The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:14 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:02 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
shuyung wrote:
Müs wrote:
The General Lee was a Challenger. The Charger is a 4 door.

You know you can look these things up before you post, right?


Mea Culpa. I looked up '69 dodge challenger(because that's what I thought the GL was pretty much all my life), and what came back looked like the 2 door GL. I made the assumption that like now, the Charger was a 4 door, and the Challenger was the 2 door variant.

Looks like they're *both* 2 doors. And they look *very* similar.

The "modern" GL is a challenger though.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:05 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
I think we're asking too much of the 19 year old Nazi who couldn't make it through boot camp to get the right color for a Challenger at a rally about a General Lee statue.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:07 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Diamondeye wrote:
I think we're asking too much of the 19 year old Nazi who couldn't make it through boot camp to get the right color for a Challenger at a rally about a General Lee statue.


Cause apparently "not murdering people" is also asking too much.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:11 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
Müs wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I think we're asking too much of the 19 year old Nazi who couldn't make it through boot camp to get the right color for a Challenger at a rally about a General Lee statue.


Cause apparently "not murdering people" is also asking too much.


So, apparently, is reading for context.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:38 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Diamondeye wrote:
Müs wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I think we're asking too much of the 19 year old Nazi who couldn't make it through boot camp to get the right color for a Challenger at a rally about a General Lee statue.


Cause apparently "not murdering people" is also asking too much.


So, apparently, is reading for context.


Nono, I get that part. General Lee, Orange Charger/Challenger instead of grey. < 4 mos in the service, boot camp. Yes, I'm following you there.

And if that is too much to ask, not murdering people is apparently *also* too much to ask.

I'm really not following your "reading for context" remark.

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3826
Location: 63368
Müs wrote:
I'm really not following your "reading for context" remark.


You gotta know, you just fell into his trap...

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:49 pm 
Offline
I got nothin.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:15 pm
Posts: 11160
Location: Arafys, AKA El Müso Guapo!
Taskiss wrote:
Müs wrote:
I'm really not following your "reading for context" remark.


You gotta know, you just fell into his trap...


Yeah, probably. /shrug

_________________
Image
Holy shitsnacks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3041
TheRiov wrote:
The fact that you feel these are morally equivalent tells me everything I ever needed to know about you.

Legally they may be, but morally they are not. Luckily morals and the law are fairly divorced these days.

But in the end I Agree they legally and should have the right to protest. That does not make their message equally valid, just equally protected.

Antifa has a proven history of unrepentant and unprovoked violence prior to this protest. I don't see how you can grant them any sort of superior moral status given that. Just because one side involves neo-Nazis doesn't mean the other side must be in the right. Both sides can be wrong at the same time.

Or should we assume you support Antifa and their methods since you haven't denounced them yet? Don't answer - honestly I don't even care.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:42 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
Müs wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Müs wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I think we're asking too much of the 19 year old Nazi who couldn't make it through boot camp to get the right color for a Challenger at a rally about a General Lee statue.


Cause apparently "not murdering people" is also asking too much.


So, apparently, is reading for context.


Nono, I get that part. General Lee, Orange Charger/Challenger instead of grey. < 4 mos in the service, boot camp. Yes, I'm following you there.

And if that is too much to ask, not murdering people is apparently *also* too much to ask.

I'm really not following your "reading for context" remark.


Let me put it another way - the joke is less funny when you explain it.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:52 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
This, apparently, is what passes for a reasoned argument at the New York Times: [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/aclu-first-amendment-trump-charlottesville.html?ref=opinion[/url]Note that her "arguments" about "rethinking" free speech (which amount to "free speech should really be about speech that advances certain goals) are all special pleading or non sequiters. For example:

Quote:
A black kid who gets thrown in jail for possessing a small amount of marijuana will face consequences that will directly affect his ability to have a voice in public life. How does the A.C.L.U.’s conception of free speech address that?


Answer: It doesn't, because that is not what free speech means. Free speech is the right to say what you want to say, not your ability to obtain an audience for it. Criminal centencing for minor crimes is an issue (although not in the simplistic way her example implies), but it is not the issue the ACLU exists to address. Other organizations exist to address that. This is like arguing that your mechanic did a bad job fixing your car because your lawn mower still doesn't work. They're different problems.

Or this one:

Quote:
Most obviously, the power of speech remains proportional to wealth in this country, despite the growth of social media. When the Supreme Court did consider the impact of money on speech in Citizens United, it enabled corporations to translate wealth into direct political power. The A.C.L.U. wrongly supported this devastating ruling on First Amendment grounds.


