Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 19, 2019 19:29:13 GMT -5
Ooo... kay.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 19, 2019 19:25:46 GMT -5
From the FOX News story linked-to in the OP: The complaint also named specific Twitter accounts that spread allegedly defamatory material about Nunes. One defendant, identified as "Liz" Mair, purportedly published tweets that "implied that Nunes colluded with prostitutes and cocaine addicts, that Nunes does cocaine, and that Nunes was involved in a 'Russian money laundering front,'" according to Nunes' lawyers.
...
The complaint quoted a June 22, 2018 tweet from Mair that implied Nunes invested in a winery that "allegedly used underage hookers to solicit investment."
...
The complaint also named "Devin Nunes’ Mom," "a person who, with Twitter’s consent, hijacked Nunes’ name, falsely impersonated Nunes’ mother, and created and maintained an account on Twitter (@devinnunesmom) for the sole purpose of attacking, defaming, disparaging and demeaning Nunes."
...
"Devin Nunes’ Mom," the complaint alleges, "stated that Nunes had turned out worse than Jacob Wohl; falsely accused Nunes of being a racist, having 'white supremist friends' and distributing 'disturbing inflammatory racial propaganda'; falsely accused Nunes of putting up a 'Fake News MAGA' sign outside a Texas Holocaust museum; falsely stated that Nunes would probably join the 'Proud Boys', if it weren’t for that unfortunate 'nomasturbating’ rule'; disparagingly called him a 'presidential fluffer and swamp rat'; falsely stated that Nunes had brought 'shame' to his family; repeatedly accused Nunes of the crime of treason, compared him to Benedict Arnold, and called him a 'traitor.'"
Some of these are clearly subjective, but others hinge on specific facts, and I doubt Rep. Nunes' lawyer would include them in the suit if they weren't demonstrably false. Subjective attacks and insults seem to be a part of the equation too. ibid.: The lawsuit alleged defamation, conspiracy and negligence, as well as violations of the state's prohibition against "insulting words" -- effectively fighting words that tend towards "violence and breach of the peace." I suspect the prohibition on "insulting words" may have been brought in as part of legislation to combat cyberbullying. While shielding public figures wasn't the intent of such laws, if they exist, they apply equally to everybody. Twitter might well be in trouble if Rep. Nunes can prove they ignored ongoing harassment the laws specifically classify as bullying. (I also suspect these laws don't indemnify offenders if their taunts and insults happen to be true.) It does raise a curious question: if the suit is shot down on the grounds that Twitter isn't responsible and the courts ostensibly grant Twitter leave to ignore harassment of this nature (I'm not saying they shouldn't), what of similar attacks directed at non-public figures? What of cyberbullying laws?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 19, 2019 16:59:12 GMT -5
I don't even mind so much the restricting of content on certain platforms - even while recognizing the reach and almost universal use by some of them- as I do the restriction of "bandwidth" for smaller players. That to me is the restriction that really plugs freedom of expression on the internet, even given your points above, I think. Right or wrong? I'm not sure I follow. Are you talking about a type of censorship where a company or a website is throttled as to how much daily content they can upload/download to viewers? If so, these kinds of restrictions are (generally speaking) impossible to implement with the way distribution of content occurs over the contemporary web. For individual consumers, there is still a chokepoint at the ISP (that is, your ISP can technically throttle your access to specific sites) but this is also easily circumvented for those willing to put in the effort.
I am unsure if I have enough faith left, after 6 plus decades on the planet, to believe that most human beings can reasonable deal with this new reality.
So you're... pro-censorship? Indifferent? Resigned to whatever fate awaits us? In pictorial form: ? ? ? The US is marginally better situated than the rest of the world. I can't see your current SCOTUS upholding any of the kinds of bans or restrictions mentioned in the OP on behalf of the state. The worry comes with the 'soft' bans. Even if I've got the greatest website on Earth, if search engines refuse to find it, hosting services refuse to host it, social media sites refuse to link to it, crowdfunding sites refuse to list it, banks refuse to do business with it, and advertisers refuse to advertise on it, it's going to die in obscurity. There's nothing the ACLU or the courts can do about this (except for possibly anti-trust laws and breaking up monopolies/duopolies, but I won't hold my breath).
Isn't that the definition of the free market taking care of a problem? It would be if it were a purely economic problem and governments shutting down access to alternative services wasn't an option. Presently, I'll say free-market capitalism is a "factor" in the rise of censorship.
