DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => New Political and Religious Forum => Topic started by: Tick on January 19, 2017, 05:47:00 AM

Title: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Tick on January 19, 2017, 05:47:00 AM
Anyone who spends any time on Facebook (especially the past year) knows how divided the American people are. It is the new normal. We will never see a unified country. To compound that you have a slew of democrats skipping the inauguration. It's like a parent who watches they're children misbehave and instead of correcting them, they join in.
This to me is "deplorable"
These elected officials need to realize it's all bigger than themselves. What kind of message does it send to a country and its citizens when you show us you are unwilling to represent us in a respectful fashion? It's sending a clear message that we are all doomed because the people who work on our behalf are unwilling to start the next 4 years with some sense of unity. We all know you hate the guy but if you show up we know you are adults willing to do the right thing for a nation instead of sending the message we are all doomed. Some things are bigger than our own ideals. These people need to realize this is just another shift down another "unprecedented" path of division.
Don't like the current situation, do the respectful thing for your nation by being part of the inauguration of the next president of the country who employs you! Then if you have a problem when the administration begins, roll up your sleeves dig in and try your best to make a difference.
We will never see unity among the American people if the people who work on our behalf set such a poor example.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: TAC on January 19, 2017, 05:55:26 AM
I agree.

As of yesterday, I am no longer a registered Democrat. I am now an Independent. How the Democrats have acted in this election, especially post election, has been embarrassing.

I'm no Trump toadie to be sure. He's sketchy, let's just put it that way. I never had any intention to vote for him, only making my mind up to do so in the 24 hours leading up to voting. It was those last minute attack ads from Hillary that pushed me over the edge.

Democrats skipping the Inauguration is disgraceful. They are so afraid of losing their base. They are so afraid of Trump actually succeeding. Will he, who knows? But for the country's sake, he better.

And Obama has been invisible on this. He sold us a bill of goods on being a great unifier, and I fell for it. We couldn't be more ununified.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: Chino on January 19, 2017, 05:56:28 AM
I think the whole not showing up thing is pretty lame, and it's reminiscent of the tantrums I used to throw as a child. It's really not any better than the behavior on the GOP's side that they've been criticizing for the last eight years. It's stupid and I don't really see the point. I don't really see what it accomplishes, and to me it does more harm than good. Two weeks after the election I changed my voter registration status from democrat to independent. This kind of behavior is why, and it certainly won't be winning me back any time soon. If they are really that hell bent on making a statement, they should go down and turn their backs to him at the podium.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: chknptpie on January 19, 2017, 06:46:52 AM
I'm perfectly fine with it. I'm also not really a fan of patriotism and tradition, so that might be why.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: Tick on January 19, 2017, 07:30:58 AM
These officials represent every American, not just the half of the party they represent. They are employed by the American people and thus should respect all Americans by showing that unity is the only way anything will ever change for the better.  The world is watching us, and this looks bad.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 19, 2017, 07:39:34 AM
I'm perfectly fine with it. I'm also not really a fan of patriotism and tradition, so that might be why.

Eh, I don't want to minimize your point, but if it was the other way around would you feel this way? If Clinton won and the Rs were saying she was a criminal and shouldn't be President and they weren't supporting the transition of power by not going to the inauguration, would you be cool with that? The standard is the standard and needs applied both ways regardless of political views or affiliations.

Furthermore, I think my disapproval of this move by some Dems isn't rooted in patriotism or tradition, it's rooted in the fact that all these guys and gals, once again regardless of affiliation, are in the position they are in to be public servants. To try to improve our country, to go to bat for the folks they represent, to cross political divides in the name of progress toward goals that help and enable the American people to realize the American dream. Not going to the inauguration does none of that. That's my measuring stick for this, not patriotism or tradition.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: Harmony on January 19, 2017, 08:06:01 AM
I have no sympathy for Trump who literally Tweeted this after Obama won:  "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

You reap what you sow. 
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: Chino on January 19, 2017, 08:09:26 AM
I have no sympathy for Trump who literally Tweeted this after Obama won:  "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

You reap what you sow.

And he tweeted this right before he won his second term.

(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Screen-shot-2016-11-10-at-9.57.16-AM.png)
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: El Barto on January 19, 2017, 08:10:41 AM
I've got no problem with them declining to support the boy president, but I think their reasons are bad. I don't think the guy's done anything to warrant respect, and he's damn sure not one to show respect for those he doesn't approve of. The idea that you have to respect the office has always been a little lame to me, and now that the office is actively blasting all dissenters, regardless of their rationale, even more-so. Rather than saying he's illegitimate because of Russia, one of them should just say "he's an imbecilic man-child and I'll be taking in a movie tomorrow."

For the record, I had no problem when Grabby was refusing to say he'd concede the election if he thought it was shady. Something the people blasting the democrats here seem to have forgotten.

Lastly, while I've got no problem with it on a philosophical level, the stupidity of the democratic party is pretty astonishing. They're buying right into the game that cost them the election in the first place and doubling down.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: cramx3 on January 19, 2017, 08:20:07 AM
I'd be OK if everyone sat this out and we as a country just save the money being spent on this.  Trump assumes presidency without the show and life goes on.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: Implode on January 19, 2017, 08:47:24 AM
I pretty much agree with with EB, and as usual he states it better than I could.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 19, 2017, 09:49:30 AM
I loathe Trump, and I personally wouldn't attend the inauguration if I had a free ticket.

But if Democratic officeholders would ordinarily be there, they should go.  I hate the sonuvabitch, but it's democracy in action, and he won.  Go to the inauguration and let's pretend to be a united country for a couple of hours.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 19, 2017, 10:19:12 AM
you are unwilling to represent us in a respectful fashion?

Legislators do not give a fuck about you or any other constituent in this country.  Never have, never will.  They give a fuck about one thing.  Staying in power.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: lonestar on January 19, 2017, 10:59:46 AM
The world is watching us, and this looks bad.

I don't think we can damage our image to the rest of the world much more than we already have. We did elect Donald Trump for president after all.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 19, 2017, 11:21:56 AM
The world is watching us, and this looks bad.

I don't think we can damage our image to the rest of the world much more than we already have. We did elect Donald Trump for president after all.

.....and obama twice.....
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: El Barto on January 19, 2017, 11:28:57 AM
The world is watching us, and this looks bad.

I don't think we can damage our image to the rest of the world much more than we already have. We did elect Donald Trump for president after all.

.....and obama twice.....
At the time Obama was elected he seemed pretty reasonable. There was no objective reason to assume he was going to suck. Trump was elected despite, and in some cases because of the fact he was off the rails. One makes us look foolish in retrospect. One makes us look batshit insane in the here and now.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: Chino on January 19, 2017, 11:29:12 AM
The world is watching us, and this looks bad.

I don't think we can damage our image to the rest of the world much more than we already have. We did elect Donald Trump for president after all.

.....and obama twice.....

You're tripping if you think the rest of the world views voting for Obama to be equal to or worse than voting for Trump.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 19, 2017, 11:34:30 AM
The world is watching us, and this looks bad.

I don't think we can damage our image to the rest of the world much more than we already have. We did elect Donald Trump for president after all.

.....and obama twice.....

You're tripping if you think the rest of the world views voting for Obama to be equal to or worse than voting for Trump.

^This
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 19, 2017, 11:52:03 AM
Corrected the thread title spelling.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 19, 2017, 11:55:46 AM
The world is watching us, and this looks bad.

I don't think we can damage our image to the rest of the world much more than we already have. We did elect Donald Trump for president after all.

.....and obama twice.....

You're tripping if you think the rest of the world views voting for Obama to be equal to or worse than voting for Trump.

^This

Oh I'm not arguing that point....the rest of the world I'm sure has been happy with a timid President who bent over backwards to make sure to apologize for America being around and has done everything he can to emasculate the US just short of removing the 'balls' all together.

It's simply two different viewpoints. I can post until I have carpel tunnel detailing why I think obama was a horrid President....and believe every word of it AND not change "your"opinions on why he was the second coming of christ. You could do the same....obama has 8 years of evidence to support either viewpoint equally.

Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet. I'm not saying Trump is god's gift to Repubs or even my values....and that his antics aren't childish....but I know I could give a  :censored less about what the 'rest of the world' thinks at this point in human history being that the rest of the world has benefited greatly from America over the past 100 years or so.

Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 19, 2017, 12:02:23 PM
Yeah, but the point he was making is based on how this looks to the rest of the world.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: cramx3 on January 19, 2017, 12:06:46 PM
The world is watching us, and this looks bad.

I don't think we can damage our image to the rest of the world much more than we already have. We did elect Donald Trump for president after all.

.....and obama twice.....

You're tripping if you think the rest of the world views voting for Obama to be equal to or worse than voting for Trump.

You're also tripping if you think the rest of the world cares that much about who we elect.  I never like the idea of doing anything, whether personal or on a large scale, because of what others may think.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Adami on January 19, 2017, 12:08:20 PM
Much of Europe cares to some degree, because they recognize that immense power that America has.


And if the attitude is "F*** you, we're America", then I can't see much getting better for us as a planet.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 19, 2017, 12:09:55 PM
Appearances matter. One of the things Grabby is completely incapable of understanding. As for me, I'm inclined to agree that we shouldn't base our actions on the opinions of others, but on a personal level I don't like being associated with LCD asshats.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: Adami on January 19, 2017, 12:10:42 PM
The world is watching us, and this looks bad.

I don't think we can damage our image to the rest of the world much more than we already have. We did elect Donald Trump for president after all.

.....and obama twice.....

You're tripping if you think the rest of the world views voting for Obama to be equal to or worse than voting for Trump.

^This

Oh I'm not arguing that point....the rest of the world I'm sure has been happy with a timid President who bent over backwards to make sure to apologize for America being around and has done everything he can to emasculate the US just short of removing the 'balls' all together.

I don't want America to be a great country because we act like selfish jerks without consideration for anyone else and then refuse to apologize for it. I want it to be a paragon of virtue that other countries can respect and look up to. America (and most other countries) have made tons and tons of mistakes. Owning up to them isn't a sign of weakness.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 19, 2017, 12:19:30 PM
And since a cornerstone of conservative foreign policy is the US taking on a leadership role, do we really want the example we set to be acting like assholes and bullies?
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: cramx3 on January 19, 2017, 12:22:14 PM
And since a cornerstone of conservative foreign policy is the US taking on a leadership role, do we really want the example we set to be acting like assholes and bullies?

No, but that's how we've been acting for way longer than Trump so this is nothing new although maybe more extreme.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: chknptpie on January 19, 2017, 12:22:31 PM
I'm perfectly fine with it. I'm also not really a fan of patriotism and tradition, so that might be why.

Eh, I don't want to minimize your point, but if it was the other way around would you feel this way? If Clinton won and the Rs were saying she was a criminal and shouldn't be President and they weren't supporting the transition of power by not going to the inauguration, would you be cool with that? The standard is the standard and needs applied both ways regardless of political views or affiliations.

Furthermore, I think my disapproval of this move by some Dems isn't rooted in patriotism or tradition, it's rooted in the fact that all these guys and gals, once again regardless of affiliation, are in the position they are in to be public servants. To try to improve our country, to go to bat for the folks they represent, to cross political divides in the name of progress toward goals that help and enable the American people to realize the American dream. Not going to the inauguration does none of that. That's my measuring stick for this, not patriotism or tradition.

I personally would not care if it was switched. In my mind, attending (or not attending) the inauguration is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of things. I would rather people (including politicians) actually act on their beliefs rather than pretend to support someone.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: Chino on January 19, 2017, 12:25:10 PM
The world is watching us, and this looks bad.

I don't think we can damage our image to the rest of the world much more than we already have. We did elect Donald Trump for president after all.

.....and obama twice.....

You're tripping if you think the rest of the world views voting for Obama to be equal to or worse than voting for Trump.

^This

Oh I'm not arguing that point....the rest of the world I'm sure has been happy with a timid President who bent over backwards to make sure to apologize for America being around and has done everything he can to emasculate the US just short of removing the 'balls' all together.

I don't want America to be a great country because we act like selfish jerks without consideration for anyone else and then refuse to apologize for it. I want it to be a paragon of virtue that other countries can respect and look up to. America (and most other countries) have made tons and tons of mistakes. Owning up to them isn't a sign of weakness.

This is where I stand as well. Like it or not, humanity has reached a point where we really need to start acting together on a lot of things. We need to share our technologies and our ideas. We should encourage crossing borders to solve problems. America has had the good fortune of only having to share its borders with two other countries, with massive coastlines separating us from anyone else by thousands of miles. We were geographically lucky and it's benefitted every person currently living here greatly.

I don't want to show off our military in designated parades. Yeah, it's good to have it on standby, but wanting to spend millions and millions of dollars to roll unnecessary equipment through our streets in an effort to "make other countries respect us" just seems so backwards when looking at history.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 19, 2017, 12:26:41 PM
I personally would not care if it was switched. In my mind, attending (or not attending) the inauguration is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of things. I would rather people (including politicians) actually act on their beliefs rather than pretend to support someone.

But it's not a minor thing when you state publicly the reason why you aren't attending is because you (not you personally, the Dems doing this) consider Trump a "illegitimate president" based on essentially rumors and hearsay. Words mean something and those words are very dangerous. That's the bigger picture here.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on January 19, 2017, 12:27:00 PM
The world is watching us, and this looks bad.

I don't think we can damage our image to the rest of the world much more than we already have. We did elect Donald Trump for president after all.

.....and obama twice.....

You're tripping if you think the rest of the world views voting for Obama to be equal to or worse than voting for Trump.

You're also tripping if you think the rest of the world cares that much about who we elect.  I never like the idea of doing anything, whether personal or on a large scale, because of what others may think.
Pretty much everyone I know has the collective opinion of "WTF have you done America".  :lol
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: cramx3 on January 19, 2017, 12:30:41 PM
I don't want to show off our military in designated parades. Yeah, it's good to have it on standby, but wanting to spend millions and millions of dollars to roll unnecessary equipment through our streets in an effort to "make other countries respect us" just seems so backwards when looking at history.

This is kind of where I was going earlier when I mentioned I'd rather not do the inauguration at all.  Just seems like a huge waste and if we can't even get along on such an event, what's the point?

The world is watching us, and this looks bad.

I don't think we can damage our image to the rest of the world much more than we already have. We did elect Donald Trump for president after all.

.....and obama twice.....

You're tripping if you think the rest of the world views voting for Obama to be equal to or worse than voting for Trump.

You're also tripping if you think the rest of the world cares that much about who we elect.  I never like the idea of doing anything, whether personal or on a large scale, because of what others may think.
Pretty much everyone I know has the collective opinion of "WTF have you done America".  :lol

And sure, everyone talks about it, but do they actually care?  I was in Frankfurt on election day, no one cared or was even talking about it (which I was surprised by considering the election itself was a surprise).  In America, we talked a whole lot about brexit, but does anyone really care?  That's kind of what I meant.  Not just have an opinion, but care about it.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 19, 2017, 12:41:05 PM
And since a cornerstone of conservative foreign policy is the US taking on a leadership role, do we really want the example we set to be acting like assholes and bullies?

No, but that's how we've been acting for way longer than Trump so this is nothing new although maybe more extreme.
But I thought we spent the last 8 years acting like castrated wimps?
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: pogoowner on January 19, 2017, 12:46:20 PM
And since a cornerstone of conservative foreign policy is the US taking on a leadership role, do we really want the example we set to be acting like assholes and bullies?

No, but that's how we've been acting for way longer than Trump so this is nothing new although maybe more extreme.
But I thought we spent the last 8 years acting like castrated wimps?
While bombing 7 countries.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: cramx3 on January 19, 2017, 12:47:59 PM
And since a cornerstone of conservative foreign policy is the US taking on a leadership role, do we really want the example we set to be acting like assholes and bullies?

No, but that's how we've been acting for way longer than Trump so this is nothing new although maybe more extreme.
But I thought we spent the last 8 years acting like castrated wimps?

I was actually referring to much more of a past than the last 8 years.  Obama was not much of a bully IMO, but I feel like America as a whole has been a bully for pretty much my entire life at least.  Not saying that's necessarily bad either.  Sometimes someone needs to be an asshole and push people to make progress.  And sometimes being an asshole makes things worse. 
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 19, 2017, 01:00:15 PM
And since a cornerstone of conservative foreign policy is the US taking on a leadership role, do we really want the example we set to be acting like assholes and bullies?

No, but that's how we've been acting for way longer than Trump so this is nothing new although maybe more extreme.
But I thought we spent the last 8 years acting like castrated wimps?

I was actually referring to much more of a past than the last 8 years.  Obama was not much of a bully IMO, but I feel like America as a whole has been a bully for pretty much my entire life at least.  Not saying that's necessarily bad either.  Sometimes someone needs to be an asshole and push people to make progress.  And sometimes being an asshole makes things worse.
Agree pretty much across the board. What concerns me is, as you say, there's a time for hearts and minds and there's a time for ball-grabbing (Westmorland, not Trump). Trump has shown no signs of even understanding this, much less working with it, and he's playing it against people who, sometimes correctly and others not, suggest Obama only cared about the hearts and minds (or as somebody here would put it, being a pussy). While I'm offended by the long term goal of Obama's foreign policy, in many cases I think the specifics were bang-on with what I'd call a more contemplative approach. Grabby's reactionary and emotional, and those qualities tend to pin down and beat the ever-loving shit out of reason and deliberation.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: Stadler on January 19, 2017, 01:03:45 PM
I'm perfectly fine with it. I'm also not really a fan of patriotism and tradition, so that might be why.

Eh, I don't want to minimize your point, but if it was the other way around would you feel this way? If Clinton won and the Rs were saying she was a criminal and shouldn't be President and they weren't supporting the transition of power by not going to the inauguration, would you be cool with that? The standard is the standard and needs applied both ways regardless of political views or affiliations.

Furthermore, I think my disapproval of this move by some Dems isn't rooted in patriotism or tradition, it's rooted in the fact that all these guys and gals, once again regardless of affiliation, are in the position they are in to be public servants. To try to improve our country, to go to bat for the folks they represent, to cross political divides in the name of progress toward goals that help and enable the American people to realize the American dream. Not going to the inauguration does none of that. That's my measuring stick for this, not patriotism or tradition.

I personally would not care if it was switched. In my mind, attending (or not attending) the inauguration is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of things. I would rather people (including politicians) actually act on their beliefs rather than pretend to support someone.

But that begs the question; what beliefs are they acting on?   Some basic ideological difference with a candidate (fair point) or a complete "F*** you", nose-thumb to the process that we call "democracy" (which is not so noble)?   I don't think it's black and white, but I think there's a degree to which, if their principles ARE that we are a team, we should work together despite our differences, and that their job is to represent ALL people in their constituency, and not just those that agree with them (or donate to them) then they should be there, standing tall, and clapping loudly.   

