Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 106

Stroggoz, you really don't see how locking people away in cages restricts all of their freedoms, including their freedom of speech? If I were to put you in a dungeon, do I need to put tape on your mouth to prevent you from having free speech, or is the act of being in a place where your speech is rendered irrelevant since there is no one around to care about it enough? ....

Bray presents plenty of evidence that the strategies are justified, if you're not going to pay attention because you have to respect your moral axiom, that's on you. Where is your evidence that rational discourse with fascists and trying to change their mind is effective? By the way, Chomsky argues the opposite, he says that trying to convince people to your position is a bad idea. Secondly, say we all agreed to start there, because we believe (falsely in my view) that humans are more rational than they really are, if it didn't seem to work, at what point would you decide to give up on that strategy and become more aggressive? Would you wait until the deaths in the US are in the hundreds per year (we're getting there), the thousands? Tens of thousands?

You know there are ex Neo-Nazis who have devoted their life to non-violent anti-fascist activism, organizations like Life After Hate, and what they do is they talk to school kids, vulnerable people, they warn them of the dangers of this ideology, or they make themselves available to Neo-Nazis who are trying to exit the movement and offer them support, but they don't go to fascist rallies to debate with committed fascists.

Loco, how can you honestly think a gay congressman getting death threats is worse than a country where not only could a gay person not even become an elected official but they may be executed just for being gay?

That's not the claim that I was responding to when I posted that quote. I was responding to the ludicrous claim that "Brazil is probably the most pro gay country in all of latinamerica." Do you agree with Baal in the face of the evidence I posted or not?

Your second claim is ridiculous and it shows that you have paid only a cursory glance at the issue. Do some more research, I don't have the time to argue with everyone and do all of your homework.

I was responding to you directly saying

I read the guardian article. It's convincing, I have no reason to doubt its veracity. From the way that it paints gay life in Iran right now, according to people who live there, it's better than it is in Brasil by a long shot

It appears you are correct, the article doesn't do a good job explaining that the 387 murders are specifically from homophobic motives. I've retracted that part of my post

I've qualified my statement back there, I said it is according to the Guardian article, and it is in comparison with other LGBT news I've read on Brazil since Bolsonaro's election. I've said after that I simply don't know the broader situation in order to be able to judge, I couldn't find the data on Iran. As for your question, did you read the Guardian article? That's how I can think that it's not as bad as Brazil, but I don't know for sure. I should have qualified in that statement that it seems better in terms of the likelihood of not facing extreme violence and death, because when it comes to the stigmatization it is just as bad or probably worse in Iran.

“The police can’t do anything,” said one man I met in the park. He was wearing women’s shoes, heavy make-up, with a jewelled barrette in his hair and a small black leather purse in the crook of his elbow. “You need three people over the age of eighteen to go to court and swear on the Qur’an that they actually saw you having sex.” As he spoke he had his arm around his male friend’s waist.

“It’s not the police I’m worried about,” said another. “It’s the reaction of the people that’s unpredictable, they’re so homophobic.”

That's just one part of the article. Again, please read what has been referenced and ask me questions based on that, instead of vague and decontextualized "how can you think X when the law is against it?" Apparently the law isn't enforced as you would tend to think it is.

I did read the article. It's hard to glean a broader picture of gay life in Iran from the experiences of one person. The experience is mostly centered in Tehran and near the University, which is probably one of the most progressive and tolerant places in the entire country and may not be representative of gay life elsewhere in the country.

Despite the anecdotal evidence of the author sometimes seeing LGBTQ people being affectionate in the streets I'd imagine that there are overwhelmingly more people in Brazil that are comfortable enough to be "out" than in Iran.

from wiki:

In 2010, a survey conducted by Rio de Janeiro State University and University of Campinas revealed that by age of 18, 95% of homosexual youth in Brazil had already revealed their homosexuality, with many acknowledging it by the time they were 16. For the 1980s generation, homosexuality was usually revealed after they were 21 years old. Prejudice has also decreased according to data from a survey of Ibope. The same survey found that 60% of Brazilians considered homosexuality as "natural."

I'm not LGBTQ but from gay people I've talked to, being able to be "out" has a huge impact on quality of life.

You're quoting stats from 2010. There was an important change in government in Iran and in Brasil. Brasil now has a fascist president who has openly called out for violence against gay people several times and who compared being gay with being a pedophile. LGBT crimes have gone up 35% in the past year there, while it at least seems to be getting better in Iran. That's all I know, I can't say much else without specific hate crime data in Iran. I would think that if it was worse in Iran there would have been efforts made by some org to put those statistics out.

