murder ever, but that received no coverage. I would say, based on the race baiting that's going on, hiding stories, including the Portland mayor calling enough, enough... Anything that doesn't fit the narrative is being blocked.

>143 John5918:

Yes, that's what you believe ("I would say" are your exact words) but where is your actual evidence that this story is being "blocked" or "ignored" for the reason that you state?

>142 Cubby.R.S.:

You've probably got a lot of years invested in these lies, so the toxicity is really deep. But, I'm telling you, it is well documented that big media has a bias and they are painting your portrait.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/google-and-censorship-though-search-en...

>146 Cubby.R.S.:

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution hearing entitled “Google and Censorship through Search Engines” to which you link appears to be focused on, er, “Google and Censorship through Search Engines”, not on a story in the mainstream press that occurred more than a year after the senate hearing. I ask again, where is your evidence that the media "blocked" the Cannon Hinnant story for the reason that you stated?

I have just googled Cannon Hinnant. Google has not blocked the story and gives me several pages of links to published stories, including the Independent in the UK.

Incidentally most "big media" is owned by large capitalist corporations. I don't doubt that they are biased, but capitalist corporations don't tend to be biased against the right.

>147 John5918:

Haha, did you see the rest of the list? Google doesn't need to block Cannon Hinnant, nobody knows who he is. The censorship was in reference to my previous post.

It's okay John. You've been lied to most of your adult life. I suspect you're a good person. You can ignore whatever you like and ask for proof of whatever you like with no reflection, but at some point the teeth on the ass moment happens.

>148 Cubby.R.S.: reference to my previous post.

In >142 Cubby.R.S.: you specifically refer to the Cannon Hinnant story and say because the little boy was white, they are ignoring it. The murderer wasn't the color they wanted either. I'm simply asking you to explain how you figure that "they" are ignoring it when I can find it easily in the UK's Independent or Daily Mail as well as on Google, and how you know that this is the reason they are "ignoring" it (even though apparently "they" are not ignoring it). Who is "they", anyway?

>149 John5918:

CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, all of the major US Liberal media outlets.

John, watch the video or not. All major media outlets were in trouble for censorship. CNN... Are not covering this story because they are painting a narrative. There are multiple elements. Look something up rather than asking questions that you won't reflect on anyway, just to be an aggressive liberal henchmen.

>150 Cubby.R.S.:

Now what video are we referring to? The link you gave was to a senate hearing. "All major media outlets" would surely include the Independent and the Daily Mail, and they apparently did not "censor" the story to which you are referring. Neither has Google. And the many pages of links that Google gave me when I looked up Cannon Hinnant also led me to various US media. You've lost me. To what are you actually referring?

Or is what you mean that you have no actual evidence for your claim that "they" are "blocking" the Cannon Hinnant nor for your stated reason why they are doing so?

I see what happened here, I replied to the wrong post in 146. This still does not excuse you from separating the two. Carnophile specifically mentioned the censorship. The Cannon Hinnant story is just not a story in big media for the reasons I mentioned.

>152 Cubby.R.S.: There's 15,000 murders a year in the US. The video on https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/22/us/chicago-violence-fathers-day-weekend/index.htm... mention 1,200 child gun deaths a year in the US, and text says "Eleven people were killed, including four children, and 67 others were wounded in shootings across Chicago during the Father's Day weekend, police told CNN. This weekend's youngest victim, 3-year-old Mekhi James, was shot Saturday evening..." And when I google "Cannon Hinnant", I find CNN, Fox News, USA Today, ABC 13, WCNC Charlotte, and more news organizations than I'm going to try and list here have all issued news reports in the last 24 hours.

So even at three or four child deaths a day, 50 murders a day in the US, that's somehow not enough. I don't see any reason why a non-white supremacist media would spend more time on this one death.

>153 prosfilaes:

Yup, you sure do a great job here. Pointless tripe, laced with nothingness. The story is tragic, and you are literally so far in the bag for your team, you can't see that you're being fooled. I know you're not stupid, so stop gobbling the same sources for a while and read something that isn't meant to make you worship nothingness.

>154 Cubby.R.S.:

I'm genuinely trying to understand what you are trying to say. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood you to say that the Cannon Hinnant story was not covered (indeed was deliberately blocked because it didn't fit a particular narrative) by the mainstream media. Both >153 prosfilaes: and I have demonstrated that in fact the story was covered by a slew of mainstream media not only in the USA but also in the UK. Can you please help me to understand your point?

Incidentally, if your point is that the mainstream media has a left wing bias, I would still disagree with you, but that's a different issue as to whether this particular tragedy was or was not covered by the mainstream media.

>154 Cubby.R.S.: Yes, it is tragic, as are so many deaths. 150 thousand of us die a day, and so many are not ready for the Grim Reaper, so many leave behind people who wanted more time with them. Job said of tragedy (Job 7:17-18):

What is man, that Thou shouldest magnify him,
And that Thou shouldest set Thy heart upon him,
And that Thou shouldest remember him every morning,
And try him every moment?

Then what? Why is this tragedy more worthy of news than any other? https://ourworldindata.org/homicides gives us a thousand people killed a day, with 30 of them being under five years old; in the US alone, 50 are killed, with 2 of them being under five years old. Each and every day.

A thousand kids under five die a day of diarrhea ( https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/diarrhoeal-disease ); why do we let this continue to happen? We can point to the gun lobby for why gun deaths still happen in the US, but is there any answer besides apathy and greed that we let kids die of diarrhea?

>155 John5918:

After a circulating #sayhisname CNN and others covered it. Not many 5 yr old oys are murdered in cold blood riding their bike on a sidewalk at point blank in the U.S. Especially not by their neighbor, who just came over for dinner.

>157 Cubby.R.S.:

So it was covered, not blocked. Thank you.

>158 John5918:

John, you truly are struggling to face reality. You are so willing to go with a Leftist narrative, you can't even look at a story. I would ignore the news for a while and read some classics, the Greeks, Russian authors, and maybe your Bible. It's like you don't like your own opinion.

>159 Cubby.R.S.:

I have no idea what you are talking about. The story to which you refer was covered in the mainstream media, not blocked.

>160 John5918:

You need to step back to >148 Cubby.R.S.: and read down. Blocking and ignoring are a part of two different things. If Cannon Hinnant was a black 5 year old boy, and the murderer was white, that is the only story CNN would've covered. I don't know why you're struggling with this blocking and censorship by Google and narrative or ignoring by CNN and the like.

>161 Cubby.R.S.:

How do you know? And they covered the story about the white boy anyway, so I really don't know what your point is. Or rather, I can see the point you're trying to make, but the example you have chosen fails to make that point. But we're just going round in circles.

>161 Cubby.R.S.: Blocking and ignoring are a part of two different things

I think you mistyped, and you meant to say that "there are two different things, and they are blocking and ignoring", and not that "there are two different things, and blocking and ignoring are both a part of both of them", which is what the quoted line means.

>156 prosfilaes: and >151 John5918: have both shown you that the story was neither covered nor ignored.

If you have a point to make, now is a good time for a responsive answer, unless you want to concede the point that you were once again caught making a claim which was obviously wrong and easily shown to be wrong.

I can assure you that running away will not make your case for you.

>157 Cubby.R.S.: One of the point that's being made on my Facebook is that "#sayhername" and similar cries are asking for something concrete. The people who shot Breonna Taylor will probably never receive any sort of serious punishment, though it has caused no-knock warrants to stop being used in Louisville and proposals for the ban to appear elsewhere. The killer of Cannon Hinnant was quickly arrested and locked up; what more do you want?