Put another way, I don't view some of these people (I would except John Lewis from this, for example) as a noble freedom fighter, standing up for his beliefs; I view them as whiny babies who didn't get their way in November and are now pouting out loud. 
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 19, 2017, 01:12:43 PM
And since a cornerstone of conservative foreign policy is the US taking on a leadership role, do we really want the example we set to be acting like assholes and bullies?

No, but that's how we've been acting for way longer than Trump so this is nothing new although maybe more extreme.
But I thought we spent the last 8 years acting like castrated wimps?

I was actually referring to much more of a past than the last 8 years.  Obama was not much of a bully IMO, but I feel like America as a whole has been a bully for pretty much my entire life at least.  Not saying that's necessarily bad either.  Sometimes someone needs to be an asshole and push people to make progress.  And sometimes being an asshole makes things worse.
Agree pretty much across the board. What concerns me is, as you say, there's a time for hearts and minds and there's a time for ball-grabbing (Westmorland, not Trump). Trump has shown no signs of even understanding this, much less working with it, and he's playing it against people who, sometimes correctly and others not, suggest Obama only cared about the hearts and minds (or as somebody here would put it, being a pussy). While I'm offended by the long term goal of Obama's foreign policy, in many cases I think the specifics were bang-on with what I'd call a more contemplative approach. Grabby's reactionary and emotional, and those qualities tend to pin down and beat the ever-loving shit out of reason and deliberation.

Forget about whether you like it or not, or whether you agree with it or not, but we have a foreign policy that is exactly what many people voted for, in the wake of eight years of Bush's nation-building approach to the rest of the world.  It's one of the few things that Obama actually delivered on, and even though some of us called this nonsense eight years ago, it's still pretty much a case of going into "Chick-fil-A", then going on Yelp! and giving the store one star, complaining that "Everything is CHICKEN. Chicken THIS, chicken THAT.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: cramx3 on January 19, 2017, 01:17:23 PM
And since a cornerstone of conservative foreign policy is the US taking on a leadership role, do we really want the example we set to be acting like assholes and bullies?

No, but that's how we've been acting for way longer than Trump so this is nothing new although maybe more extreme.
But I thought we spent the last 8 years acting like castrated wimps?

I was actually referring to much more of a past than the last 8 years.  Obama was not much of a bully IMO, but I feel like America as a whole has been a bully for pretty much my entire life at least.  Not saying that's necessarily bad either.  Sometimes someone needs to be an asshole and push people to make progress.  And sometimes being an asshole makes things worse.
Agree pretty much across the board. What concerns me is, as you say, there's a time for hearts and minds and there's a time for ball-grabbing (Westmorland, not Trump). Trump has shown no signs of even understanding this, much less working with it, and he's playing it against people who, sometimes correctly and others not, suggest Obama only cared about the hearts and minds (or as somebody here would put it, being a pussy). While I'm offended by the long term goal of Obama's foreign policy, in many cases I think the specifics were bang-on with what I'd call a more contemplative approach. Grabby's reactionary and emotional, and those qualities tend to pin down and beat the ever-loving shit out of reason and deliberation.

That's always been one of my beefs with Trump.  He hasn't shown at all that he can be compassionate which is an important quality to have if you are also going to be a hard ass.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 19, 2017, 01:20:08 PM
And since a cornerstone of conservative foreign policy is the US taking on a leadership role, do we really want the example we set to be acting like assholes and bullies?

No, but that's how we've been acting for way longer than Trump so this is nothing new although maybe more extreme.
But I thought we spent the last 8 years acting like castrated wimps?

I was actually referring to much more of a past than the last 8 years.  Obama was not much of a bully IMO, but I feel like America as a whole has been a bully for pretty much my entire life at least.  Not saying that's necessarily bad either.  Sometimes someone needs to be an asshole and push people to make progress.  And sometimes being an asshole makes things worse.
Agree pretty much across the board. What concerns me is, as you say, there's a time for hearts and minds and there's a time for ball-grabbing (Westmorland, not Trump). Trump has shown no signs of even understanding this, much less working with it, and he's playing it against people who, sometimes correctly and others not, suggest Obama only cared about the hearts and minds (or as somebody here would put it, being a pussy). While I'm offended by the long term goal of Obama's foreign policy, in many cases I think the specifics were bang-on with what I'd call a more contemplative approach. Grabby's reactionary and emotional, and those qualities tend to pin down and beat the ever-loving shit out of reason and deliberation.

That's always been one of my beefs with Trump.  He hasn't shown at all that he can be compassionate which is an important quality to have if you are also going to be a hard ass.
I'd settle for thoughtful, but I think we're both SOL on this one.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Elite on January 19, 2017, 01:23:27 PM
Much of Europe cares to some degree, because they recognize that immense power that America has.

This.

The world is watching us, and this looks bad.

I don't think we can damage our image to the rest of the world much more than we already have. We did elect Donald Trump for president after all.

.....and obama twice.....

You're tripping if you think the rest of the world views voting for Obama to be equal to or worse than voting for Trump.

You're also tripping if you think the rest of the world cares that much about who we elect.  I never like the idea of doing anything, whether personal or on a large scale, because of what others may think.

Like it or not, but your trainwreck of an election and the year and a half that preceded it was heavily covered and featured in the international press as well. All the nonsense made the news in my country at least and the pre-elections got attention. We knew who your 21 Republican candidates were. The media schooled me on how your electoral system works and gave me backgrounds of all people that played a role. Every Republican candidate that dropped got their own news article. Don't fool yourself that the world isn't watching what's happening, because on behalf of the rest of the world, I think I can state with clear consience that we do indeed care that much who you elect.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: cramx3 on January 19, 2017, 01:29:56 PM
Once again, everyone is watching, but who is caring?  Most of America doesn't even care.  I don't think you'll be able to convince me that the rest of the world actually cares.  This election was massively entertaining.  It was the best reality TV you could ever find.  It's also very important and I know many people do in fact care, but I'm not really sure anyone's opinions have changed on some massive scale that we, Americans, should care about to take into account.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: kingshmegland on January 19, 2017, 01:37:25 PM
Me personally, I've never watched the Inauguration.  I've skipped it ever time.  Now as a voted in politician, it should be your duty to go.  More and more bipartisanship is a thing of the past as we move further left and further right.

It's lets see how in 3 years, we can battle each other to get the other out and get our guy in.  In the end the real losers of this battle is us, the voters.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: cramx3 on January 19, 2017, 01:38:54 PM
In the end the real losers of this battle is us

yup
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 19, 2017, 01:39:47 PM
In the end the real losers of this battle is us

yup

True
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Tick on January 19, 2017, 01:54:48 PM
I just feel all these Dems skipping out says to an already greatly divided country that its ok.  It says unity is a thing of the past. My daughter is in DC right now with her high school. One of only 50 kids in the state of Connecticut going. This trip was planned long before we knew who would be sworn in. My daughter wanted Hillary to win. She doesn’t care for Trump at all, and busted my balls continuously not to vote for him.
Regardless of who won, she is filled with pride to be part of history and is loving the experience so far. These pinheads don’t seem to give a rats ass about sending a positive message to the youth of the nation. That message is things don’t always go the way we want as adults. The right thing is to honor the president in this moment. When he takes office and your disenchanted, you roll up your sleeves and try to get things done for the American people. Both sides are disgusting now. Its sends a terrible message to kids like my daughter who will someday shape this country.
That’s how I feel.
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16114061_10101508256508930_3118527011263327352_n.jpg?oh=edd869feb1243f272a1c823ffe2f4c1e&oe=5914B822)
This is our future, and these kids are loving this experience.

Its too bad a bunch of whiny bitches don't think anything but party matters, and not the nation and its people as a whole.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: RuRoRul on January 19, 2017, 01:55:01 PM
I think that a government that could work together with some semblance of bipartisanship would be good, on the other hand I completely understand the position politicians that would not normally make such a gesture doing so because it is Donald Trump in particular. I don't really know what would be better - unified solidatiry in just showing up no matter how distasteful he is, or making a point by giving it a miss in decent numbers - but ultimately I don't think it is that important.

One thought I had with regards to bipartisanship, as people start to wonder how the Democrats should act as opposition going forward... this election, America essentially voted that bipartisanship is irrelevant. The Republicans in Congress took obstructionism to new heights (most notable is the Supreme Court nomination which the Senate refused to even vote on), and they retained their majority and won the presidency. If you want any politician, Republican or Democrat, to think that bipartisanship is important, then sending the same people back and giving them even more power does not work. All that shows is that the strategy employed by the Republicans in recent years is the way to be successful. If the Democrats start doing the same (obviously they will not be able to do so effectively with minorities in congress, but if things change in 2 or 4 years...), then yes you could accuse them of hypocrisy for doing what they criticised the Republicans for. But on the other hand, they would simply be doing what the voters have shown is an acceptable and potentially successful approach.

So whether it's small symbolic gestures like skipping an inauguration, or something more meaningful further down the road, I think that we probably will see a lot of things that "People criticised / would have criticised Republicans for when it was Obama!" Which is a shame, and will of course perpetuate both sides doing the same thing. But on the other hand, the election essentially endorsed that attitude (along with various other things), and showed that the Democrats' whole "When they go low, we go high!" rhetoric was not going to be successful for them.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 19, 2017, 02:06:36 PM
And I'll point out, again, this whole nonsense about the importance of showing unity was exactly the argument that Trump shit on continually during the campaign. Moreover, Trump's victory is essentially an enormous "FUCK YOU" to the Washington way of doing things, so why is it not acceptable for the democrats to get in on some of that contempt?

(It's because they're democrats)
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: kingshmegland on January 19, 2017, 02:20:24 PM
I would look at then the same if the Republicans did this as well.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: cramx3 on January 19, 2017, 02:26:11 PM
One thought I had with regards to bipartisanship, as people start to wonder how the Democrats should act as opposition going forward... this election, America essentially voted that bipartisanship is irrelevant. The Republicans in Congress took obstructionism to new heights (most notable is the Supreme Court nomination which the Senate refused to even vote on), and they retained their majority and won the presidency. If you want any politician, Republican or Democrat, to think that bipartisanship is important, then sending the same people back and giving them even more power does not work. All that shows is that the strategy employed by the Republicans in recent years is the way to be successful. If the Democrats start doing the same (obviously they will not be able to do so effectively with minorities in congress, but if things change in 2 or 4 years...), then yes you could accuse them of hypocrisy for doing what they criticised the Republicans for. But on the other hand, they would simply be doing what the voters have shown is an acceptable and potentially successful approach.

Good points.  It does seem that the Republican approach of obstruction has backfired and even intensified which hurts us all at the end of the day.  Although I don't necessarily believe America voted against Bipartisanship specifically, just that in the end, it's how it ended up with the Republicans having majority.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 19, 2017, 02:33:30 PM
And I'll point out, again, this whole nonsense about the importance of showing unity was exactly the argument that Trump shit on continually during the campaign. Moreover, Trump's victory is essentially an enormous "FUCK YOU" to the Washington way of doing things, so why is it not acceptable for the democrats to get in on some of that contempt?

(It's because they're democrats)

DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER!
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 19, 2017, 02:35:18 PM
One thought I had with regards to bipartisanship, as people start to wonder how the Democrats should act as opposition going forward... this election, America essentially voted that bipartisanship is irrelevant. The Republicans in Congress took obstructionism to new heights (most notable is the Supreme Court nomination which the Senate refused to even vote on), and they retained their majority and won the presidency. If you want any politician, Republican or Democrat, to think that bipartisanship is important, then sending the same people back and giving them even more power does not work. All that shows is that the strategy employed by the Republicans in recent years is the way to be successful. If the Democrats start doing the same (obviously they will not be able to do so effectively with minorities in congress, but if things change in 2 or 4 years...), then yes you could accuse them of hypocrisy for doing what they criticised the Republicans for. But on the other hand, they would simply be doing what the voters have shown is an acceptable and potentially successful approach.

Good points.  It does seem that the Republican approach of obstruction has backfired and even intensified which hurts us all at the end of the day.  Although I don't necessarily believe America voted against Bipartisanship specifically, just that in the end, it's how it ended up with the Republicans having majority.
We've been moving away from bipartisanship for nearly 20 years. Since the second Clinton term it's been increasingly polarized, eventually reaching an existential point with Bush. Karl Rove had a good deal to do with it, as it's an effective way to rile up the base, which he did to perfection. The problem is that when you convince your side that the other side wants to destroy you it's not particularly easy to back off from that and pronounce "aw, shucks, they ain't such a bad bunch of guys." I honestly don't see the way beyond it. In the past you counted on Reagans aliens coming to give us a reason to unite. We had the big event with September 11 and all we did with it was blame the other side.

Personally, I'd just as soon file for divorce.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Tick on January 19, 2017, 03:39:56 PM
And I'll point out, again, this whole nonsense about the importance of showing unity was exactly the argument that Trump shit on continually during the campaign. Moreover, Trump's victory is essentially an enormous "FUCK YOU" to the Washington way of doing things, so why is it not acceptable for the democrats to get in on some of that contempt?

(It's because they're democrats)
Why is it important? Because its not about Trump or the next 4 to 8 years. Its about the long term.This to me is ugly, and all about party first.

"When they go low, we go high!" Remember that inspirational line?

It seems more like... when they go low, we skim the bottom.


You say and enormous fuck you to Trump by being bigger than him. All it says to me is the Washington way is no better than the problem they have with Trump.
You don't act like a 12 year old. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
As I said, its a shitty example they are setting to the youth of America as to what its all about. My daughter is proud to be part of history even though its not the history she thought she was getting.

But we are all entitled to have our own feelings and this is how I feel.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: XJDenton on January 19, 2017, 03:51:42 PM
It's not about party first. It's about not giving credibility to a man elected on the back of fascist rhetoric.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Podaar on January 19, 2017, 05:10:30 PM
I don't see it as such a big deal. Inauguration attendance isn't compulsory for being a legislator. There is a strong scent of grandstanding by some, which seems a bit petty, but I think Senator Lewis has made a strong case for why he won't be there.

Fun fact: There were more boycotts to Nixon's second inauguration
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: kingshmegland on January 19, 2017, 05:12:53 PM
I would say that my country matters more than party lines. 

I am no Trump fan at all and I am beyond worried that his mouth and actions will cost us so now is not the time for petty party line crap and work to keep this country on an even keel.

We need the Dems to do that.  Not turn their back because they lost.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Progmetty on January 19, 2017, 06:08:04 PM
It's not about party first. It's about not giving credibility to a man elected on the back of fascist rhetoric.

The elephant in the room.
I think the menace and long term effects of Trump's election is beyond partisan debate, it's not about Democrats and Republican or left and right anymore at this point.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 19, 2017, 06:39:24 PM
It's not about party first. It's about not giving credibility to a man elected on the back of fascist rhetoric.

Of course it's not that.  Please.  That's the Dem mindset, the "I'm right, I'm better than you, and you're deplorable" mindset.   That exact mindset is why we have Trump, because people - not the extremists, which you hear about, but the normal people that weren't being touched by the special interests pandered to in recent times by the Left - finally said "you know what?   I don't care about these issues that impact 4% of the population UNLESS and UNTIL we touch on the issues that touch 80% of the population FIRST".

Don't kid yourself that "half the population are RACIST BIGOTS, and that's why we have TRUMP!"   That couldn't be more wrong.  That's Gene Simmons saying "OF COURSE our fans want a concept album about a young boy being drafted into the service of mankind by a bunch of old farts sitting around a dusty, wooden table!"   

Racists have been here since 1776, and they vote every year.  They were not the difference this year.  The difference were those people that aren't as dumb as you think finally saying "you know what?  We got sold a bill of goods by this Obama feller.  He had all the cards and he didn't do dick for my job.  Hillary is more of the same, and I don't want that anymore."

It's really that simple.

And the people not going?  It's not about "them being Democrats".  Yeah, el Barto is right in that the support has divided along those lines, but only because the President has an "R" next to his name.  It's not really about that.  For those of us that are actually THINKING about this, it's about being ignorant and ignoring your pledge to support ALL of your constituency, not just the one's that agree with you.  That's why I gave the pass to John Lewis.   I lived in the next county over for five years, and worked in his county most of that time.   He's a standup guy. 
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Implode on January 19, 2017, 06:41:27 PM
Therein lies the disconnect. People who are fine with them not attending believe that the problem of Trump is big enough to warrant this kind of response. They believe it's a good way to send a message. The people who aren't fine with it, think they are doing as a means of pouting and playing mad because their candidate didn't win. So in the end, this boils down to how "bad" you think Trump really is. (Or a lot of it anyway)
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: XJDenton on January 19, 2017, 06:58:21 PM
Quote
Of course it's not that.  Please.  That's the Dem mindset, the "I'm right, I'm better than you, and you're deplorable" mindset.

Not a democrat, nor american. Just someone who recognises a dangerous leader. I disagree with many republicans, Trump is the only one in a while I consider actually dangerous.

Quote
Don't kid yourself that "half the population are RACIST BIGOTS, and that's why we have TRUMP!"   That couldn't be more wrong.  That's Gene Simmons saying "OF COURSE our fans want a concept album about a young boy being drafted into the service of mankind by a bunch of old farts sitting around a dusty, wooden table!"

I don't. What I do think is that (just under) half the (voting) population are people who decided that the fact that the candidate being a bigoted, misogynistic narcissist who uses the rhetoric of fascists and spouts bigoted and racist policy ideas wasn't a deal-breaker for them. Doesn't really matter though, since I'm sure the people who will suffer under his proposed policies aren't going to be comforted by the fact that the people who gave him power aren't "really" racist/bigoted. It has the same practical effect either way.

Quote
Therein lies the disconnect. People who are fine with them not attending believe that the problem of Trump is big enough to warrant this kind of response. They believe it's a good way to send a message. The people who aren't fine with it, think they are doing as a means of pouting and playing mad because their candidate didn't win. So in the end, this boils down to how "bad" you think Trump really is. (Or a lot of it anyway)

A reasonable analysis. I'm just shocked so many people who purport to care about the constitution and democracy/freedom either embrace or display ambivalence towards a candidate that has minimal respect for those ideals.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: cramx3 on January 19, 2017, 07:48:43 PM
What I do think is that (just under) half the (voting) population are people who decided that the fact that the candidate being a bigoted, misogynistic narcissist who uses the rhetoric of fascists and spouts bigoted and racist policy ideas wasn't a deal-breaker for them.

If you don't believe he is any of that, how can it be a deal-breaker?

Him being egotistical, unhinged, and having a spray tan wasn't a deal-breaker for many though.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Progmetty on January 19, 2017, 08:36:01 PM
I don't believe the people who voted for Trump are bigoted or misogynistic, I believe they didn't mind that he is, to me that's almost as low.
My Republican friend from work told me before the elections that it would be the first time in his adult life not to vote and same for his dad, they've always voted Republican. He also told me he would have went as far as voting for a Democrat to deny Trump, but not Hillary.
Interestingly enough though, my friend has got to be in the minority of people who did that. A lot of Democrats sat out the elections because the nominee is Hillary and she's awful, but most Republicans who thought Trump was awful voted for him anyway.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: TAC on January 19, 2017, 08:41:18 PM
I don't know about that. Trump got less votes than Romney, who lost. People were sitting out on both sides of the aisle.