However, it's also one of the main forces behind the growing digital underground. So... take your pick.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 19, 2019 10:12:53 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 18, 2019 21:39:42 GMT -5
You have to take a deep dive, so to speak, lmao... he even included memes. My sides hurt. Worst self own ever. It's like, why take all the insults anyone has ever lobbed about all your worse traits and put them together publicly in one place? Why does the GOP think this shit is a good idea? lmao.. He's alleging harassment and defamation, hence the suit has to compile relevant behaviour. He's also alleging 'shadowbanning', which is a real and measurable practice on Twitter (in 2017, at least; they may have since desisted). In short, he may well be able to prove that aspect of the suit. Hence I'm assuming you're beside yourself due to skepticism a judge/jury will award him any damages. On this I tend to agree with you, but juries have awarded millions in more far fetched circumstances. And regardless, frivolous lawsuits aren't worth belly laughs. If you're hamming it up to stress your contempt for the man and the lawsuit, just say so. Another hour of rolling on the floor in stitches might be pushing the limits of believability.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 18, 2019 20:27:36 GMT -5
Well I am really mostly speaking to the North American situation. Other than seeing the trends as they develop I don't have an idea of what the popular opinion in Europe is on this, for instance. Of course countries like China, Russia, etc., are on a different path entirely anyway. In the United States there are very strong forces against internet censorship, from the ACLU to the Libertarian Party. So this also encompasses politicians across the political divide, with Libertarian leaning Paul Rand joining with liberal leaning Senators, for instance. In our country there is I think more resistance to censorship overall than maybe there is in Europe. On the other hand, with the predominance of conservative judges being put on our benches now this could tip us more in the direction of censorship- unless the libertarian streak prevails. The US is marginally better situated than the rest of the world. I can't see your current SCOTUS upholding any of the kinds of bans or restrictions mentioned in the OP on behalf of the state. The worry comes with the 'soft' bans. Even if I've got the greatest website on Earth, if search engines refuse to find it, hosting services refuse to host it, social media sites refuse to link to it, crowdfunding sites refuse to list it, banks refuse to do business with it, and advertisers refuse to advertise on it, it's going to die in obscurity. There's nothing the ACLU or the courts can do about this (except for possibly anti-trust laws and breaking up monopolies/duopolies, but I won't hold my breath).
There's a rising tide of demand for censorship in the US like everywhere else, and the proponents mean business. They routinely launch DoS attacks (easily accomplished when a site is deplatformed and has to host its full content on its own servers), bombard targets with frivolous lawsuits, and make life hell for corporations that do business with target sites. Sometimes they harass site owners personally. For many of them, censorship is their raison d'etre. They fancy themselves crusaders for human rights and have a lot of free time.
To date, deplatformed sites have had some recourse in moving onto "alternative" servers, social media sites, funding platforms, etc. abroad, beyond the reach of raging activists/litigants in the US. But these alternatives are vulnerable to the whims of their respective governments, and if the concentration of "offending" sites in any one country grows too high, I can see the SCOTUS giving the OK to the NSA, FCC, et al. to censor communications with "enemy states". Some of your politicians are already chomping at this bit in the wake of Russiagate in 2016. They're selling it to the public/courts as "protection of democracy", conveniently leaving out the fact that it hamstrings sites fled to Russia to escape persecution in the US. The Internet underground is another story. Technologically, censors are at a huge disadvantage, and the disadvantage is only going to grow along with the size of the underground, which in turn will grow with the need to circumvent censorship. Having said this, I don't want to live in a world where I have to obscure my identity, cover my tracks, scour the dark corners of the dark web, and live in contravention of bans to seek out information and communicate freely on the Internet. I will if I absolutely have to--if it becomes a moral prerogative--but I sincerely hope that day isn't soon in coming.
Would now be a good time to note that real liberals are the natural enemies of authoritarianism? Not at all. When it comes to censorship of the Internet, I'm a flaming liberal myself.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 18, 2019 14:29:51 GMT -5
So we've been through normal debate, ridicule, misrepresentation and now you're pretending not to understand me. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here that your not stupid). Is there a set number of stages to this? I'm suspecting it will go on forever. Like I said a long time ago, I don't expect you to admit to it. I'm done. Again The only thread in the 10 most recent P/CE threads not about Beto O'Rourke (1) or you-know-who (9).
Variety is the spice of life. Maybe we'll even agree on something.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 18, 2019 14:11:59 GMT -5
I thing that societies, courts and laws will struggle with this for some time in an attempt to get it right. "Struggle" tends to imply both opposing forces (pro-censorship, contra-censorship) will prevail at odd times. But to the best of my knowledge, the battle front has only ever moved one way in the past 15 years: towards more censorship. Furthermore, the movement is accelerating. We passed these five major milestones in just the past 3 years. It's fair to say governments have introduced more meaningful censorship in the past 3 years than in the previous 22 (that is, since the dawn of the consumer Internet).
