The page reacts differently to different browsers, apparently.Asita said:
Yeah, that's still a terrible proposal.Asita said:
The Democratic Primary is Upon Us! - Biden is the Presumptive Nominee
- Thread starter Tireseas_v1legacy
- Start date
To the former, possibly. In the interest of disclosure, I can reach the page without issue on Safari and Firefox and haven't really tested with other browsers.Seanchaidh said:
To the latter, your mileage may vary somewhat on how good/bad the plan is, but the major objection to the idea seems based in the misconception that the plan can be summed up as "compulsory military service", when by all appearances the plan is neither intended to be compulsory nor militarily focused, but instead to expand public services so that 75%+ of applicants aren't rejected due to lack of funding.
So we're all working from the same information, I'm taking the liberty of pasting the listed steps of the plan in question.
Step 1: Service for All (who want it)
* Fund the Serve America Act to increase paid service opportunities from 75,000 to 250,000 in the existing federal and AmeriCorps grantee organizations and through new Service Year Fellowships, targeting high school, community college, vocational, HBCUs and MSI students, and opportunity youth (out of school and work). Emphasis is placed on high-quality service positions, on-the-job training, leadership development, and mentor-mentee sponsoring.
* An emphasis on cross-country service will enable urban youth to serve in rural communities, and vice-versa, even as the proposal continues to support opportunities for service at home for those with deep local ties and duties.
* Consideration for public service student debt forgiveness, vocational training, and hiring preference for service fellows.
* Fund the Serve America Act to increase paid service opportunities from 75,000 to 250,000 in the existing federal and AmeriCorps grantee organizations and through new Service Year Fellowships, targeting high school, community college, vocational, HBCUs and MSI students, and opportunity youth (out of school and work). Emphasis is placed on high-quality service positions, on-the-job training, leadership development, and mentor-mentee sponsoring.
* An emphasis on cross-country service will enable urban youth to serve in rural communities, and vice-versa, even as the proposal continues to support opportunities for service at home for those with deep local ties and duties.
* Consideration for public service student debt forgiveness, vocational training, and hiring preference for service fellows.
Step 2: Building Service Communities
* Create competitive grant funding for cities, counties, and communities to create ecosystems of service around regional issues. These grants would be built on the Cities of Service model (e.g., South Bend?s 2018 Love Your Block award).7
* This approach will:
1) Foster local capacity; empower local leaders to connect the federal, state, local, philanthropic services to each other; and incubate 21st Century service models.
2) Prioritize communities of color and rural areas, which are too often neglected in national service efforts.
3) Prioritize deeper, local ties over grant-writing ability or a nationwide network.
*Critically, these grants would also incorporate the local public sector workforce (e.g., teachers, firefighters, police officers) who exemplify careers of national service.
* Create competitive grant funding for cities, counties, and communities to create ecosystems of service around regional issues. These grants would be built on the Cities of Service model (e.g., South Bend?s 2018 Love Your Block award).7
* This approach will:
1) Foster local capacity; empower local leaders to connect the federal, state, local, philanthropic services to each other; and incubate 21st Century service models.
2) Prioritize communities of color and rural areas, which are too often neglected in national service efforts.
3) Prioritize deeper, local ties over grant-writing ability or a nationwide network.
*Critically, these grants would also incorporate the local public sector workforce (e.g., teachers, firefighters, police officers) who exemplify careers of national service.
Step 3: Service at Scale
* Quadruple service opportunities to 1 million high school graduates (by 2026 ? the 250th anniversary of America?s Independence).
* Nationwide rollout of the models developed in Step 2, and expanding out-of-state and international service options.
* Create a position of Chief Service Officer with standing on the National Security Council (i.e. regarding international service, foreign aid work) and the White House Domestic Policy Council.
* Expand existing and create new service corps including a Climate Corps (Resilience AmeriCorps + 21st Century Conservation Service Corps), Community Health Corps (i.e. with a focus on community well-being, including mental health, addiction, and substance use issues), and Intergenerational Service Corps (i.e. with a focus on caregiving, mentorship, and other intergenerational service opportunities)
* Quadruple service opportunities to 1 million high school graduates (by 2026 ? the 250th anniversary of America?s Independence).
* Nationwide rollout of the models developed in Step 2, and expanding out-of-state and international service options.
* Create a position of Chief Service Officer with standing on the National Security Council (i.e. regarding international service, foreign aid work) and the White House Domestic Policy Council.