Both candidates were DESPICABLE. OK, now that that's out of the way, who has the best chance to get things done? At least Trump has "ran things".
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Progmetty on January 20, 2017, 02:31:23 AM
I don't know about that. Trump got less votes than Romney, who lost. People were sitting out on both sides of the aisle.

You're probably right, but I was talking more about the people I know.

Both candidates were DESPICABLE. OK, now that that's out of the way, who has the best chance to get things done? At least Trump has "ran things".

No sir, there's no "at least" about Trump or the people who supported him and are going with him to Washington, there's no "at least" anything when it comes to someone who conveys bigotry and misogynistic behavior, there's no "at least" anything with someone that uses fascist rhetoric. Put Trump aside, I've always said here that he doesn't believe any of the things he said on the campaign trail and this has all been solely about winning for him so he said and did everything he could to win, I believe he's amoral. But in the process of winning he has allied himself with a lot of really bad and/or incompetent people who are now his cabinet and advisers.I'm frankly more worried about those than I am about Trump himself.
I don't oppose the protesters or the boycotters, but Trump is legally the president, shit is shit, there really is no reason to force a positive spin on it and it would be a grave mistake to "normalize" his presidency or what he stands for, so freedom of press and assembly has to be upheld and utilized at all times, along with everything on the amazing Bill of Rights, that I wish my home country had in it's constitution. We just need to ride this presidential term out and hope nothing of a long-term destructive scale happens.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Elite on January 20, 2017, 03:15:08 AM
And as far as Trump having "ran things", he has absolutely zero political experience. Would you want an unqualified doctor performing surgery on you? I'll fill in the answer. Then why are people apparently keen on having an oblivious, unexperienced businessman run the highest possible political position in the US, maybe even in the world?
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 20, 2017, 05:40:39 AM
Don't forget to set your clocks back 60 years, tonight.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Tick on January 20, 2017, 06:11:02 AM
Don't forget to set your clocks back 60 years, tonight.
Sounds good to me!
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Tick on January 20, 2017, 07:31:53 AM
My daughter Bri through security checkpoints and waiting to witness history!
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: jammindude on January 20, 2017, 08:22:41 AM
So [the Devil] brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time.  Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish." - Luke 4:5, 6
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 20, 2017, 08:23:33 AM
So [the Devil] brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time.  Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish." - Luke 4:5, 6

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 20, 2017, 08:25:36 AM
Dude, don't bring my ex-wife into this.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: PowerSlave on January 20, 2017, 08:25:44 AM
And as far as Trump having "ran things", he has absolutely zero political experience. Would you want an unqualified doctor performing surgery on you? I'll fill in the answer. Then why are people apparently keen on having an oblivious, unexperienced businessman run the highest possible political position in the US, maybe even in the world?

I voted for a funny little Texan with a funny little accent in the 90's that some people might have characterized in the same fashion that you're using to describe Trump. The problem isn't lack of political experience. In fact, that was part of my attraction to Perot in the 90's. I firmly believe that there needs to be a movement in this country towards a "non-traditional" mindset by our leaders on every level of government. A lot of the citizenry feels this way.

However, many of those that feel that way probably chose the wrong person to institute that change. We're about to find out one way or another.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Chino on January 20, 2017, 08:28:27 AM
And as far as Trump having "ran things", he has absolutely zero political experience. Would you want an unqualified doctor performing surgery on you? I'll fill in the answer. Then why are people apparently keen on having an oblivious, unexperienced businessman run the highest possible political position in the US, maybe even in the world?

I firmly believe that there needs to be a movement in this country towards a "non-traditional" mindset by our leaders on every level of government. A lot of the citizenry feels this way.

However, many of those that feel that way probably chose the wrong person to institute that change. We're about to find out one way or another.

This 100%.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 20, 2017, 08:35:00 AM
Quote
Trump is legally the president, shit is shit, there really is no reason to force a positive spin on it and it would be a grave mistake to "normalize" his presidency or what he stands for
Now this is just a damn fine point. One of the things that has annoyed me is that with all of the [very sound] talk about the democrats blundering their assessment of what went wrong, the right is also pretty faulty in it's reading of the situation. People who really thought he was awful immediately went into celebration mode upon his victory and fell right back into the partisan divide. I said after the election that neither side won, and still believe that. It's disconcerting that now Grabby is seen as a victory for anything. I don't think there's any reason to call his president illegitimate and I wouldn't delegitimize it either. I do think it's reasonable to consider it an anomaly, though, and treat it as an oddball experiment rather than indicative of the new normal.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 20, 2017, 08:38:25 AM
Therein lies the disconnect. People who are fine with them not attending believe that the problem of Trump is big enough to warrant this kind of response. They believe it's a good way to send a message. The people who aren't fine with it, think they are doing as a means of pouting and playing mad because their candidate didn't win. So in the end, this boils down to how "bad" you think Trump really is. (Or a lot of it anyway)

But think that through, given what I just said.  What's the message?  We don't accept hate?  Okay, but it's not the haters that put him there.  it's the haters you HEAR about, but it's not the haters that put him there (any more than it was "racist" that some black people voted for Obama for no other reason than it was "time").  What's the message they're sending?  To that guy in Michigan that doesn't give a fuck about transgender bathrooms unless and until the economy is back where it was and he can afford his healthcare again, the message is "YOU WERE RIGHT, we DON'T give a fuck about you, one bit."

You have to know your audience.   

I really dislike Trump. I think he's guilty, in some ways, of everything I'm writing about here. HE doesn't know his audience either, and he has just as much to do to fix it as the people we're talking about now.   But reinforcing his message isn't the way to get that point across.  The way to get that point across is to do what we've done in the past:  work civilly, but make cogent, reasonable arguments why the President is wrong about some of his issues (he can't possibly be wrong about EVERYTHING, just like all Democrats can't be RIGHT about everything).  Make your case in the votes.  Make your case in the committees.  Make your case with your constituents in town halls.  Make your case in the bills you put forth for consideration. 

What some people are forgetting is that this was not a "one time thing".   Obama's term has bled seats on the Senate, House, Governor, and Court fronts, since 2008.  We've got another election in less than two years.  This nonsense is going to catch up with them. If Trump is even REMOTELY successful in this initial year or so, if the market continues to improve, if consumer confidence continues to improve, the message WILL be received, but not in the way it's intended.   I can tell you that in my State, Connecticut, a notoriously Democrat state with a Dem governor (head of the National Governer's Association, and one with national aspirations), the Governor and at least one of the representatives (Chris "I'm fine with whoring out the families of Sandy Hook" Murphy are both on thin ice.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: gmillerdrake on January 20, 2017, 08:43:56 AM
Quote
Trump is legally the president, shit is shit, there really is no reason to force a positive spin on it and it would be a grave mistake to "normalize" his presidency or what he stands for
Now this is just a damn fine point. One of the things that has annoyed me is that with all of the [very sound] talk about the democrats blundering their assessment of what went wrong, the right is also pretty faulty in it's reading of the situation. People who really thought he was awful immediately went into celebration mode upon his victory and fell right back into the partisan divide. I said after the election that neither side won, and still believe that. It's disconcerting that now Grabby is seen as a victory for anything. I don't think there's any reason to call his president illegitimate and I wouldn't delegitimize it either. I do think it's reasonable to consider it an anomaly, though, and treat it as an oddball experiment rather than indicative of the new normal.

People didn't vote for Trump....they voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton. I know I did. I said it all along before Trump was even the nominee that I didn't care who ran against her...I was voting for that person. For every vile thing you can muster to say against Trump it is magnified times 10 when applied to Clinton. She was, is and always will be a wretched person...corrupt....elitist...and her and her husband created a Cartel that people just voted against.

I wagered that 4 years of Trump will be better than 4 years of Clinton. Either one was going to be a one term President and have to deal with the horrid fallout from the ACA hitting full stride...the politically inflated and manicured economic numbers and climate being 'popped' and begin to show it's real maimed face....and have to deal with a country that is has never been more divided in history. And this division became even more gaping and more divisive while obama was in office....to use his name and leader or leadership in the same sentence would be a literary sin because he was far from a leader.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
Post by: chknptpie on January 20, 2017, 08:54:18 AM
I personally would not care if it was switched. In my mind, attending (or not attending) the inauguration is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of things. I would rather people (including politicians) actually act on their beliefs rather than pretend to support someone.

But it's not a minor thing when you state publicly the reason why you aren't attending is because you (not you personally, the Dems doing this) consider Trump a "illegitimate president" based on essentially rumors and hearsay. Words mean something and those words are very dangerous. That's the bigger picture here.

It may not be minor, but at least it isn't obstructing - it is basically a silent protest that has no impact on anything. The reasons, whether to make a statement about bigotry or illegitimacy, is basically a personal opinion to each person who is boycotting. I don't agree with deeming Trump illegitimate, but I do appreciate people making a stand against what they may feel is bigotry.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 20, 2017, 08:54:24 AM
Quote
Of course it's not that.  Please.  That's the Dem mindset, the "I'm right, I'm better than you, and you're deplorable" mindset.

Not a democrat, nor american. Just someone who recognises a dangerous leader. I disagree with many republicans, Trump is the only one in a while I consider actually dangerous.

Quote
Don't kid yourself that "half the population are RACIST BIGOTS, and that's why we have TRUMP!"   That couldn't be more wrong.  That's Gene Simmons saying "OF COURSE our fans want a concept album about a young boy being drafted into the service of mankind by a bunch of old farts sitting around a dusty, wooden table!"

I don't. What I do think is that (just under) half the (voting) population are people who decided that the fact that the candidate being a bigoted, misogynistic narcissist who uses the rhetoric of fascists and spouts bigoted and racist policy ideas wasn't a deal-breaker for them. Doesn't really matter though, since I'm sure the people who will suffer under his proposed policies aren't going to be comforted by the fact that the people who gave him power aren't "really" racist/bigoted. It has the same practical effect either way.

Quote
Therein lies the disconnect. People who are fine with them not attending believe that the problem of Trump is big enough to warrant this kind of response. They believe it's a good way to send a message. The people who aren't fine with it, think they are doing as a means of pouting and playing mad because their candidate didn't win. So in the end, this boils down to how "bad" you think Trump really is. (Or a lot of it anyway)

A reasonable analysis. I'm just shocked so many people who purport to care about the constitution and democracy/freedom either embrace or display ambivalence towards a candidate that has minimal respect for those ideals.

I read your response - measured, reasoned, intelligent - and was about to give mea culpa of sorts, and then you finished by reinforcing my exact point.  I'm a licensed attorney who has worked as such for decades. I've done my community service, in terms of things like pro bono work and jury duty, and I hold the constitution and the ideals of our form of republican representative democracy as dear as any ideal I can name... and I absolutely display ambivalence towards this candidate.  For two reasons:  one, the ideals are embodied in the PROCESS, and despite Trump's clear carelessness with words (a particular bugaboo of mine; WORDS MATTER), the fact remains that it's just not POSSIBLE (in the literal sense of the word) to do half the things that people are "TERRIFIED" about.  Two, I have faith and respect for the integrity of people like John Lewis and (to an extent) Bernie Sanders, to keep things honest in a way that isn't adding to the problem.    Three, I recognize that what you call "ambivalence" isn't really that, it's more a re-framing of priorities, which happens cyclically throughout our time as a country.

We go in waves.  The pendulum swings, and it eventually goes too far, as Bush Sr. did in his term, pushing the "Reaganomics" approach past it's shelf-life and into a context where it needed more.   As Clinton did in his last two years, exemplifying the lawlessness and - as you put it - lack of respect for the ideals of democracy.   As Bush did in his last couple years, not closing the deal on his promises, primarily in Iraq, and in not defusing some of the feelings of alienation that his approach to social issues bred.  As Obama CLEARLY did in his last four years (especially) by playing games with the economy rather than actually working on it, and focusing more on tangential (to many) social issues that didn't impact the country while letting more serious concerns that DID touch the country - terrorism, cyber security, his own brand of lawlessness and contempt for democracy and freedom - run rampant.   Now we have Trump.

I don't know if it will be four years or eight (I hope eight) or even twelve (if a Republican wins in 2024), but we will fill the coffers; we will recharge our economic batteries, and while we won't come anywhere near the FEARS (the "TERROR!") of the naysayers, and we won't SLIDE on social rights, we probably won't see any major historic social leaps either.  And then the pendulum will swing.  We'll take a hit economically, and we'll achieve our goals socially and the cycle will repeat.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 20, 2017, 09:04:58 AM
No sir, there's no "at least" about Trump or the people who supported him and are going with him to Washington, there's no "at least" anything when it comes to someone who conveys bigotry and misogynistic behavior, there's no "at least" anything with someone that uses fascist rhetoric. Put Trump aside, I've always said here that he doesn't believe any of the things he said on the campaign trail and this has all been solely about winning for him so he said and did everything he could to win, I believe he's amoral. But in the process of winning he has allied himself with a lot of really bad and/or incompetent people who are now his cabinet and advisers.I'm frankly more worried about those than I am about Trump himself.
I don't oppose the protesters or the boycotters, but Trump is legally the president, shit is shit, there really is no reason to force a positive spin on it and it would be a grave mistake to "normalize" his presidency or what he stands for, so freedom of press and assembly has to be upheld and utilized at all times, along with everything on the amazing Bill of Rights, that I wish my home country had in it's constitution. We just need to ride this presidential term out and hope nothing of a long-term destructive scale happens.

You're looking at this in too binary a fashion.  Too black and white.  Somewhere along the line - and since you're citing "friends", I can too here - to some people, even the merest HINT of "racism!", either justified or implied, has become a silver bullet.   It's not to all of us. I abhor racism. I think it's narrow thinking, limiting thinking and clearly against science.  Having said that, I don't feel it's my life's work to make sure there isn't a racist thought ever had ever again.  People will be who they are.  It is likely that to some extent, as some people are born to disrespect human life, some people are born able to do obscene and perverted sexual acts on film for money, as some people are able to take money from others without concern to the other's wellbeing, so some have thoughts and ideas that others might thing "RACIST".   Some of us (and to a small degree, I am in this group) believe that we've even gone past "bigotry" now and are treading into the territory where some special interest groups actually have MORE rights than the so-called "average" person. 

The word is TOLERANCE, not ACCEPTANCE.    For better or worse, we TOLERATE those that we disagree with.  Everyone has a bias of some sort.  Whether it's blacks, jews, Republicans, Christians, fat people, or ex-wives, we all have some bias.   I don't have to ACCEPT your bias (i.e. make it mine) but as we have pledged to be tolerant of those that have different skin colors, and have different sexual predilections, and have different religious beliefs, so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry". 
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 20, 2017, 09:07:28 AM
It should be noted that the one person who probably has the best reason to not be there was there, standing tall, looking smart (but, I have to say, very tired and worn).   Hillary Clinton.  I'm not a fan of hers (at all; I am in that group that would have gladly voted for a Democrat - including Bill Clinton - if it was anyone BUT Hillary Clinton) but I give her credit for being an adult, and putting her country first.   
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 20, 2017, 09:10:34 AM
It should be noted that the one person who probably has the best reason to not be there was there, standing tall, looking smart (but, I have to say, very tired and worn).   Hillary Clinton.  I'm not a fan of hers (at all; I am in that group that would have gladly voted for a Democrat - including Bill Clinton - if it was anyone BUT Hillary Clinton) but I give her credit for being an adult, and putting her country first.

Well said, I agree.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: cramx3 on January 20, 2017, 09:11:45 AM
It should be noted that the one person who probably has the best reason to not be there was there, standing tall, looking smart (but, I have to say, very tired and worn).   Hillary Clinton.  I'm not a fan of hers (at all; I am in that group that would have gladly voted for a Democrat - including Bill Clinton - if it was anyone BUT Hillary Clinton) but I give her credit for being an adult, and putting her country first.

Well said, I agree.

 :tup :tup
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 20, 2017, 09:14:41 AM
And as far as Trump having "ran things", he has absolutely zero political experience. Would you want an unqualified doctor performing surgery on you? I'll fill in the answer. Then why are people apparently keen on having an oblivious, unexperienced businessman run the highest possible political position in the US, maybe even in the world?

Because we've asked politicians over the past, say, two decades, handle ever more difficult problems of economy, including the healthcare for 325 million people (and a 20 TRILLION dollar economy), advancing a transportation agenda for that same 20 trillion dollar economy, global trade, and politico-military issues between adversarial countries that impact the aforementioned global trade, and at least recently, they've a) showed a marked ineptness and lack of understanding on how these systems work (Bernie Sanders is factually WRONG on much of the basis of his platform, even if the platform itself makes some sense) and b) spent their time dickering about what bathroom we can use, or whether we should be ENTITLED to a cake with our preferred slogan on it.   

And some people have said - maybe it's time for a change in priorities.  Don't IGNORE the issues of the special interest, but perhaps it ought not to be NUMBER ONE when we're facing a healthcare program that fully 80% of Americans want either changed or removed, a resurgent Russia with a leader who is aggressive and not willing to wait for us to fail but in fact is encouraging us to do so, a China that wants to first own, then destroy us, and a terrorist group that wants to cut right to "destroy" and will do so 25 people at a time until they're successful.  THESE are - or should be - our priorities.  Not unisex bathrooms.

I voted for Johnson, because I don't personally think that Trump is specifically the guy that should be doing this, but I very much support the IDEA of Trump, and the notion of this form of change.   
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Implode on January 20, 2017, 09:15:56 AM
Therein lies the disconnect. People who are fine with them not attending believe that the problem of Trump is big enough to warrant this kind of response. They believe it's a good way to send a message. The people who aren't fine with it, think they are doing as a means of pouting and playing mad because their candidate didn't win. So in the end, this boils down to how "bad" you think Trump really is. (Or a lot of it anyway)

But think that through, given what I just said.  What's the message?  We don't accept hate?  Okay, but it's not the haters that put him there.  it's the haters you HEAR about, but it's not the haters that put him there (any more than it was "racist" that some black people voted for Obama for no other reason than it was "time").  What's the message they're sending?  To that guy in Michigan that doesn't give a fuck about transgender bathrooms unless and until the economy is back where it was and he can afford his healthcare again, the message is "YOU WERE RIGHT, we DON'T give a fuck about you, one bit."

You have to know your audience.   

That makes sense. While I don't think the dems refusing to go to the inauguration sends that particular kind of message, what you bring up is, I think, a big problem with discourse and politics nowadays.