What do you contend the opposing force that halts/reverses the accelerating advance will be? Do you expect a majority of Internet users to eventually become so uncomfortable with Internet censorship that democratic (legislative) solutions become viable? Is there any precedent we can look to for hope? (Thanks for your reply, BTW.)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 18, 2019 9:03:08 GMT -5
The past few years have witnessed several milestones in censorship across nations worldwide. Europe has been leading the way, with criminalization (people serving jail time) of everything from criticism of immigration policy in Germany to pro-life websites in France. In 2017, France witnessed the axing of TV advertisements "depicting Down syndrome children as loving, quirky, independent kids whose parents adore them" (the tribunal ruling in this case that such depictions are "likely to disturb women who have had recourse to a medical termination of pregnancy and thus is inappropriate for airing during commercial breaks" [ibid.]). North Americans haven't been exempted, although censorship in our nations is still largely of the 'soft' variety, i.e. companies voluntarily censoring materials at the behest of governments. Prominent examples include deplatforming [ 2] [ 3] of conservative/anti-establishment ideologues from social media (also, from hosting services, crowdfunding sites, app stores, and even banks) [note that a few progressives are also being deplatformed; see 'deplatforming' link for stats], as well as a de facto blacklisting of most Russian content across major social media sites in the wake of Russiagate in 2016/2017. In Hawaiian public libraries, content filters are built directly into web browsers using technologies such as NewsGuard, which de-rank materials deemed 'inaccurate' or 'misleading' by prominent newspapers and neoconservative (i.e. pro-war) think-tanks. Most recently, censorship has come into the spotlight again in New Zealand, where New Zealanders face fines of up to $200K or imprisonment of up to 10 years imprisonment merely for possessing a copy [ 2] of footage taken by a gunman during a recent shooting in a New Zealand mosque. Similar penalties are levied at New Zealanders found in possession of digital copies of the gunman's written manifesto. The New Zealand government has forcibly blacklisted (i.e. forced ISPs to block traffic) from various websites and Internet services that allow uncensored discussion of the shooting to take place. [ibid.] Regardless of our personal views on censored content, it's undeniable that governments around the world are sharply ramping up their efforts to prevent citizens from reading, viewing, sharing, discussing, and critiquing materials they deem contrary to the public interest. Citizens have reacted by increasingly moving "underground", making increasing use of anonymizing and ban-circumventing technologies to bypass censorship. For instance, it's a trivial matter to obtain a copy of the banned materials in NZ (or anywhere else) anonymously and undetected, and to store them in such a way that it's impossible to prove possession. Sharing, analysis, and discussion of the banned footage/manifesto continue en force in NZ and across the world.
Where do you stand? Do you approve of government censorship efforts so far? Do you trust governments to use censorship responsibly in future? Do you anticipate abuse? What constitutes both? Where is your line in the sand? Where do you see censorship (in particular, Internet censorship) going in future? What about counter-censorship and the growing digital underground? TL:DR: Internet censorship is growing rapidly. What do you think of it, and where is your line in the sand?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 17, 2019 21:32:31 GMT -5
Virgil Showlion that would be an example of one of your long winded distortions of my position. The debate (with me) is... I forgot to include in the last post: Note that little in #240 is specifically ascribed to you. Most of what I describe is from discussions that took place while you weren't even here on YMAM. I'm just adding your positions in this thread to the big, amorphous blob that is "white privilege". Hence you feature only in paragraph 5 and later.
While it wouldn't shock me if parts of #240 turned out to accurately characterize your views on WP, I can't prove this, and I'm not asserting it here. I don't want others making the same assumption and concluding I'm being unfair.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 17, 2019 21:17:11 GMT -5
The debate (with me) is not about their right to wear the hat. They can wear it. And they can get called out on their passive aggressiveness when they do. This is quintessential prejudice and stereotyping. You're celebrating the genesis of a new prejudice and stereotype. There was a time when white guys could say "I didn't mean anything by it" and "It was just a joke" and everyone had to pretend to believe them. Those days are gone. What does this have to do with wearing hats? You expect Mr. Sandmann et al. will take off their hats at some point and claim, "Oop. It was all a joke. We don't really support Pres. Trump."? Regardless, your attitude here is abhorrent. Not only are you celebrating prejudice and stereotyping, you're saying that when it's a white man who offends you, if he realizes he's offended you and he makes a conciliatory gesture, you're going to summarily conclude he's lying and rebuff his apology. I'm not after a more peaceable world. If I was I would just let things stand and not fight about it. I'm after a more just world. And that makes me happy. You're defining "just" as a world where everybody is prejudged, stereotyped, unforgiven, and resented by his neighbour. And that makes you "happy"? Because we can all hate each other equally? Quid pro quo. Either provide evidence for my outstanding queries (in particular, Reply #201) or admit you can't procure any. Upon receipt, I'll take the time to compile the links supporting Reply #240. I did, after all, ask you first--and several days ago.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 17, 2019 17:49:56 GMT -5
I can't say that I include again, in my belief,, it is more of,, "Make America Great". I don't necessarily. need the again attached to it. ...and yet, you keep repeating "Make America Great Again". Again? That means it's not great now. Why do you hate America? And when was it great? You don't have to hate America to believe it's not great. OldCoyote: Weltz does have a point. "Make America Great Again" clearly implies America was great at one point and lost that greatness. This is consistent with Pres. Trump's usage of the slogan and his personal belief, which happens to be correct in this case. It's incumbent on you, therefore, to ask when and why America lost its greatness, and how Pres. Trump plans to restore it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 17, 2019 15:56:50 GMT -5
I'm scarier than that. I'm staying informed supporting people that are like minded. Your privileges are being eroded by people like me mwahahahaha Years ago (2014), when I first heard about "white privilege", people were using it to describe de facto exemptions for whites from alleged systemic injustices. For example, whites weren't as likely to be pulled over and questioned by police while driving expensive cars. People with traditionally 'white names' were less likely to have their resumes summarily tossed from piles of job applications. Etc. At the time, my two grievances were that an exemption from an unjust bias isn't a privilege (i.e. the term "white privilege" is a misnomer), and that nobody could provide insights on how an average Joe like me could make the world a fairer place aside from striving to be colourblind, which I already did. As the years rolled by, WP packed on baggage. In 2015, a thread pops up debating whether PB&J sandwiches are WP. Then it was WP to use the word 'bossy'. Then (rather humorously) it was WP to want to ban the word 'bossy'. Then the Academy Awards were WP. Then opposition to the public use of the 'N' word (by everyone, including blacks) was WP. Then mentioning white poverty ("as if whites have it so bad"). Since none of these things had anything to do with systemic injustice, I quickly lost any sense of the term.