Not many 5 yr old oys are murdered in cold blood riding their bike on a sidewalk at point blank in the U.S. Especially not by their neighbor, who just came over for dinner.

I'd say there's a point there against you. #sayhername is not just about Breonna Taylor; it's about aggressive policing in the drug war, where police execute things like no-knock warrants, violently destroying property and even when they find no drugs, they take no responsibility for what they've done.

The only parallel we could bring is gun control, but the conservatives bringing this up don't want gun control. I guess we could argue that it's a racist tag calling for police control of black people, but I'm sure you and most of the other people involved would deny that fervently. So "#sayhisname" is just a political game, using a one-time occurrence to try and grab attention from people with real ongoing issues.

>162 John5918:, >163 kiparsky:, >164 prosfilaes:

Interesting perspectives that all three of you take. Thanks for your insight, it really helps me understand your thinking. I sometimes wonder if you all read to learn facts rather than read as a catalyst to your thinking?

To compare the Hinnant and Taylor cases, seems grasping. In fact, there's really no cry for justice on my part, but the fact that the Taylor case still receives media attention and CNN barely covered one of the most cruel acts known to humankind, is exactly the point. They want one case to be heard, that fits the narrative and the other was not covered initially, before it finally received a 200 word blurb due to social pressure.

>163 kiparsky:

Or, were each a part of something different.

>165 Cubby.R.S.: I sometimes wonder if you all read to learn facts rather than read as a catalyst to your thinking?

Is that meant as a slam? It sounds like you're just reading to support your position instead of actually understanding what the world is around you. There are many times the facts don't support the argument I want to make, so I have to rethink how to approach it and what reality actually looks like.

Do you have any intent on engaging with us, or just throwing shade like this?

>166 prosfilaes: Cubby is capable of engaging, when the wind is southerly. Unfortunately the engagement generally ends about the time they encounter an argument that they can't cope with. For example, see above.

It's safe to read their truculence as a concession.

And to copy a comment from Facebook by Emily Holmes:

Okay, I'll say it, because maybe if I just say it, I'll finally be able to go to sleep instead of sitting here, wide awake at 1:30 in the morning seething about it. All of these JusticeForCannon posts make me want to scream from the bottom of this mama bear heart until my throat is raw.

How fucking DARE you?

How DARE you splash a dead child's image and name and senseless death around the internet to prop up your own internalized racism?

How DARE you use one mother's grief as a weapon to beat down other mothers who only want to see the system deliver the same swift and decisive justice?

How DARE you pointedly ignore the very tangible differences in how the system worked for him and his family and how it doesn't work for so many others?

How DARE you take that sweet angel's face and use it-- WEAPONIZE IT-- to attempt to silence Black cries for dismantling hundreds of years institutionalized racism?

How.

Fucking.

Dare.

You.

Is it a horrific tragedy that this child was killed? YES.

"SO WHY AREN'T YOU MARCHING AND PROTESTING FOR HIM?!?!" scream the memes you keep churning out by the dozen.

Protesting what? What do I put on my sign?

Did the police shrug and ignore the case for months?

Did they rule it an accident or a suicide despite all evidence to the contrary?

Did they know who the killer was, but refuse to press charges or even arrest him?

Did the police themselves actually commit the murder?

No. No on all counts.

There was an immediate manhunt for his killer. He was arrested, charged, and held without bond within 24 hours. Cannon's family will undoubtedly see justice served for this abhorrent crime, though of course it won't bring that sweet boy back.

The protests across the country are about fixing the system so that ALL families can have that same chance at justice that Cannon's family has received. It's never just been about George Floyd. It's about every Black mother who has ever had to bury her baby WITHOUT seeing the killer brought to justice because the laws and institutions of this country saw their Blackness as unworthy of such closure.

So, yes. Be angry that this child was senselessly murdered. Do you need to get loud about it? ADVOCATE to keep guns out of the hands of people who will use them to harm others. ADVOCATE for better mental health services that might prevent someone from committing a crime like this. I'll be right there, marching with you. I've already got a sign AND a damn t-shirt.

But I'll tell you this... if this were my child, and I had to watch a bunch of rabid racists with crocodile tears in their eyes turn his memory into the latest hashtag to prop up violent systemic racism, I would BURN THIS MOTHERFUCKER TO THE GROUND.

THIS CHILD IS NOT YOUR WEAPON.

HIS MOTHER'S GRIEF IS NOT YOUR WEAPON.

JUST. STOP.

>168 prosfilaes:

Here again, you miss my point, entirely. But is that not what the media is doing by not letting these police cases play out?

I really cannot keep addressing this to you. You keep providing support to what I'm saying, all while using it against me.

>169 Cubby.R.S.: In what way did this case not play out?

Exhibit B:

https://www.cnn.com/search?size=10&q=Damire%20Palmer

https://nypost.com/2020/06/26/18-year-old-charged-for-assaulting-macys-staffer-c...

>170 kiparsky:

Not the point, the point is they are not showing the story as it may be but jumping to call race as the only viable reasoning. Always using race.

In the instance of Darren Shaver, it is noted by the jury that his intoxication was an issue, that his intoxication could have been interpreted as making furtive gestures. The officers were acquitted. In Floyd's case, nearly as ridiculous, no such thoughts are introduced, only race. It's always race, whether the only indicators are skin or not, if they can sell racism they will

Portland per CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/search?size=10&q=Portland%20

Painting a justified portrait of the rise of the oppressed. Narrative achieved to readers of this board.

Portland per FOX, reporting the destruction and crime...

https://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=Portland

Bottom line, colleges:

http://www.uatrav.com/opinion/article_9077c43e-db06-11e9-9ca6-63c80a0bfb9b.html

https://www.theblaze.com/news/ready-survey-over-half-of-republican-college-stude...

https://www.theblaze.com/news/conservative-professor-deluged-with-messages-from-...

>172 Cubby.R.S.: Okay, let's review:

You said (7:56 AM): Here again, you miss my point, entirely. But is that not what the media is doing by not letting these police cases play out?

I said (10:12 AM): In what way did this case not play out?

You replied (11:58 AM): Not the point

What changed in the space of four hours that what previously was entirely your point is now not the point? Or do you even remember back that far?

The point isn't whether or not the cases are playing out, it is that it's presented through the lenses of race or racism without any review of the actual events.

>171 Cubby.R.S.:
>173 Cubby.R.S.:

So, another case where, as so often happens with you, your previous point disappeared out from under you and you didn't want to be caught trying to defend it so you're changing the subject.

Got it.

Now, what's your current point at this stage? I only ask because it'll be fun to see just how long you're able to keep track of this one. Or have you actually got a point at all?

>176 Cubby.R.S.: it's presented through the lenses of race or racism without any review of the actual events

That's not my impression. While many of the reports do use a racism lens, when that is appropriate to the case, nevertheless they also report on the actual events.

>169 Cubby.R.S.: Here again, you miss my point, entirely.

The original work wasn't written in response to you specifically. But instead of listening to it, you dismiss it with a handwave.

And if you have a point, then be explicit, be verbose.

But is that not what the media is doing by not letting these police cases play out?

Is what?

Protesting what? What do I put on my sign?

Did the police shrug and ignore the case for months?

