Wizardspride wrote:?t=hU-26j1fyoV9zpR4DGTcjQ&s=19
Remember when Lindsey Graham called up some political officials in Georgia to try to browbeat them into committing a felony? I'd forgotten about it.
Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
Wizardspride wrote:?t=hU-26j1fyoV9zpR4DGTcjQ&s=19
pancakes3 wrote:popper wrote:pancakes3 wrote:+1, i'm not offended by popper's posts, so much at frustrated at the lack of substance or argument. it's a lot of dancing around the subject.
at least Nate makes it known that he legitimately believes that fertilized eggs have souls or whatever.
I found this article to be interesting and substantive. Your thoughts?
https://unherd.com/2022/07/ideology-has-poisoned-the-west/
I think this is another example of you dancing around the subjects raised (DeSantis being bad, the SCOTUS decisions being bad, Republican platforms being bad, etc.).
I think the linked article is poorly written, poorly reasoned, and full of handwaved assumptions and assertions presented as fact.
Some specific criticisms:
- it's a disingenuous use of the word "ideology" to use it as a "technocratic" ideal that "transfer[s]... sovereignty from the body of citizens to an unelected overclass" because (a) having subject matter experts as "unelected" officials in a republic is not undemocratic - those officials are placed by democratically elected leaders; and (b) the entire point of having subject matter experts work on our behalf is not only demonstrably the better form of government but the central thesis of a republic, so that citizens don't have to take time away from their lives to be involved in the business of managing the government.
- I don't see how the author can square "schoolchildren are indoctrinated with identity politics" while also going off on the horrors of supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion. is the alternative of having professors who don't support diversity, overtly show favoritism to students based on race, gender, class, or ideology the preferred alternative? how does that combat students being indoctrinated? if borders are thrown open, then immigrants won't be "illegal" and what policy advocates for immigrants to enjoy privileges and benefits not extended to citizens? what is this person even talking about? where is the substance in these hypotheticals? what is the logic? the author simply states that "no sensible person would want to find out." I for one am curious what the f*ck he's talking about.
- It's disingenuous for the author to compare the state of modern liberalism with the atrocities of the holocaust and stalinist pogroms.
- re: mute coercion. "We see this today in the insistence that certain widely-shared opinions that were uncontroversial only a few years ago are so morally illegitimate that they do not deserve a hearing." And what opinions would that be? interracial marriage? gay marriage? boys will be boys, and sometimes grabs a p*ssy or two? say it out loud, author. what are you talking about?
"We see it in the fact that those who publicly voice such opinions are commonly smeared, hounded, denied financial services, investigated, and fired." Is this comparable to those who suffer those consequences, and worse, by the basis of their race and sexual orientation? Again, say it out loud, author. Who is he talking about? He links to 2 articles, one where an "independent news outlet" had its paypal account frozen for taking in money tax/fee-free under the guise of fundraising, and distributing it to its management's personal accounts, in violation of paypal's terms of service, and another where a princeton professor was fired for having an affair with one of his students. truly, a stifling of free speech.
- he stumbles across some examples of totalitarian regimes rejecting members of the learned class - Nazi's who who lost out on a quarter of their physicists due to them being Jews, Stalin firing, imprisoning, and executing biologists for being "bourgeois-capitalists" and Mao doing the same. This is in direct conflict with his central thesis that ideologies are used as a technocratic method of transferring power from the people to those with subject matter expertise, to the point, where I literally do not know what he's talking about.
- something something "gross incompetence" of the Biden administration, something something major disaster. Which again, I don't understand the author's point. He takes great lengths to say that the West is being poisoned by this, and yet also takes great lengths to demonize China, who are decidedly not the West. So what exactly is poisoning "the West?" A political philosophy that's been in place since before there was even an America? The idea that there shouldn't be subject matter experts in the halls of power? But there also should? But also Biden is bad. But the world's covid response is also bad because it takes the word of scientists and ignores the will of the people? No opinion (or facts cited) as to whether the will of the people to ignore the advice of scientists was actually a democratic majority or not?