By early 2018, it seemed to be a catch-all for opposition to the idea that injustices (both real and perceived) ought to be combated by perpetrating injustices of the opposite parity. This included opposition to reparations, hiring quotas, black-only schools, etc. By late 2018, not only did the proposed "solutions" for WP include broadening of such discriminatory initiatives, they began targeting the exemptions ("privileges") of whites from unjust biases. It wasn't enough that you supported putting more black people into positions of power, you had to support removing white people from power. Not only were you to assume the best of black suspects/witnesses in he-said-she-said police shootings, you were to assume the worst of white police officers/witnesses. And here we are in 2019, where WP appears to have expanded yet again to include wearing campaign hats (I still have no idea what specific privilege is being exercised) and arguing that wearing such hats is neither inherently racist nor a privilege. I have no use for an ideology whose "solution" to systemic injustice (injustice being a form of evil) is to perpetrate a similar injustice (more evil) against another group of people, many of whom have nothing to do with the systemic injustice. You don't combat prejudice with prejudice, demonizing with demonizing, evil with evil. If you want to erode my ability to be hired without worrying about my name, or to visit statues of Canadian statesmen, or to walk down the street wearing an "I (heart) Canada" cap without people presuming I'm the scum of the Earth, that's your prerogative. Whatever your intentions, it's not going to lead to the happier, more peaceable world you're hoping for.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 16, 2019 20:51:58 GMT -5
There have been multiple examples of it just in this thread. You always have some convoluted reason why the point you are making is not about discrimination, but strangely that is often the result of what you are promoting. And you are like Trump, when facts are pointed out to you that you don't like you just shout "Fake news". Or ignore it. Like you just did when I pointed out that MAGA hats were specifically created to show support of Trump and his policies. I know you are never going to admit this. I'm just saying it so you know I know. And others know I know. Briefly: - What you call "some convoluted reason" is reasonable defense of my arguments and fair prosecution of yours.
- Re "When facts are pointed out to you that you don't like you just shout 'Fake news'.": I'm certainly skeptical when members proffer their baseless opinions as facts and, when asked for supporting evidence, simply proffer more baseless opinions.
- Re "I pointed out that MAGA hats were specifically created to show support of Trump and his policies.": I ignored it because a) it's an identical argument to the one Tall makes in Reply #189, which I promptly addressed in Reply #191, b) I don't concede that any of Pres. Trump's policies are racist (nationalist, yes; and anti-Islamic in the case of the travel ban), and c) it's frankly absurd to think that every single person wearing the hat supports every last doctrine and policy Pres. Trump has ever put forward. Even spending a month on our own board with a handful of supporters is sufficient to disprove this beyond all doubt.
I think it would be fair to say that wearing the MAGA hat--assuming the wearer didn't just pick it up as a souvenir--denotes general (not across-the-board, but general) support for Pres. Trump and his policies, support for the GOP, or belief in American exceptionalism, although possibly only insofar as the wearer believes Pres. Trump is better qualified than the Democratic alternative. More recently, it also seems likely people are wearing them for no reason other than to rebuff hat critics, who they consider bullies.
- Re "I'm just saying it so you know I know. And others know I know." Well now you know I know you know. And I know others know you know I know you know.
To summarize: After deriding my "ethics you have promoted on this board for years", the only supporting example you can procure from 9+ years is "multiple examples of it just in this thread", which you also don't cite, don't even attempt to demonstrate as "arguing for different treatment of whites and blacks, holding women and people of colour to higher standards, showing partiality both for and against people based on race, or insulting anyone who criticizes me of the same", and plainly refers to my refusal to agree with you solely based on your baseless and spurious-to-the-point-of-absurdity personal ideology on what constitutes racism.
You also ignored my requests in Reply #159 and #163, despite replying to the former. Although it occurs to me now you may actually consider your second volley of opinions in Reply #194 to be "evidence" and "a methodology" (as requested in #159), meaning you lack even the capacity to differentiate between opinions and evidence, suggesting that now is probably the best time for me to tip my hat to you and seek out somebody not lacking this capacity. It is heartening to know you're not out there, dressed in a black hoodie and balaclava, baseball hat in hand, beating the white privilege out of legions of "racists" as they eat their french fries wearing their MAGA hats. Not everybody is so reasonable.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2019 22:49:02 GMT -5
I fixed that for you to more accurately reflect the ethics you have promoted on this board for years.
