Funny events in anti-woke world

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, I'm going to blame the people trying to ban words. Because they're trying to ban words.

Plenty of words and terms are likely already banned in Highschools etc

That's not being pro-free speech. That's pro-Nazi. That you want scumbags like Spencer to have access to our children says absolutely nothing positive about you.

No that would be true freedom of speech in schools unless you only want speech for some people not all, just for those you like not those you dislike.

Also should be pretty evident I don't want Spencer giving talks in schools because I literally said

..... and I don't think either of us would want that.

(emphasis = mine)

 

[Buyetyen]

No that would be true freedom of speech in schools unless you only want speech for some people not all, just for those you like not those you dislike.

Nope.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Nope.

Oh so you do want Spencer doing a speaking tour of highschools then.

 

[Gergar12]

Even neoliberal Wapo agrees.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/progressives-arent-the-problem-facing-the-infrastructure-deal/2021/10/24/bb5f5d02-31e3-11ec-8036-7db255bff176_story.html

 

[Silvanus]

But that's not maintaining, your insulin supply exists at the whim of a trio of private companies. And the UK doesn't arrange transportation itself outside of it's shores, likely paying a third (private) party if the insulin producers don't transport it themselves to the port. Once it's ship-bound it is also in the hands of a private enterprise.

Like, no praise or condemnation here, the supply chain itself is almost entirely managed privately, basically every supply chain is like this. Governments are just another customer.

It seems that you don't consider a government to be involved unless it's literally government employees with their boots on the ground. That's a pretty simplistic reading. The fact is that a huge amount of government work is done through contracted private entities. The contracts still compel them, and the requirements are laid out by government.

Put it this way: do you imagine that Novo Nordisk, or our other overseas suppliers (for medicine, infrastructure, building material, blah-de-blah) would be maintaining a steady and reliable supply & surplus to the entire UK, and negotiating all of its own transportation and shipping on both sides of the sea, if it had no government contract? And the same with every other country they supply?

It flies in the face of what you're saying actually. Here we have an example where people were told of a specific (but broad) policy and their position of support on it, and they support it. But if you ask them a platitudal philosophy question not attached to any policy, it can be used to fight a policy. It seems people respond to policy better than broad philosophical thinking.

"Better" from the perspective of your political goals, sure (and mine as well). I'm focused on the fact that the respondents are contradicting their own position. Who's to say that if you increase the level of detail-- by adding cost, for instance-- they don't flip-flop again?

They actually do, a lot more than you give credit for.

I don't believe that the proportion of people who actually access political/economic data & analysis (outside of media corps' output) exceeds... maybe 5% being generous.

It's not, they are very different things. You can vote without giving any thought. It's almost a prerequisite to throw away your brain to talk about how you plan to vote on TV. It takes effort to argue your policy in debate, or to organize people to harass their politicians.

Manchin going on CNN to say he's not going to vote for the reconciliation bill takes nothing. Sanders going to West Virginia to sell why people should care about the reconciliation bill and pillory Manchin for opposing takes effort, it's why Sanders is real and Manchin isn't.

Well, judge them how you want. The point stands that not all elected representatives are equally cynical and untrustworthy, and voting-- even in the current system-- makes a difference. Nonetheless, disinterest, apathy and general ignorance about most political matters reign. None of this is to the credit of the public's political awareness, and I remain very much unconvinced that this would all change if we brought in full direct democracy.

 

[Gergar12]

I think the Chomsky rule of not criticizing the country you are not a member of/Has the least effect on it is ridiculous, and I don't even think Chomsky himself follows it, I think he uses it as a convenient debate ploy to avoid talking about other countries.

Chomsky doesn't follow it because he himself goes to Palestine and Israel and attacks the government he is in. How much does the PLO, and Israel listen to Chomsky?

When it comes to waging war, you can't just say no to all wars, and you can't say yes to all wars. Afghanistan was a country where a plurality of locals was culturally, and religiously conservative and didn't want us there. It was a bad choice to nation-build there, and you shouldn't act with emotion during horrible events like 9/11. But Taiwan is different most of the population does want us to defend them, and unlike the Afghans, they can't defend themselves even if they want to. Because the balance of power is so skewed towards China, that not even the Israelis during the Yom Kippur compare to it. If Taiwan spent all of its GDP on the military and became western North Korea without nukes, they still can't defend Taiwan against China.