This is also a non sequiter. Regardless of your views on Citizens United, the fact is that money does not translate directly to political power. It has an effect, but only a limited one, and in point of fact [url]http://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/lau/articles/LauEtAl_EffectsOfNegativePoliticalCampaigns.pdf[/url] there's not really research supporting the idea that it does. A more immediate example is the most recent election - Jeb Bush had the largest war chest of any Republican and got annihilated. Hillary Clinton significantly outspent Donald Trump and lost in what were considered pretty safe Blue Wall states. Money does not, in fact, translate directly to political power.

Then, of course, there's the other issue - the poor black kid in jail can't get his message out, but the corporation can. Even if the poor black kid gets out of jail, he still has less ability to get his message out, because money. But, if the poor black kid makes a lot of money somehow and now can, we won't see any complaints. Similarly, we don't see any complaints about celebrities spending money to give themselves a stage to spout their views from - the objection to money is really an objection to the message it's being spent on.

As the other side ponts out, however, there is no Nazi exception in the First Amendment.:

Quote:
It is, in other words, a principle — a principle that cannot be obviated by cynical word games or by thinly disguised special pleading. “I believe in free speech, but” or “I just don’t think this is a free speech issue” — both popular lines at the moment — simply will not cut it as arguments. On the contrary. In reality, all that the “but” and the “I just don’t think” mean is that the speaker hopes to exempt certain people because he doesn’t like them. But one can no more get away from one’s inconsistencies by saying “it’s not a speech issue to me” than one can get away from the charge that one is unreliable on due process insisting in certain cases, “well, that’s not a due process issue to me.” This is a free speech issue. Those who wish it weren’t just trying to have it both ways — to argue bluntly for censorship, and then to pretend that they aren’t.


Finally, as to the "moral equivalency" nonsense - fighting Nazis does not mean you are better than the Nazis (although it's hard to actually be worse). The Soviets fought the Nazis in WWII, but their behavior was really just as atrocious. You can ask the Poles, and the Finns - the latter, especially, an enlightened and tolerant country that was forced into an alliance with Hitler to defend itself against Soviet aggression*. The fact that we had to ally with them is really an embarrassment to the Western allies. The Soviets had all sorts of enlightened-sounding propaganda too, but like the modern anti-Nazi counter-protestors, it was nonsense.

Disregarding the despicable stances of Antifa and the like to begin with, showing up at a protest to counter-protest with clubs and other weapons makes you as bad or worse than what you're protesting. Antifa has done this repeatedly. If there's a violent protest and you object to it, you **** let the police handle it. If they do badly, you object in the courts, or to your political representatives.

Period.

If you think it is ok to show up with the intention of fighting someone else's protest, you are already a Nazi or a Soviet, period. It doesn't matter what their beliefs are, it doesn't matter what your beliefs are. If you want to counter protest with a bunch of signs and chants, ok fine. You may be stupid, but that's your right. You don't have a right to street violence, whether or not your opponents think they do. If they do, let the National Guard settle their hash. Park your *** back in front of your computer and go back to playing internet tough guy, because if you show up with a club, "**** Nazis" applies to you, no matter how loudly you scream the Nazi is the other guy.

*if you wonder why so many people are showing up to a white supremacist rally, think about the behavior of the Finns in the face of Soviet aggression. White people aren't under assault by minorities, but they certainly are being led to believe that they are by the media and the civil rights industry that fears solving the problems it claims to care about. Poor, undereducated people of all groups are being lured into thinking other people hate them so that "civil rights" people and news media can still make a lot of money doing things other than actual work.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3826
Location: 63368
Diamondeye wrote:
If you think it is ok to show up with the intention of fighting someone else's protest, you are...

If you show up with the purpose to fight a group who is legally exercising their right to assemble, it doesn't matter what you think, you're a terrorist, based on the "if you want to intimidate, you're a terrorist" logic I hear being bandied about.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 pm
Posts: 3441
Location: St. Louis, MO
Taskiss wrote:
If you show up with the purpose to fight a group who is legally exercising their right to assemble, it doesn't matter what you think, you're a terrorist, based on the "if you want to intimidate, you're a terrorist" logic I hear being bandied about.

Only if you have any desire to be logically consistent.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3826
Location: 63368
shuyung wrote:
Taskiss wrote:
If you show up with the purpose to fight a group who is legally exercising their right to assemble, it doesn't matter what you think, you're a terrorist, based on the "if you want to intimidate, you're a terrorist" logic I hear being bandied about.

Only if you have any desire to be logically consistent.