And yet you'll fail to come up with a single example of my arguing for different treatment of whites and blacks, holding women and people of colour to higher standards, showing partiality both for and against people based on race, or insulting anyone who criticizes me of the same (unless you call deriding the absurdity of a person's arguments in a debate forum "insulting them"). I take a lot of heat for it, but I put effort into remembering members' positions, perusing the archives to research what I can't clearly remember, and posting links and citations when taking people to task on "the ethics [they] have promoted on this board for years". Why? Because it's the easiest thing in the world to claim a person believes x, y, and z, when you don't have to provide any evidence to back up your assertion. That also goes for the symbolism of hats, incidentally.
You seem to have difficulty with nuance. Not everything is black-and-white. I already stated that not everybody sees or recognizes the racism and un-American sentiments inherent in "Trumpism" which negates about half your post. Should they see it? Probably, so if I am going to call out those people I would not do it on the basis of their denial of racism. I don't know that about them, whether they are or not unless I have more information to go on. Fine. Good. Full stop there, and we're agreed. At long last. They said it couldn't happen!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2019 19:35:31 GMT -5
Second, have I really argued that wearing a red hat is inherently disrespectful? You don't believe 'significant elements of racism and white nationalism or even white supremacism' are inherently disrespectful? You don't believe inexcusable ignorance of these elements is inherently disrespectful? I guess there's no problem then. Or there wouldn't be if you didn't immediately void the above with...
Wearing the hat indicates an acceptance of the Trump ideology, or at least the vast majority of it. Are there significant elements of racism and white nationalism or even white supremacism in it? Absolutely. Does everybody see that? Probably not. Would they admit it if they did? Again, probably not. Should their ignorance be excused? Probably not. I take exception to two statements here. Firstly, "Wearing the hat indicates an acceptance of the Trump ideology, or at least the vast majority of it." 1. You posit this as fact, but there's no evidence to support it, especially when generalizing to millions of people. 2. Even if you could prove this, racism might well be one of the things omitted from the 'vast majority'. Secondly, "Should their ignorance be excused? Probably not.". This is the linchpin of your entire post. You're saying that not only are you unwilling to give any hat wearer the benefit of the doubt, you're actually going to behave in a way consistent with this presumption. How is this not your endorsement for strangers getting in their faces about racism, ignorance, or both?
Are there significant elements of racism and white nationalism or even white supremacism in it? Absolutely. Insofar as I'm aware, the worst of Pres. Trump's 'racism and white nationalism or even white supremacism' is a collection of four one-line racially-insensitive remarks (three of them pre-presidency), racial preferences while hiring (pragmatism based on prejudice), his stark dislike of Islam (plain vanilla nationalism), and his border policy. Even if we label all of these things 'racism and white nationalism or even white supremacism', it's not like his supporters have to ignore his chumming around with Bill Aye- I mean David Duke, or endorsing a 32-page pro-communi- I mean pro-white-power manifesto. You know... things more substantive than offhanded remarks.
As for you and Anonymous, I think you are a couple of white guys that don't like the idea of losing your privilege. I don't think Anonymous really understands how much he has benefitted from it throughout his life. You on the other hand have chosen a Christian/Conservative belief system that promotes your privilege. I've known that about you for a very long time, this thread just confirms it again. As best I can tell, what you call "privilege" is treating other people with respect and decency, holding all men accountable to the same standards, showing no partiality either for or against, regardless of race, and expecting respect and decency in return. Hence yes, I love me some privilege.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2019 16:19:10 GMT -5
Nope, there was an ulterior motive to claiming he was shitting on the flag. That time the racists were hiding behind patriotism because everyone, well every American, jumps up to defend the flag. Kaepernick was clear that he was protesting police brutality against black people and many people don't want to change that but they don't want to deal with the consequences of saying it out loud. Pay attention, it's all about racists trying hard not to take responsibility for their behavior. Racism, racism everywhere! You say you're a racist, you're a racist. You say you're not a racist, you're a racist. You say "The hat means what I says it means." Nope. You're a racist. You say "Taking a knee doesn't mean what he says it means." Wrong again. You're a racist.
Voted for Pres. Trump? Racist. Think 'white privilege' is a crock? Racist. Don't want memorials torn down? Racist. Want the border sealed? Racist. What proof do I have of your racism? None. Nada. Zip. My feelings. My gut sense. My intuition. My supreme objectivity. My omniscience. My ability to stare deep into everyone's racist soul and divine their dirty racist intentions.
You can cry reductio ad absurdum all you want, but there's no reduction going on here. These are your actual absurd arguments, writ large.
Now I'm wondering, very really, if you consider Anonymous and me racists because we're debating you in this thread. You seem that far gone.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2019 13:53:43 GMT -5
Ah. Now we're getting more reasonable. To summarize the above: 'MAGA' stands for the panoply of Pres. Trump's views/actions, with 'some racist beliefs and actions' among them. Hat wearers may not see these particular beliefs/actions as racism, may not consider them part of what the hat represents, or even be aware of them. But many Americans (in particular, the left) do include them, and hat wearers ought to be taken to task for disregarding this fact or being ignorant of it. Again I point out that this is the exact opposite of the argument you were making in the Kaepernick thread. "Yes, taking a knee can mean 'I refuse to stand and respect the flag'," you said (paraphrasing), "...and yes, millions of Americans are interpreting it this way. But taking a knee can also symbolize x, y, and z, and look, Mr. Kaepernick himself claims it means x. How unreasonable, then, that the right is refusing to acknowledge the symbolism he's claiming, instead believing it means disrespect for the flag and the nation."
