| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At some point, I think you really have to stop playing the "our party isn't quite as bad as the other one" game.
Even at this point I can still distinguish between protesting a speaker and using the power of the state to silence speech or break protests.
Even at this point I can still distinguish between providing an alternative viewpoint and condoning using the threat of violence to silence speech or scare off speakers.
Berkeley, for one.
By whom?
Self-styled "anti-fascists." (AKA decidedly not the right-wing police thugs that I'm told are the only people who would do such things)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From my little understanding of this verboten topic, the 50-100 who carried out the disruption were anarchists, maybe some Maoists.
I only bring this up because anarchists and Maoists aren't "liberals," nor are they "progressives" and they certainly aren't Democrats.
Whole subthread seems a little off base to me.
By whom?Self-styled "anti-fascists." (AKA decidedly not the right-wing police thugs that I'm told are the only people who would do such things)
Alas, with the highly-infilitrated, mask-wearing Black Bloc, you never can be sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@TOZ - If you're angling towards, "In a state in which the rule of law is respected, we need to identify suspects and try them in a court of law, not just condemn them up front," I totally agree. On the other hand, for purposes of looking at this event, I'm inclined to take them at their word.
On a more minor scale, we've also got the anti-Trump protestors filmed setting vehicles on fire at the inauguration. Unless they, too, are undercover right-wing infiltrators?
Claims that only the political right uses violence in efforts to silence speech don't seem to be accurate.
Having lost track of this thread, I'm not sure if this has been linked, but it's an analysis of Obama's "Organizing For Action" group and its impact of the Democrats' losses at the state and local level
“[With] all due respect to President Obama, OFA was created as a shadow party because Obama operatives had no faith in state parties. So I hope the OFA role is none. I hope OFA closes their doors and allows the country and state parties to get to the hard work of rebuilding the party at the local and grass-roots level,” said Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb, echoing a sentiment that has dominated private chatter among state party chairs for months. “OFA had no faith or confidence in the state parties so they created a whole separate organization, they took money away and centralized it in D.C. They gave us a great president for eight years, but we lost everywhere else."
While Obama has taken some responsibility for the party’s down-ballot failures — Democrats now have unified control over just six states, and 10 fewer governorships than when he took office, while Republicans have taken over the U.S. House and the Senate — his political allies have made clear that he hopes to help the Democratic comeback through his involvement with a redistricting effort.
Thank you for the edit.
;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless they, too, are undercover right-wing infiltrators?
Same groups in Berkeley as in DC.
And I don't mean to suggest, like Reich or whoever, that they are undercover right-wing infiltrators, although there are those.
Rather, there's a long, international, history of police agents-provocateur involved in Black Bloc/Antifa type shiznit.
That being said, I am completely prepared to believe the actions in DC and Berkeley were carried out by non-agents-provocateurs Black Bloc/Antifa-types. It's what they do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have we really sunk so low that we consider private institutions with six figure tuition costs as the arbitrators of "Free Speech"? That idea was always silly, but now it is silly and 60 years out of date. If I want to know what some controversial speaker has to say, I can watch them on youtube, or some other place on the internet. Why should I care what a bunch of wealthy college students think? That hasn't been relevant in decades (if it ever was).
Seriously. The alt-right has taken over the definition of "free speech" and made it serve their interests. Troll gets banned from Twitter? Free speech! College chooses not to give man podium? Free speech! Protesters object to racial slurs? Free speech!
Like the Religious Right's fixation on "religious freedom", they only care about this right as long as it's convenient for them.
they only care about this right as long as it's convenient for them.
And this attitude does not, to me, seem at all unique to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is truly unique in this world, other than Guy Fieri?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At some point, I think you really have to stop playing the "our party isn't quite as bad as the other one" game.
Given that I haven't seen a campus disappear in an earth shattering kaboom, it's more like my party is so far ahead of the other party we've gone to plaid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's 2 ways we can go from here.
A socialist paradise/dystopia where people don't have to work to make a living and can concentrate on their own thing whether or not it makes money
or
we go continuim full on corporate congress where corporations don't need workers to work, fight, make war, and only put up with the peons so long as they don't get uppity.
So in other words, the Paradise Earth of Next Gen Star Trek, or the Mega-City One of Judge Dredd, where the primary purpose of the education system was to prepare citizens for the fact that they would be among the 80 percent unemployed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously. The alt-right has taken over the definition of "free speech" and made it serve their interests. ... more
As Kirth alluded to, it isn't just the far right. Our whole sphere of politics has a warped view of Constitutional Rights, (as well as Human Rights, Animal Rights, etc). While many have this obsessive focus on college students, the government has been trampling a variety of important rights under both parties.
To bring this thread back to what the democrats need to do to win elections, the first thing I would start with is voting rights. Democrats have to stop being awful about elections. Stop suing third party candidates, stop screwing minority voters during primaries, and put forward real efforts to get EVERYONE eligible to vote in a one-person-one vote system. The party should shift towards open primaries and an honest democratic process. Finally, once their credibility is restored, they need to stop allowing the republicans to do what they are currently doing on a more aggressive scale and in the general election - crosscheck is the primary example.