There is a ton of just complete dismissal of the other side. To focus on the left a bit, I'm all for fighting tooth and nail against fascism, racism, bigotry, and all of that. I know that there are plenty of actual racists in this country that likely voted for Trump. At the same time, I'm not ready to just condemn 50% of the country as unapologetic bigots because...that just doesn't fit well with the optimism I want to hold for humanity. It can't be reality, and I'm sure you agree.

Now this seems like a reasonable thing to say, right? Not to everyone. If I went to some of the most left leaning places on the internet and said this, people would be condemning me for allowing racism/bigotry/etc. to live on just because I'm afraid to hurt feelings. They'd say I'm part of the problem of complacency and that my privilege of being a white dude lets me do nothing without getting harmed. Many would say I'm just as bad as Trump voters because they don't deserve to be reasoned with anymore.

I can totally see where they are coming, but I don't think an approach that extreme is going to make the world a better place.

I guess my point in how it relates to your post (Sorry, I got away from it a bit. :lol) is that in the grand scheme of things, I don't think this sends as much of a "fuck you" message to the voters as all the attitudes and opinions you don't really see here on DTF at all. This is a pretty right leaning website obviously, but we do have people on both sides. But what we don't see are the very young, very left, very vitriolic side that seems to be growing each day. And I'm not saying it's all their fault either. These people have been backed into a corner, and now the claws and teeth are out. They refuse to stand by for any longer. The younger you go, the worse it seems. That's something I wish we could find a way to placate, otherwise the divide in this country is just going to get worse as the years go by.


/directionless rant


Edit:

The word is TOLERANCE, not ACCEPTANCE.    For better or worse, we TOLERATE those that we disagree with.  Everyone has a bias of some sort.  Whether it's blacks, jews, Republicans, Christians, fat people, or ex-wives, we all have some bias.   I don't have to ACCEPT your bias (i.e. make it mine) but as we have pledged to be tolerant of those that have different skin colors, and have different sexual predilections, and have different religious beliefs, so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry". 

This is something I'd love to see a discussion of (maybe a good topic for another thread? I'm unsure). In relation to what I said above, people are done tolerating hate, and while I have problems with how they go about it, I see where they are coming from? Why do we have to tolerate hate? I know that legally, you have the right be an asshole, and that's what makes America great (though more and more people above the group mentioned above would question that as well), but why do we as individuals have to tolerate hate? Why tolerate racism and bigotry? Why not try to quash it in every way we can?
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Chino on January 20, 2017, 09:19:13 AM
Bill looks more upset/distraught than Hillary.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 20, 2017, 09:23:29 AM
I read your response - measured, reasoned, intelligent - and was about to give mea culpa of sorts, and then you finished by reinforcing my exact point.  I'm a licensed attorney who has worked as such for decades. I've done my community service, in terms of things like pro bono work and jury duty, and I hold the constitution and the ideals of our form of republican representative democracy as dear as any ideal I can name... and I absolutely display ambivalence towards this candidate.  For two reasons:  one, the ideals are embodied in the PROCESS, and despite Trump's clear carelessness with words (a particular bugaboo of mine; WORDS MATTER), the fact remains that it's just not POSSIBLE (in the literal sense of the word) to do half the things that people are "TERRIFIED" about.  Two, I have faith and respect for the integrity of people like John Lewis and (to an extent) Bernie Sanders, to keep things honest in a way that isn't adding to the problem.    Three, I recognize that what you call "ambivalence" isn't really that, it's more a re-framing of priorities, which happens cyclically throughout our time as a country.

We go in waves.  The pendulum swings, and it eventually goes too far, as Bush Sr. did in his term, pushing the "Reaganomics" approach past it's shelf-life and into a context where it needed more.   As Clinton did in his last two years, exemplifying the lawlessness and - as you put it - lack of respect for the ideals of democracy.   As Bush did in his last couple years, not closing the deal on his promises, primarily in Iraq, and in not defusing some of the feelings of alienation that his approach to social issues bred.  As Obama CLEARLY did in his last four years (especially) by playing games with the economy rather than actually working on it, and focusing more on tangential (to many) social issues that didn't impact the country while letting more serious concerns that DID touch the country - terrorism, cyber security, his own brand of lawlessness and contempt for democracy and freedom - run rampant.   Now we have Trump.

I don't know if it will be four years or eight (I hope eight) or even twelve (if a Republican wins in 2024), but we will fill the coffers; we will recharge our economic batteries, and while we won't come anywhere near the FEARS (the "TERROR!") of the naysayers, and we won't SLIDE on social rights, we probably won't see any major historic social leaps either.  And then the pendulum will swing.  We'll take a hit economically, and we'll achieve our goals socially and the cycle will repeat.
I think you put too much faith in the system to mitigate and self-correct. The system is evolving, for better or for worse, particularly on a sociopolitical level, and in many ways it's doing so in a way to expedite change.  I believe you share my opinion that Trump is incapable of understanding the importance of the process based way of thinking that you and I have such reverence for. Lacking my overly cynical nature towards democratic governance, you think that congress, the courts, and accepted procedure will negate, or at least mitigate that major flaw. I sincerely hope you're right, but I honestly think we're in a different paradigm now. We've got an increasing amount of the voting electorate who disregard the path in favor of the arrival. We've got representatives who care more about the letter following their name than the best way of doing something. We have courts that are increasingly partisan by nature, hand crafted to render supportive rulings. We have an executive that thinks the best way of moving forward is to blow up the institutions that impede. Twenty-five years ago it would have been pretty easy to weather out a Trump, or a Nixon, or a Carter if that's your bag. Now, not so much, I'm afraid.

Consider this: I view the sole role of the congressional confirmation process to weed out the woefully unqualified. Party or beliefs have no bearing, in my opinion. Trump was elected and he gets to pick the people he thinks will do what he wants them to do; his prerogative. Congress only ensures that he's qualified, or not unqualified for the job. Based on what we've seen thus far there do appear to be one or two of his nominations that are woefully unqualified. Do you have any confidence that this 115th congress will block their confirmation? Seems to be that's a pretty telling test for your faith in the system.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 20, 2017, 09:39:50 AM
This is something I'd love to see a discussion of (maybe a good topic for another thread? I'm unsure). In relation to what I said above, people are done tolerating hate, and while I have problems with how they go about it, I see where they are coming from? Why do we have to tolerate hate? I know that legally, you have the right be an asshole, and that's what makes America great (though more and more people above the group mentioned above would question that as well), but why do we as individuals have to tolerate hate? Why tolerate racism and bigotry? Why not try to quash it in every way we can?

I'm all in on this discussion, because it's important.  It should start with a discussion of "tolerance" and "acceptance".   I agree with you on all fronts if you put the word "accept" in for "tolerate".   You WILL NOT, you CANNOT, tell people how to think.   You can educate (I'm all for that).  You can say how YOU think (I'm all for that, within reason).  But you CANNOT tell people what they should THINK.   And in my humble opinion, a lot of what that "militant left" (for lack of a better word, but I say it tongue in cheek) is doing is exactly that.   Just as I can hear someone talk and think "wow, they're pretty dumb" without seeing their SAT scores, so can I think "Wow, that's just a fucked up thing to do with my dick".   I'm entitled to that, just like I'm entitled to think "Wow, that Justin Beiber is one untalented sumbitch."

We get to vote for the reasons we feel are important.  If that's ONE issue, be it gay rights, or white rights, or if it's a complicated soup of multiple issues that are influenced by a general point of view, it's not the purview of ANYONE - no matter how much they "think" they're "on the right side of history" - to say what another person, of sound mind and free will, makes their priority.  I think it is massively and potentially paralyzingly arrogant and narrow minded to make any one issue - including racism and/or bigotry - so powerful that it becomes a weapon to tell others what to think. 

Strong ideas will ultimately win, and we must have faith in that.  As Abraham Lincoln famously said, "both sides pray to the same God.  One side must be, and both sides may be, wrong."   We have to remember that idea, and some of this forced prioritization seems to forget. 

Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Tick on January 20, 2017, 09:47:52 AM
"When they go low, we go high!" Michelle Obama

So beautiful, so eloquent!

"Fuck that racist piece of shit, we ain't going!" - 63 elected democratic officials

Damn, don't go so high its hurting my neck to look up!


:neverusethis:
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 20, 2017, 09:50:17 AM
Can somebody get Tick a washcloth?  It appears he's about to make a mess in here.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Tick on January 20, 2017, 10:05:29 AM
Can somebody get Tick a washcloth?  It appears he's about to make a mess in here.
I'm just pointing out what a ridiculous BS statement that was. That's all.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 20, 2017, 10:06:29 AM
I read your response - measured, reasoned, intelligent - and was about to give mea culpa of sorts, and then you finished by reinforcing my exact point.  I'm a licensed attorney who has worked as such for decades. I've done my community service, in terms of things like pro bono work and jury duty, and I hold the constitution and the ideals of our form of republican representative democracy as dear as any ideal I can name... and I absolutely display ambivalence towards this candidate.  For two reasons:  one, the ideals are embodied in the PROCESS, and despite Trump's clear carelessness with words (a particular bugaboo of mine; WORDS MATTER), the fact remains that it's just not POSSIBLE (in the literal sense of the word) to do half the things that people are "TERRIFIED" about.  Two, I have faith and respect for the integrity of people like John Lewis and (to an extent) Bernie Sanders, to keep things honest in a way that isn't adding to the problem.    Three, I recognize that what you call "ambivalence" isn't really that, it's more a re-framing of priorities, which happens cyclically throughout our time as a country.

We go in waves.  The pendulum swings, and it eventually goes too far, as Bush Sr. did in his term, pushing the "Reaganomics" approach past it's shelf-life and into a context where it needed more.   As Clinton did in his last two years, exemplifying the lawlessness and - as you put it - lack of respect for the ideals of democracy.   As Bush did in his last couple years, not closing the deal on his promises, primarily in Iraq, and in not defusing some of the feelings of alienation that his approach to social issues bred.  As Obama CLEARLY did in his last four years (especially) by playing games with the economy rather than actually working on it, and focusing more on tangential (to many) social issues that didn't impact the country while letting more serious concerns that DID touch the country - terrorism, cyber security, his own brand of lawlessness and contempt for democracy and freedom - run rampant.   Now we have Trump.

I don't know if it will be four years or eight (I hope eight) or even twelve (if a Republican wins in 2024), but we will fill the coffers; we will recharge our economic batteries, and while we won't come anywhere near the FEARS (the "TERROR!") of the naysayers, and we won't SLIDE on social rights, we probably won't see any major historic social leaps either.  And then the pendulum will swing.  We'll take a hit economically, and we'll achieve our goals socially and the cycle will repeat.
I think you put too much faith in the system to mitigate and self-correct. The system is evolving, for better or for worse, particularly on a sociopolitical level, and in many ways it's doing so in a way to expedite change.  I believe you share my opinion that Trump is incapable of understanding the importance of the process based way of thinking that you and I have such reverence for. Lacking my overly cynical nature towards democratic governance, you think that congress, the courts, and accepted procedure will negate, or at least mitigate that major flaw. I sincerely hope you're right, but I honestly think we're in a different paradigm now. We've got an increasing amount of the voting electorate who disregard the path in favor of the arrival. We've got representatives who care more about the letter following their name than the best way of doing something. We have courts that are increasingly partisan by nature, hand crafted to render supportive rulings. We have an executive that thinks the best way of moving forward is to blow up the institutions that impede. Twenty-five years ago it would have been pretty easy to weather out a Trump, or a Nixon, or a Carter if that's your bag. Now, not so much, I'm afraid.

Consider this: I view the sole role of the congressional confirmation process to weed out the woefully unqualified. Party or beliefs have no bearing, in my opinion. Trump was elected and he gets to pick the people he thinks will do what he wants them to do; his prerogative. Congress only ensures that he's qualified, or not unqualified for the job. Based on what we've seen thus far there do appear to be one or two of his nominations that are woefully unqualified. Do you have any confidence that this 115th congress will block their confirmation? Seems to be that's a pretty telling test for your faith in the system.

I agree with all of what you wrote.  Not just to be nice, but in sincerity.  But I think that bolsters my point (and it makes my side bar conversation with Implode relevant). 

The same swiftness of change that makes us think we can tell others what to think about race and sexual orientation is the SAME swiftness that will get us Muslims in an internment camp.  And vice versa.  I DON'T think Trump shows the proper reverence to the process, and perhaps I take it too far (if the American people were to vote tomorrow - through the electoral college, since that's the process, NOT a majority - to be a sovereignty, and that Taylor Swift should be our Queen, I would, in theory support that unequivocally.  We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  Not the "non-racist" people.   Not the "Democrat" people.  Not the "Republican" people.  Not the "white people".  ALL the people.   

I think it's very telling - and I'm going to step on toes here, I think - that some of the people that are screaming the loudest about Trump and the end of the republic, are the very ones that are more than willing to subvert the process - through social bullying, through activist judges, through any means necessary - to get what THEY think is right in place.  That's where the crux of my argument lies.  Not in "democrat" or "republican".  Those are old paradigms, and will likely be gone in 50 years (as the parties of Washington's, and even Lincoln's time, are now gone).  But the ideas will remain, as will the skeleton of the structure of our democracy.

We are MEANT to move slow.  We are MEANT to have a degree of gridlock, to avoid ANY idea from gaining too much traction too soon.   We're talking about "bathrooms" today, and I think it's a bit fucked up that we're making that our Waterloo, when 240 years ago, we were debating whether it should be okay to have fellow human beings in chains.   Yeah, that's an anathema in this age of Twitter, and when we think OUR pet idea is the best one ever, but we've forgotten that the structure is bigger than any one person, and by extension, their specific idea.  These things are content neutral. There is no "freedom of speech of non-racist ideas" or "freedom of speech for ideas the majority thinks are pleasant".   It should be noted here that there are perhaps more RESTRICTIONS on speech than there is allowed speech, but almost every one of them is CONTENT NEUTRAL. Meaning, they are independent of WHAT the message is, and are centered on the time, place and manner of that speech.  The famed "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is a restriction of TIME, PLACE, and MANNER.  Even "obscenity" is tied to community standards, so is less about WHAT is depicted, and rather WHERE and HOW it is depicted.

I feel that same way about the notion of "hate".  Of course it is not something to be encouraged, or promoted.  But when it occurs, it should be dealt with like any other idea, combated with ideas, not suppressed arbitrarily, based on some moving standard of what "offends".  it's not some magical thing that trumps our laws, our beliefs, our systems.  (And by the way, I say the same thing to Trump, Pence, et al.  This is not a declaration that any one of YOUR ideas are automatically right.  You have the same requirement of measure and caution and deliberateness.)
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: cramx3 on January 20, 2017, 10:07:09 AM
I'm surprised I'm actually watching this.  Apparently everyone in my office is watching and it's on the TV in my data center so my coworker and I are watching too (well better than doing real work). 
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Implode on January 20, 2017, 10:19:04 AM
I'm all in on this discussion, because it's important.  It should start with a discussion of "tolerance" and "acceptance".   I agree with you on all fronts if you put the word "accept" in for "tolerate".   You WILL NOT, you CANNOT, tell people how to think.   You can educate (I'm all for that).  You can say how YOU think (I'm all for that, within reason).  But you CANNOT tell people what they should THINK.   And in my humble opinion, a lot of what that "militant left" (for lack of a better word, but I say it tongue in cheek) is doing is exactly that.   Just as I can hear someone talk and think "wow, they're pretty dumb" without seeing their SAT scores, so can I think "Wow, that's just a fucked up thing to do with my dick".   I'm entitled to that, just like I'm entitled to think "Wow, that Justin Beiber is one untalented sumbitch."

We get to vote for the reasons we feel are important.  If that's ONE issue, be it gay rights, or white rights, or if it's a complicated soup of multiple issues that are influenced by a general point of view, it's not the purview of ANYONE - no matter how much they "think" they're "on the right side of history" - to say what another person, of sound mind and free will, makes their priority.  I think it is massively and potentially paralyzingly arrogant and narrow minded to make any one issue - including racism and/or bigotry - so powerful that it becomes a weapon to tell others what to think. 

You're right. We have to find exactly what "tolerate" and "accept" mean. Sure, we can't tell people what to think, but we are also free to respond/react in the way seem fit. They are simply left to deal with the consequences. What constitutes as telling someone how to think?

You can't literally tell someone, "You HAVE to think this way." As if there's simply no other way around. Obviously in a world of free will, that's nonsensical.

But what if you say, "While you think this way, I will no longer associate with you." Is that telling someone how to think? You said yourself that I would be entitled to even consider someone a bad person for their beliefs. So what do you mean when you say "tell someone how to think?"

Edit: You just mentioned social bullying. This is something that's been brought up so much over the past few years here, and I can't figure out what's so bad about it.

What's defined as social bullying? If people have a problem with something, are they not allowed to voice it? If people don't want to support a company because of their practices, is that now bullying? Are you not allowed to post on social media about something you dislike? Are you not allowed to try to convince/rally others? What do you define as social bullying?

For me, I'd say social bullying is problem when you phrase something like this: "If you stand by and say nothing/don't spread this, then you are just as bad as ______." Or, if you say, "If you do/ believe [thing that isn't directly bigoted], you are a bigot and deserve nothing." That, I totally understand, but you and others seem to bring it up in a lot more situations than that.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 20, 2017, 10:48:01 AM
You're right. We have to find exactly what "tolerate" and "accept" mean. Sure, we can't tell people what to think, but we are also free to respond/react in the way seem fit. They are simply left to deal with the consequences. What constitutes as telling someone how to think?

Well, when the consequences effectively chill thought by making the "dealing" a de facto infringement on their constitutional rights, it's a problem.  That's where the REAL problem is.  Not in the "hate" or in the "intolerance of hate" (which like you I understand; I've punched someone maybe three times in my life, and the last time was when a guy called my best friend a "nigger".  I hit him square in the nose.  I regret it in the context of this discussion, I was clearly wrong.  I was also young and drunk.) but in how the consequences have taken on a life of their own.  It goes to my point that "hate" doesn't allow "no holds barred!".   

Quote
But what if you say, "While you think this way, I will no longer associate with you." Is that telling someone how to think? You said yourself that I would be entitled to even consider someone a bad person for their beliefs. So what do you mean when you say "tell someone how to think?"

Edit: You just mentioned social bullying. This is something that's been brought up so much over the past few years here, and I can't figure out what's so bad about it.

What's so bad about it?  It chills dissenting thought, and by thought I mean a peaceful exchange of ideas.   When you have someone using the bully pulpit of social media to call even benign things "racist" it doesn't promote peace; it actually REINFORCES the malignant ideas by giving them an importance they don't have.    Do you HONESTLY think that Mel Gibson hates Jews any less now that he was castigated for his drunken rants?  Do you think Michael Richards is any less THINKING "n*****" even if he's not saying it on a stage?  Do you think Isaiah Washington thinks that T.L. Knight is any less an entitled "f**" than he did when he called him that a couple years ago? 