It's just a jumbled mess of half-researched wikipedia regurgitations, and right wing rhetoric. Devoid of facts, figures, logic, or any other neutral measuring sticks of coherent argument.
In summary, I don't know what point Mr. Howland is trying to make. I really don't. I can guess at it, but i don't want to guess at it. The substance and logic of the arguments should be self-evident and stand on its own merits. I don't see any substance, or logic in this piece. I'm not even sure what the broad assertion is, even if not backed by substance or logic. Do you?
Postscript: Ah yes. I remember the University of Austin now. It's not an accredited University, only launched last year with approximately 80 students, no campus, no degrees offered, and is technically just a nonprofit and cannot brand itself as an actual institute of higher learning with a .edu web domain.
pancakes3 wrote:the only credit i'm willing to give DeSantis is that he's not a climate denier. however, he is still pro-oil-and-gas industry, pro-fracking.*
re: gun control, he introduced a bill that would extend "stand your ground" to where you can pro-actively shoot people you believe are committing crimes against property, which is insane.
re: gay rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups rate him a literal 0.
re: voting rights, he's one of the most proactive governors in the country in taking steps towards voter suppression; unsurprising given that Florida is a notorious kingmaker swing state, and that DeSantis himself only won by a fraction of a percentage.
*I remember DeSantis passing a law that bans local jurisdictions from choosing where their sources of electricity comes from. Like, Orlando, Tallahassee, Gainesville, Miami, and other cities had voted, and wanted their electricity to come from renewable sources and DeSantis comes in and overrides it. It's undemocratic. It has no justification, other than to protect energy companies. It's bad policy and bad governance.
popper wrote:pancakes3 wrote:the only credit i'm willing to give DeSantis is that he's not a climate denier. however, he is still pro-oil-and-gas industry, pro-fracking.*
re: gun control, he introduced a bill that would extend "stand your ground" to where you can pro-actively shoot people you believe are committing crimes against property, which is insane.
re: gay rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups rate him a literal 0.
re: voting rights, he's one of the most proactive governors in the country in taking steps towards voter suppression; unsurprising given that Florida is a notorious kingmaker swing state, and that DeSantis himself only won by a fraction of a percentage.
*I remember DeSantis passing a law that bans local jurisdictions from choosing where their sources of electricity comes from. Like, Orlando, Tallahassee, Gainesville, Miami, and other cities had voted, and wanted their electricity to come from renewable sources and DeSantis comes in and overrides it. It's undemocratic. It has no justification, other than to protect energy companies. It's bad policy and bad governance.
I think you wanted me to respond to this. I'm not dancing around the issues, I just forgot. Assuming the above information is accurate
I think it's bad policy to extend "stand your ground" to property crime
I'm unaware of any policies other than the mislabeled "don't say gay," law (which I support) that impacts gay or LGBTQ+ individuals. Please advise if I'm missing some information in that regard.
I'm unaware of any policy that suppresses the vote in FL. Please advise.
I don't know the context in the energy issue you mention. Do you have a link?
popper wrote:pancakes3 wrote:the only credit i'm willing to give DeSantis is that he's not a climate denier. however, he is still pro-oil-and-gas industry, pro-fracking.*
re: gun control, he introduced a bill that would extend "stand your ground" to where you can pro-actively shoot people you believe are committing crimes against property, which is insane.
re: gay rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups rate him a literal 0.
re: voting rights, he's one of the most proactive governors in the country in taking steps towards voter suppression; unsurprising given that Florida is a notorious kingmaker swing state, and that DeSantis himself only won by a fraction of a percentage.
*I remember DeSantis passing a law that bans local jurisdictions from choosing where their sources of electricity comes from. Like, Orlando, Tallahassee, Gainesville, Miami, and other cities had voted, and wanted their electricity to come from renewable sources and DeSantis comes in and overrides it. It's undemocratic. It has no justification, other than to protect energy companies. It's bad policy and bad governance.