The democrats have to actually start caring about 1st Amendment and 4th Amendment rights. It would be nice if they could also stop trying to take away people's other Rights with secret "no-fly" lists and other b&~@**#*. Again, when peoples rights are threatened, the democrats need to stop looking the other way.
The democrats need to stop ignoring human rights violations at home and abroad. Healthcare is a human right - being forced to buy health insurance from a for-profit insurance company is b#!~&*#%. No more cracking down on peaceful groups with federal government resources. No more killing teenage citizens with drones. No more unconditional support for Saudi Arabia and Israel. No more favored nation status for China.
That is just a start. A lot more needs to be done, especially in terms of jobs and economy.
EDIT: Damn, that furry article is a tough act to follow!
If you accept the idea that the left is against free speech based on the evidence then you have to accept that the right is equally against free speech because the evidence is at least as good.No argument. But that doesn't mean that I also need to be against free speech.
The instrument of the left shutting down free speech is "sorry, you can't use our universities podium. You'll have to make do with your own radio show, talk show, pulpet, the town square, a few city blocks, or an infinite number of youtube channels.Or, "sorry, if you try to come to our campus, we'll destroy it rather than admit you."
The instrument of the right shutting down free speech is to beat protestors with clubs, tear gas them, place undercover operatives to cause a ruckus to shoot them down, allow private paramilitary rentagoons to freeze people with a fire hose in the middle of winter, and shoot them in the head and then use that shooting as an excuse to clear the place out.Also intolerable, for a so-called civilized nation.
The idea that you are for free speech so you're going to vote for the right is ludicrous.Agreed. But the idea that, because neither major political bloc seems to care about it doesn't mean it's not a useful value.
Just curious, do you think the "first amendment" violation in this incident is bigger or smaller than the crackdown on protesters in North Dakota?
I dunno...as long as party primaries allow registration in a timely manner (unlike say what happened in NY), than I don't see any reason why they should mostly be decided by party members. Why should people belong to very different political parties or who might be politically apathetic at best decide a party's choice? After all...if democrats had a completely open primary than nothing would stop people who dislike democrats from voting for candidates they think are least likely to win the election. This already happens A LOT already in solid blue states and would only be more common.
How much of this actually gets votes and how much is your wish list of what you've always thought they should do?
The democrats had every advantage in the last presidential election, but got what... 30% of eligible voters? That is pathetic!
First off, if the democrats stopped screwing over the progressive wing during primaries, and actually supported real measures to get legit elections, they would get a ton of votes! Not just from the middle and left, but also all the people who had previously been disenfranchised.
You are right however that none of these are very sexy issues. If the Democrats want to really make a comeback, they need to focus on the economy let me rephrase that - have credibility on the economy. Hillary used the words like jobs and employment and economy* more then any other during her speeches and everything, but she was wasting her breath because she has no credibility. Let me say this again - Hillary has no credibility on jobs and the economy with most Americans. This should be painfully obvious to everyone. When she said, I'm going to put Bill in charge of the economy, everyone remembered how bad that worked out. Obama talked a big game about Hope and Change (an old Clinton slogan), but he didn't deliver, or even try to on most issues. In many ways, he paved the way for Trump and Trumps agenda. Hillary had no credibility on change, didn't even try really and got beaten badly despite every advantage.
If the democrats actually represent workers rather then Wall Street and the big banks, they will crush their opposition. Or they can keep following the highest ranking Democrat in the land, Chuck Schumer, “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
Being the suburban republican party... How is that working out for you?
We underestimated what it would take for a democratic country to elect a Mussolini. We thought that conditions would have to be a lot more terrible.
Turns out all that was needed was the right amount of fear, whether it would be about the economy, or a scapegoat group of choice... or a bit of both.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I knew a decision would be made by the weekend, but the fact that it was unanimously against Trump is kind of amazing.
I knew a decision would be made by the weekend, but the fact that it was unanimously against Trump is kind of amazing.
Expect the current blizzard of snow to be drowned out by another storm from the Twitter In Chief.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right now, it seems those workers are screaming against immigrant competition, high taxes and regulations. I assume you don't actually want to listen to those wishes, but want to provide them something that will work, but they don't realize they want.
I don't think that is what workers care about.
Well, competition from immigrants is big, and an area where democrats are awful. The Democratic party has nothing on immigration, except calling people racist who don't want to compete for everything with a desperate underclass of non-citizens. Well, Obama did deport more immigrants then any other president, so umm, nobody wins? Democrats need to realize that immigration sucks for the poor and middle class, but apparently isn't going to change anytime soon. Either the government needs to provide jobs and services for the immigrants, or get rid of them. I would much rather see the former, but that doesn't benefit the rich.Workers are not upset about paying taxes, they are actually willing to pay their fair share. Currently the ultra rich are being subsidized by the working class in virtually every aspect of the economy. People know this and know it is unfair. TAX THE RICH. This is so simple! The democrats are generally bad at this, and even when they occasionally do something right, (like making the rich pay for some of the ACA) they are too afraid of bumming out suburban republicans, they do a poor job of promoting it. Democrats need to stop selling out Main Street and sucking off Wall Street.