Quote
What's defined as social bullying? If people have a problem with something, are they not allowed to voice it? If people don't want to support a company because of their practices, is that now bullying? Are you not allowed to post on social media about something you dislike? Are you not allowed to try to convince/rally others? What do you define as social bullying?
 

It's not about voicing dissent. It's about forcing third parties to embrace your opinion.  It's about forcing people to act in ways they wouldn't to avoid that potential backlash, whether the backlash is justified or not.   It's about not risking anything controversial - forget about actually "hateful" - in order to make sure that record sales don't falter.   

Quote
For me, I'd say social bullying is problem when you phrase something like this: "If you stand by and say nothing/don't spread this, then you are just as bad as ______." Or, if you say, "If you do/ believe [thing that isn't directly bigoted], you are a bigot and deserve nothing." That, I totally understand, but you and others seem to bring it up in a lot more situations than that.

Which, of course is exactly what some are saying here, and exactly where the "deplorable" comment came from, but notwithstanding that, where it translates to action is where the tricky part comes in.  I use this a lot, but it fits:  TEND YOUR OWN GARDEN.   But I ask you: why are the "consequences" so important to you, but they're not bilateral?  You feel, apparently, that if a bar decides not to serve African Americans, that the consequences are unbounded.  Why does that not apply if the bar DECIDES to serve African Americans, and someone says "I'm never going there again and I'm going to tell my friends!"?   


You can check this out:  my old local bar in Philly - For Pete's Sake - is an EXCELLENT bar.  Really good food, the owner is great (Irish immigrant) and a fun, welcoming place to be.    Look on their site on Facebook.  All the reviews are five star.  Then about midway down the list is one one star review and the person calls the place "RACIST", and calls out the white bartender because she - the patron - wanted to play "rap music" on the jukebox and it wouldn't play, and the bartender said "it doesn't play that music".  Meaning, it doesn't allow you to pick the songs, not that it doesn't play "rap".  It's a karaoke, playlist type thing and it hasn't worked right in five years.  I know this.   Yet that person took it on themselves to throw the "R" word around, presumably on the same premise that you're working under, "CONSEQUENCES".  Why should Pete have to bear the brunt of this person being easily offended and pissed off because they didn't get their way?  What about people like us, who might read that review and say "well, I'm going to go to New Wave Café instead.  I'm INTOLERANT of INTOLERANCE. 

Where's the control? Where's the due process?  Where's the dialogue?   Where are the consequences to the person crying wolf?   
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 20, 2017, 11:07:45 AM
I use this a lot, but it fits:  TEND YOUR OWN GARDEN. 
That only works if everyone does it.  And everyone won't.  For example, if people that are against abortions would just tend their OWN garden but not having abortions, and if the people that are against gay marriage would just tend their own garden by not getting gay married, and forget about everyone else's gardens and let them tend them themselves, that would be great.

You can check this out:  my old local bar in Philly - For Pete's Sake - is an EXCELLENT bar.  Really good food, the owner is great (Irish immigrant) and a fun, welcoming place to be.    Look on their site on Facebook.  All the reviews are five star.  Then about midway down the list is one one star review and the person calls the place "RACIST", and calls out the white bartender because she - the patron - wanted to play "rap music" on the jukebox and it wouldn't play, and the bartender said "it doesn't play that music".  Meaning, it doesn't allow you to pick the songs, not that it doesn't play "rap".  It's a karaoke, playlist type thing and it hasn't worked right in five years.  I know this.   Yet that person took it on themselves to throw the "R" word around, presumably on the same premise that you're working under, "CONSEQUENCES".  Why should Pete have to bear the brunt of this person being easily offended and pissed off because they didn't get their way?  What about people like us, who might read that review and say "well, I'm going to go to New Wave Café instead.  I'm INTOLERANT of INTOLERANCE. 

Where's the control? Where's the due process?  Where's the dialogue?   Where are the consequences to the person crying wolf?
The control and dialogue are the responses from the bar's faithful disputing what the idiot posted, or the bar owner doing so.  The owner generally gets notified when bad reviews (or ANY reviews) are put on their FB page, and they should also frequently check Yelp for such occurrences.  That is part of what the technology is for. 
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Implode on January 20, 2017, 11:19:05 AM
(Only quoting the parts I have responses to. The other parts I agree with.)

When you have someone using the bully pulpit of social media to call even benign things "racist" it doesn't promote peace; it actually REINFORCES the malignant ideas by giving them an importance they don't have.    Do you HONESTLY think that Mel Gibson hates Jews any less now that he was castigated for his drunken rants?  Do you think Michael Richards is any less THINKING "n*****" even if he's not saying it on a stage?  Do you think Isaiah Washington thinks that T.L. Knight is any less an entitled "f**" than he did when he called him that a couple years ago? 

I can't comment on those specific examples because I don't know them well enough, but it seems that this is tending toward what we consider to be "benign things".

Quote
But I ask you: why are the "consequences" so important to you, but they're not bilateral?  You feel, apparently, that if a bar decides not to serve African Americans, that the consequences are unbounded.  Why does that not apply if the bar DECIDES to serve African Americans, and someone says "I'm never going there again and I'm going to tell my friends!"?

1. I don't think the consequences are unbounded. I just don't think raising a stink about it in your specific example would be inappropriate. I don't know law enough to comment legal consequences, but if someone were to make a post on Facebook, it went viral, and then the next morning there were people out there on the sidewalk protesting against the bar that doesn't serve black people, I have no problems with that. Sure, they are disrupting the business a bit, I think that's a valid consequence in this day and age. If you want to run a "no blacks allowed" bar in 2017, you'd have to be discrete because a vast majority of people would find that abhorrent and not want it in their community.

2. Same applies for your second example. If some person posted on Facebook that this bar has too many black people and they are never going there again, it wouldn't go viral (at least not for the same reasons as the last example). There wouldn't be people out the next morning protesting.

Another example is our local Pride Parade. There is always a small section of protesters, and they are completely allowed to protest it. But that's the thing: it's small. There are literally 1 million people that gather to support and watch the parade, and maybe only like 25 that protest it. It's a joke.

I know that the old saying goes, "majority rules, minority rights," but I don't think in these cases, any rights are being denied. If you can't successfully run a race-exclusive business in 2017, that's just demand. That's the socio-political climate we live in.

Quote
You can check this out:  my old local bar in Philly - For Pete's Sake - is an EXCELLENT bar.  Really good food, the owner is great (Irish immigrant) and a fun, welcoming place to be.    Look on their site on Facebook.  All the reviews are five star.  Then about midway down the list is one one star review and the person calls the place "RACIST", and calls out the white bartender because she - the patron - wanted to play "rap music" on the jukebox and it wouldn't play, and the bartender said "it doesn't play that music".  Meaning, it doesn't allow you to pick the songs, not that it doesn't play "rap".  It's a karaoke, playlist type thing and it hasn't worked right in five years.  I know this.   Yet that person took it on themselves to throw the "R" word around, presumably on the same premise that you're working under, "CONSEQUENCES".  Why should Pete have to bear the brunt of this person being easily offended and pissed off because they didn't get their way?  What about people like us, who might read that review and say "well, I'm going to go to New Wave Café instead.  I'm INTOLERANT of INTOLERANCE. 

Where's the control? Where's the due process?  Where's the dialogue?   Where are the consequences to the person crying wolf?

What were the consequences to that story? Did the bar get shut down? I won't defend what that person said. They are not in the right, but I think in the vast majority of situations, the cases of someone crying wolf don't really end up with anything consequential happening. Sure, there are a few situations where that's not the case, but I'm sure they are a small minority.

Then again, we could disagree on what counts as someone crying wolf too.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 20, 2017, 11:27:53 AM
I read your response - measured, reasoned, intelligent - and was about to give mea culpa of sorts, and then you finished by reinforcing my exact point.  I'm a licensed attorney who has worked as such for decades. I've done my community service, in terms of things like pro bono work and jury duty, and I hold the constitution and the ideals of our form of republican representative democracy as dear as any ideal I can name... and I absolutely display ambivalence towards this candidate.  For two reasons:  one, the ideals are embodied in the PROCESS, and despite Trump's clear carelessness with words (a particular bugaboo of mine; WORDS MATTER), the fact remains that it's just not POSSIBLE (in the literal sense of the word) to do half the things that people are "TERRIFIED" about.  Two, I have faith and respect for the integrity of people like John Lewis and (to an extent) Bernie Sanders, to keep things honest in a way that isn't adding to the problem.    Three, I recognize that what you call "ambivalence" isn't really that, it's more a re-framing of priorities, which happens cyclically throughout our time as a country.

We go in waves.  The pendulum swings, and it eventually goes too far, as Bush Sr. did in his term, pushing the "Reaganomics" approach past it's shelf-life and into a context where it needed more.   As Clinton did in his last two years, exemplifying the lawlessness and - as you put it - lack of respect for the ideals of democracy.   As Bush did in his last couple years, not closing the deal on his promises, primarily in Iraq, and in not defusing some of the feelings of alienation that his approach to social issues bred.  As Obama CLEARLY did in his last four years (especially) by playing games with the economy rather than actually working on it, and focusing more on tangential (to many) social issues that didn't impact the country while letting more serious concerns that DID touch the country - terrorism, cyber security, his own brand of lawlessness and contempt for democracy and freedom - run rampant.   Now we have Trump.

I don't know if it will be four years or eight (I hope eight) or even twelve (if a Republican wins in 2024), but we will fill the coffers; we will recharge our economic batteries, and while we won't come anywhere near the FEARS (the "TERROR!") of the naysayers, and we won't SLIDE on social rights, we probably won't see any major historic social leaps either.  And then the pendulum will swing.  We'll take a hit economically, and we'll achieve our goals socially and the cycle will repeat.
I think you put too much faith in the system to mitigate and self-correct. The system is evolving, for better or for worse, particularly on a sociopolitical level, and in many ways it's doing so in a way to expedite change.  I believe you share my opinion that Trump is incapable of understanding the importance of the process based way of thinking that you and I have such reverence for. Lacking my overly cynical nature towards democratic governance, you think that congress, the courts, and accepted procedure will negate, or at least mitigate that major flaw. I sincerely hope you're right, but I honestly think we're in a different paradigm now. We've got an increasing amount of the voting electorate who disregard the path in favor of the arrival. We've got representatives who care more about the letter following their name than the best way of doing something. We have courts that are increasingly partisan by nature, hand crafted to render supportive rulings. We have an executive that thinks the best way of moving forward is to blow up the institutions that impede. Twenty-five years ago it would have been pretty easy to weather out a Trump, or a Nixon, or a Carter if that's your bag. Now, not so much, I'm afraid.

Consider this: I view the sole role of the congressional confirmation process to weed out the woefully unqualified. Party or beliefs have no bearing, in my opinion. Trump was elected and he gets to pick the people he thinks will do what he wants them to do; his prerogative. Congress only ensures that he's qualified, or not unqualified for the job. Based on what we've seen thus far there do appear to be one or two of his nominations that are woefully unqualified. Do you have any confidence that this 115th congress will block their confirmation? Seems to be that's a pretty telling test for your faith in the system.

I agree with all of what you wrote.  Not just to be nice, but in sincerity.  But I think that bolsters my point (and it makes my side bar conversation with Implode relevant). 

The same swiftness of change that makes us think we can tell others what to think about race and sexual orientation is the SAME swiftness that will get us Muslims in an internment camp.  And vice versa.  I DON'T think Trump shows the proper reverence to the process, and perhaps I take it too far (if the American people were to vote tomorrow - through the electoral college, since that's the process, NOT a majority - to be a sovereignty, and that Taylor Swift should be our Queen, I would, in theory support that unequivocally.  We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  Not the "non-racist" people.   Not the "Democrat" people.  Not the "Republican" people.  Not the "white people".  ALL the people.   

I think it's very telling - and I'm going to step on toes here, I think - that some of the people that are screaming the loudest about Trump and the end of the republic, are the very ones that are more than willing to subvert the process - through social bullying, through activist judges, through any means necessary - to get what THEY think is right in place.  That's where the crux of my argument lies.  Not in "democrat" or "republican".  Those are old paradigms, and will likely be gone in 50 years (as the parties of Washington's, and even Lincoln's time, are now gone).  But the ideas will remain, as will the skeleton of the structure of our democracy.

We are MEANT to move slow.  We are MEANT to have a degree of gridlock, to avoid ANY idea from gaining too much traction too soon.   We're talking about "bathrooms" today, and I think it's a bit fucked up that we're making that our Waterloo, when 240 years ago, we were debating whether it should be okay to have fellow human beings in chains.   Yeah, that's an anathema in this age of Twitter, and when we think OUR pet idea is the best one ever, but we've forgotten that the structure is bigger than any one person, and by extension, their specific idea.  These things are content neutral. There is no "freedom of speech of non-racist ideas" or "freedom of speech for ideas the majority thinks are pleasant".   It should be noted here that there are perhaps more RESTRICTIONS on speech than there is allowed speech, but almost every one of them is CONTENT NEUTRAL. Meaning, they are independent of WHAT the message is, and are centered on the time, place and manner of that speech.  The famed "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is a restriction of TIME, PLACE, and MANNER.  Even "obscenity" is tied to community standards, so is less about WHAT is depicted, and rather WHERE and HOW it is depicted.

I feel that same way about the notion of "hate".  Of course it is not something to be encouraged, or promoted.  But when it occurs, it should be dealt with like any other idea, combated with ideas, not suppressed arbitrarily, based on some moving standard of what "offends".  it's not some magical thing that trumps our laws, our beliefs, our systems.  (And by the way, I say the same thing to Trump, Pence, et al.  This is not a declaration that any one of YOUR ideas are automatically right.  You have the same requirement of measure and caution and deliberateness.)
Of course you'll get no argument from me, but then of course you will get some observations.  :biggrin:

Here I'll only point out that we're discussing the rightness of not attending Grabby's inauguration. Based on the reasons we're hearing I think most of these people are behaving exactly like the people you decry. I'm no fan, either. At the same time, we're inaugurating a president whose primary goal is to undermine the plodding nature of our government that keeps jerkoffs like him from wreaking havoc due to a disregard of process. I support not supporting him. Like Metty said, normalizing him is wrong. I guess where we always butt heads with others is where we meet up here, once again. How you get there is at least as important as your arrival, and many people have taken a shitty course to get to a reasonable place.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 20, 2017, 11:43:32 AM
When you have someone using the bully pulpit of social media to call even benign things "racist" it doesn't promote peace; it actually REINFORCES the malignant ideas by giving them an importance they don't have.    Do you HONESTLY think that Mel Gibson hates Jews any less now that he was castigated for his drunken rants?  Do you think Michael Richards is any less THINKING "n*****" even if he's not saying it on a stage?  Do you think Isaiah Washington thinks that T.L. Knight is any less an entitled "f**" than he did when he called him that a couple years ago? 

I can't comment on those specific examples because I don't know them well enough, but it seems that this is tending toward what we consider to be "benign things".
I'll let Stadler tend to his own garden here, but I do want to chime in on this. An important aspect of our being free to express ideas is that whether or not they're inherently benign or malignant can't matter. That's the content neutrality that he referred to earlier. Ugly speech, and to the extent that such a thing even exists, dangerous speech have to be accepted lest we lose the ability to speak freely altogether. People who stand on street corners with placards showing mangled foeti offend the shit out of me. Their right to piss me off is crucial to my right to defend abortion. In my opinion Christian missionaries are destructive. Yet I defend their right to do their thing just as I would equally destructive behavior from Jews or Moslems. To do otherwise would be to create a distinction between differing religions based on our unique interpretations of them.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Implode on January 20, 2017, 11:50:04 AM
You're right. I just meant that in the context of that people of their own volition posting on social media independent of the law seems fine/protected under free speech to me. And mostly I'd consider it benign.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 20, 2017, 12:03:04 PM
You're right. I just meant that in the context of that people of their own volition posting on social media independent of the law seems fine/protected under free speech to me. And mostly I'd consider it benign.
That's a highly dicey aspect in my opinion. Of course I agree that you or I have the right to blast whoever the hell we want on Yelp or the lawless frontier of DTF. At the same time I think people completely fail to realize that by doing so they create a very different, and in my opinion dangerous problem in the modern world. The person in Stadler's bar example was just some chick that thankfully flew under the radar. Yet if it had been picked up by a few people and disseminated widely then all of sudden the bar's shuttering its doors. There's no vetting. There's no rational judgment. There's just emotional responses and the mindless forwarding of a halfassed idea. We've already reached a point where fear of that one person's ignorant rambling going viral dictates course for the entities that don't want that exposure. I don't honestly have a solution, other than people learning that being able to dog-whistle the mob to your cause isn't necessarily conducive to freedom, even when you think that's the entire point. Alas, that's not happening. Particularly when, as Stadler and I keep droning on about, getting your way is increasingly the only thing of import.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Implode on January 20, 2017, 12:08:23 PM
Well, you are right about that. More and more people want to believe whatever content is easier to consume. I don't have a solution either. It is a major problem, but I don't think blame everything on the mob is right either.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 20, 2017, 01:00:18 PM
Can somebody get Tick a washcloth?  It appears he's about to make a mess in here.
I'm just pointing out what a ridiculous BS statement that was. That's all.

I see your point, I mean it certainly doesn't really connect with your average American the same way "Grab 'em by the pu**y" does.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Chino on January 20, 2017, 01:05:30 PM
Can somebody get Tick a washcloth?  It appears he's about to make a mess in here.
I'm just pointing out what a ridiculous BS statement that was. That's all.

I see your point, I mean it certainly doesn't really connect with your average American the same way "Grab 'em by the pu**y" does.

Or "I don’t think Ivanka would pose for Playboy, although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her.”
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: bosk1 on January 20, 2017, 01:47:17 PM
the lawless frontier of DTF
Hey now!  :huckleberry:
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 20, 2017, 02:00:34 PM
1. I don't think the consequences are unbounded. I just don't think raising a stink about it in your specific example would be inappropriate. I don't know law enough to comment legal consequences, but if someone were to make a post on Facebook, it went viral, and then the next morning there were people out there on the sidewalk protesting against the bar that doesn't serve black people, I have no problems with that. Sure, they are disrupting the business a bit, I think that's a valid consequence in this day and age. If you want to run a "no blacks allowed" bar in 2017, you'd have to be discrete because a vast majority of people would find that abhorrent and not want it in their community.

Two questions:  what if, as above, the post is wrong?    Second, who decided that that right was superior to the bar owner's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?   That's the point. You don't see a problem with it because you agree with it.  What happens when you don't?   What about the lunatics that protest the military funerals?  Do they get to close down funeral parlors and "so be it"?   What about abortion protestors?  Okay to block access there?  Why not?  They're just "disrupting the business a little bit"?  And why do YOU (and by "you" I mean any person, not you personally) get to decide that for all of society? 