I just went through Brays 'evidence' and paid attention to it in my last post.

yeah i'd agree with Chomsky on that point, it's best to just look at the facts. but if your interacting with someone deeply embeeded in their ideology, you have to show you care about their situation.

yeah things like Life after Hate, that's education, and one of the things that i am talking about.

I'm not sure about the evidence that rationality is better than violence in changing people's minds. I don't think it's possible to find solid evidence for that given societies complex nature. I don't know many fascists, there are very few where i live, so I have not interacted with any. Rational discourse is obviously only a small part of cultural change at most. This doesn't mean we should'nt have it.

As for the alt right and people in that movement who have murdered others and gone on killing sprees. They seem to me to be pretty isolated, lonely individuals. Actually imo the best thing would be to offer them opportunities in life. The movement as a whole right now should be addressed by simply giving them opportunities in life so they don't go down that path. Like i've been aruging i think the root's of this are the neoliberal economic system. There is probably research out there that deals with this topic.

In order for it to be an attack on freedom of speech they have to be expressing themselves on issue's-and forcibly removed from soceity because of it.That's how amnesty international looks at attacks on speech. Like i said, i agree it's a bad thing, and yes it does have an effect on what they can say in society-as many policies do, but it isn't an attack on freedom of expression. These are the definitions that are commonly accepted.

the other example he cite's are the political assassinations of black panther party members in the 1960's. And this was a restriction on speech-they were attacked because they were expressing themselves.

Again, I am in favor of a multi-pronged approach to solving complex problems. If a person's mind can be changed "by looking at the facts", or through the compassion of a mentor, that's all wonderful. But the priority is not changing people's minds when they question other people's humanity and seek to do them harm. It is about preventing them from acting on those beliefs. The changing their mind part can come later. Once they have harmed people, it's too late. If someone shows up to your door and they're in deep emotional distress and they're pointing a gun at you, the only thing you care about is to calm them down, or have them become scared enough that it will prevent them doing you violence; you don't care about changing the foundations of their belief system in that situation. The whole point of the book is to look at this and make a case that being a pacifist or relying on the authority of the state is probably not the way to go about it when all non-violent options-- which should always be prioritized--have failed.

The free speech issue is secondary to that, but it looks like you've jumped right into that and decided to judge the book almost based on that solely. It's really simple. There are people for whom the prevention of real physical and mental harm trumps abstract rights like free speech rights. I am one of them. I also believe in the paradox of tolerance. Philosophical ideas evolve over time, and I find more value in mid to late 20th century philosophers like Marcuse and Popper on this issue than 19th century philosophers like Mill who lived during the golden age of liberalism and who didn't get to see its most egregious failings.

When you say it could be solved by "giving people opportunities" you are being very vague, and it seems to me that this is something that falls under the authority of the state, going back to Drone's earlier point, which I don't trust can solve this. The ability of the state to implement programs that can help the vulnerable can never outweigh the harms that come from the larger-order organizational structures, they act as band-aids, and they are always threatened. The problem, to me, is not about them lacking opportunities per se (opportunities to do what? to partake in a destructive society? to have more means to consume? to distract themselves?) it is about living in a system that is inherently restrictive of the full range of human experience. A system rooted in competition in which the social tissue is deeply eroded and where people live atomized lives and often lack meaningful relationships. It's a dehumanizing system where free time and creative endeavors are considered a luxury instead of a need, and you rarely have the ability to do the things you would really like to do with your life.

opportunities as in full employment^^ and reasonable pay, basically have to force the state into getting rid of it's neoliberal policies, as a 1st step. Then can go from there on the issues your talking about

Full employment in what is most likely going to be an unfulfilling job and likely to lead to burn out just displaces or delays the problem, if it doesn't contribute to it. Also, right-wingers have been indoctrinated into having a strong work ethic, so they're very often employed. It's a meme for right-wingers to call out leftist activists as jobless basement dwellers. Of course in the worst US cities it's not the case but say in my city, our fascists are pretty well off, and I don't think it's as big of a deal as you think in general. Antifa has always focused on doxxing far-right extremists so that they don't have time to be activists if their source of revenue have been cut off due to being exposed and it works well according to what I've read and the documentaries I've watched. You'd expect doxxing to make things worse if lack of employment was the major part of what motivates fascists to organize and harm others.

i'm in favour of restriction of speech if it involves immediate harm, anti platforming isn't prevention of physical harm.

