181–190 of 1001 posts
You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this. Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.
It's also generally illegal to fire someone over political beliefs, if I recall correctly.
Marcos understanding of this situation is extremely telling for a fundamental problem with many americans relationship with politics. Most only get involved around election. After that their political interest is non existing. It's easy to get lured into the idea that politics is a simple choice between the moral good and the moral bad, that the choice is simple and that there is a one to one relationship between wha…
> he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/d... > the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions This is not a principle, let alone a fundamental one, in any democracy or any other kind of society.
> This is not a principle, let alone a fundamental one, in any democracy or any other kind of society.
While this is literally true, I feel the need to point out that increased restrictions on speech, and increased repercussions for speech seem to correlate strongly with non-democracies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also generally illegal to fire someone over political beliefs, if I recall correctly.
Nationally title 7 only protects you from the following: sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. There might be local state laws that protect you from politics, but no national law.
Posts like this play directly into Trump's hands. The entire Trump ideology is based on a belief that "real Americans" are being oppressed by a sinister "global elite". Demanding that Trump supporters be fired tells everyone that the "elites" are a) scared of Trump, b) can't win through arguments and have to resort to intimidation, and c) are a powerful, dangerous group which is hostile to average people, who need so…
There's this trope that attacking this position doesn't harm (or even helps) Trump, but polling has shown the contrary. The scandals involving his comments about women, about the muslim veteran, his mocking of a reporter with disabilities, have always been followed by drops in polling for him. His tax policies, a bit less so.
Talking about how Trump's positions are terrible cause his numbers to go down. If that's not effective political speech, I don't know what is.
EDIT: Nate Silver made this point better than me in a mini-tweetstorm (tweet-shower?) https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/784777881482170368
You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this. Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing political candidates to Hitler is a rather lazy thought experiment.
It's not lazy. It's showing the extreme (clearly unacceptable) end of the spectrum to ask someone how they decide where to draw the line. What would Trump have to do before supporting him is unacceptable to YC? But if you really don't want to use Hitler, try Rodrigo Duterte or Silvio Berlusconi instead. They actually share a lot of similarities to Trump.
That's actually very lazy. It's shifting the burden of "drawing the line" on the other side.
It's the "well, why don't we just kill toddlers as well? Where do you draw the line?" in an abortion argument. It's the "why don't we just give 12 year old's automatic assault weapons" or "why don't we disarm the police and military as well" in a gun control debate. It's the "So why don't we just tax corporations 100% of their income" in a corporate tax debate.
Marcos understanding of this situation is extremely telling for a fundamental problem with many americans relationship with politics. Most only get involved around election. After that their political interest is non existing. It's easy to get lured into the idea that politics is a simple choice between the moral good and the moral bad, that the choice is simple and that there is a one to one relationship between wha…
Wrong. This exactly the kind of sophistry that Marco refutes. Political positions are moral positions, to believe otherwise is hopelessly naive >in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions No, that's not what free speech is. You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences.
So, for the sale of argument: if Trump is democratically elected and then begins reprisals of his political enemies, you must accept those consequences?
You Americans (at least I think the majority of you are Americans) are getting quite ridiculous arguing over this. Supporting a political candidate is a personal choice, one that is given to every eligible individual in a democratic state. Calling for someone to be fired or sever ties with them over political choice is retarded and counter-productive.
Americans love to moralize and punish each other. Instead of saying that they think somebody is wrong they like to make the other person into some evil person who can't even be argued with because they are so evil. That's why there is no real political discourse but just people screaming at each other.
Marcos understanding of this situation is extremely telling for a fundamental problem with many americans relationship with politics. Most only get involved around election. After that their political interest is non existing. It's easy to get lured into the idea that politics is a simple choice between the moral good and the moral bad, that the choice is simple and that there is a one to one relationship between wha…
Wrong. This exactly the kind of sophistry that Marco refutes. Political positions are moral positions, to believe otherwise is hopelessly naive >in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions No, that's not what free speech is. You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences.
I think the best way to increase the American quality of life is to allow more choices, more trade, and reduce taxation. This gets me branded as being "anti-poor". I want the same thing as you, I just think there's different ways to go about it.
I'll granted that sometimes political positions come from moral positions, but they are not a 1:1 match, and you can't claim you know the best way to enact a set of moral positions.