Did they rule it an accident or a suicide despite all evidence to the contrary?

Did they know who the killer was, but refuse to press charges or even arrest him?

Did the police themselves actually commit the murder?

No. No on all counts.

There's a list of differences.

>172 Cubby.R.S.: In the instance of Darren Shaver, it is noted by the jury that his intoxication was an issue, that his intoxication could have been interpreted as making furtive gestures. The officers were acquitted.

Daniel Shaver. I'm glad you're happy with killing a man following police orders because "his intoxication could have been interpreted as making furtive gestures." Yes, the officers were acquitted; that's part of the complaint, that police that kill unarmed men frequently escape punishment.

In Floyd's case, nearly as ridiculous, no such thoughts are introduced, only race.

A police officer engaged in actions he'd be trained not to do, and been told could kill people, which resulted in the death of someone. To crib from Wikipedia, "Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd's neck for almost a minute after the ambulance arrived, despite Floyd being silent and motionless. Prosecutors said that Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck for seven minutes and forty-six seconds."

Have you introduced such thoughts to justify the killing of Cannon Hinnant? No? But if we don't find ways to justify George Floyd's killing, it's all about race?

I could talk about race-based reason why the discussion around Daniel Shaver and George Floyd went differently. But we don't know what the defense attorneys and the jury will say about the George Floyd case, so that's not a difference. The fact you can only see race in the fact that excuses aren't made for police officers who kill is your problem.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/a-police-killing-without-a-... is an article that argues more focus should have been made on the killing of Daniel Shaver, but wasn't because of race. But not because the killing of Daniel Shaver was fine, and it provides no arguments that we should be justifying the murder of George Floyd.

What in the flying fucking squirrels is going on here?

The Hinnant case took multiple days to get on CNN. It was finally covered after social media pressure. If the races were reversed, all hell would break loose.

The Shaver case jury said >172 Cubby.R.S.:, it was not justifiable, but the point is; they couldn't agree on murder due to intoxication. In Floyd's case, race is the only conclusion by the media and they've hyped this case above all. He had so many underlying conditions and he was on drugs, by the original report he died of his own conditions with complications due to neck compression. They use Floyd more conviningly, in part because the other cases had genuine flaw and no substance...Garner, Martin, Taylor, etc. Floyd's case does not appear race related, but is being painted as such.

See also >171 Cubby.R.S.: and >173 Cubby.R.S.:

>181 Cubby.R.S.: The Hinnant case took multiple days to get on CNN. It was finally covered after social media pressure. If the races were reversed, all hell would break loose.

Ahmaud Arbery was killed on February 31st. A Google News search reveals only local news about him for the next month. You throw around claims like "all hell would break loose", but I don't see any evidence of that.

In comparison, Cannon Hinnant has been dead seven days. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cannon-hinnant/ shows that AP covered it the next morning, and if you check, CNN covered it the 13th, two days later.

In Floyd's case, race is the only conclusion by the media

That doesn't make any sense. The only conclusion to what question?

He had so many underlying conditions and he was on drugs,

He was on "steroids for his Addison’s disease; painkillers for his back; anti-spasmodics for his colitis; antibiotics for urinary-tract infections; antihistamines for allergies; and, on at least one occasion, an anti-psychotic ... amphetamines and back injections of painkillers"*; thus there's no evidence that the bullet killed JFK, so we have to let Lee Harvey Oswald walk.

Or were you talking about Cannon Hinnant? Because we don't have an autopsy yet, nor do we have a drug test. Like always, you find reasons to blame the dead when it's convenient to you.

Floyd's case does not appear race related, but is being painted as such.

It doesn't help when you respond by bringing up a white kid killed by a black man, or you do your best to smear a black murder victim.

>171 Cubby.R.S.: It's an assault. I was punched once and had my Kindle stolen, and it didn't even make the local news. There's only so much space in a newspaper.

* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/the-medical-ordeals-of-jfk/...

If you want to study non-overt bias, you need statistics. You don't have them. As I said above, there are 2 kids under five murdered in the US every single day. Should CNN immediately cover every single one? In 2011, there were 5.8 million violent victimizations in the US**; the idea that every single one of them is newsworthy is ludicrous. George Floyd would not have got this much press, if there hadn't been the huge response.

** https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv11.pdf

Cubby, you seem obsessed with the idea that the mainstream media is biased against white people and conservatives. If you google for media bias, you will find dozens of articles from a wide variety of sources, many of them evidence-based, demonstrating that this is not true, and in fact quite the opposite - there has been a longstanding bias against black people. You quote a handful of articles which support your view, but they really are in a minority.

Media bias is not determined by anecdotes. When there is a great deal of media coverage about a few particular cases, it may seem to you that it represents bias, but it has to be set in context. Likewise, because elements of the media disagree with you on particular issues, that does not mean they are biased. Media trying to be impartial and objective will take positions on issues, not on political partisanship. It may seem that the mainstream media is biased against flat earthers, or conspiracy theories about the death of John F Kennedy or landing on the moon, but it is not a bias, it is the result of evidence-based and fact-checked investigative reporting. And many news media have a publicly stated editorial position, the Guardian left of centre, the Independent, er, independent, the (UK) Times right of centre, and Fox to the far right. There is no shortage of right wing media, which also includes an active right wing social media, and you are not slow to quote them.

Since googling for anything with the word "death" in it at the moment is swamped by coronavirus stories, I can't find any of the older studies about how the western media rank deaths in their reporting, but there were a lot of such reports a few years ago. If a US tourist is killed in Africa, it gains a lot of coverage; if an African tourist is killed in the USA, it usually goes under-reported (except perhaps in the media in their home country). The death of a single European or north American gets more coverage than that of dozens of people from developing countries, leading to the satirical view that there is some sort of informal table - 100 African deaths equal one US death in terms of media coverage, or whatever. Deaths of Israelis killed by Palestinians gain far more media coverage that Palestinians killed by Israelis. Deaths of a few north American and European soldiers killed in Afghanistan or Iraq gained far more media coverage than deaths of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of civilians killed in those same countries. Media bias?

Soon after the tragedy of 9/11 I was with a senior Sudanese church leader. He reflected on the death toll of 3,000 sympathetically for a few moments, did some quick calculations in his head, then said gravely, "We've had 9/11 every two weeks for 18 years", referring to the death toll in the Sudanese civil war which had then been going on for 18 years. Did those 3,000 fortnightly deaths get any significant coverage in the western mainstream media?

So yes, mainstream western media is biased, but not in the way that you believe. I don't really expect serious engagement from you on this, but at least I have stated the case for the record.

>182 prosfilaes:

That's multiple days. Arbery was 20 plus and received a large write up on CNN, and they made sure that alleged racial slur was part of the headline.

Floyd, no matter the drugs, should probably not have been driving if he was that disoriented, or was making quite a show.

The point is, again, always race.

>184 Cubby.R.S.: Floyd, no matter the drugs, should probably not have been driving if he was that disoriented, or was making quite a show.

In which case he should have faced a minor misdemeanour charge for a motoring offence, not the death penalty. When arresting a citizen for minor offences the police should be trained to use minimum force. Better to let someone get away when only suspected of a minor nonviolent offence and quite probably only facing a non-custodial sentence than to risk injuring or killing them.

>185 John5918:

What of the reported fraud?

This is not only off topic, which the topic I'm trying to discuss upon is news media bias and social media / search engine censorship, but also NOBODY claims that Floyd deserved to die. Another fucking distraction, from another fucking media talking point.