Hence you've got to make up your mind. If a gesture or an article of clothing has a panoply of potential meanings, some of them offensive to large groups of people, then who decides what the true symbolism of the thing is: the user(s) or the large group taking offense? Who is the ultimate authority on whether the thing is inappropriate and deserving of public excoriation? Just as importantly, if your answer to the above questions is "the large group taking offense": what qualifications (if any) does the large group require for its interpretation of the symbolism to carry weight, and what basis in evidence (if any) must they offer to justify their stance that the thing is tainted, inappropriate, and deserving of public excoriation?
I would take issue with your paraphrase. I doubt I truly legitimized the contention that taking a knee was disrespectful to the flag. I certainly did not accept the idea that it was disrespectful to the military, as so many tried to contend. Remember the facts. First, Kaepernick sought ZERO publicity. The whole issue only came to light when a reporter noticed and asked him about it. Recall also that even that was after the THIRD week in which Kaepernick had refused to stand. The entire "taking a knee" instead of sitting was after a talk with former Green Beret and Seattle Seahawk Nate Boyer in which Boyer convinced him that taking a knee was a more respectful compromise. Kaepernick agreed because it was not his intent to disrespect the flag or the military and he did not want his actions misconstrued. His was a personal protest in his own mind. He would have been just fine if it had never become an issue, and indeed would still have a football career rather than being a pariah. I say that as someone who was never a Kaepernick fan. He played for the San Francisco 49'ers, a division rival of the Seattle Seahawks. His image was the antithesis of 'Hawks QB Russell Wilson, who is seemingly as close as one can come to the all-American boy. And, because the Seahawks routinely pummeled the 49'ers, I saw him play probably three of the four worst games of his career. I never liked him. As a football player I still don't like him. As someone who has been tortured by troubles not really of his own making, he has suffered those slings and arrows better than most would be capable of doing. And he has proven himself far more of a man than the mindless morons who latched onto the opportunistic rantings of the president. My contention in Kaepernick's case was that the flag (or more correctly the anthem) was the wrong target. The anthem is a national symbol, and the issue of justice for people of color is for the most part a local issue in some parts of the country. The federal government itself, at least until this current administration, has been on the side of equal treatment. On Kaepernick's side. Understood. I apologize if I misconstrued your position on Mr. Kaepernick. Let's posit the following: through careful scrutiny of Mr. Kaepernick's actions and stated motives, you're of the reasonable belief that his taking a knee isn't disrespectful to the flag. I think it's also safe to assume you don't believe Mr. Kaepernick should be harassed, chided as an America-hater, called an "entitled prick", etc. on account of his protest--correct me if I'm wrong.
Even so, millions of other Americans reached different conclusions about his gesture, and most of these clearly don't care about his stated motive or mitigating actions. To them, the gesture is inherently disrespectful and Mr. Kaepernick's motives (these also being suspect) are irrelevant. His continuing to employ the gesture long after these presentiments were known were what caused the furor. In essence, he was saying, "I don't care what you think taking a knee stands for, I say it stands for justice, etc., and I won't be pressured into giving it up." In this thread, you're soundly rejecting this same rationale. You're the one arguing that wearing a red hat is inherently disrespectful, and that the specific motives or actions of anyone wearing one are irrelevant.
Given the conspicuous lack of evidence supporting the "red hat = endorsement of racism" hypothesis, the preponderance of alternative theories, and the absurd reasoning needed to explain a host of inconsistent behaviours in red hat wearers, I fail to see why your assessment in the Kaepernick thread isn't equally applicable here. Specifically, that 1) any given red hat wearer is essentially saying, "I don't care what you think the hat stands for, I say it stands for e.g. giving power back to the people and I won't be pressured into giving it up.", and 2) nobody should be harassed, chided as a racist, called an "entitled prick", etc. on account of simply wearing the hat. You've got to pick one: either you were right in the Kaepernick thread, and intent + personal significance take precedence over public perception, or you're right in this thread, and public perception trumps intent + personal significance. But you can't have it both ways.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2019 8:10:10 GMT -5
I wouldn't be surprised if 50%+ of the people wearing them today are doing so as a big "eff you" to the left's attempts at turning it into this century's scarlet letter. Seems like the American thing to do. I don’t give a flying fuck about the reason any moron chooses to wear that crap. When they do so, they cede any right to get indignant when people percieve them to be racist pricks. Their choice - their consequences. You're basically describing the pro-Trump equivalent of the "PRIDE" movement.