* Expand existing and create new service corps including a Climate Corps (Resilience AmeriCorps + 21st Century Conservation Service Corps), Community Health Corps (i.e. with a focus on community well-being, including mental health, addiction, and substance use issues), and Intergenerational Service Corps (i.e. with a focus on caregiving, mentorship, and other intergenerational service opportunities)
Merits of the plan notwithstanding, that's a far cry from what was claimed/implied by the Tweets.
It's not 'compulsory', Pete just wants it to become a norm that you need to do it in order to get a job later in life.
Is that a satirical comment? That's almost exactly what he attempted with Bolton. The White House somehow blocked him access to his own Twitter account for months and have since tried to block his book from being published under the claim it breaches confidentiality. One might also consider the WH obstructing witness testimonies to Congress from numerous other individuals.Dreiko said:
And finally, firing people could well be seen as denying them a platform to comment (and perhaps more importantly, act.)
Err, that's not cancel culture, that's more akin to an NDA. It's not like they claimed moral superiority and through that got the immoral Bolton removed by actual twitter, they just legally gagged him for a term. That's completely different from the overall culture agreeing that someone is persona non grata and dismissing them from things they earned.Agema said:
In fact, I believe Trump genuinely lacks the social capital required to cancel anyone, because the only circles that'd adhere to an attempt at cancelling someone would be the weird right wing people who don't care about being hypocritical and they're really not a sizable bunch so it'd ultimately be a toothless canceling at best.
Firing people who testified against you is just typical old school retaliation, to try to brand typical political retaliation as canceling when it's just old school career harm is completely disingenuous and is an attempt at diluting the actual issues with cancel culture such as for example the recent facts about how Johnny Depp was unfairly removed from the Pirates franchise based on the lies from his ex about his behavior that were proven to be lies due to leaked audio.
Bolton wasn't gonna be starring in a movie that Trump forced to fire him. If anything, any Hollywood movie would most likely give anyone Trump tried to cancel a raise and triple their promotion of that person unless it's being directed by Klint Eastwood.
1. Trump has already tried to get people fired through twitter even before any investigations. He didn't like their politics and asked their bosses to fire them through Twitter. You know, exactly like Cancel Culture. Where do you think they stole the idea from?Dreiko said:
2. Trump always claims superiority. In everything.
3. Cancel Culture seems to be a copy of that right wing cancelling that's been happening since I was alive. The new South Dakota laws protect anyone who fires a LBGT person, because that type of cancelling is still a thing.
4. So doing this just through twitter is just the worst but doing it 'legally' is A-OK. You know, how its A-OK to do things similar to Chelsea Manning, Snowden etc.
5. Lastly, can we talk about 'things earned.' For example, Alex Jones peddled in hate and conspiracy theories that people rewarded him for. Can we not call that 'things earned'?
Yeah you keep mixing up firing someone you directly employ and creating a climate where that person is thoroughly unenployable by anyone who wishes to see themselves as belonging to polite society. The former is just vindictive old school firing, the latter is cancel culture. If you want to compare it to LGBT situations, it'd be like deeming gay people as somehow unworthy of employment if you wish to claim to be a good person. Nobody is actually doing that in South Dakota, at worst what they do is merely unjustly fire them. Even if you have a bunch of workplaces doing that, it's still nothing compared to being cancelled on twitter which is something that can have international work opportunity ramifications.trunkage said:
And to give you the easiest example, think of how the NFL fired Kaepernic. He's kinda blacklisted from the league for kneeling during the anthem and he's being made an example of. Would you say he's actually canceled though? I don't think he is, I think he's seen as a hero and gets Nike deals that push their stock up and what have you. Merely having the power to fire someone and preventing them from working a specific field is not the same thing as cancelling them. If you're in people's good graces like he is you will still get million dollar deals from advertisers. Conversely, if you're cancelled, it's just that much worse. Both situations make merely being fired unjustly pale in comparison to the harm or benefit in question.
Alex Jones is just kinda crazy and amusing in a car crash sort of way. It's hard to gauge how much of his earning his fame was from the crazy conspiracy theories and how much it was from the entertainment factor. I mean, the guy did find some sort of rich person owl cult back in the late 90s or whenever it was and he had footage of it, so it's not all BS, he just kinda went crazy in more recent years and probably got a bit too big for his own good and was beginning to affect other crazy people. But yeah, one thing I know is that he definitely earned his bank accounts and you can't have banks closing your accounts on you because people on the internet and politicians dislike you. That's a no no.
That also appears to be a misreading. Let's look at the key quote from which it's derived:Seanchaidh said:
While tempting to focus on the "first question" part of the statement, its core is actually in the "we hope service becomes so common", indicating that the goal of the plan is a cultural shift wherein community involvement so commonplace as to be the rule rather than the exception, and as consequence asking what role you played becomes as innocuous as asking where you'd gone to high school.