Quote
I know that the old saying goes, "majority rules, minority rights," but I don't think in these cases, any rights are being denied. If you can't successfully run a race-exclusive business in 2017, that's just demand. That's the socio-political climate we live in.

But it's not when the "demand" is bullied.  That's the point.  I personally don't understand why anyone would do that (why cut your potential clientele by a minimum of 12% and when you count those that don't go in support, probably several times that) and I wouldn't go there, but when people can't make that decision without their OWN consequences, it's too tenuous.   Think about all the venues that wouldn't book Phil Anselmo.  You've just made it impossible for someone with that point of view to participate in a meaningful dialogue, and yet, he's never had his day in court.  The "evidence" is grainy video and bad audio from a concert, with no context no nothing.  The masses just said "BAD!" and that was that. 

Quote
What were the consequences to that story? Did the bar get shut down? I won't defend what that person said. They are not in the right, but I think in the vast majority of situations, the cases of someone crying wolf don't really end up with anything consequential happening. Sure, there are a few situations where that's not the case, but I'm sure they are a small minority.

Then again, we could disagree on what counts as someone crying wolf too.

I can't quantify that; but why are there ANY consequences?  Pete's a good guy, not a racist boner in his body (the old bar manager was African American, and Pete actually helped him through school).  If even ONE patron said "eh, not going to associate with that" why does Pete have to bear that brunt?   Even  if he responds - "hey, we're not racist!  I have black friends!" - it's a bell you can't unring, because it's taken on a life of it's own.   

I even question sometimes whether I should be having these conversations here.  I have no doubt that there's at least ONE person that deep down thinks I'm at least in part a racist or homophobe for some of the things I've written.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 20, 2017, 02:05:13 PM
You're right. I just meant that in the context of that people of their own volition posting on social media independent of the law seems fine/protected under free speech to me. And mostly I'd consider it benign.

How can accusing someone - with nothing but anecdotal evidence - of being a racist/homophobe/child molester/whatever "benign"?   

Does anyone think of Mel Gibson now and not think "bigoted fuck"?   Howard Stern, as much as I love him, wrongly, in my view, said just that about a week or so ago.  "I wouldn't have Mel Gibson on my show in a million years, bigoted fuck!"   He may be right, it's his show to decide who is on, but the stink of these things LINGERS.   
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Progmetty on January 20, 2017, 02:49:43 PM
No sir, there's no "at least" about Trump or the people who supported him and are going with him to Washington, there's no "at least" anything when it comes to someone who conveys bigotry and misogynistic behavior, there's no "at least" anything with someone that uses fascist rhetoric. Put Trump aside, I've always said here that he doesn't believe any of the things he said on the campaign trail and this has all been solely about winning for him so he said and did everything he could to win, I believe he's amoral. But in the process of winning he has allied himself with a lot of really bad and/or incompetent people who are now his cabinet and advisers.I'm frankly more worried about those than I am about Trump himself.
I don't oppose the protesters or the boycotters, but Trump is legally the president, shit is shit, there really is no reason to force a positive spin on it and it would be a grave mistake to "normalize" his presidency or what he stands for, so freedom of press and assembly has to be upheld and utilized at all times, along with everything on the amazing Bill of Rights, that I wish my home country had in it's constitution. We just need to ride this presidential term out and hope nothing of a long-term destructive scale happens.

You're looking at this in too binary a fashion.  Too black and white.  Somewhere along the line - and since you're citing "friends", I can too here - to some people, even the merest HINT of "racism!", either justified or implied, has become a silver bullet.   It's not to all of us. I abhor racism. I think it's narrow thinking, limiting thinking and clearly against science.  Having said that, I don't feel it's my life's work to make sure there isn't a racist thought ever had ever again.  People will be who they are.  It is likely that to some extent, as some people are born to disrespect human life, some people are born able to do obscene and perverted sexual acts on film for money, as some people are able to take money from others without concern to the other's wellbeing, so some have thoughts and ideas that others might thing "RACIST".   Some of us (and to a small degree, I am in this group) believe that we've even gone past "bigotry" now and are treading into the territory where some special interest groups actually have MORE rights than the so-called "average" person.
The word is TOLERANCE, not ACCEPTANCE.    For better or worse, we TOLERATE those that we disagree with.  Everyone has a bias of some sort.  Whether it's blacks, jews, Republicans, Christians, fat people, or ex-wives, we all have some bias.   I don't have to ACCEPT your bias (i.e. make it mine) but as we have pledged to be tolerant of those that have different skin colors, and have different sexual predilections, and have different religious beliefs, so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry". 

With all due respect Stadler, most of your replies to anyone here revolves around the "simplicity" of someone's thinking on something and the "binary", black & white nature of said thinking. While yes I agree with you that most issues are not simple or binary, but some definitely are and I think bigotry, fascist rhetoric and undertones are among those things, simply because the price we could pay on giving shit like that the benefit of a doubt is way too high and grave.
No disagreement on the bias point, we'd be kidding ourselves to say we don't all have individual bias against certain ethnicities or religions. But this is not about simple bias, this is about hate speech and spreading hateful ideas that the laymans would act on, possibly violently, believe me I come from a country where shit goes down that way and people get radicalized who otherwise could not give a single flying fuck about race or religion.

Quote
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.
I usually like to point out that whatever I say is "IMO", but damn dude these are the outspoken American ideals! I didn't drag this along from my country or draw it from a foreign ideology!
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Progmetty on January 20, 2017, 02:51:35 PM
Don't forget to set your clocks back 60 years, tonight.
Sounds good to me!

Sarcasm green?
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 20, 2017, 03:05:43 PM
No, I do believe Tick is serious.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: cramx3 on January 20, 2017, 03:22:48 PM
Don't forget to set your clocks back 60 years, tonight.
Sounds good to me!

Sarcasm green?

The sarcasm goes to both quotes

Member?
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 20, 2017, 03:23:48 PM
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.
I usually like to point out that whatever I say is "IMO", but damn dude these are the outspoken American ideals! I didn't drag this along from my country or draw it from a foreign ideology!
The answer to the why question is because from his standpoint (and mine as well) there is no clear cut standard of racism and bigotry. If there were, and every instance was clearly defined, then perhaps I'd agree with you that it need not be tolerated. However in cases where there is nothing but individual judgement to rely upon there must be a deference to the free expression of ideas. And as I thought this out another problem came to me. Who gets to decide where the exceptions are? So we decide that no bigotry will be tolerated. Well, if we can't tolerate racist ideas, what about un-American ones? Chauvinistic ones? Religiously intolerant ones? The harm from those can be just as great as the racist ideas, can they not? At a logical level you can't base the binary nature of an issue on the severity of the outcomes. They're unrelated.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: FreezingPoint on January 20, 2017, 03:29:16 PM
No sir, there's no "at least" about Trump or the people who supported him and are going with him to Washington, there's no "at least" anything when it comes to someone who conveys bigotry and misogynistic behavior, there's no "at least" anything with someone that uses fascist rhetoric. Put Trump aside, I've always said here that he doesn't believe any of the things he said on the campaign trail and this has all been solely about winning for him so he said and did everything he could to win, I believe he's amoral. But in the process of winning he has allied himself with a lot of really bad and/or incompetent people who are now his cabinet and advisers.I'm frankly more worried about those than I am about Trump himself.
I don't oppose the protesters or the boycotters, but Trump is legally the president, shit is shit, there really is no reason to force a positive spin on it and it would be a grave mistake to "normalize" his presidency or what he stands for, so freedom of press and assembly has to be upheld and utilized at all times, along with everything on the amazing Bill of Rights, that I wish my home country had in it's constitution. We just need to ride this presidential term out and hope nothing of a long-term destructive scale happens.

You're looking at this in too binary a fashion.  Too black and white.  Somewhere along the line - and since you're citing "friends", I can too here - to some people, even the merest HINT of "racism!", either justified or implied, has become a silver bullet.   It's not to all of us. I abhor racism. I think it's narrow thinking, limiting thinking and clearly against science.  Having said that, I don't feel it's my life's work to make sure there isn't a racist thought ever had ever again.  People will be who they are.  It is likely that to some extent, as some people are born to disrespect human life, some people are born able to do obscene and perverted sexual acts on film for money, as some people are able to take money from others without concern to the other's wellbeing, so some have thoughts and ideas that others might thing "RACIST".   Some of us (and to a small degree, I am in this group) believe that we've even gone past "bigotry" now and are treading into the territory where some special interest groups actually have MORE rights than the so-called "average" person.
The word is TOLERANCE, not ACCEPTANCE.    For better or worse, we TOLERATE those that we disagree with.  Everyone has a bias of some sort.  Whether it's blacks, jews, Republicans, Christians, fat people, or ex-wives, we all have some bias.   I don't have to ACCEPT your bias (i.e. make it mine) but as we have pledged to be tolerant of those that have different skin colors, and have different sexual predilections, and have different religious beliefs, so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry". 

With all due respect Stadler, most of your replies to anyone here revolves around the "simplicity" of someone's thinking on something and the "binary", black & white nature of said thinking. While yes I agree with you that most issues are not simple or binary, but some definitely are and I think bigotry, fascist rhetoric and undertones are among those things, simply because the price we could pay on giving shit like that the benefit of a doubt is way too high and grave.
No disagreement on the bias point, we'd be kidding ourselves to say we don't all have individual bias against certain ethnicities or religions. But this is not about simple bias, this is about hate speech and spreading hateful ideas that the laymans would act on, possibly violently, believe me I come from a country where shit goes down that way and people get radicalized who otherwise could not give a single flying fuck about race or religion.

Quote
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.
I usually like to point out that whatever I say is "IMO", but damn dude these are the outspoken American ideals! I didn't drag this along from my country or draw it from a foreign ideology!

I can't speak for Stadler, but I will give this a response. I won't disagree that racism and bigotry have led down dark paths in human history and the result of such has led to a high amount of loss of life.

However, it has gotten to a point where we, as a society, can no longer agree on what racism and bigotry really are. Where those words are tossed around and about so casually, they have lost definition and meaning. Where unfounded accusations of such are more common than desired and lead to this societal bullying that has been discussed.

it isn't that racism and bigotry aren't problems and aren't bad things, or even things that should be tolerated and we shrug our shoulders at and say oh well. It is that those words have become convenient descriptors and accusations against people when disagreements happen, not even pertaining to those problems at hand.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Progmetty on January 20, 2017, 05:14:23 PM
However, it has gotten to a point where we, as a society, can no longer agree on what racism and bigotry really are. Where those words are tossed around and about so casually, they have lost definition and meaning. Where unfounded accusations of such are more common than desired and lead to this societal bullying that has been discussed.

The answer to the why question is because from his standpoint (and mine as well) there is no clear cut standard of racism and bigotry.

Quote
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.


The bolded part cannot be a clear cut standard we can agree on?! I'm on board with everything else you guys both said as valid debatable points.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 20, 2017, 05:41:27 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/WK4oTSY.png)
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Progmetty on January 20, 2017, 05:44:53 PM
:rollin :rollin
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: cramx3 on January 20, 2017, 05:57:08 PM
 :rollin there were a lot of good memes today from the inauguration, but can we keep the memes to the political humor thread?
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 20, 2017, 06:08:28 PM
It's not so much about the humor, really. It's about how accurately it reflects the mindset that has seemingly prevailed throughout this circus show of an election. We'll burn this whole goddamned country down and burn with it, just to spite "libs".
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 20, 2017, 06:32:03 PM
However, it has gotten to a point where we, as a society, can no longer agree on what racism and bigotry really are. Where those words are tossed around and about so casually, they have lost definition and meaning. Where unfounded accusations of such are more common than desired and lead to this societal bullying that has been discussed.

The answer to the why question is because from his standpoint (and mine as well) there is no clear cut standard of racism and bigotry.

Quote
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.


The bolded part cannot be a clear cut standard we can agree on?! I'm on board with everything else you guys both said as valid debatable points.
Where does the concept of white privilege fit into your standard? It's a generalization and it targets an singles out an ethnic group. Yet being able to discuss it seems to be an important part of not being a racist. That simple metric you're using doesn't fit every situation. Moreover, there's till the little problem of my second point. Once you decide that it's alright to quash "harmful" ideas, like bigotry, you've opened the door to a very ugly place. To use a topical example, plenty of people see Islam as a more dangerous idea than racial prejudice. The foundation of the first amendment remains solid largely because the courts generally try like hell to avoid bringing the content of the speech into question. We really don't want a situation where that changes and 'spooky men in black robes' determine what we can and can't say.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Progmetty on January 20, 2017, 07:36:27 PM
Where does the concept of white privilege fit into your standard? It's a generalization and it targets an singles out an ethnic group.

I think the concept of white privilege is really the concept of majority privilege that exists for every religious and/or ethnic group majority in any country. I have lived in four countries and it looks the same. Not saying it's cool but I think it's largely unavoidable.

Yet being able to discuss it seems to be an important part of not being a racist. That simple metric you're using doesn't fit every situation. Moreover, there's till the little problem of my second point. Once you decide that it's alright to quash "harmful" ideas, like bigotry, you've opened the door to a very ugly place.

Fuck yes that's a door to an ugly place! My point here is NOT to "quash" or limit free speech by decree, but to always retaliate relentlessly, a right and duty IMO. The dickbag idea that's been floating around that PC is a bad thing is essentially saying "I've got the right to say shit that you think is awful, so shut up and don't bother me about it", well no.. you definitely go ahead and say it but I'm not going to shut up and I'm gonna hit you back as hard as I feel what you said merits it, just as you would. The freedom of speech thing flows both ways.

To use a topical example, plenty of people see Islam as a more dangerous idea than racial prejudice. The foundation of the first amendment remains solid largely because the courts generally try like hell to avoid bringing the content of the speech into question. We really don't want a situation where that changes and 'spooky men in black robes' determine what we can and can't say.

I'm on board with you there.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 20, 2017, 07:43:38 PM
My point here is NOT to "quash" or limit free speech by decree, but to always retaliate relentlessly, a right and duty IMO.
But there's no practical distinction. In first amendment terms that retaliation is known as a chilling effect. If somebody is afraid to speak their mind because he fears the repercussions, then how is his speech not quashed?
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Progmetty on January 20, 2017, 08:17:35 PM
I didn't mean physical retaliation or violence! I'm sorry if that's what it sounded like. I meant stern replies and just basically defending your principles that's being attacked.
By repercussions do you mean fear of getting fired for saying the N word for example?
Now I kinda feel like I'm failing to deliver my point language-wise :lol
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: cramx3 on January 21, 2017, 09:56:23 AM
It's not so much about the humor, really. It's about how accurately it reflects the mindset that has seemingly prevailed throughout this circus show of an election. We'll burn this whole goddamned country down and burn with it, just to spite "libs".

That is well said and made a better point than the meme though.  Hard to take an internet meme seriously IMO.  I thought it was funny, not meant to make discussion.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: bosk1 on January 21, 2017, 11:28:58 AM
Metty, while I understand your reasoning, I completely disagree.  One particular issue, no matter what the issue is, does not HAVE TO be the single trump card or litmus test to decide whether someone can be a "valid" choice for office, whatever that even means.

If we are discussing the "racism" issue, and as that applies to whether I can vote for a candidate, my reasoning would go something like this:
1.  Has the person done and/or said things that indicate that he is racist?
2.  If so, is there any indication that that will cause him to take actions as president that are based on or informed by that racism?
3.  If so, are they actions that appear likely to cause harm to the country in some meaningful way?
4.  If so, is the person running against him still likely to do things that cause even greater harm?

With Trump, we don't even get past a "no" answer to question #1, so the rest is irrelevant.  And even if we could assume the answer to question #1 is "yes" (which I completely disagree with), the answer to #2 is still "no," so we stop there anyway.  Sorry you feel differently.  But you being apoplectic over the fact that others disagree with you over whether this HAS TO be a deal breaker is irrational.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 21, 2017, 12:02:14 PM
I didn't mean physical retaliation or violence! I'm sorry if that's what it sounded like. I meant stern replies and just basically defending your principles that's being attacked.
By repercussions do you mean fear of getting fired for saying the N word for example?
Now I kinda feel like I'm failing to deliver my point language-wise :lol
I'm aware you didn't mean physical retaliation. The problem is that it doesn't have to be. Fear of being fired. Fear of boycott. Fear of having an alternator thrown through your window. Fear of alienation from your friends. Fear of not being hireable. All of these are things that are just as likely to prevent somebody from speaking their mind just fear of being imprisoned or punched in the mouth would. In 1st amendment terms they're all called chilling effects and they're frowned upon because the free expression of ideas is so very important. Consider this. If you're hanging out at a bar (we'll say a hookah bar in your case), how comfortable would you feel discussing Grabby or Crooked Hillary with a stranger? Myself, I generally try to avoid discussing politics with strangers anymore because you never really know how things are going to play out. I'm not worried about getting smashed in the jaw, but the variety of unpleasant possibilities make it not worth my wile. You still have the right to tell them what you think, but why would you even bother?

And there's still the problem that none of this is governed, so even though you have that right, and you're willing to take that risk, you're not only subject to the ramifications of what you said, but all of the ramifications of what some inbred hick thinks you said. This being a function of the current state of things with twitter and facebook telling people when to begin the uproar.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Progmetty on January 22, 2017, 12:16:59 PM
If we are discussing the "racism" issue, and as that applies to whether I can vote for a candidate, my reasoning would go something like this:
1.  Has the person done and/or said things that indicate that he is racist?
2.  If so, is there any indication that that will cause him to take actions as president that are based on or informed by that racism?
3.  If so, are they actions that appear likely to cause harm to the country in some meaningful way?
4.  If so, is the person running against him still likely to do things that cause even greater harm?

Solid reasoning, these would be my points as well. My answers would be Yes to 1 and 2 unless we assume Trump is full of shit, which he is but still pushing a hateful rhetoric to win an election is a deal breaker for me. Feeding and legitimizing this rhetoric would have been harmful enough even if he had lost.
I might exclude the 4th point though, you know from the old elections thread that I was totally opposed to HC and I mentioned I talked some friends out of voting for her. Simply for the "backs to the wall" situation the DNC has created by pushing her down our throats, I thought she was being crowned, not elected. I didn't vote for her and I don't regret it. But this transcends her, what Trump could do to the American identity makes him above comparison to the other candidate, whoever the candidate is. Hillary at the end of the day is another conniving politician, thinking that she would have been especially bad or harmful to America is as unfounded as thinking the same thing about Obama, W. or Bill Clinton. My point being that there was nothing extra special about Hillary's awfulness, she just really failed at masking it.


Sorry you feel differently.  But you being apoplectic over the fact that others disagree with you over whether this HAS TO be a deal breaker is irrational.

I'm not apoplectic at all but I'm definitely baffled, mainly because of the shaking of standards I thought we upheld. Tell you the truth I wasn't as upset when Trump won as I was happy that Hillary lost, a bit childish but I was ecstatic hehe, so all these realities on the nature of the situation only really dawned on me the last couple of weeks.