You're thinking, "That hat is an immoral symbol, and anyone wearing it deserves to catch hell." They're thinking, "This hat isn't an immoral symbol, and if they're going to persecute people just for wearing one, I'm going to wear mine with pride." And on and on it goes.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 15, 2019 7:30:03 GMT -5
If you don't see at least some racist beliefs and actions there you're not looking very hard. Now, is that ALL that MAGA is supposed to stand for? No. Is it part of it? Almost certainly. Is there plausible deniability for some who choose not to see that part? Perhaps, but willful ignorance is still ignorance. Wallowing in it does not impress me, or most thinking people. Ah. Now we're getting more reasonable. To summarize the above: 'MAGA' stands for the panoply of Pres. Trump's views/actions, with 'some racist beliefs and actions' among them. Hat wearers may not see these particular beliefs/actions as racism, may not consider them part of what the hat represents, or even be aware of them. But many Americans (in particular, the left) do include them, and hat wearers ought to be taken to task for disregarding this fact or being ignorant of it. Again I point out that this is the exact opposite of the argument you were making in the Kaepernick thread. "Yes, taking a knee can mean 'I refuse to stand and respect the flag'," you said (paraphrasing), "...and yes, millions of Americans are interpreting it this way. But taking a knee can also symbolize x, y, and z, and look, Mr. Kaepernick himself claims it means x. How unreasonable, then, that the right is refusing to acknowledge the symbolism he's claiming, instead believing it means disrespect for the flag and the nation." Hence you've got to make up your mind. If a gesture or an article of clothing has a panoply of potential meanings, some of them offensive to large groups of people, then who decides what the true symbolism of the thing is: the user(s) or the large group taking offense? Who is the ultimate authority on whether the thing is inappropriate and deserving of public excoriation? Just as importantly, if your answer to the above questions is "the large group taking offense": what qualifications (if any) does the large group require for its interpretation of the symbolism to carry weight, and what basis in evidence (if any) must they offer to justify their stance that the thing is tainted, inappropriate, and deserving of public excoriation?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 14, 2019 22:22:15 GMT -5
LOL no, the funny thing about racists is that most of them don't want to proudly admit it. I've said that repeatedly so you saying you think this is my hypothesis is disingenuous. They want to promote the racist ideology and intimidate minorities and women. When the intimidation doesn't work and they get called on it most of them deny it. Those extremists your referred to don't. But many people find it to their financial and social benefit to deny being racists. So you try to be subversive about it. Anyway, it's been fun but I'm done with this conversation....again There is nothing to deny. Trump hasn't done anything that is racist. As far as the hat and maga slogan plenty of black and brown people wear them also. I wouldn't be surprised if 50%+ of the people wearing them today are doing so as a big "eff you" to the left's attempts at turning it into this century's scarlet letter. Seems like the American thing to do.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 14, 2019 22:10:07 GMT -5
OK, fine. Let's look at this logically. You have a hypothesis: The hat is a racist symbol. Let's suppose it is. Immediately your hypothesis has a few knocks against it: 1) the people using it starkly deny the symbolism, 2) the reason you claim they deny the symbolism (cowardice) is the exact opposite of the reason you claim they wear the hat in the first place (to proudly and openly declare their status as racists), and 3) clear racist symbols already exist and yet none of these people are using them. But let's ignore these elements for now and look at the evidence you have. What is your methodology? How have you gone about proving to yourself that the cap is a racist symbol? What can you point to that's more substantial than "I think so."?
Which is merely a demonstration that man's capacity for delusion in the furtherance of his own self-image is limitless. As an example, Southerners even today will insist, and vehemently so, that the Civil War was not about slavery, yet all of the declarations at the time by the states themselves mentioned slavery prominently as a reason, and usually first on the list. The whole "states' rights" thing was almost entirely about slavery, but no, "the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about states' rights." Give me a break. Different argument. Different thread. You were the one arguing years ago that Mr. Kaepernick taking a knee didn't mean he was crapping on the US flag simply because half the country thought he was. You were the one arguing against guilt by association again and again during Pres. Obama's tenure: that the people who supported him or who he'd associated with during his political career didn't define what he stood for (or, if we wanted a direct analogy, what a "Hope and Change" pin stood for). All I've seen in this thread, again and again, is "It's racist because it's just a fact.", "It's racist because people (i.e. we) think it is.", "It's racist because people were wearing hats in Charlottesville." Not one shred of evidence to support the hypothesis. Not one shred of evidence to disprove any of the dozens of equally credible hypotheses. Absurd reasoning around why none of these millions of emboldened racists are bold enough to admit to the symbolism, employ other racist symbols, or behave in a way even slightly consistent with the hypothesis. And an overwhelming ulterior motive by the proponents of the hypothesis: a visceral hatred of Pres. Trump and longstanding eagerness to believe the absolute worst about literally anyone who supports him for any reason. I can't concretely disprove the hypothesis, but I'd be a fool to set stock by it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 14, 2019 21:37:59 GMT -5
No, Virgil. It is NOT a “hypothesis”. The red MAGA hat HAS become a racist symbol. You and others can pretend otherwise, but it doesn’t change the fact. Evidence. Some of us need evidence. You must have evidence proving that everybody wearing the cap is saying, "Yes, I am a racist." and not "I support the middle class.", "I believe America is the greatest nation on Earth.", "I believe Pres. Trump will reverse the fiscal decay of our nation.", "I support draining the swamp.", "I believe in putting America first.", "I will not be intimidated by the left.", or a dozen other messages besides.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 14, 2019 21:26:48 GMT -5
AGAIN....because white hoods aren't practical. Do you have to beaten over the head with the answer? Not practical how? Not practical because white hoods are a universally recognized racist symbol, and there'd be universal public backlash for anyone wearing one? And yet strangely, even though a red hat "might as well be a white hood", it's only the far left that reacts to red hats. It's almost as if... nobody actually considers the hat to be a racist symbol except a political fringe who really, really want it to be a racist symbol.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 14, 2019 21:20:40 GMT -5
Same question I asked Weltz: If this hat is, as you allege, a racist symbol no different than a KKK hood, why aren't Mr. Sandmann and his classmates all wearing white hoods? It's a symbol with clear history behind it. It strikes fear into people. It doesn't rely on your and Weltz' fever dreams say-so for anyone to know it's racist. Why aren't they employing it? Why is nobody employing it?