Also how come everyone complains about US military spending, but fewer people in the international community do so on Chinese military spending which has been one of the biggest, and most rapid arms buildups in modern history. Oh but the US military is more effective, competent, spends more, and their jets have better engines. I don't agree that the US spends more, the US spends in GDP PPP the same as Russia and China, and they can't deploy all their forces in Asia due to commitments in Europe, and other places like the Middle East. As for being effective, the US stalemated Communist China in the Korean War, lost in Vietnam against Chinese-backed NVA forces. As for Jets having better engines, Chinese engines fare around a hundred hours, but that' enough to stay in the air, and repair, and replace, that may lower the sortie rate but again the US can only deploy 605 of their sea power to China.

The only way to counter China is to get allies and counter the arms race with our own arms buildup.

 

[Avnger]

I think the Chomsky rule of not criticizing the country you are not a member of/Has the least effect on it is ridiculous, and I don't even think Chomsky himself follows it, I think he uses it as a convenient debate ploy to avoid talking about other countries.

Chomsky doesn't follow it because he himself goes to Palestine and Israel and attacks the government he is in. How much does the PLO, and Israel listen to Chomsky?

When it comes to waging war, you can't just say no to all wars, and you can't say yes to all wars. Afghanistan was a country where a plurality of locals was culturally, and religiously conservative and didn't want us there. It was a bad choice to nation-build there, and you shouldn't act with emotion during horrible events like 9/11. But Taiwan is different most of the population does want us to defend them, and unlike the Afghans, they can't defend themselves even if they want to. Because the balance of power is so skewed towards China, that not even the Israelis during the Yom Kippur compare to it. If Taiwan spent all of its GDP on the military and became western North Korea without nukes, they still can't defend Taiwan against China.

Also how come everyone complains about US military spending, but fewer people in the international community do so on Chinese military spending which has been one of the biggest, and most rapid arms buildups in modern history. Oh but the US military is more effective, competent, spends more, and their jets have better engines. I don't agree that the US spends more, the US spends in GDP PPP the same as Russia and China, and they can't deploy all their forces in Asia due to commitments in Europe, and other places like the Middle East. As for being effective, the US stalemated Communist China in the Korean War, lost in Vietnam against Chinese-backed NVA forces. As for Jets having better engines, Chinese engines fare around a hundred hours, but that' enough to stay in the air, and repair, and replace, that may lower the sortie rate but again the US can only deploy 605 of their sea power to China.

The only way to counter China is to get allies and counter the arms race with our own arms buildup.

k

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Party of small government

When Republicans say they want "small government", they mean for themselves. No regulations keeping them from getting all the guns they want, no taxes taking away their "hard-earned pay", no laws getting in the way of doing whatever they want. Government is supposed to go after "those people", because they're the problem.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It seems that you don't consider a government to be involved unless it's literally government employees with their boots on the ground. That's a pretty simplistic reading. The fact is that a huge amount of government work is done through contracted private entities. The contracts still compel them, and the requirements are laid out by government.

Put it this way: do you imagine that Novo Nordisk, or our other overseas suppliers (for medicine, infrastructure, building material, blah-de-blah) would be maintaining a steady and reliable supply & surplus to the entire UK, and negotiating all of its own transportation and shipping on both sides of the sea, if it had no government contract? And the same with every other country they supply?

Yes because they do with countries that don't have a strong social healthcare system. It may be wildly more expensive here in the US, but we get literally the same insulin you do. So I'll ask you back, if contracting private entities is so reliable, surely you don't mind if the NHS is privatized, right? After all, the government would still be regulating them and have a mission statement they're supposed to follow and all that jazz, what's wrong with privatizing the NHS?

"Better" from the perspective of your political goals, sure (and mine as well). I'm focused on the fact that the respondents are contradicting their own position. Who's to say that if you increase the level of detail-- by adding cost, for instance-- they don't flip-flop again?

Because cost is all people talk about and they still support it. So that seems obvious.

I don't believe that the proportion of people who actually access political/economic data & analysis (outside of media corps' output) exceeds... maybe 5% being generous.

K. I disagree.

Well, judge them how you want. The point stands that not all elected representatives are equally cynical and untrustworthy, and voting-- even in the current system-- makes a difference. Nonetheless, disinterest, apathy and general ignorance about most political matters reign. None of this is to the credit of the public's political awareness, and I remain very much unconvinced that this would all change if we brought in full direct democracy.

And I'm unconvinced that electoral democracy is at all preferable. It seems to be a system to put the least preferable people in the positions of greatest influence.

 

[tstorm823]

For the record, Republicans aren't the party of minimal government, we're the party of small government, which is to say handling matters as locally as possible. It is not hypocrisy to be against federal intervention but be active in the local schoolboard.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

For the record, Republicans aren't the party of minimal government, we're the party of small government, which is to say handling matters as locally as possible.