Fear of being fired. Fear of boycott. Fear of having an alternator thrown through your window. Fear of alienation from your friends. Fear of not being hireable. All of these are things that are just as likely to prevent somebody from speaking their mind just fear of being imprisoned or punched in the mouth would. In 1st amendment terms they're all called chilling effects and they're frowned upon because the free expression of ideas is so very important.

It's a conundrum to me what you're saying here man, to me you're saying we shouldn't reply sternly to people we think are saying hateful things, because then they'll be afraid to speak their minds.. but replying is the speaking of our minds, so in that scenario someone always has to end up being fearful of speaking out?
Chilling effects should indeed be frowned upon! I realize if the situation is reversed and you're minority that thinks that majority is saying hateful things, then you definitely need to speak your mind without fear of these chilling effects. But come to think of it, when and where did it ever happen that the disagreeing minority had it easy or fair with the chilling effects? The degree of how shitty it will be for you to disagree with the majority in a society, differs from one regime to another and I think the U.S. is among the least shittiest places for that.

Consider this. If you're hanging out at a bar (we'll say a hookah bar in your case)

Nicely done :lol

how comfortable would you feel discussing Grabby or Crooked Hillary with a stranger? Myself, I generally try to avoid discussing politics with strangers anymore because you never really know how things are going to play out.

I avoid discussing politics with American strangers, I've received that advice from American friends over and over.
However I engage Egyptians all the time, in hookah bars actually heh. And my Egyptian political views are opposed to the two fighting factions in our political scene, so I'm the minority under the minority, yet enjoying the first amendment here in the U.S. I do speak out, granted there's a group of people that generally have the same centric views as I do and we tend to flock together but so does the supporters of the bigger factions.

I'm not worried about getting smashed in the jaw, but the variety of unpleasant possibilities make it not worth my wile. You still have the right to tell them what you think, but why would you even bother?

That's really a circumstantial thing IMO. Case by case, you see how hinged the person is before engaging, their mannerisms, etc. A lot of times it's entirely dependent on my mood and willingness to engage. "why bother", is not a bad reasoning not to engage, I'm not a fan but I won't ride a high horse about people who do it. Actually I practice "why bother" almost exclusively online haha

And there's still the problem that none of this is governed, so even though you have that right, and you're willing to take that risk, you're not only subject to the ramifications of what you said, but all of the ramifications of what some inbred hick thinks you said. This being a function of the current state of things with twitter and facebook telling people when to begin the uproar.

I agree on the first part. However, even with the shit ton of downsides to social media, I'm thankful for it's existence as a tool to communicate, share ideas and organize. I have never been pushed into an "uproar" or an action I didn't agree with. The Egyptian 2011 revolution started as a post on facebook, I still remember it. Israel's numerous demands of Facebook to take down Palestinian activists accounts (http://fortune.com/2016/09/28/facebook-censorship-palestinian/) shows that even governments worry about people organizing and communicating resistance on social media.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Tick on January 23, 2017, 07:27:10 AM
No, I do believe Tick is serious.
Why wouldn't I be?
Besides being wrong on civil rights issues, there is plenty of stuff I prefer about the state of the world 60 years ago. So yeah, Tick is serious for sure.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 23, 2017, 08:20:27 AM
It's a conundrum to me what you're saying here man, to me you're saying we shouldn't reply sternly to people we think are saying hateful things, because then they'll be afraid to speak their minds.. but replying is the speaking of our minds, so in that scenario someone always has to end up being fearful of speaking out?
Chilling effects should indeed be frowned upon! I realize if the situation is reversed and you're minority that thinks that majority is saying hateful things, then you definitely need to speak your mind without fear of these chilling effects. But come to think of it, when and where did it ever happen that the disagreeing minority had it easy or fair with the chilling effects? The degree of how shitty it will be for you to disagree with the majority in a society, differs from one regime to another and I think the U.S. is among the least shittiest places for that.
It is a conundrum. Everybody should have the freedom to express themselves. The problem is that we're at a point where it too easily moves from a stern reply to a legitimate attempt to ruin somebody. Eddie Murphey's "I'm offended you called. Fuck you." is now "I'm offended you called and I'm going to make sure 273,169 other people are to make you pay for it."
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 23, 2017, 09:42:26 AM
With all due respect Stadler, most of your replies to anyone here revolves around the "simplicity" of someone's thinking on something and the "binary", black & white nature of said thinking. While yes I agree with you that most issues are not simple or binary, but some definitely are and I think bigotry, fascist rhetoric and undertones are among those things, simply because the price we could pay on giving shit like that the benefit of a doubt is way too high and grave.
No disagreement on the bias point, we'd be kidding ourselves to say we don't all have individual bias against certain ethnicities or religions. But this is not about simple bias, this is about hate speech and spreading hateful ideas that the laymans would act on, possibly violently, believe me I come from a country where shit goes down that way and people get radicalized who otherwise could not give a single flying fuck about race or religion.

Okay, but my point stands, because just because YOU think it's "binary" doesn't make it so, and doesn't free you from dealing with it in a more nuanced fashion.  There are a LOT of things I PERSONALLY think are binary, but I don't get the luxury of telling everyone else to think of it that way.   It was a controversial statement during the election, but Hillary was right on the mark:  we have PUBLIC positions, and we have PRIVATE positions.     I have many things - guns, abortion, drugs - where my PERSONAL views are at odds with what my PUBLIC views are.   I am vehemently against abortion PERSONALLY.  I think it is murder, and while as a man, it's never actually MY choice, with my partner I've been in that position, and when asked my opinion, I gave it (not an option).  But I recognize that whether I'm a man or a woman, I can't tell ANOTHER woman what is right for her.   Drugs.  I don't use anything harder than Guinness or aspirin, and am scared shitless (and unwilling to accept the consequences) for doing drugs like cocaine and heroin and even pot (though I sort of like pot; or at least I did the last time I did it, even if I did as a result blow an evening with one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen as a result) but I don't feel it's either smart to ban it (might as well regulate it so the quality and safety can be maintained) or our right to tell someone else that they shouldn't be able to self-medicate with it.   

Same with racism.  I don't want to participate in racism.  I have to look my gay and black and Jewish friends in the eye, and I can't do that if I'm engaged in that kind of activity.   But guess what; I don't get to tell other people how or what to think.  I don't want to hang out with drunks or addicts, and that's my choice; if someone doesn't want to hang out with blacks, that's their (self-limiting, narrow-minded) choice. 

And don't confuse thought and ideas with ACTION.   I can hate blacks (I don't, but go with me here) but I can't kill them.  Not because they are black, but because they are HUMAN and there are laws against that. I'm not suggesting anarchy or the Wild Wild West, but we have to preserve ideas, even those ideas we find abhorrent.   


Quote
Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.
I usually like to point out that whatever I say is "IMO", but damn dude these are the outspoken American ideals! I didn't drag this along from my country or draw it from a foreign ideology!

How so?  How is that the most binary way of thinking?    To the extent we can't interpret it, it's because we've artificially make it that way with our preachy PC nonsense.  Again, you are confusing "thought" and "action".   You keep conflating the dialogue about race with "piles of corpses".  No one - least of all me - is advocating for "piles of corpses".   Even the most egregious examples of what you're talking about weren't perpetrated by people that ACTUALLY HAD THE THOUGHTS.  If we actually had meaningful dialogue about it, and understood that yes, people could think this way, we might have avoided some of the problems you're talking about.  I have to be careful here, but I can remember having a conversation - names and dates changed to protect the innocent, though I was in my early college career at this point - with a Polish gentleman who lived in the Warsaw ghetto, and he was fairly candid:  "We didn't want to be German, we hated the German occupation for various reasons, but we also weren't that fond of the Jews as a whole, either.  That didn't mean we wanted to kill them, and that didn't mean that we didn't do what we could to help them."   We're allowed to have our feelings.  We are allowed to see the world as binary or as nuanced as we choose. 

And again, I'm not at all suggesting we tolerate violence, or worse, in keeping with our views.  I love the Patriots and Mike Portnoy; I don't get to kill Jet fans or beat up fans of Mangini. 
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 23, 2017, 09:53:45 AM
However, it has gotten to a point where we, as a society, can no longer agree on what racism and bigotry really are. Where those words are tossed around and about so casually, they have lost definition and meaning. Where unfounded accusations of such are more common than desired and lead to this societal bullying that has been discussed.

The answer to the why question is because from his standpoint (and mine as well) there is no clear cut standard of racism and bigotry.

Quote
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.


The bolded part cannot be a clear cut standard we can agree on?! I'm on board with everything else you guys both said as valid debatable points.

No.  What does it mean to "generalize"?  Do you think any Liberal is losing a minute's sleep over generalizing that all Republicans want to take their healthcare?  Or want to see gays put back in the closet?   Do you think any Conservative is losing a minute's sleep over generalizing that all Democrats want to take their money for bullshit feel-good social programs?  Or want to see our economy come to a standstill by completely undermining it with pie-in-the-sky environmental nonsense?   

What about me?  I'm 5'8"; do you know how many women single out men under 6'0" for dating?  I'm being a little facetious here, but you have YOUR way of drawing these lines, but for someone that is so worried about the rights of others, you're not doing very much to consider that others may not think like you do or draw the same lines as you do. 

Point is, we generalize and single out every single day, when it's convenient for us to do so; that you don't think it "convenient" in this case is not determinative.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 23, 2017, 10:08:29 AM
I didn't mean physical retaliation or violence! I'm sorry if that's what it sounded like. I meant stern replies and just basically defending your principles that's being attacked.
By repercussions do you mean fear of getting fired for saying the N word for example?
Now I kinda feel like I'm failing to deliver my point language-wise :lol

But you didn't answer el Barto's question;  what about the repercussions to the repercussions?   There are no controls, no safeguards that the much-vaunted "free speech has consequences" gets almost free reign.  Ask Phil Anselmo if he's going to speak his mind so freely next time. Or Michael Richards?   Or Isaiah Washington?  Or Mel Gibson (who's gone on record to this point multiple times)?   Or Axl Rose?   

The "stink" of racism and bigotry doesn't go away, and while you seem to want a standard by which to vent your vehemence to the idea of "racism", there doesn't seem to be any standard by which we judge the response "reasonable".   Being a rather hard line capitalist, I think the "consequences" for a businessman who opts to not sell a cake that says "Adam, I love you and am so happy to be your husband! Love Steve!" loses out on that profit, and the profit from every other Adam and Steve that comes in for a cake.  Most businesses at that level can't afford to turn down ANY sales, and for them to potentially jeopardize their livelihood ought to be some indication that they feel as strongly about that issue as you do your feelings on "bigotry". 

I think the point to remember here, is that we're talking about RIGHTS, and while most of these rights are inalienable - meaning, they cannot be taken away by man - there is also a mechanism for adjudicating when various rights are in conflict.  I have freedom of religion, but I cannot undertake human sacrifices, because I then tread on the rights of another to "life, liberty, etc.".   That's the case here.  Typically, how that is parsed out is that you can limit time, place and manner, but you can't limit "CONTENT".   Restrictions have to be CONTENT NEUTRAL.  So while I am not married to the notion of the "cake" example, I think we got to a potentially right answer in all the wrong ways. 
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 23, 2017, 10:30:28 AM
If we are discussing the "racism" issue, and as that applies to whether I can vote for a candidate, my reasoning would go something like this:
1.  Has the person done and/or said things that indicate that he is racist?
2.  If so, is there any indication that that will cause him to take actions as president that are based on or informed by that racism?
3.  If so, are they actions that appear likely to cause harm to the country in some meaningful way?
4.  If so, is the person running against him still likely to do things that cause even greater harm?

Solid reasoning, these would be my points as well. My answers would be Yes to 1 and 2 unless we assume Trump is full of shit, which he is but still pushing a hateful rhetoric to win an election is a deal breaker for me. Feeding and legitimizing this rhetoric would have been harmful enough even if he had lost.

But here's a PHENOMENAL example of what we're talking about:   Did Trump ACTUALLY show he was a racist, or are you assuming he is, because racists seemed to ally with him?   I've spent a good amount of time following this election from all the way back to when there were 22 candidates (17 on the right, 5 on the left) and honestly, I see where the appeal IS for a racist, but I don't see a lot of ACTUAL RACISM from Trump himself. 



Quote
But this transcends her, what Trump could do to the American identity makes him above comparison to the other candidate, whoever the candidate is. Hillary at the end of the day is another conniving politician, thinking that she would have been especially bad or harmful to America is as unfounded as thinking the same thing about Obama, W. or Bill Clinton. My point being that there was nothing extra special about Hillary's awfulness, she just really failed at masking it.

Again, says you. I think Hillary Clinton was every bit as dangerous to the American ideal as Trump, and here's why:  the VAST majority of people are not racists, and there is no amount of rhetoric that can change them into racists (despite the fearmongering from those that think that we're all one meme away from being Nazi soldiers).   But Hillary's blatant disregard for the law, her persistent idea that the law doesn't apply to her or that the law is something to be manipulated and played with for advantage, and that we can lie, cheat, and obfuscate in order to get past laws that don't help us, is not so cut and dry.  For every person that takes the speed limit as a suggestion, not a requirement, that ideal appeals.  For every person that thinks that the court system is prejudiced against, for example, black people, that ideal appeals.  For every person that (wrongly) thinks that every dollar a billionaire makes is a dollar out of their pocket, that ideal appeals.  For every person that (also wrongly) thinks that corporate America is comprised of hoods, thieves and criminals, that ideal appeals.  For every person that thinks the American economy is a "fuck or be fucked" game, that ideal appeals.   She was a far more dangerous candidate because she tapped into a much more base ideal than Trump ever could, she just tapped into it the wrong way. 

Quote

I'm not apoplectic at all but I'm definitely baffled, mainly because of the shaking of standards I thought we upheld. Tell you the truth I wasn't as upset when Trump won as I was happy that Hillary lost, a bit childish but I was ecstatic hehe, so all these realities on the nature of the situation only really dawned on me the last couple of weeks.

What "realities".  These are YOUR ideas, YOUR "realities" not universal ones.  I didn't vote for Trump, and still don't like him (for policy reasons; see the "Two Rules" thread for one of them) but I demand we be fair to him.  Does that make me a "racist" and "bigot"?  By your "standards", perhaps it does.  I am glad that but for a few select folks here that I trust, I'm relatively anonymous here.  For many of the same reasons that el Barto set out, I no longer talk politics in public much anymore.  I can remember having a full on conversation in Philly around the time of Obama's first election and having some Rivers Cuomo-looking dude in an ironic military jacket and carrying a man-purse want to get up in my grill and fight me because I didn't understand what "real oppression" looked like.  He shut the fuck up when I asked him if he was attending UPenn or Temple, and to explain how either of those excellent and not at all cheap schools taught him anything about "real oppression".  Even his friends had to chuckle at that one.  I don't feel like the conversation is the same when the underlying implication is as you put it "you're either a racist or you're not" and the standard is how vehemently you "fight" even the perception of racism.

 
Quote

It's a conundrum to me what you're saying here man, to me you're saying we shouldn't reply sternly to people we think are saying hateful things, because then they'll be afraid to speak their minds.. but replying is the speaking of our minds, so in that scenario someone always has to end up being fearful of speaking out?
Chilling effects should indeed be frowned upon! I realize if the situation is reversed and you're minority that thinks that majority is saying hateful things, then you definitely need to speak your mind without fear of these chilling effects. But come to think of it, when and where did it ever happen that the disagreeing minority had it easy or fair with the chilling effects? The degree of how shitty it will be for you to disagree with the majority in a society, differs from one regime to another and I think the U.S. is among the least shittiest places for that.

But you're sort of blurring the lines.  What's a suitable "stern reply"?   "Hey, dude, I don't know if you mean to be, but someone might think you're a racist with that.  Might want to rethink how you say that!" might be okay.  But "I CALL ON ALL MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS TO NEVER ATTEND A PHIL ANSELMO CONCERT AGAIN!  DON'T SUPPORT THAT RACIST MOTHERFUCKER!" has problems.  Now you aren't just sharing your ideas, you're mobilizing.  You are economically punching him right in the face.  And what about those people that like Phi's music, but really, don't want the hassle of explaining that they just want to get their mosh on, and they didn't even HEAR the so-called racist comments to begin with?   Or the guy that DID hear them and either disagreed, or didn't care enough to eat that $40 ticket that they already bought? 
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: El Barto on January 23, 2017, 10:43:46 AM
But here's a PHENOMENAL example of what we're talking about:   Did Trump ACTUALLY show he was a racist, or are you assuming he is, because racists seemed to ally with him he seems to appoint racists to rather high positions in his administration?   I've spent a good amount of time following this election from all the way back to when there were 22 candidates (17 on the right, 5 on the left) and honestly, I see where the appeal IS for a racist, but I don't see a lot of ACTUAL RACISM from Trump himself. 
:lol

Sorry, man. Couldn't pass up an empty net goal.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 23, 2017, 11:00:22 AM
But here's a PHENOMENAL example of what we're talking about:   Did Trump ACTUALLY show he was a racist, or are you assuming he is, because racists seemed to ally with him he seems to appoint racists to rather high positions in his administration?   I've spent a good amount of time following this election from all the way back to when there were 22 candidates (17 on the right, 5 on the left) and honestly, I see where the appeal IS for a racist, but I don't see a lot of ACTUAL RACISM from Trump himself. 
:lol

Sorry, man. Couldn't pass up an empty net goal.

I'm not averse to tossing up a softball now and again.  :) 
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 23, 2017, 11:45:01 AM
Yeah, seriously.  Per bosky's first point, has Trump said things that indicate he may be a racist?  Maybe not.  But he certainly seems to surround himself with racists, so on a practical level, I'm not sure there's much of a difference.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: axeman90210 on January 23, 2017, 11:59:52 AM
Yeah, seriously.  Per bosky's first point, has Trump said things that indicate he may be a racist?  Maybe not.  But he certainly seems to surround himself with racists, so on a practical level, I'm not sure there's much of a difference.

I don't recall him saying anything during the campaign, but isn't there a quote from him back in the early 90s about how he wouldn't want a black person to do his accounting.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 23, 2017, 12:30:11 PM
Not sure about that, but here is a story about How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias. (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html?_r=0)
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Progmetty on January 24, 2017, 12:18:27 AM
With all due respect Stadler, most of your replies to anyone here revolves around the "simplicity" of someone's thinking on something and the "binary", black & white nature of said thinking. While yes I agree with you that most issues are not simple or binary, but some definitely are and I think bigotry, fascist rhetoric and undertones are among those things, simply because the price we could pay on giving shit like that the benefit of a doubt is way too high and grave.
No disagreement on the bias point, we'd be kidding ourselves to say we don't all have individual bias against certain ethnicities or religions. But this is not about simple bias, this is about hate speech and spreading hateful ideas that the laymans would act on, possibly violently, believe me I come from a country where shit goes down that way and people get radicalized who otherwise could not give a single flying fuck about race or religion.