You, yourself, admit readily you will not discuss openly certain topics as they are loaded. Why? Because you know the extreme backlash from the cancel culture.

So, discussing why 62% of American's are afraid to speak their minds? Well, because everyone's afraid of being cancelled? It is in part, because media bias has created such a whirlwind around the few cases in an effort to bring issues to the forefront that create political division. It is exemplified by those cases above. Where racism can be promoted, it is. Where the truth about the so called protests go is hidden, it is going to create backlash. They are trying to fabricate a good side and a bad side, instead of allowing the story to be honestly presented.

>186 Cubby.R.S.: What of the reported fraud?

Serious enough to risk someone's life?

You, yourself, admit readily you will not discuss openly certain topics as they are loaded. Why? Because you know the extreme backlash from the cancel culture.

Good grief, no. I have no fear of any cancel culture. In my own fields of work I have been quite outspoken. I am in fact unpopular with some NGOs who don't like my critique of the industry, but that hasn't stopped me going on record with my views. That's not something new or unusual; if organisations don't think your message fits with their agenda, they don't invite you back. And I don't think I have used the word "loaded". Emotive and sensitive, yes, but the reason for not discussing certain issues in this forum is that I see no profit in trying to have nuanced and complex conversations in a toxic environment of sound bites and polarisation. It just feeds the culture war (and some would say it also feeds the trolls). It has nothing to do with backlashes nor "cancel culture".

the topic I'm trying to discuss upon is news media bias and social media / search engine censorship

See >183 John5918:

>187 John5918:

NOBODY CLAIMS THAT FLOYD DESERVED TO DIE!

See topic abortion.

Would you like me to ask you how you personally feel about this article:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-state-senator-fights-for-bill-that-cou...

Since you should subscribe, I can't paste in the whole article. Blurb:

"A California state senator is seeking to salvage a bill that could decriminalize gay sex between young adults and minors in some cases, arguing that present state laws governing the sex offender registry unfairly discriminate against the LGBTQ community.

According to The San Francisco Chronicle, California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) is using the last few weeks of the legislative session to mobilize support for SB145, a bill he introduced last year that stalled in a key committee. The legislation would allow “judges discretion over sex-offender registration in all cases involving voluntary intercourse between teenagers ages 14 to 17, who cannot legally consent, and adults who are less than 10 years older.”

Google Censorship:

https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/2020/07/27/conservatives-call-out-google-censor...

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dan-gainor-yes-google-censors-conservatives-even...

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5197

>188 Cubby.R.S.: Would you like me to ask you how you personally feel about this article

How is that relevant to any topic at hand?

Looking at your "censorship" examples:

• CONSERVATIVES CALL OUT GOOGLE CENSORSHIP This is not news. Conservatives have been trying to work the ref for years. They're still trying. It's still not working. BFD.
  


• Your Fox link says that google tends to return news sources when someone searches for news, which seems like reasonable behavior.


• For the Ted Cruz quotes, see "working the ref", above

>189 kiparsky:

Are Americans afraid to speak their mind?

I'm asking a question about what is on John's mind... What could possibly be more relevant?

>190 Cubby.R.S.: Are Americans afraid to speak their mind?

This one isn't.

>184 Cubby.R.S.: That's multiple days.

There are two children under 5 murdered every day in the US. You still have refused to say that both of those deserve nationwide news coverage, much less that they regularly do. One point is anecdote, not data.

>186 Cubby.R.S.: NOBODY claims that Floyd deserved to die.

>181 Cubby.R.S.: He had so many underlying conditions and he was on drugs, by the original report he died of his own conditions with complications due to neck compression.

>184 Cubby.R.S.: Floyd, no matter the drugs, should probably not have been driving if he was that disoriented, or was making quite a show.

>186 Cubby.R.S.: What of the reported fraud?

It is of course not literally true that NOBODY claims that Floyd deserved to die. But it's interesting how for someone who was killed by someone taking actions they knew caused death in humans (that is something we usually call murder) in front of numerous witnesses reminding the killer that he was killing someone, you keep wanting to talk about things the victim did.

>186 Cubby.R.S.: It is in part, because media bias has created such a whirlwind around the few cases in an effort to bring issues to the forefront that create political division.

I don't see any evidence of that. These things blow up because of local responses. George Floyd became news because people pushed cell-phone videos showing the cops murdering a guy, and because locals felt they'd been mistreated by police and now one of their own was dead at police hands.

As for "political division" ... really? You don't see much of a fan of political unity. You link to this article:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-state-senator-fights-for-bill-that-cou...

What do I get when I go there? A pop-up for a mug labeled "leftist tears". Go political unity! Plus a trollish, poorly written article that only seems reasonable when quoting the other side. Gay sex laws should be rationalized with straight sex laws, and the article tosses emotional attacks instead of attacking that or arguing that straight sex laws are the ones that need to be stricter in this case.

Where the truth about the so called protests go is hidden, it is going to create backlash. They are trying to fabricate a good side and a bad side, instead of allowing the story to be honestly presented.

By "honestly presented" you mean as the media you like presents it. I know people personally who have protested; I'm not saying there aren't problematic aspects of some of the protests, but "so called protests" is simply bullshit.

>192 prosfilaes:

Not exactly. I guess I'm sorry you believe the things you're being fed. Racial division is being manufactured, and I think it's a tragedy. Racism is growing, and it was all but completely eradicated in younger generations, and now it's literally being promoted. I don't know why Liberals are not worried by those things. Such is life I guess.

I asked a question to see if someone would talk about it, I wanted an honest opinion, I did not read the article, initially. It is not an opinion piece it just tells you the current laws and explanation. But you're probably not used to news without a twist or plot to it.

>193 Cubby.R.S.: it was all but completely eradicated in younger generations

I beg your pardon, I must have missed this. When was this golden age of which you speak?

now it's literally being promoted

Hm. The old bullshit meter just quivered. By whom and in what manner would you say that racism is now "literally being promoted"?

>187 John5918: the reason for not discussing certain issues in this forum is that I see no profit in trying to have nuanced and complex conversations in a toxic environment of sound bites and polarisation.

Yeah, there's interesting things to say about cancel culture and political polarization, but when people link to pages selling "liberal tears" mugs and don't see how that might affect the discussion, a detailed discussion isn't possible.

>195 prosfilaes: As a side note, the fact that you saw that popup suggests that you don't have an adblocker installed. This seems a lamentable and an easily remedied state of affairs.

>196 kiparsky: Not technically a popup, more of an overlay. I've got AdBlock installed, though it seems to have become so much less aggressive recently.

>194 kiparsky:

I'm 36, I don't believe that many my age or younger really give a crap about anyone's skin color. The only racism I ever witnessed was the rare crude joke and an Uncle I have used derogatory terms, probably on account that my aunt dated a black man at some point before they were married -- but I find it likely he has some racist viewpoints.

CNN is not covering stories that are generally negative to the racism they are selling. Damire Palmer search, nothing.

https://www.cnn.com/search?size=10&q=Damire%20Palmer

I didn't find examples such as these, of which there are quite a few.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/17/blm-mob-beat-white-man-unconscious-after-making-hi...

https://nypost.com/2020/08/14/seattle-blm-protesters-demand-white-people-give-up...

Even articles that say protesters were arrested, CNN adds things, such as; police say, protests were mostly peaceful, appeared to be fireworks, protests of police brutality. All of the evidence that I find, points to a one sided agenda.