I think you wanted me to respond to this. I'm not dancing around the issues, I just forgot. Assuming the above information is accurate
I think it's bad policy to extend "stand your ground" to property crime
I'm unaware of any policies other than the mislabeled "don't say gay," law (which I support) that impacts gay or LGBTQ+ individuals. Please advise if I'm missing some information in that regard.
I'm unaware of any policy that suppresses the vote in FL. Please advise.
I don't know the context in the energy issue you mention. Do you have a link?
dobrojim wrote:popper wrote:pancakes3 wrote:the only credit i'm willing to give DeSantis is that he's not a climate denier. however, he is still pro-oil-and-gas industry, pro-fracking.*
re: gun control, he introduced a bill that would extend "stand your ground" to where you can pro-actively shoot people you believe are committing crimes against property, which is insane.
re: gay rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups rate him a literal 0.
re: voting rights, he's one of the most proactive governors in the country in taking steps towards voter suppression; unsurprising given that Florida is a notorious kingmaker swing state, and that DeSantis himself only won by a fraction of a percentage.
*I remember DeSantis passing a law that bans local jurisdictions from choosing where their sources of electricity comes from. Like, Orlando, Tallahassee, Gainesville, Miami, and other cities had voted, and wanted their electricity to come from renewable sources and DeSantis comes in and overrides it. It's undemocratic. It has no justification, other than to protect energy companies. It's bad policy and bad governance.
I think you wanted me to respond to this. I'm not dancing around the issues, I just forgot. Assuming the above information is accurate
I think it's bad policy to extend "stand your ground" to property crime
I'm unaware of any policies other than the mislabeled "don't say gay," law (which I support) that impacts gay or LGBTQ+ individuals. Please advise if I'm missing some information in that regard.
I'm unaware of any policy that suppresses the vote in FL. Please advise.
I don't know the context in the energy issue you mention. Do you have a link?
Why do you think don’t say gay is in any way worthy of support?
Kids have already demonstrated they are way smarter as well as more
aware of the issues this law thinks it is addressing? It seems supporters
think the reason there are too many young people in what they consider
undesirable groups ie LGBTQ, is because there is too much discussion
of these “issues” in too many places. If we can only protect our young
people from talking or learning about it, somehow we will get less
of what they clearly don’t like. It seems as though they object to
the notion that people from these marginalized groups are somehow
as deserving of respect or understanding or to decide for themselves
how they feel about who they are. What specifically is it about an
LGBTQ person that leads to the conclusion they must be treated differently?
They are people. Full stop. Let go of the fear and hatred. There are so
many more important issues for us to solve speaking of which, I have
zero faith that DeSantis will further the cause of anything having to
do with FL’s environment. Particularly if it were to cost a contributor
A single dollar. Socialize the costs, privatize the profits. That’s the
desired outcome of small govt libertarians.
pancakes3 wrote:popper wrote:pancakes3 wrote:the only credit i'm willing to give DeSantis is that he's not a climate denier. however, he is still pro-oil-and-gas industry, pro-fracking.*
re: gun control, he introduced a bill that would extend "stand your ground" to where you can pro-actively shoot people you believe are committing crimes against property, which is insane.
re: gay rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups rate him a literal 0.
re: voting rights, he's one of the most proactive governors in the country in taking steps towards voter suppression; unsurprising given that Florida is a notorious kingmaker swing state, and that DeSantis himself only won by a fraction of a percentage.
*I remember DeSantis passing a law that bans local jurisdictions from choosing where their sources of electricity comes from. Like, Orlando, Tallahassee, Gainesville, Miami, and other cities had voted, and wanted their electricity to come from renewable sources and DeSantis comes in and overrides it. It's undemocratic. It has no justification, other than to protect energy companies. It's bad policy and bad governance.
I think you wanted me to respond to this. I'm not dancing around the issues, I just forgot. Assuming the above information is accurate
I think it's bad policy to extend "stand your ground" to property crime
I'm unaware of any policies other than the mislabeled "don't say gay," law (which I support) that impacts gay or LGBTQ+ individuals. Please advise if I'm missing some information in that regard.