Stroggoz get back into poker instead of this nonsense

How do you know that no platforming doesn't prevent harm without contextualizing what is being said on that platform? False advertising is just a bunch of words, so is libel. It doesn't lead to any direct harm. Where do you draw the line and why should your standard be trusted?

You should know that people will not stand by idly as their humanity is being questioned and a group advocates a genocide against them. It's undeniable that it's unthinkable for many people to accept this. So the question is, do you support their efforts despite your disagreement or not? Do you cast them as enemies and hold on to the belief that these people are just less rational than you? It seems to be the least productive option of all.

I think it's best to not further divide the left. I think people who disagree should remain open to the possibility that they haven't entirely grasped what's at stake if fascism becomes (increasingly) normalized, and that they don't understand what the people who are targeted feel like on a daily basis and why it matters that they resist, sometimes in aggressive ways.

Anyway, I think I've made opinion known on this issue. You are free to disagree with me, we don't need to keep going in circles. I'd encourage you to read more than a few pages and reflect on the book, but it's okay if you've already made up your mind. We all need to have a sacred cow. If pacifism and free speech are yours, so be it.

I'm curious though, this is something that Bray and Hedges both agree on but I'm not sure you do... Do you think we can convince the wealthy to give up their wealth and power? If they don't, and the problems that breathe fire into fascism keep on growing because of it, then what?

Probably can't convince many of the wealthy to give up their power. I have not seen it happen. The problem is it's institutional, even if you convince some...others will take their place. So it's hardly even a good idea unless it affected like quite a large % of them. A'll sorts of things you can do to combat the powerful. Occupy was a good idea, and it had a lot of predecents before that which had an effect. There just need's to be more of that-and it comes from work done by lots of activisists always working towards it.

@vander why would i get back into that when i can go do other things that make me much more happy. It's a dying profession as well.

Maduro doesn't take the humanitarian help cause that would apparently open his borders to military intervention .... ?????

If he doesn't have the resources to oversee the transition of the goods from the Columbian border to Venezuela then how would he even dream of having the resources of slowing a coup attempt by the USA? Hilarious.

Also Maduro is done. Nobody will help Venezuela now, even the Russian banks froze assets and stopped trading cause of fear of sanctions. Regardless of what Putin says Russia is not gonna lift a finger for them now.

It's not humanitarian aid, it's military aggression disguised as aid to further manipulate public opinion. The Red Cross, Oxfam, UN are already providing aid and they have said that the US sending "humanitarian aid" is a move aiding US intervention. It's orchestrated by a war criminal, who has once used this same tactic to smuggle weapons during the Iran-Contra scandal. Start getting your news from reputable sources please. We've just went over this. You called me naive just a few posts ago yet you're still taking the MSM narrative at face value... if the US cared about delivering humanitarian aid they would lift sanctions that are causing the problem.

Apparently the US "aid" that has stacked up at the Colombian border "consists of basic food products such as lentils and flour, as well as basic personal hygiene products estimated to meet the needs of 5,000 people for roughly 10 days." It's ridiculous. They're sending ~$20 mill while denying them $23 billion and costing them $30 mill a day in sanctions. Guaido is also apparently encouraging the illegal use of the Red Cross logo.

Indeed seems like I'm the naive one here. If the USA wanted to help they could've gone through the Red Cross.

Russia might send some aid but news like this mean they wont really take any risk - https://www.ccn.com/us-sanctions-sque...freezing-venezuela-oil-firms-accounts


Also - https://www.democracynow.org/2019/2/22/this_is_not_humanitarian_aid_a

at around 18th minute there is a woman interrupting the UN meeting in Washington

This aid convoys obviously isn't humanitarian its just a political move, I dont think they are smuggling weapons since Maduro could just inspect these trucks with their media present, however if Maduro were to accept this aid he would be implying that Venezuela is a failed state that needs the imperialist help to survive and if he doesn't accept thea id he becomes a monster who will starve his people out of ego to the international coummunity, it is quite a smart move from the US leaving Maduro no good exits.


--------------

Loco on doubling down on Brazil being worse for gays than Iran, a theocracy with a sharia judicial system that punishes homosexuality with flogging and death... congratulations, you are retarded, and this isnt ableist gaslighting, it is a free medical diagnosis, you are welcome.