>195 prosfilaes:

Give me a break. I have no problem arguing, mostly respectfully with kiparsky, despite his constant jabs at my worth and intellect and you're going to cry over a 'mug'?

I happen to like that cup.

>198 Cubby.R.S.: CNN is not covering stories that are generally negative to the racism they are selling. Damire Palmer search, nothing.

Terrance Kelly search, nothing relevant, Danielle Lynch, nothing relevant, but you don't mention it.* An Air Force veteran gets murdered and you don't care, but a simple assault and you get all worked up because you like how the story plays to the racism you're selling. Maybe, just maybe, a simple assault in a mall isn't national news and thus CNN chose not to cover it.

* https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/homicides/man-faces-murder-charge-in-assault...

>199 Cubby.R.S.: you're going to cry over a 'mug'?

The topic is "62% of Americans are afraid to speak their minds on politics". And you don't think a mug expressing contempt for liberals being prominently sold at a site with pretenses of offering "news" plays into that? When you show up some place with that mug, every liberal around you is discouraged from speaking their minds on politics, because you have a mug that expresses your contempt for them. And a so-called news site selling that mug just makes more conservatives feel that open contempt for half of America is okay, thus drives up the number of liberals afraid to speak their minds on politics.

>200 prosfilaes:

It's not me that doesn't care, it's CNN. There again, the only thing in the news is agenda related. CNN, start your day off (Red blotch on my cell phone), Post Office, Global Warming, BLM. That's what they're selling, and damn the rest of of America that isn't worshiping at the alter of the Leftist agenda.

Read the studies above, Liberals are far less concerned about expressing their opinion. They don't receive job cancellation for their views.

>201 Cubby.R.S.:

Although the ordinary citizens who work at or attend family planning clinics stand a good chance of being abused and harassed for their opinion, in many cases experiencing physical violence, or even being murdered.

A story which caught my eye yesterday, from Brazil, not the USA, is entitled Brazil: outcry as religious extremists harass child seeking abortion (Guardian). This is persecution of a ten year old girl who is pregnant after being raped.

>198 Cubby.R.S.: I don't believe that many my age or younger really give a crap about anyone's skin color

I suspect that you and most of the people you know do not commit acts of intentional overt racism and you think that's sufficient to say "racism is done". You ignore, because it is convenient to do so, the overt racism that your privilege shields you from and you passively accept the racism that benefits you. For an example of the former, you probably are like me in never being stopped and questioned for walking down a street in your neighborhood. You probably have never been pulled over while driving with your family and been forced, with your children, to lie on the asphalt because someone stole a car of the same make as yours in the same city. (link) You probably never wondered why when you look for a job, you don't get called back because your name sounds wrong, or because your accent is insufficiently white, or because after doing great on the phone screen, you suddenly got ghosted after the face-to-face. Likewise, you have probably never wondered why in official interactions (such as when you apply for a job or go to a bank or interact with the police) you are treated with the respect and deference that you expect as a white man (and not with the disrespect and skepticism you might experience if you were not gifted with that privilege).

All of this happens. The fact that you don't see them or notice them just means you do not know where to look or what to look for. And the fact that you don't see them doesn't mean that everything's fine, it's actually the most important problem that you can solve right now.

Seeing a problem does not cause it. Not seeing it does not make it go away. Screening does not cause cancer, diagnosis does not cause disease, tests do not cause COVID-19, and speaking up about racism does not cause racism.

>202 John5918:

The most extreme case presentable. There's nothing redeemable in this story.

>203 kiparsky:

So I'm racist? I think you are gobbling up a bunch of nonsense. I am not going to judge anyone's mindset over any broad spectrum, because something has happened that seems unfair. I HAVE been accused of things that I HAVE NOT done, simply because I'm a goofball and have been known to do ridiculous things. And, I also do know what it's like to be accused of something, simply because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not because of my color, but because of my age and demeanor.

What does that have to do with race?

>203 kiparsky: I suspect that you and most of the people you know do not commit acts of intentional overt racism and you think that's sufficient to say "racism is done". You ignore, because it is convenient to do so, the overt racism that your privilege shields you from and you passively accept the racism that benefits you.

Well said. A good thumbnail sketch of racism, and of how many people don't see/experience it and therefore don't think it exists.

Hook, line, sinker. Just because racism exists, does not mean everyone is racist. I say, boo and hiss to your shenanigans. Statistics prove whatever you want them to, but I believe each individual is by large in the US, allowed to be judged as an individual. People shouting in the streets in residential neighborhoods in Seattle, they say give us your house. You owe us. Well, if you're expecting free stuff, then maybe it's the Democrat Party that needs to fulfill its promises.

Are any of you racist? Do you know anyone that is racist?

Furthermore, look throughout this group. How many flags do Conservatives dole out in comparison to Progressives? I've never flagged anyone, but have been flagged on several occasions. I want to note, I've been called some pretty horrendous things. That doesn't excuse the times I have been volatile, but the point is, I'm not looking to shut someone down.

>207 Cubby.R.S.:

We've had this conversation before, methinks. Systemic racism is not about indviduals, it is about systemic issues.

Are any of you racist?

Most of us in Europe and north America have been brought up in a society which is systemically racist, so most of us who are white benefit from the privileges of racism, which hopefully we become aware of and try to change, rather than being in denial. As >203 kiparsky: says, is is often not intentional nor overt.

Do you know anyone that is racist?

Yes, lots, including many people for whom it is intentional and overt.

>208 Cubby.R.S.:

What on earth have flags got to do with it? Flags don't shut people down - you only have to click on the link to see what they have written. All the flags do is hide it so that the casual reader doesn't have to see personal insults and abuse leap out of the page at them. Those who want to read it still can. If you choose not to use flags, that's up to you, but I hardly think flagging has got anything to do with whether someone is "conservative" or "progressive". One doesn't flag political content, one flags personal abuse and attacks.

>210 John5918:

Flags are a disapproval. Many, many comments are out of line that are not flagged. Some will flag for things far less egregious than they have said, themselves, just because they want to call abuse. It is as they say, another example of Liberal tears? Or, kip's favorite, FLO.

>209 John5918:

Systemic racism lads, it's systemic systemization of systemized systems. It hath nothing to doodoo with people, but only systems. You are racist, you hate blacks, without even knowing that thou doth do so. Look deeply into the mirror. You get all the shinier, all the whiter. That be the racism you hold by simply being the color that you are. You see, you didn't work for that, you were given that. You didn't think for yourself, you were thought for. You didn't get up and go to work, work brought you in. You must heal yourself, Give your money to the Leftist party of your choice, and repent. Social justice, I shout! Humble yourself to the state.

Wait, does that mean all blacks are dumb or poor?

No, of course not, only those you oppress!

But what of the dumb and poor white population?

Systemic Racist!

Wait, I'm a person?

People do not exist, only boxes, only systems!

?

?

Can I go?

Beat the fucker!

>205 Cubby.R.S.: So I'm racist

I wouldn't say so.

Like many people thinking about racism today, I don't generally describe people as "racist" or "not racist", because it's not a very useful label. We are all products of a racist society, and we all learn to live within that society, and we cannot excuse ourselves from that society.
It is more useful to describe actions as "racist" or "anti-racist". In this framework, the default is something like "racism-tolerant".