Okay, but my point stands, because just because YOU think it's "binary" doesn't make it so, and doesn't free you from dealing with it in a more nuanced fashion.  There are a LOT of things I PERSONALLY think are binary, but I don't get the luxury of telling everyone else to think of it that way. 

Your point is freakin gospel to me man, if you knew me personally you'll see how odd it is for me to be trying to convince you of the importance of a binary thinking on a subject. I don't disagree with the rule, I assert the exception, the base point or the ground we all stand upon to maintain civility.
I think something is still lost in translation, let's work with an example, just so I can make sure we understand each other right and just completely disagreeing. Do you think the treatment of Westboro baptist church as social pariahs is wrong? Do you think they should be given a broader stage to share their ideas?

And don't confuse thought and ideas with ACTION.   I can hate blacks (I don't, but go with me here) but I can't kill them.  Not because they are black, but because they are HUMAN and there are laws against that. I'm not suggesting anarchy or the Wild Wild West, but we have to preserve ideas, even those ideas we find abhorrent.   

I disagree, thoughts and ideas lead to action. That's not guess work, it's history. Hateful rhetoric works, it might take time but it grows and it works.

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.
I usually like to point out that whatever I say is "IMO", but damn dude these are the outspoken American ideals! I didn't drag this along from my country or draw it from a foreign ideology!

How so?  How is that the most binary way of thinking?    To the extent we can't interpret it, it's because we've artificially make it that way with our preachy PC nonsense.  Again, you are confusing "thought" and "action".   You keep conflating the dialogue about race with "piles of corpses".  No one - least of all me - is advocating for "piles of corpses".   

Seldom in history has commoners advocated the "piles of corpses", it just happens when you stand by and let the hateful thoughts spread, win hearts and mobilize into actions.
I recall XJDenton's recent post about people lashing out against PC are simply bothered that they cannot be rude or insult others without people slamming them for it, I agree with that. 


Even the most egregious examples of what you're talking about weren't perpetrated by people that ACTUALLY HAD THE THOUGHTS.  If we actually had meaningful dialogue about it, and understood that yes, people could think this way, we might have avoided some of the problems you're talking about.

I'm genuinely confused on whether or not you guys are getting what I'm saying, cause I agree with this. Yes meaningful dialogue, yes! I'm not talking about cursing out people who bring a discussion to the table! But when you come in with a certain attitude and presentation that only prompts aggression then an aggressive tone you shall get in return. And I think the "meaningful dialogue" gang is jumping ship with Trump's rhetoric and mannerisms empowering of the other gang.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Progmetty on January 24, 2017, 01:24:46 AM
Lost Internet connection on my laptop while replying to your third post Stadler, I can't do this by phone but I'll get back to you as soon as I get my connection back.
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 24, 2017, 07:41:31 AM
Your point is freakin gospel to me man, if you knew me personally you'll see how odd it is for me to be trying to convince you of the importance of a binary thinking on a subject. I don't disagree with the rule, I assert the exception, the base point or the ground we all stand upon to maintain civility.
I think something is still lost in translation, let's work with an example, just so I can make sure we understand each other right and just completely disagreeing. Do you think the treatment of Westboro baptist church as social pariahs is wrong? Do you think they should be given a broader stage to share their ideas?

I'm glad we have some common ground, here, because I have a lot of respect for your opinions and your point of view.   I

As for the Westboro Baptist Church, great example; no I don't at all think their treatment as social pariahs is necessarily wrong, but I think they should have whatever stage anyone else has.   

My whole point is only that the response is content neutral.   We can't have this assumption that because I disagree with what is being said, I get carte blanche to respond however I want.  I think there has to be some civility to this.  We should be able to discuss ideas that are on their face abhorrent.  The DISCUSSION ITSELF can't be abhorrent, and that's where we seem to be at this point.

Quote
I disagree, thoughts and ideas lead to action. That's not guess work, it's history. Hateful rhetoric works, it might take time but it grows and it works.

I think, respectfully, you're sort of dealing with the flood waters after the flood, and I'm trying to prevent the flood.  In our reactionary, PC world, yes, thoughts lead to action, because we've been taught that's what we should do.  I love him, and I like the sentiment, but the actual implementation of Billy Joel's "Don't take any shit from anyone!" is problematic.   I should be able to say something like... "The performance of black students in schools is not entirely a function of "racism against blacks perpetrated by whites" without being branded a "racist".  I'm not at all saying "blacks are inferior", or that "blacks are stupid".  I am beginning a dialogue as to how we can get to a point where you can't tell the racial makeup of a school by their test scores.   I should be able to say "there is equal blame to go around in the problem of how black people and cops interact" without being branded a racist.   And yet... we're not at that place.  If you're not entirely on board with the PC, "common sense" analysis, not only is your opinion dismissed, it is branded in a way that is chilling moving forward. 


Quote
Seldom in history has commoners advocated the "piles of corpses", it just happens when you stand by and let the hateful thoughts spread, win hearts and mobilize into actions.
I recall XJDenton's recent post about people lashing out against PC are simply bothered that they cannot be rude or insult others without people slamming them for it, I agree with that. 

Well, I agree there is some truth in XJDenton's comment, but he's still wrong in the sense that so what?  Here's the thing:  if HATEFUL IDEAS are so powerful, if IDEAS breed action, then so must "LOVING" (or whatever word you want to use) ideas breed action.  If you have faith in your position, if you feel you are SO right, let your ideas stand.    For every person that just wants to be an asshole to others, there are five or six (like me) that believe we are sugar-coating or outright ignoring crucial discussions that we HAVE TO HAVE to fix our society, out of a justified fear that people like XJDention will dismiss our ideas with the incendiary tag "RACISM!" without having the courtesy or facts to marshall a coherent intellectual counter.   If my idea is HATEFUL, and it is so BAD an idea, you should be able to counter it without resorting to meta- ad hominem attacks like "OH, you just want to be an asshole!" or "You're a RACIST!".  The argument against Hitler should have been one of science and fact and reason, not "Ooooh, you're BAD!, you're an ANTI-SEMITE!"   I know, I had family (non-Jews, even though I have some Jewish in my family) that were gassed in Poland, and it's not as simple as history paints it.  There WAS resistance, at least in Poland, and there WERE people saying "this isn't right, we don't want this."  Ultimately, when it came out, there were MILLIONS of people that said "this isn't right" and millions who gave their lives to make sure it stopped.   The course of man isn't perfect; unfortunately people get caught in the transition periods.   Being "PC" doesn't prevent that from happening, and my argument is that it probably HELPS it, more than it prevents it.

Quote
I'm genuinely confused on whether or not you guys are getting what I'm saying, cause I agree with this. Yes meaningful dialogue, yes! I'm not talking about cursing out people who bring a discussion to the table! But when you come in with a certain attitude and presentation that only prompts aggression then an aggressive tone you shall get in return. And I think the "meaningful dialogue" gang is jumping ship with Trump's rhetoric and mannerisms empowering of the other gang.

Not sure I follow this; can you help me?

But I will say this:  dismissing the idea - even if the presentation is flawed - as "rhetoric" and "hate speech" perpetuates the problem.  Here's the point:  when I go into a negotiation, there are three things that are understood by my team:  one, we WILL walk away if we have to, two, we WILL have to make concessions, and so we frame our argument to accommodate that, and three, IT IS NOT PERSONAL, and emotion has no place at that table.    Don't get me wrong; the aggressive racists are just as wrong here.  It's not an effective way of making your point (and no, I'm not trying to help the racists be more effective).  But that's their weak point.   By dismissing them as "assholes" and "haters", and denying them their rights, you are reinforcing their belief system.  They already feel attacked by a system that they don't see as fair, so to continue to attack is to reinforce the behavior.   Come in, demand not SILENCE, but CIVILITY, have the dialogue, and keep the notion of "I'm OFFENDED!" out of it.   
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Progmetty on January 25, 2017, 12:01:59 AM
However, it has gotten to a point where we, as a society, can no longer agree on what racism and bigotry really are. Where those words are tossed around and about so casually, they have lost definition and meaning. Where unfounded accusations of such are more common than desired and lead to this societal bullying that has been discussed.

The answer to the why question is because from his standpoint (and mine as well) there is no clear cut standard of racism and bigotry.

Quote
so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry".

Why? This is the mother of all binary things! If nothing else is black and white, THIS is.
This is the one thing that cannot be open to interpretations or opinions, no degrees of it can have a positive resolution. If for nothing, NOTHING, then at least for the fact that history has already shown us how wrong tolerating such things could go, into piles of corpses. You do not generalize and you don't single out groups of people, period, no wiggle room.


The bolded part cannot be a clear cut standard we can agree on?! I'm on board with everything else you guys both said as valid debatable points.

No.  What does it mean to "generalize"?  Do you think any Liberal is losing a minute's sleep over generalizing that all Republicans want to take their healthcare?  Or want to see gays put back in the closet?   Do you think any Conservative is losing a minute's sleep over generalizing that all Democrats want to take their money for bullshit feel-good social programs?  Or want to see our economy come to a standstill by completely undermining it with pie-in-the-sky environmental nonsense?

By generalize I meant paint with a broad-brush.
By these rhetorical questions I think again you're bringing this down to partisan issues, I believe the issue at hand is bigger and on a different plain than that.

But you didn't answer el Barto's question;  what about the repercussions to the repercussions?   There are no controls, no safeguards that the much-vaunted "free speech has consequences" gets almost free reign.  Ask Phil Anselmo if he's going to speak his mind so freely next time. Or Michael Richards?   Or Isaiah Washington?  Or Mel Gibson (who's gone on record to this point multiple times)?   Or Axl Rose?   

Okay, I'm not advocating actual damaging consequences to free speech, I really am not. I'm talking entriely about verbal responses, I never called to boycott any of these people or others.
Let's examine one of these though, I don't know details of Anselmo's deal and I vaguely remember the rest except Michael Richards. So Richards said something along the lines of "Look at them, they're niggers, look at the niggers, a 100 years ago you'd be hanging from a tree". Does that qualify as "speaking his mind freely" as you put it? Is that the kinda thing you deal with by means of meaningful dialogue?

The "stink" of racism and bigotry doesn't go away, and while you seem to want a standard by which to vent your vehemence to the idea of "racism", there doesn't seem to be any standard by which we judge the response "reasonable".   Being a rather hard line capitalist, I think the "consequences" for a businessman who opts to not sell a cake that says "Adam, I love you and am so happy to be your husband! Love Steve!" loses out on that profit, and the profit from every other Adam and Steve that comes in for a cake.  Most businesses at that level can't afford to turn down ANY sales, and for them to potentially jeopardize their livelihood ought to be some indication that they feel as strongly about that issue as you do your feelings on "bigotry". 

I'm completely against casting out that business, the bigotry here is not respecting the cake maker's ideals and forcing him to do something against his beliefs. I'm getting what you're saying about repercussions of repercussions but I don't believe it's gotta be like that. Yes that would be "PC run amok" and it gives a bad name to PC.
And as for "there doesn't seem to be any standard by which we judge the response reasonable", that seems to be the problem and the clear point of where I differ with you and Barto, for example the economical ruin is something that I'm definitely opposed to, that cake maker didn't say "fuck gays", he just doesn't wanna deal with them, he has every right to that!

I think the point to remember here, is that we're talking about RIGHTS, and while most of these rights are inalienable - meaning, they cannot be taken away by man - there is also a mechanism for adjudicating when various rights are in conflict.  I have freedom of religion, but I cannot undertake human sacrifices, because I then tread on the rights of another to "life, liberty, etc.".   That's the case here.  Typically, how that is parsed out is that you can limit time, place and manner, but you can't limit "CONTENT".   Restrictions have to be CONTENT NEUTRAL.  So while I am not married to the notion of the "cake" example, I think we got to a potentially right answer in all the wrong ways.

I don't have a problem with any of that.

But here's a PHENOMENAL example of what we're talking about:   Did Trump ACTUALLY show he was a racist, or are you assuming he is, because racists seemed to ally with him?   I've spent a good amount of time following this election from all the way back to when there were 22 candidates (17 on the right, 5 on the left) and honestly, I see where the appeal IS for a racist, but I don't see a lot of ACTUAL RACISM from Trump himself.

I've said it many times before; I don't think Trump, the person, has any strong ideological convictions that he's loyal to. I think his compass only points to "WINNING!", he's megalomania exemplified. When I think or talk about Trump I'm thinking of the movement he has created, adopted and sponsored. I'm thinking of the people he pacified and allied himself to, I'm thinking of his administration and advisers. To me, Trump himself is nowhere comparable to Hitler like some folks like to, but the Trump movement that's now in power is eerily comparable in many aspects and that's coming from someone who usually rules out Nazi comparisons in politics as cliche and overly dramatic.

Again, says you. I think Hillary Clinton was every bit as dangerous to the American ideal as Trump, and here's why:  the VAST majority of people are not racists, and there is no amount of rhetoric that can change them into racists (despite the fearmongering from those that think that we're all one meme away from being Nazi soldiers).   But Hillary's blatant disregard for the law, her persistent idea that the law doesn't apply to her or that the law is something to be manipulated and played with for advantage, and that we can lie, cheat, and obfuscate in order to get past laws that don't help us, is not so cut and dry.  For every person that takes the speed limit as a suggestion, not a requirement, that ideal appeals.  For every person that thinks that the court system is prejudiced against, for example, black people, that ideal appeals.  For every person that (wrongly) thinks that every dollar a billionaire makes is a dollar out of their pocket, that ideal appeals.  For every person that (also wrongly) thinks that corporate America is comprised of hoods, thieves and criminals, that ideal appeals.  For every person that thinks the American economy is a "fuck or be fucked" game, that ideal appeals.   She was a far more dangerous candidate because she tapped into a much more base ideal than Trump ever could, she just tapped into it the wrong way. 

Yes, says me. I didn't claim that one was binary at all. I agree with your points about Hillary sans for the part that she's more dangerous than Trump, I still maintain that everything you said about her applies to other politicians and sometimes presidents, including disregard for the law, she's only unique cause she's exposed.

This discussion is interesting to me and thought provoking, I take the time to read and absorb what you're saying but it's really exhausting and time consuming since you say a lot that merits replying so it's not like I can respond to the gist of what you're saying, this post took an hour to type up :lol Long story short; bear with me here and if you will; don't give me more to work with until I get around to the rest of what you said heh
Night!
Title: Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
Post by: Stadler on January 25, 2017, 07:36:46 AM
Okay, I'm not advocating actual damaging consequences to free speech, I really am not. I'm talking entriely about verbal responses, I never called to boycott any of these people or others.
Let's examine one of these though, I don't know details of Anselmo's deal and I vaguely remember the rest except Michael Richards. So Richards said something along the lines of "Look at them, they're niggers, look at the niggers, a 100 years ago you'd be hanging from a tree". Does that qualify as "speaking his mind freely" as you put it? Is that the kinda thing you deal with by means of meaningful dialogue?

Depends on the context.   If it's two guys at a bar looking to use the same urinal, probably not.  If it's a more existential statement, perhaps.   I don't know.  I don't know what's going through Michael Richards head, and that's the point.  You (not you personally, but the people that think "PC" is just fine and dandy) don't get to put yourselves into his head.  You don't have to LIKE the idea, but you do have to respect his right to have it.   If you're just talking verbal responses, I'm with you, and we have no disagreement.  It's when people take the USE of a word or words, look at them purely out of context and through their own lenses, with no rebuttal, and often no fact-checking, and institute "consequences" that sometimes have no reversal.  Whether Michael Richards meant what he said in a racist way or not, putting that video out there will forever brand him as such regardless. And after the cat is out of the bag, any rebuttal by him is seen as "PR work" and "too little too late". 

This ruins people's lives.   We ought to make damn sure that we are using due process, such that it may be, before we do that.

Quote
I'm completely against casting out that business, the bigotry here is not respecting the cake maker's ideals and forcing him to do something against his beliefs. I'm getting what you're saying about repercussions of repercussions but I don't believe it's gotta be like that. Yes that would be "PC run amok" and it gives a bad name to PC.
And as for "there doesn't seem to be any standard by which we judge the response reasonable", that seems to be the problem and the clear point of where I differ with you and Barto, for example the economical ruin is something that I'm definitely opposed to, that cake maker didn't say "fuck gays", he just doesn't wanna deal with them, he has every right to that!

But that's where we are.  That's exactly where we are, and some activist judges have supported that position.  I will give you a heads up that - and I haven't read any posts after this so they may be there already - I promise you someone is going to post something that says, in effect, DAMN RIGHT he has to make that cake.  It's that persons' RIGHT to have that cake!"  totally and utterly ignoring that basically, for ANY OTHER REASON, that cake maker can turn down the job, just not when "homosexuality" is involved.  It essentially gives homosexuals not equality, but in fact MORE rights than their heterosexual counterparts.   If I walked in and asked that cake maker to put something like "To Fido, my dog, my pet, my lover, my sex toy, my best friend. Stadler" he could say "yeah, not my thing.  Sorry." without recrimination.  But if I went in and asked for "To Adam, my husband, my pet, my lover, my sex toy, my best friend.  Steve." he is forced to make that cake, because "HOMOPHOBIA! HATE!".   


Quote
I've said it many times before; I don't think Trump, the person, has any strong ideological convictions that he's loyal to. I think his compass only points to "WINNING!", he's megalomania exemplified. When I think or talk about Trump I'm thinking of the movement he has created, adopted and sponsored. I'm thinking of the people he pacified and allied himself to, I'm thinking of his administration and advisers. To me, Trump himself is nowhere comparable to Hitler like some folks like to, but the Trump movement that's now in power is eerily comparable in many aspects and that's coming from someone who usually rules out Nazi comparisons in politics as cliche and overly dramatic.

He's not Hitler in any way shape or form. Okay, maybe in terms of bad hair, but that's it.  He IS all about "WINNING". 

Interesting thing is, though, now that he's in, he's doing what he says he would do in a way that the Obama followers have to be thinking - at least to themselves - where the hell was this action and initiative in 2008?   You're telling me you couldn't sign a paper and close Gitmo?  Mofo, please.


Quote
Yes, says me. I didn't claim that one was binary at all. I agree with your points about Hillary sans for the part that she's more dangerous than Trump, I still maintain that everything you said about her applies to other politicians and sometimes presidents, including disregard for the law, she's only unique cause she's exposed.

This discussion is interesting to me and thought provoking, I take the time to read and absorb what you're saying but it's really exhausting and time consuming since you say a lot that merits replying so it's not like I can respond to the gist of what you're saying, this post took an hour to type up :lol Long story short; bear with me here and if you will; don't give me more to work with until I get around to the rest of what you said heh
Night!

Hey, it's supposed to be fun and hopefully illuminating (to both of us).  Take your time, and I look forward to your thoughts!