Uh huh. Then explain DOMA.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Lmao

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

For the record, Republicans aren't the party of minimal government, we're the party of small government, which is to say handling matters as locally as possible. It is not hypocrisy to be against federal intervention but be active in the local schoolboard.

As a member of a locally liberal city with a heavily GOP state government, lmao

Analysis: How red states are overriding their blue cities

Republican-controlled states have escalated their offensive against Democratic-controlled cities and counties this year to unprecedented heights, further deepening the trench between red and blue America.

www.cnn.com

Like, my state government literally overrode local participants in getting a federal heritage site and stopping low income housing rules that a local city desperately needs because it's literally pricing out the work force

 

[Avnger]

For the record, Republicans aren't the party of minimal government, we're the party of small government, which is to say handling matters as locally as possible. It is not hypocrisy to be against federal intervention but be active in the local schoolboard.

Except this is blatantly false as proven by Republican-controlled state governments routinely legislating against the home rule of larger municipalities that pursue non-GOP-approved policies. Republicans only believe in delegating power to the most local level that they control.

Recent state legislative actions intended to “rein in” wayward cities are illustrative. In response to assertions by some local officials in Texas that they would not cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing federal immigration laws, the Texas Legislature adopted SB4, which bars cities and local officials from adopting any ordinance, rule, or practice that limits the enforcement of federal immigration laws on threat of criminal and civil penalties and removal from office.5 The Arizona Legislature has adopted a law that requires the Attorney General to investigate local laws at the request of any state legislator and withhold state funds where a local law conflicts with state law.6 Michigan adopted legislation that bars local governments from regulating paid sick days, wages, scheduling, and hours or benefits disputes.7 In North Carolina, the state legislature adopted a “bathroom bill” that was designed to strike down local transgender civil rights ordinances.8 Before it was repealed, the same law also preempted municipal minimum wage, contracting, employment discrimination, and public-accommodations ordinances.9

In all these cases, and many more, state legislatures have been motivated by hostility to local regulation—and in almost all cases to regulations adopted by specific cities. Cities such as Cleveland, New York, Detroit, Birmingham, El Paso, Austin, Miami, Charlotte, Greensboro, and others have been the main targets of their respective legislatures’ preemptive legislation.10 Openly disdainful of municipal regulation, the Texas Governor has stated that he favors a “broad-based law by the state of Texas that says across the board, the state is going to pre-empt local regulations.”11

The Attack on American Cities | Texas Law Review

American cities are under attack. The last few years have witnessed an explosion of preemptive legislation challenging and overriding municipal ordinances across a wide range of policy areas. State–city conflicts over the municipal minimum wage, LGBT antidiscrimination, and sanctuary city laws...

texaslawreview.org

edit:

Preempting progress: State interference in local policymaking prevents people of color, women, and low-income workers from making ends meet in the South

Southern states are more likely than states in other regions to use preemption—state interference in local policymaking—to stop local governments from setting strong labor standards that would support people struggling to make ends meet, such as raising the minimum wage and guaranteeing paid...

www.epi.org

IMPEDING INNOVATION: STATE PREEMPTION OF PROGRESSIVE LOCAL REGULATIONS - Columbia Law Review

Introduction In March 2016, the passage of the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (colloquially known as N.C. H.B. 2) brought North Carolina into national headlines. N.C. H.B. 2 was multifaceted: It mandated that individuals use the bathroom correlating to the biological sex on their...

columbialawreview.org

 

[AnxietyProne]

For the record, Republicans aren't the party of minimal government, we're the party of small government, which is to say handling matters as locally as possible. It is not hypocrisy to be against federal intervention but be active in the local schoolboard.

Cuz it's not oppression unless the FEDERAL government screwing you. Totalitarian local governments are a okay.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Lmao

Oh are we back to punch people you disagree with again?

I figured the appropriate response to a jackass was to deal with words using word.

I will however say if the white haired guy the moron pushed had been the one punching him I'd happily have said it was a fair return though.

 

[Trunkage]

Oh so you do want Spencer doing a speaking tour of highschools then.

Just because some speech exists, doesn't mean it should get tne same weight for teaching. Similar things happen in journalism. I don't want the news to pretend that a Flat Earth is just as viable as Globe Earth.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Just because some speech exists, doesn't mean it should get tne same weight for teaching. Similar things happen in journalism. I don't want the news to pretend that a Flat Earth is just as viable as Globe Earth.

Kinda my point right there and that's why said words have been chosen to be restricted because of the way activists have been presenting them.

 

[Trunkage]

Kinda my point right there and that's why said words have been chosen to be restricted because of the way activists have been presenting them.

No.

It clearly wasn't

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No.

It clearly wasn't

yes it clearly was..............