Using an example that's close to what I spend a lot of my time thinking about, imagine that I am interviewing candidates for an entry-level software engineering position I review resumes of (let's say) five recent CS graduates in their early twenties, all white and two bootcamp alumni in their late 20s or early 30s, both black. The CS graduates all have interesting capstone projects, have done all sorts of cool courses that I remember taking and enjoying, have built cool side projects, and can show me approved pull requests on open-source software that I find appealing. The bootcamp alumni have little experience in software prior to their bootcamp, and no side projects or open-source commits.

Okay, so what are my options in this hypothetical situation?

I could simply take the "meritocratic" approach and "treat them all the same". Under this approach, it's likely that the bootcamp alumni would not even be called in for an interview, and on a purely "color-blind" interview process, would probably not make the cut. This is what I'm calling the "racism-tolerant" approach: it accepts the underlying and racist factors that sort white candidates to the top of the pile and Black and Latinx candidates to the bottom, and by accepting them it ignores them and perpetuates them. And all of this happens without anyone ever having to be personally racist in any overt or intentional way.

The racist approach to hiring would be to have someone on the hiring team say "well, I'm not going to work with a Black engineer, because insert stereotype here" or "Are we sure they can do this sort of work?" (without reviewing their actual suitability for the actual job). This is pretty rare, at least where I am and in the time I'm living in, and it's the sort of thing that I'm not accusing you, Cubby, or anyone else, of doing. I know it happens sometimes, but it's not the biggest problem I see my Black and Latinx mentees facing when they go for interviews.

The anti-racist approach to hiring for this position, which I have been working to understand more fully, and also advocating for, examines the candidates for their underlying strengths and weaknesses, and takes the paper qualifications as evidence of, but not the only evidence of, those qualifications. It also asks which of those qualifications are in themselves necessary for the job that we're hiring for, and which are merely signals of achievement (and, often, of the privilege of free time and access to mentorship). It's great that someone has, say, written a Java compiler. That's a hard thing to do and it shows a high degree of grit and gumption. On the other hand, it's not exactly a thing we're going to ask anyone to do on my team - we work mostly in python, and anyway there are already very good compilers out there. What I care most about is the grit and gumption, and I can also see that in someone who, for example, was able to grind their way through a bootcamp, going from zero to competent in nine months, while supporting themselves and maybe their family at the crap job that they're trying to get away from.

The anti-racist approach is the hard one, but it's the one that seems like it's going to actually mean something. Just being "not-racist" is accepting the way things are. That doesn't make a "not-racist" person a bad person, but it does make them not part of a solution, and it means they're always going to be the Mr. Jones in this situation: "You know something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you?"

>207 Cubby.R.S.: Just because racism exists, does not mean everyone is racist

Again, I don't find it useful to apply that label to individuals because it is more useful to apply it to actions. When you act to embody or affirm racism, you are taking a racist act. This is independent of your intentions. For example, it is possible to take a racist act out of ignorance or simply lack of forethought, without malice intended. It is still a racist act: calling it so does not impugn your character, only your judgement.

That being said, I do believe that people such as myself who were raised in a racist society (I went to elementary school in Boston in the '80s...), and who have benefitted all of our lives from the racism of this society, find it hard to escape our training. I have to work at it, and I have a lot of help from people around me. When someone challenges something I do or something I say or something I assume, I have had to learn to listen to that challenge and decide how I'm going to change my actions or my words or my assumptions. And while I think that's helped me a lot, I don't think that I'm done yet.

And I think that like me, anyone growing up in this society has a lot of changing to do. I don't believe that they "are racist", as I've said, but I believe that the racism they grew up in informs a lot of their underlying assumptions about the world and until they actively challenge those assumptions, those assumptions will be there, doing nobody any good. It's up to each individual to decide whether they want to do that work or not. It is not up to any individual to deny that the work is there to be done.

>213 kiparsky:

Beautiful explanation kip. This is something I can agree with, with one caveat. I believe individuals, no matter the skin color, should be freed to pursue the highest level in a field in which they demonstrate aptitude for, and not be limited by early educational requirements. You'll find that it happens quite often in the business world, which actually leads to poor operations and high turnover.

>215 Cubby.R.S.: Beautiful explanation kip

Thank you.

I believe individuals, no matter the skin color, should be freed to pursue the highest level in a field in which they demonstrate aptitude for, and not be limited by early educational requirements. You'll find that it happens quite often in the business world, which actually leads to poor operations and high turnover.

I think that's very much in line with what I've said above and it's certainly in line with what I try to do with my mentorship work.

However, I want to be clear about this: it's not just about being "color-blind". If we want to free people to pursue the highest level in the field that they demonstrate aptitude for, we have to be actively looking for that aptitude. We can no longer simply accept credentials as proxies for that aptitude, we cannot take absence of credentials as signs of a lack of aptitude, and we have to make the positive effort to help develop that aptitude when we find it.

So, we can't just say "she's got a CS degree, that means she's okay for this position", we can't say "sorry, you don't have a CS degree, and that's a requirement for this position", we have to be looking at someone's achievements and their circumstances and trying to judge whether they are a good fit for a role. And no matter who we bring on, we have to constantly provide them with the support they need to develop their skills and the opportunities to grow in the role, and we have to recognize that growth.

If we fail to do that, we do not deserve to keep those people on our teams. And if we actually do that, and commit to it for real, then we will have taken a very real anti-racist action (which, you'll notice, also has huge benefits for white employees - it's not a zero-sum game!)

>216 kiparsky:

So I agree mostly. I think though, we too easily dismiss the culture in areas of poverty, as the largest hindrance. So, although the system seems to affect disproportionately by color, it seems to me that it's by culture. There are more poor whites than any other color. I know plenty of very poor people, some are kind and warm hearted, some are wretched, some are lazy.

Largely, the poor that look to succeed do not appear poor or behave ignorantly, so the injustice they face is circumstantial. Those are the people America used to bring out of poverty. The system is becoming tougher to navigate. That cannot be solved with welfare. That cannot be solved with more laws and programs, that is what is crippling the system. We rely too much on data and statistics. There's a reason the average business lasts 50 years less than they used to. It is the reliance on moving data targets rather than sense.

So the system that is broken? I believe that it is regulations, qualifications, etc. that hinder the freedom of society. If safety is covered in code, then the rest should be determined by ability, not by qualifications. As I was once the target of a quote about settled morality, we should all agree that fairness cannot be manufactured. Equality is less attainable when everyone is forced upon the same path. Each path should suit the traveller.

Mostly I agree with you.

>215 Cubby.R.S.:

In this post you seem to be presenting a more rational approach which refutes your rant in >212 Cubby.R.S.:.

>212 Cubby.R.S.:

Your first paragraph shows that you haven't been understanding what systemic racism is, and particularly your statement "you hate blacks". As several of the previous posts have pointed out, racism is not about overt and intentional acts such as "hating blacks", it is about systemic privilege and advantages enjoyed by white people. It doesn't mean that there are no poor white people, only that generally the odds are stacked against black people and in favour of white people. Neither does it mean that there is no individual agency. There are always individuals who can find a way of overcoming different forms of underprivilege, disadvantage, discrimination, marginalisation, but why should one section of the population be forced to do so when another section of the population doesn't have to? Shouldn't there be a level playing field, equal opportunities, or as you say in >215 Cubby.R.S.:, "I believe individuals, no matter the skin color, should be freed to pursue the highest level in a field in which they demonstrate aptitude for, and not be limited by early educational requirements"? As Billy Bragg sings, "Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all".