You're right - I never thought about the possible loopholes...

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2310
Diamondeye wrote:
This is also a non sequiter. Regardless of your views on Citizens United, the fact is that money does not translate directly to political power. It has an effect, but only a limited one, and in point of fact http://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/lau/articles/LauEtAl_EffectsOfNegativePoliticalCampaigns.pdf there's not really research supporting the idea that it does. A more immediate example is the most recent election - Jeb Bush had the largest war chest of any Republican and got annihilated. Hillary Clinton significantly outspent Donald Trump and lost in what were considered pretty safe Blue Wall states. Money does not, in fact, translate directly to political power.

Then, of course, there's the other issue - the poor black kid in jail can't get his message out, but the corporation can. Even if the poor black kid gets out of jail, he still has less ability to get his message out, because money. But, if the poor black kid makes a lot of money somehow and now can, we won't see any complaints. Similarly, we don't see any complaints about celebrities spending money to give themselves a stage to spout their views from - the objection to money is really an objection to the message it's being spent on.


Citizens United is actually a terrible example for how money affects speech. The real issue in this country is if I have a lot more money than you, you are in fact not free to criticize me. If I want to shut you up, all I have to do is file a series of frivolous lawsuits until you can no longer afford to defend yourself. In fact, if I don't like your political positions, you don't even have to criticize me for me to be able to destroy you, all I have to do is make it known that I will fund the legal costs of anyone wishing to file a lawsuit against you for any reason. I don't actually have to win any of these cases on the merits, I simply win by default once you can no longer afford to pay a lawyer to draft an answer. This strategy is fairly common, and people will outright admit to doing it. The billionaire Peter Thiel, for example, explicitly set out on a crusade to destroy Gawker through dozens of frivolous lawsuits. He's not a perfect example because he eventually hit a case that actually won, (the Hulk Hogan sex tape) but before that case he had funded on the order of 40+ bogus lawsuits against the company in an attempt to destroy them through legal costs. He openly admitted to doing this, saying he considered the destruction of Gawker to be "philanthropy."

This is pretty significant in today's political climate because Donald Trump himself has a sordid history of using this strategy to shut up critics. Remember, this is the guy that sued Univision for $500 million, claiming his free speech rights were being violated when Univision dropped the Miss America pageants from its programming in response to his comments about Mexicans. He literally did in fact claim that he has a right to an audience, and then campaigned on "opening up the libel laws" and actually making it illegal to criticize public figures when this got shot down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3074
Screeling wrote:
Antifa has a proven history of unrepentant and unprovoked violence prior to this protest. I don't see how you can grant them any sort of superior moral status given that. Just because one side involves neo-Nazis doesn't mean the other side must be in the right. Both sides can be wrong at the same time.


It's certainly true that both sides can be wrong at the same time - and they are in this case - but moral judgment isn't a binary thing; there are degrees of "wrongness". Antifa are a bunch of violent, anti-democratic, oppressive thugs, and the broader left-liberal coalition has been shamefully remiss in failing to fully condemn them, their tactics and their philosophy. Still, Nazis are worse. The KKK is worse. Orders of magnitude worse, in my opinion. There's a time to condemn illiberal political views and violence on the Left - indeed, there have been numerous such occasions in just the last year - but the immediate aftermath of a neo-Nazi / neo-Confederate rally involving a terrorist attack against counterprotestors isn't that time. It's just not a "both sides" moment.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3826
Location: 63368
RangerDave wrote:
there are degrees of "wrongness"

Yes, there are, but you're also playing a game of equivocation.

The "nazi's" marching on Charlottesville aren't the same as those responsible for the atrocity of the Holocaust. Their opinions are abhorrent, but as long as they follow the law, those not following the law are exhibiting more "wrongness" than they are.

It used to be, the greatness of this nation was best demonstrated by using the rules of law to determining "wrongness" so when idiots in sheets petitioned to march, they were allowed to because it's an exercise of their rights.

There are no difference in degrees of wrongness between groups that are rioting and attacking others, unless (as shuyung pointed out) you have no desire to be logically consistent.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:28 pm 
Offline
Not the ranger you're looking for
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 318
Location: Here
Diamondeye wrote:
A lot about the difference between the phrase "**** Nazis" and the actual **** of said Nazis



Well **** said, sir. Well **** said.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:47 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7540
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Müs wrote:
shuyung wrote:
On another note, why is this guy driving a grey Dodge Challenger, instead of an orange Dodge Charger? It was, ostensibly, a protest with some connection to a statue of General Lee.
The General Lee was a Challenger. The Charger is a 4 door.
I'm only going to say this because I'm feeling generous ...