Yes, if it happens to you it's worse for your life prospects.Silvanus said:
The reason it feels like workplace discrimination is worse is because it's a whole lot more widespread, whereas only a handful of people truly get cancelled, but if you do indeed belong in that handful your life is WAY more fucked than if you're just a gay person in the south. You can more easily hide being gay than you can change your entire identity to be someone else who isn't canceled...and even then people will probably find out who you are and ruin your life all over again.
You need to go under some witness protection program tier hiding to avoid canceling.
Again, Alex Jones had banks close his accounts with them that were in good standing. Do southern banks close gay folk accounts cause they're gay? The worst thing I've heard banks do is call the cops on black people who try to cash out large checks, and that's something you can avoid if you're gay by merely not trying to fuck your banker if they're the same sex as you.
Do you think that the principle is somewhat different between 1) someone losing their job for their innate characteristics and 2) someone not getting employed due to their actions (even if outside work)?Dreiko said:
I'd say the higher likelihood of getting disowned by your parents, being unable to hold your partner's hand, and being the target of violence is substantially worse.Dreiko said:
This is incredibly denigrating. People lose their lives for their sexuality.
That's what being in the closet means to you?! That's all you think it is? Jesus Christ, try to have the tiniest shred of empathy.Dreiko said:
The guy is employed, with an enormous platform and 10 million net worth.Dreiko said:
Yes, it's unjust that something related to online reputation should cost him a choice of bank. But comparing that to the threat of death or getting fired for your innate characteristics? Cry me a fucking river. What utter drivel.
Both are equally irrelevant about their ability to perform their job so any difference is insignificant to the core of why such a thing is unfair. Though I dunno how someone who is gay is not taking an action when they proceed to validate that aspect of themselves, you can be gay and still not act out in any way that'd inform others. You don't have a right to be your true self and not expect any reaction any more than crazy people like Alex Jones have the right to be crazy. I'm sure his conspiracy theories are just him being true to his self just as much as any gay person coming out feels that they're being themselves.Silvanus said:
You don't have to be closeted to not inform your banker that you're gay and if you don't inform them of it they won't know and they won't call the cops when you cash a check unlike the black person who would have to go to the bank in full disguise or something.
Completely irrelevant, you don't get to violate successful people's rights. Banks shouldn't close down your accounts that had no issues just because other people don't like you, it's very simple.
The comparison to Starship Troopers is actually a lot closer than you think. In the novel, you could get citizenship by any kind of civil or community service. From sanitation to testing spacesuits and everything in between. Which if I read this idea correctly, is pretty much that. Minus citizenship of course.crimson5pheonix said:In other words,Asita said:
"Don't have a right to be your true self and not expect any reaction".Dreiko said:
That "reaction" involves threat of violence and death. That "reaction" involves disownment and homelessness. You're saying gay people don't have a right to be free of that, because they can stay in the closet.
That's fucking sickening.
I said they shouldn't close his account.
You said it was worse to be "cancelled" on Twitter than to be the target of discrimination as a gay person. You specifically said the latter was easier.
So, yes, its relevant. What's more difficult, pray tell? Losing a bank account, and so you have to instruct your private accountant to shift your millions to a different bank?
Or losing your home, getting the shit beaten out of you in the street?
Have some sense of perspective.
Even that's disputable in his case: recall that his own lawyer during his custody battle argued that he's merely "a performance artist" and "playing a character" on his show.Kwak said:
Alex Jones has been found guilty of pretty indefensible defamation. He's issued death threats. Dreiko is effectively arguing that suffering repercussions for that is morally the same as suffering discrimination for one's sexuality.
That wasn't the argument being made. I believe the argument Dreiko was trying to make was that a victim of discrimination only has trouble when interacting with those who discriminate, and only if they know the thing they discriminate over. Someone who is "cancelled" can't go to somewhere safer or try to avoid controversy because the Twitter mob follows them to protest wherever they go.Silvanus said:
It's not about moral equivalency. It's that some people hating you isn't the same experience as psychotic internet vigilantes following you around trying to destroy your life. Alex Jones earns some resentment, and just being gay doesn't, but most gay people don't have an angry mob protesting every business that works with them.
Alex Jones is perfectly free to get a normal job that doesn't involve broadcasting his often libelous propaganda on large platforms. If he'd like to make his living doing clerical work or something else relatively private, I'm absolutely sure the protests would go away.tstorm823 said:
If Alex Jones is entitled to a job spewing vitriol and misinformation, so is everyone else. Until that's the case, he can just get another job.