People do not exist, only boxes, only systems!

Of course individuals exist, and a great deal of human rights doctrine and praxis is built on the dignity of the individual. I have an individual choice whether to continue to both deny and simultaneously benefit from the advantages which institutional racism has conferred on me, and thus to collude with the system, or whether to challenge the system (and incidentally that applies to other areas of privilege within society, such as being male). Some disadvantaged individuals have the opportunities to overcome the odds stacked against them, others don't, but why should they have to face greater odds than other sections of society? That's unfair. Society exists, and within society there are observable patterns whether you admit it or not. Racism exists, and it is that which is an affront to the human dignity of the individual, not attempts to highlight and remedy it.

>217 Cubby.R.S.: Largely, the poor that look to succeed do not appear poor or behave ignorantly

Who knows? Sounds like victim blaming to me. "She didn't succeed because she appeared poor and ignorant. If only she had managed to look richer and cleverer..." But black people appear black and they can't get around the way they look. I've had white people ask me seriously, "John, you've lived amongst the blacks" (referring to the fact that I have lived in various African countries) "and you speak the black language" (referring to the fact that I speak one or two of the hundreds of indigenous African languages) "so can you tell me why they are so lazy, ignorant, dirty and uneducated?" If these sort of attitudes about black people are widespread in society, then that's an unfair disadvantage which any black person will have to overcome in order to advance. And while I admit that these particular views are stated a bit more bluntly and more obviously than the average (with a nod to white South African friends and colleagues, some of whom also assured me that under apartheid, "The blecks were heppy!"), they are no less pervasive and damaging than the less buntly stated assumptions of institutional racism.

>213 kiparsky: I don't generally describe people as "racist" or "not racist", because it's not a very useful label

Thanks. I agree. Labelling people is always inadequate. Describing observable behaviour is much more accurate and useful.

>218 John5918:

The system is against the poor, I would agree. If the system was against a color, we would not have successful black workers, business owners and or any of the millions of successful blacks. So I disagree.

>219 Cubby.R.S.:

No, you're wrong. There are always individuals who are able to overcomes disadvantages and even deliberate discrimination. That doesn't mean that there is no systemic disadvantage or discrimination.

But it's a big step at least for you to agree that there is such a thing as systemic disdvantage, namely against the poor. Now that you acknowledge one type of systemic bias, maybe it'll be easier for you to recognise others - sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.

>220 John5918:

I won't continue this discussion in this thread. But, I always believed that the system is against the poor because our system has been corrupted. The difference is, you seem to think these issues can be solved in some way by legislation. In any case, we will not agree on this, not now, not ever.

>221 Cubby.R.S.:

Whether the system as you believe it ought to be has been corrupted or not is really irrelevant, as the system which de facto exists is the relevant one until such time as it is changed to a different and better system.

these issues can be solved in some way by legislation

Ultimately it will only be "solved" by personal transformation, changing attititudes. But legislation can help to shape attitudes, and can also offer some protection to the disadvantaged groups. Employment legislation, for example, protects workers from unfair dismissal and ensures they have paid vacations and sick leave, while health and safety legislation protects them from injury and sickness on the job. Not only do these protect them, but they help to make them slightly less poorer, ie lessening the disadvantage. And it was partly the changing attitudes which brought this legislation about. Chicken or egg?

>219 Cubby.R.S.: The system is against the poor, I would agree. If the system was against a color, we would not have successful black workers, business owners and or any of the millions of successful blacks.

You do see the contradiction there, don't you? The system can't be against black people because if it was, "we would not have successful black workers, business owners and or any of the millions of successful blacks". But the system is against the poor, despite the fact that many poor people have become successful, business owners, etc. How do you account for the successful poor people?

Of course one difference is that a poor person who becomes rich and successful is no longer classed as a poor person and therefore the system no longer discrimnates against them. But a black person who becomes rich and successful is still black, and is still discriminated against. A black man driving an expensice car will get stopped by the police far more often than a white one, even though they are both rich and successful. A rich and successful black doctor whom I know still gets treated like a servant when he and his white wife approach the reception desk of an expensive hotel - he's black and he's carrying the suitcases so he must be her chauffeur. And all the other examples of systemic racism which are well documented.

>223 John5918:

There are exceptions, but it is much more difficult for a poor person to escape poverty than ever. Businesses are becoming bigger and more centrally focused, making it harder for the poor to find a good job in their area. This also means they may not have the resources to connect and or connect again if an opportunity fails. That is why small business is so important.

Again, for the rest of it, I really have heard the arguments and I'm really not going to be convinced. I have thought about these things and I have a litany of reasons that make me feel the way I do about it.

>224 Cubby.R.S.:

Indeed, we will not agree on this, but then my reason for engaging in conversations is not to "win" a debate nor necessarily to make someone change their mind (although part of my day job is advocacy and lobbying for policy change, but that is not what I do when I'm chatting on LT). I believe dialogue has its own value regardless of whether it achieves any positive change. If nothing else it at least creates a better understanding of positions other than one's own. While your arguments will not make me change my view any more than mine will make you change yours, it at least helps me to continue refining my own position, sharpening it, and thinking through and articulating objections to elements of the opposing position which I might not have been aware of. And I actually enjoy a good conversation, at least when the personal abuse, trolling, ranting, red herrings, straw men, political slogans, propaganda, misinformation and other diversionary tactics can be minimised.

There are exceptions

Well, that's my point. There is systemic bias against poor people and black people, but "there are exceptions", people from both these groups who manage to overcome the bias and do well.

>139 prosfilaes: Carnophile is complaining that a bunch of tweets complaining about a book that got the author to recall it is terrorism.

I mentioned the left trying to terrorize people, but in case it wasn't clear, I’m not saying that’s just as bad as terrorism in the sense of shooting people, etc.

But that the President of the United States of America calling for someone to be fired is a-OK.

Kaepernick was not fired as a result of anything Trump said.

One of the most powerful organization(s) in the US firing teachers for being gay (allegedly) is okay.

A Catholic school is “one of the most powerful organization(s) in the US”? Anyway, of course it would be appropriate, if it happened. The Catholic teaching is that homosexuality is wrong. As I said, it’s as reasonable as a Republican organization ejecting someone for being a Democrat. The correct analogy to the Shor case would be if some catholics identifed random gay people on Twitter and contacted their employers to get them fired.

>134 Carnophile: Right, Kaepernick was released from the 49ers in March 2017 because of a remark Trump made in September 2017.
>139 prosfilaes: And wasn't picked up as a free agent.

...for the rest of March, all of April, May, June, July, and August, and some of September, then Trump made a remark and... nothing changed.

I'm smart enough to know where I don't know shit about a subject, and I'm smart enough to notice that you didn't respond to the article written by people who do know something about the subject.

I’m smart enough to doubt the existence of time machines.

Again, the numbers are perfectly clear; Hollywood does not spend money on movies with black protagonists.

1. My attitude toward this claim is based on what I found when I looked into your other claims: The Kaepernick one requires time travel, the Campbell one is from 50 years ago, I was right about Shor, unless it’s just a coincidence that he got fired days after lefties started screeching about him... etc.