REAL Chargers have 2 doors.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:34 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5045
If you find fascist ideas so horrible you think you need to engage inviolence to stop them from speaking you need to stop and think what ideas make fascists so horrible - like that they would use violence to stop people from speaking.


:psyduck:

Antifa has ALWAYS been an extremely violent communist group. It formed to stop communism's main competitor among the leftists - fascism as both are collectivist ideas for society - see the root for fascism.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 7:59 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
Both facists and communists are best dealt with by pointing and laughing, much like the WBC.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3826
Location: 63368
Diamondeye wrote:
Both facists and communists are best dealt with by pointing and laughing, much like the WBC.

they all want legitimacy. That's their achilles heel. They march, they hate, but they want to promote their idiocy.

antifa, blm... not so much. They appear to want just to tear everything down and live in the rubble of what's left of society. Perhaps it's because they have nothing to lose, perhaps it's for some noble cause I can't wrap my head around, but bottom line, hatred, destruction and mayhem is all that's being accomplished as far as I can tell. That kind of crap is what got Trump where he is today.

Wash, rinse, repeat. They keep it up, they'll get Trump re-elected 'cause he's the only one standing up to them.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:32 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
Taskiss wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Both facists and communists are best dealt with by pointing and laughing, much like the WBC.

they all want legitimacy. That's their achilles heel. They march, they hate, but they want to promote their idiocy.

antifa, blm... not so much. They appear to want just to tear everything down and live in the rubble of what's left of society. Perhaps it's because they have nothing to lose, perhaps it's for some noble cause I can't wrap my head around, but bottom line, hatred, destruction and mayhem is all that's being accomplished as far as I can tell. That kind of crap is what got Trump where he is today.

Wash, rinse, repeat. They keep it up, they'll get Trump re-elected 'cause he's the only one standing up to them.


antifa and BLM don't "want legitimacy" because they believe they have the power to self-assign it. A quest for legitimacy would imply thatlegitimacy is not an automatic, inherent, and self-evident aspect of their thinking, and in turn that they might have to refute someone else's points. Even the acknowledgement of contradictory points is threatening to their self-assigned moral purity. They imagine that they are legitimate because of the virtue of their goals, virtue which they self-assign as well. There are three problems with this:

1) Many of their stated goals appear virtuous at first glance, but when they describe what they want in more depth, it both A) isn't the same as the summary and B) isn't all that virtuous. "Equality" is good and virtuous, but what antifa, BLM, and the left in general describe as equality is rarely anything of the sort. Instead, it's privilege which they imagine counters the privilege other people have, bringing us to problem number two:
2) The evils and inequities they claim to combat often don't exist, or at least don't exist in either the form or severity they claim it exists. Like the virtues they claim, it has a surface description, but examining it quickly finds self-reference and circularity in the description. Racism is racism because they say it is racism. They oppose racism, which is bad, and because they do they must be good, and therefore anything they oppose must be bad. They want to beat Nazis, so anyone they want to beat on must be a Nazi.
3) They do not believe they have any obligation to gain buy-in or convince anyone else. This is not merely a matter of them not understanding that they are alienating people - it refers back to the self-assigned status of virtue. Any questioning or criticism of their reasoning is, to them, an endorsement of their enemies; it is not just a matter of "we are good and they are evil" but "we are self-evidently good and they are self-evidently evil." To them, implying that there is a need for a reasoned argument as to why they are better than those they oppose is an endorsement of those opponents - they cannot acknowledge that there are points to refute, even if they could easily do so because even acknowledging their opponent has points to refute is introducing an intolerable level of ambiguity into the equation.

This is part of why, under this approach, the evils they claim to want to combat will never be defeated. Without the evil to combat, there is no need for the position of combatting it, and with that gone, so goes the source of the self-referential authority. Because racism is what they feel it is, white privilege is what they feel it is, equality is what they feel it is, if they don't exist those things don't either.