I'm unaware of any policy that suppresses the vote in FL. Please advise.
I don't know the context in the energy issue you mention. Do you have a link?
Expanding Stand Your Ground: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stand-your-ground-florida-could-be-expanded-under-desantis-anti-n1247555
Treating LGBTQ Poorly:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/desantis-moves-ban-transition-care-transgender-youth-medicaid-recipien-rcna31736
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/01/09/new-fla-guv-excludes-lgbt-people-from-non-discrimination-order/
Voter Suppression: https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/federal-court-strikes-down-florida-voter-suppression-law-senate-bill-90
Energy: https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/local-florida-governments-cant-restrict-dirty-energy-usage-under-new-law-signed-by-desantis/
Zonkerbl wrote:That's not all the legislation does, Popper
Zonkerbl wrote:The bill is either poorly drafted or intentionally vague in ways that allow creative lawyers to significantly expand what the legislation actually forbids, and teachers have already drastically curtailed any mention of homosexuality anywhere in their school as a preemptive measure, meaning that the effect of the bill is to censor all mention of homosexuality at all grade levels.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/floridas-dont-say-gay-bill-actually-says-rcna19929
"The text states that teachings on sexual orientation or gender identity would be banned “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”"
This vague language means any discussion at any grade level could be illegal under this legislation, and the authors of the legislation intentionally did not provide clarifying examples of what they meant.
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, you shouldn't believe anything Fox News says. Their business model is to lie. It's not a news organization. The talking point you repeated above is nowhere close to the truth, excuse my bluntness.
popper wrote:pancakes3 wrote:popper wrote:
I think you wanted me to respond to this. I'm not dancing around the issues, I just forgot. Assuming the above information is accurate
I think it's bad policy to extend "stand your ground" to property crime
I'm unaware of any policies other than the mislabeled "don't say gay," law (which I support) that impacts gay or LGBTQ+ individuals. Please advise if I'm missing some information in that regard.
I'm unaware of any policy that suppresses the vote in FL. Please advise.
I don't know the context in the energy issue you mention. Do you have a link?
Expanding Stand Your Ground: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stand-your-ground-florida-could-be-expanded-under-desantis-anti-n1247555
Treating LGBTQ Poorly:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/desantis-moves-ban-transition-care-transgender-youth-medicaid-recipien-rcna31736
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/01/09/new-fla-guv-excludes-lgbt-people-from-non-discrimination-order/
Voter Suppression: https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/federal-court-strikes-down-florida-voter-suppression-law-senate-bill-90
Energy: https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/local-florida-governments-cant-restrict-dirty-energy-usage-under-new-law-signed-by-desantis/
I'm against "stand your ground" for property crime unless that property crime would likely lead to the death of innocent occupants.
For example someone is ready to throw a Molotov Cocktail into a building. A bystanders knows his child and other children are in the building. Should he use deadly force to save the kids? Seems like that might be the right thing to do. However if he's wrong, and the children have already exited the building, then his use of deadly force should lead to charges.
Regarding the LGBTQ bill, is discrimination against gay and LGBTQ covered under the "sexual orientation" text? If not then the bill should most definitely be amended to include those individuals
The transition care bill is beyond my ability to sort through it. If Sweden and Finland were among the first countries to engage in prescribing a broad range of transition-related care for transgender children, and they have severely curtailed it, I would want to learn the details and medical rationale
Regarding voter suppression, I think a better way to solve this problem is simply to have those voters who need help for any reason, simply sign up in advance with the government for assistance. I agree that every qualified voter that wants to cast a ballot should be able to and I would oppose any process that makes that prohibitively difficult.
Regarding state prohibitions against municipalities restricting certain types of energy sources from commercial providers, that's a tricky one. On the one hand I think they should be able to decide, on the other I think it would create a whole different set of issues and problems. So, I'm not sure.
Wizardspride wrote:?t=4Xj40bydyyXq8H0Not8LqQ&s=19