Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't believe legitimate criticism is problematic and it is very problematic to call people who speak out an "unhinged mob" Karanaugh's interesting interpretation of the law is enough to give him a hard pass but he also lied under oath.
>Karanaugh's interesting interpretation of the law is enough to give him a hard pass but he also lied under oath. Source?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
851–860 of 1001 posts
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#852Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't believe legitimate criticism is problematic and it is very problematic to call people who speak out an "unhinged mob" Karanaugh's interesting interpretation of the law is enough to give him a hard pass but he also lied under oath.
>Karanaugh's interesting interpretation of the law is enough to give him a hard pass but he also lied under oath. Source?
Easy to search for.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-bret...
These are fairly clear cut lies to congress.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#853Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was so lovely after reading the article, that the point that stuck with me, aligned with your comment right at the top. Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up for. ~" We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavour to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come…
I think this might collapse at the edge cases: If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal, and the person with the opinion uses this reasoning to abuse me, then I may be ethically correct to not listen or keep myself in their presence. Or, say, I'm a disabled person and someone tells me they think social services should be cut so people like me can die off for the good of humanity. It may be actively em…
> If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal
That’s not the opinion though. That’s exactly what the parent is referring to. You need to listen, understand, and empathize before assuming that people who don’t agree with you must be racist.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#854Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this might collapse at the edge cases: If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal, and the person with the opinion uses this reasoning to abuse me, then I may be ethically correct to not listen or keep myself in their presence. Or, say, I'm a disabled person and someone tells me they think social services should be cut so people like me can die off for the good of humanity. It may be actively em…
It's easy to come up with these kinds of excuses for not tolerating the opinions of people you disagree with. If you disagree with me about abortion, you are either trying to murder babies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil to you) or you're trying to control women's bodies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil with you). If you disagree with me about health care reform, that's a life and death issue and hence…
I enjoy John Cleese’s speech making the same point ( https://youtu.be/wXCkxlqFd90 ).
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#855For those so certain that the Republican Senate is going to ram though someone, there are a few moderates left, and they've already decided thing can wait until after the election: "So far the following GOP Senators have pledged that they will not consider a Supreme Court appointment until after the next inauguration. Susan Collins Chuck Grassley Lisa Murkowski" [0]: https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1307115333669580…
The sensible side of me would deem this blind optimism but… Maybe, just maybe, senators respecting Justice Ginsburg’s last wish will be the first step on a long road towards healing our toxic political polarization.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#856Earlier quoted context omitted.
But with the internet much more of what you do is visible and more people know about it. What you said could be attacked with "white silence is violence"
I had a much longer response typed - but deleted it when it stopped even making sense to me. "white silence is violence" googles Still no idea how that could be applied to my post - but I am most definitely white, and after a bit of introspection, can't think of anything I've constructively done to address racism outside of late-night internet posts. So whilst I'd like to think I was "non-racist" - I do now feel a bi…
Here's the line of thinking:
The idea is that ineffectual discourse without actual efforts towards reform is a method of signalling that one wants change while benefiting from the status quo of oppression.
Discussion is great, but the discussion is supposed to result in change, not a vortex of words which have no connection to reality.
When people advocate for lofty civility above all else when the status quo is violent, aggressive, demeaning and unjust, it shows that the priority is not justice; it is the maintenance of the current order.
Is this position accurate? I don't know. There's obviously countervailing concerns regarding having a chilling effect on the market of ideas, but like all tough questions, it's likely a difficult situation with no clear cut answer and two virtues being traded-off against each other. This seems to be borne out by the fairly dramatic spectrum of positions adopted on the issue across the globe.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#857Earlier quoted context omitted.
That kind of collaboration can’t exist if there are two sides who believe that most issues are zero sum.
I have no evidence for the following statement, but as someone who grew up just before social media was a thing (I became a legal adult about a decade before Facebook), I truly feel that the zero-sum thinking, while present before social media, really took on a new form because of it. It is much more vehement than before. You don't get the same kind of interaction on a forum or a bulletin board that you do on Twitter…
I'm close to your age I think.
Don't forget that well before Fox News there was a AM radio, and Rush Limbaugh was national in the 80's. I definitely remember how his talking point impacted my high school's debate team's rhetoric.
Agree that zero-sum thinking is a net-negative.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#858Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this might collapse at the edge cases: If I'm a black man and the opinion is that I'm an animal, and the person with the opinion uses this reasoning to abuse me, then I may be ethically correct to not listen or keep myself in their presence. Or, say, I'm a disabled person and someone tells me they think social services should be cut so people like me can die off for the good of humanity. It may be actively em…
It's easy to come up with these kinds of excuses for not tolerating the opinions of people you disagree with. If you disagree with me about abortion, you are either trying to murder babies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil to you) or you're trying to control women's bodies (and hence I shouldn't have to be civil with you). If you disagree with me about health care reform, that's a life and death issue and hence…
If I believed in one true (God/Truth/...) why I do not kill you all/crusade into/suppress all/burn you in stake/ Spanish ...
It is so hard to accept others and let them articulate their view.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#859Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what you could call his brand of governance other than pure evil. It's men and women like him who destroy nations and stir violence.
It’s talk like this that truly disgusts me. And it only comes from the left. Anyone in a position of power that effectively promotes opposing views is labeled as pure evil. The more effective, the more evil. Just because your side is losing does not mean the other side is working for Satan. It’s talk like that that leads to violence.
Ah, my poor innocent friend. Let me disabuse you of your "only the left" naïveté. For, you see, I have just googled "Obama destroy America", and I'm going to share the first result with you.
It's titled "Democrats, like Obama, trying to destroy America": https://www.kenoshanews.com/opinion/writer-democrats-like-ob...
The author is upset, it seems, that the Democratic Party is making progress on their policy agenda after the 2018 midterms. So they must want nothing more than to destroy the country, because they're evil.
Lest you accuse me of cherry-picking, this was not unique.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#860Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what you could call his brand of governance other than pure evil. It's men and women like him who destroy nations and stir violence.
It’s talk like this that truly disgusts me. And it only comes from the left. Anyone in a position of power that effectively promotes opposing views is labeled as pure evil. The more effective, the more evil. Just because your side is losing does not mean the other side is working for Satan. It’s talk like that that leads to violence.
> Just because your side is losing
It’s talk like that that leads to violence.
It’s talk like this that truly disgusts me.
And it only comes from the right.
So much for united we stand. There is only one side: American. And if someone is causing half of America to lose, is actively working to make that happen, I'd say that's evil. Wouldn't you?