2. By a fortunate coincidence, I just came across a relevant snippet in a book I’m reading now, Because Internet. From Chapter 5:

In an article called “We Need to Talk About Digital Blackface in Reaction GIFs,” Lauren Michele Jackson pointed out that black people are overrepresented in in gifs used by nonblack people, especially those that show extreme emotion. She linked this stereotype to the exaggerated acting of minstrel shows and scholar Sianne Ngai’s term “animatedness” to describe the long-standing tendency to see black people’s reactions as hyperbolic

That is, if blacks are (allegedly) underrepresented in some media that’s an outrage; if they’re (allegedly) overrepresented that’s an outrage too. Some people are just desperate for an excuse to act outraged.

3. Even if your assertion here were true, it wouldn’t be an example of what’s being discussed anyway, which is people being fired, etc., for their political opinions. “There aren’t enough blacks in movies” is very different from citing an academic paper and getting fired as a result.

4. In response to the “Oscars So White” thing, Hollywood accommodated them:

Films like “Get Out,” “Black Panther,” “Coco’’ and “Crazy Rich Asians” drove a multicultural gold rush at the box office as well as the Oscars, where a record 13 winners of color took home awards in 2019 alone.

Again, some Twitterati complain about a book with an antagonist with the INCORRECT demographics, and that's outrageous; some of the largest companies in the world make sure none of the big-budget movies have a protagonist with the INCORRECT demographics, and that's okay.

The guy was pressured into withdrawing his book because he had the temerity to feature a Muslim bad guy. No one has ever gotten a movie killed because its characters had the “wrong” demographics. Black Nick Fury occasioned some hostile comment - because the original comic book character was white - but those movies are some of the most popular action movies in cinema history.

>140 prosfilaes: He sued a TV station over a campaign ad. He didn't sue the group that made and paid for the ad to be run; he sued the TV station

If you’re saying he should have sued them both, I won't complain.

It's cutting a pretty fine line there to say he didn't say coronavirus was a hoax.

Please. Read the passage you quoted. He meant Dems politicizing the virus. Even the Washington Post, which loathes Trump with the heat of a thousand suns, conceded that Trump was talking about the Dems’ politicizing it.

On Cannon Hinnant: For some relevant data, find the last time a white man murdered a black 5-year-old, and suss out how the media responded.

>228 Carnophile: That is, if blacks are (allegedly) underrepresented in some media that’s an outrage; if they’re (allegedly) overrepresented that’s an outrage too. Some people are just desperate for an excuse to act outraged.

Two sides of the same problem: historically, Black people are not treated as suitable for representing "regular people" - they're not romantic leads, they're not action heroes, they're not the good cop, except in "Black movies". They're treated as contrasts - the Black sidekick, the funny one, the heavy. They're the ones tasked with exuding strong emotion. The use of black memes is just another example of this: again, we have the Black person as the extreme of emotion. White people use these not to identify with the Black face, but to say "I feel so happy/sad/disgusted/angry/whatever about this, I need a Black person to act it out for me, because my stoic whiteness does not allow me to feel such things".

It's not hard to see if you're actually interested in understanding this. Just watch a movie and keep track of who you're being asked to identify with. White people were not asked to identify with Laurence Fishburne in the Matrix movies, Black people were asked to identify with Keanu Reeves. White people were not asked to identify with Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, but Black people were asked to identify with John Travolta. And of course, when a director makes a movie with no Black speaking parts at all, it's not considered a "white movie", but movies with all-Black or majority Black casts have until very recently been treated as "Black movies" - so a Black person going to see Reservoir Dogs or Spinal Tap or Blade Runner or really most of the movies we consider to be classics is just going to a movie, but a white person going to see Fences or Moonlight or Do the Right Thing is having a Cultural Experience because they actually have to imagine what it's like for a Black person to have feelings and experiences.

>231 kiparsky:

There might be a lot of reasons for all this.

One of, if not my favorite actor, is Denzel Washington. He does a spectacular job filling about any role you could imagine. He's a very diverse actor. Morgan Freeman is another diverse actor, and has had to become so, because he's about 300 years old. I don't particularly love Freeman, but he certainly fills about any role well enough. Cuba Gooding Jr., not as impressive as Washington, has filled many various roles. Will Smith has done nearly every sort of role as well and makes a fair comedy transition, even romantic comedy.

I can't remember, but wasn't Mel Gibson the maniac in the Lethal Weapon series?

But, when you are looking at a particular actor for diverse roles, not many can go from genre to genre and succeed, no matter the color. Women actually tend to the transition better than men, only because they tend not to be the actual dolt if they're involved with a comedy.

I think black people in general may culturally enjoy comedy? Perhaps that's another reason why so many blacks pursue or do very well in those roles?

As women go, there does seem to be a pitfall, or at least from movies I remember, of black actresses.

>228 Carnophile: The guy was pressured into withdrawing his book because he had the temerity to feature a Muslim bad guy.

The actual complaint was "Why, exactly, did the author choose to make the main villain in this story an Albanian Muslim, when it was ALBANIAN MUSLIMS WHO WERE ETHNICALLY CLEANSED?" And again, it's incredibly limiting to complain about people talking an author into withdrawing their book.

No one has ever gotten a movie killed because its characters had the “wrong” demographics.

The clearest comparison is The Day the Clown Cried, which was killed because people thought it inappropriate for a clown to be telling jokes at the Holocaust.

That is absurd. Again, people aren't going to on the record say they killed a movie because it had the wrong race of actor in the lead, and the most blatant cases aren't going to be recorded in tell-all books for a decade or two. And "killed" a movie is a lot difference, because it's an expensive project that can be stopped at many points; it will rarely be killed at the end, but 99.9% of prospective scripts will never see the light of day.

>229 Carnophile: Read the passage you quoted.

Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right? Coronavirus. They’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. They can’t even count their votes in Iowa, they can’t even count. No they can’t. They can’t count their votes.

One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know, we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We’re 15 people in this massive country. And because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that.

He meant Dems politicizing the virus.

The hoax was that "Dems were politicizing the virus"? That doesn't make any sense; that's what he was complaining about. Put it in the form of "the hoax is"; I don't think there's a very good answer there, but "the coronavirus" fits. I think it dangerous to let politicians sue when they issue arble-garble and someone paraphrases them in an ad because they weren't clear in the first place.

>231 kiparsky: White people use these not to identify with the Black face, but to say "I feel so happy/sad/disgusted/angry/whatever about this, I need a Black person to act it out for me, because my stoic whiteness does not allow me to feel such things".

Oh, what bullshit. Right, white people never show emotion in movies. Listen to yourself.

Also - this is another thing that baffles me about the left - where do you get this long-distance psycho-analysis of people you've never met?

White people were not asked to identify with Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, but Black people were asked to identify with John Travolta.

Rank bullshit. Totally false. Jackson's character was easily the more sympathetic of the two.

Anyway: None of this has anything to do with being afraid to state one's political beliefs.

>233 prosfilaes: The clearest comparison is "The Day the Clown Cried," which was killed because people thought it inappropriate for a clown to be telling jokes at the Holocaust.

How is that "right-wing" censorship? Also, it's from 1972. The weird thing is that there are examples of what you're groping for, right-wing censorship, though I can't think of any off the top of my head. But they exist, just not nearly to the extent that left-wing examples exist, these days.

Again, people aren't going to on the record say they killed a movie because it had the wrong race of actor in the lead, and the most blatant cases aren't going to be recorded in tell-all books for a decade or two.

You chose to make an issue of movies, then you assert that the evidence that would support your case is deliberately hidden. What am I supposed to do with that?

And again: None of this has anything to do with being afraid to state one's political beliefs.