Because it's not practical to wear a hood everywhere. They want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to send the message without facing the consequences of owning up to it It keeps "the left" stuck trying to prove they/re racist, kind of like what you've done to me here, rather than being able to address the racism itself. The hoods hid their identities, the hats hide their intent. They really are chickenshits. OK, fine. Let's look at this logically. You have a hypothesis: The hat is a racist symbol. Let's suppose it is. Immediately your hypothesis has a few knocks against it: 1) the people using it starkly deny the symbolism, 2) the reason you claim they deny the symbolism (cowardice) is the exact opposite of the reason you claim they wear the hat in the first place (to proudly and openly declare their status as racists), and 3) clear racist symbols already exist and yet none of these people are using them. But let's ignore these elements for now and look at the evidence you have. What is your methodology? How have you gone about proving to yourself that the cap is a racist symbol? What can you point to that's more substantial than "I think so."?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 14, 2019 21:12:18 GMT -5
Because not even Trump supporters are stupid enough to miss THAT connection? Not an explanation. Because a large percentage of American citizens are proudly sporting those racist caps. There's safety in numbers. How many people wander around wearing white hoods? Why don't they all start wearing white hoods? In any movement, you always have the bold ones willing to take those risky first steps. Then the slightly less bold follow suit, and so on and so forth, until everyone is emboldened and a mass becomes a mob. Why are there no bold ones taking those risky first steps? If you want a harder question: besides a few comments Pres. Trump uttered at odd times pre-presidency, what evidence do you have to support the idea that a MAGA cap is specifically a symbol of racism?
The slogan on it is "Make America Great Again". What evidence do you have to prove it doesn't refer to American exceptionalism? What evidence to prove it doesn't refer specifically to conservatism? Or an end to Big Government? A regenesis of America's glory years as a titan of business and industry? I'm sure you must have some evidence that proves the cap stands for none of these things but does specifically stand for racism. Let's see it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 14, 2019 20:58:51 GMT -5
To ME, and to many other people, the MAGA hat is a racist symbol. Well, let's see....
To me and many other people, Mr. Kaepernick taking a knee at football games was him crapping on the American flag. I guess you've just conceded that argument.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 14, 2019 20:49:11 GMT -5
Virgil Showlion ridicule is neither debate nor discussion. It's the refuge of a fool that has no valid argument. I wish Horatio was here, he could tell me the name of that argument technique where you take the comment to ridiculous ends were never suggested. You know what is great about people that put I'm with Her bumper stickers on their cars and wear Hats to protests? None of us deny the point we are making. Unlike some chicken shits I know Same question I asked Weltz: If this hat is, as you allege, a racist symbol no different than a KKK hood, why aren't Mr. Sandmann and his classmates all wearing white hoods? It's a symbol with clear history behind it. It strikes fear into people. It doesn't rely on your and Weltz' fever dreams say-so for anyone to know it's racist. Why aren't they employing it? Why is nobody employing it?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 14, 2019 20:44:37 GMT -5
Before that, it was "I don't like black people counting my money" and before that, it was the attempt to keep black people out of Trump buildings. So, yeah...a MAGA hat means you're fine with it. Might as well wear the pointy white hood. Yes sir. Wearing a hat to show support for a president with alleged vague prejudices, and wearing a hood proudly declaring membership in an organization dedicated to the murder of innocent people: exactly the same thing. Beam. me. up. You are so far asea in your progressive mysticism, they've declared you lost at sea and given your spouses their pensions. Dare I ask why these racists proudly sporting their racist red hats don't actually wear white hoods? Does the prog-o-dex have an answer for that one?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 14, 2019 20:28:22 GMT -5
The root is "Ask yourself whether this the hill you want to die on before wearing the hat; people can be unreasonable and irascible."
No "white privilege", "equality", "discrimination" or any other buzzwords need apply. Don't make it out like it's a good thing Americans can't wear a bloody pro-Trump hat without risking hostile confrontation. The radical left may be that far gone but I refuse to believe anyone here is that cuckolded.
That stupid hat is just like wearing a pointy white hood. Says who? You? Why should anyone give a toot what you say a MAGA hat means?
If I say polar bears are racist symbols, are you going to your avatar? If I say the Canadian flag stands for oppression and the slaughter of natives, are you going to give up the Canadian flag? If you don't, do you deserve to be called a racist whatever and driven away from civilized people? Seriously, do tell.
|
|