It is a highly paradoxical position to be in, but it results from a myth of our society - because, in the past, the powerless standing up to the powerful was often in the right, we tend to believe therefore that the less powerful is always in the right standing up to the more powerful. In fact, this is not true - power has nothing to do with rightness (frequently neither side is in the right, or at least not completely so). But because that belief pertains, the quick and easy way to the moral high ground is to create for yourself a perpetual, unsovable state of powerlessness. There's the added bonus as well, that with no power comes no responsibility, so a continuous denial one's own power is again, entirely self-referentially - an avoidance of all responsibility.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:49 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
Citizens United is actually a terrible example for how money affects speech. The real issue in this country is if I have a lot more money than you, you are in fact not free to criticize me. If I want to shut you up, all I have to do is file a series of frivolous lawsuits until you can no longer afford to defend yourself. In fact, if I don't like your political positions, you don't even have to criticize me for me to be able to destroy you, all I have to do is make it known that I will fund the legal costs of anyone wishing to file a lawsuit against you for any reason. I don't actually have to win any of these cases on the merits, I simply win by default once you can no longer afford to pay a lawyer to draft an answer. This strategy is fairly common, and people will outright admit to doing it. The billionaire Peter Thiel, for example, explicitly set out on a crusade to destroy Gawker through dozens of frivolous lawsuits. He's not a perfect example because he eventually hit a case that actually won, (the Hulk Hogan sex tape) but before that case he had funded on the order of 40+ bogus lawsuits against the company in an attempt to destroy them through legal costs. He openly admitted to doing this, saying he considered the destruction of Gawker to be "philanthropy."


This is actually a fairly rare phenomenon because filing frivolous lawsuits isn't cheap, and "I have more money than you" does not translate to "I necessarily have enough money to carry this all the way through." It is not something the average person is really all that vulnerable to because it isn't worth the time or cost. Furthermore, the courts are aware of frivolous lawsuits, and will take action against parties who do this too overtly.

Thiel is not a good example; he was pretty much entirely correct about Gawker and his lawsuits weren't quite as bogus as you imply even if they were not weak enough for him to win.

Quote:
This is pretty significant in today's political climate because Donald Trump himself has a sordid history of using this strategy to shut up critics. Remember, this is the guy that sued Univision for $500 million, claiming his free speech rights were being violated when Univision dropped the Miss America pageants from its programming in response to his comments about Mexicans. He literally did in fact claim that he has a right to an audience, and then campaigned on "opening up the libel laws" and actually making it illegal to criticize public figures when this got shot down.


This is another terrible example; Donald Trump is a wealthy man, but it is unlikely he can lawsuit Univision into bankruptcy; they're not exactly poor either. There were also contractual issues at stake there more complex than what you are implying. In any case, news agencies know exactly where the libel laws lie and are very good at skirting the edges, and they are not the ones that are likely to be bankrupted by legal action. If they like those laws where they are, they might want to consider not skirting the line so frequently and feeding Trump ammunition because sooner or later one of them will trip over it in a way the courts don't appreciate.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15600
Location: Combat Information Center
RangerDave wrote:
It's certainly true that both sides can be wrong at the same time - and they are in this case - but moral judgment isn't a binary thing; there are degrees of "wrongness". Antifa are a bunch of violent, anti-democratic, oppressive thugs, and the broader left-liberal coalition has been shamefully remiss in failing to fully condemn them, their tactics and their philosophy. Still, Nazis are worse. The KKK is worse. Orders of magnitude worse, in my opinion. There's a time to condemn illiberal political views and violence on the Left - indeed, there have been numerous such occasions in just the last year - but the immediate aftermath of a neo-Nazi / neo-Confederate rally involving a terrorist attack against counterprotestors isn't that time. It's just not a "both sides" moment.


The thing is that Antifa really is just as bad as the KKK. "violent, anti-democratic, oppressive thugs" is basically what both sides are here.

As for it "not being the time", it wasn't the time after any of the past Antifa violence either - condemnation by the left was anywhere from mealy-mouthed to nonexistent, and there was always some reference back to the right and what it said or did or was imagined to have done and how that mitigated any need for criticism.

Now, in the aftermath of this, the right is expected to denounce the KKK/neo-nazis exactly as demanded by the left, and no mention whatsoever of either the Antifa behavior in this case or in the past is permitted.

So yes, now, in fact, is the time, because otherwise it's never going to be the time. Antifa is your sides KKK They and BLM aren't just violent and anti-democratic, they're just as racist as what they hate.

_________________
"Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed" - On War


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:53 pm 
Offline
God of the IRC
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:35 pm
Posts: 2994
Location: The United States of DESU
Khross wrote:
Müs wrote:
shuyung wrote:
On another note, why is this guy driving a grey Dodge Challenger, instead of an orange Dodge Charger? It was, ostensibly, a protest with some connection to a statue of General Lee.
The General Lee was a Challenger. The Charger is a 4 door.
I'm only going to say this because I'm feeling generous ...

REAL Chargers have 2 doors.


REAL chargers have 0 doors. *climbs in through the window*

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group