Yes, those workers are all bummed out about those burdensome regulations corporations face... Wait... no their not! Most workers don't even know about most of these rules, but they do detect all the b@*~!+@% that often gets thrown in. Things get decided not by what is necessary but by who lobbies with the most money. Also, when it comes to deregulating the banks, guess who sucks the most... The Clintons and Chuck Schumer!
Finally, and this is very important: People know lobbying is bribery! No one buys that "no evidence of quid pro quo" stuff. They know that politicians are paid to put the wealthy ahead of the workers. This fooled some of the people for some of the time, but the days of waiting for all those good jobs Reagan, then Clinton promised are over! People don't buy trickle economics anymore.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's one thing when you can get in and actually deliver the change and let people see the benefits, but running on raising taxes?
See, this is why democrats have no credibility on the economy.
OF COURSE YOU TAX THE RICH!
The rich not paying taxes is a huge problem. And they are not paying taxes because, for decades, the democrats have been neoliberal shills despite their promises to workers. Workers fight for other workers, not Billionaire investors. Workers don't like the ultra-wealthy. I know this is a shock for a Party that puts Steve Jobs at the right hand of God, but if you are worth a Billion dollars, workers don't like you! But, but, but they voted for Trump! Yeah, in the choice between two millionaires, they chose the one who isn't part of the government. The only thing worse then a millionaire is a millionaire politician who hasn't worked a real job in decades. This should not be new information.
Yeah, the Clinton's and Schumer suck on economic issues! Look at their records on deregulating Wall Street and the banks. They helped cause the crash of '08, and their actions since have shown a sickening disregard for workers. Chuck Schumer sucks!
EDIT: One more thing about Hillary... She has made a big point about how she and Bill left the White House with very little money. Since that time she and Bill (along with Wall Street) have made a tremendous amount of money, while most people struggled to tread water. People see that for what it is, and they don't like it!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
History pretty much shows that once all of the wealth of a country is concentrated into just a few hands, things tend to get ugly. That may not be something people want to hear, but it is something that needs to be addressed. Sadly, we do not have a party that seems willing to do so.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we're at the point that Democrats are gonna have to stand and fight on this, or we're seriously screwed—and not just politically. They need to stop backing down and letting pseudo-Reaganomics run the show. The middle class is vanishing. We simply can no longer afford—in a literal sense—to follow the dangerous trail Bill Clinton blazed for us. We can't keep conceding whenever someone screams "CLASS WARFARE". It won't be easy, but it will be necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put, white workers will cut off their noses to spite their faces every time if they think minorities will get too much (ie, any at all) of the aid that rightfully belongs to them. Is everyone else supposed to pretend their fears about immigration, other religions, or simply the other are valid in order to trick them into voting for their best interests? They've spent the last several decades inventing a false reality in order to not have to vote for democrats, I have no confidence they will suddenly be swayed by any democratic argument.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
But yeah, when I protest something, I generally want it to stop. If I boycott some company for using their free speech (money) to support something reprehensible I don't just want to "present a dissenting view", I want them to stop. Using public and commercial pressure to do so is a fundamental tactic and does not infringe on free speech in the slightest.So, if protesters were to physically blockade a store so that customers couldn't go in -- would that also be OK with you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They've spent the last several decades inventing a false reality in order to not have to vote for democrats, I have no confidence they will suddenly be swayed by any democratic argument.
This last bunch of posts, I'm all like, stay out, Doodlebug, you don't care if the Democrats ever win back the "white worker" vote, don't get involved.
But this is some real bullshiznit. Decades? How about last presidential election?
But I shouldn't be surprised. Back in the sixties, the Democratic Party establishment used to blame their dragging their feet on civil rights on poor white trash, too.
They've spent the last several decades inventing a false reality in order to not have to vote for democrats, I have no confidence they will suddenly be swayed by any democratic argument.This last bunch of posts, I'm all like, stay out, Doodlebug, you don't care if the Democrats ever win back the "white worker" vote, don't get involved.
But this is some real bullshiznit. Decades? How about last presidential election?
But I shouldn't be surprised. Back in the sixties, the Democratic Party establishment used to blame their dragging their feet on civil rights on poor white trash, too.
Decades, and it's been getting more intense every year. Now we had a candidate who ran explicitly on a campaign of xenophobia and bigotry, and it worked. Even most of the people who voted for him, didn't believe that he had better economic policies, but they voted for him anyways, there must have been some other aspect that appealed to them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put, white workers will cut off their noses to spite their faces every time if they think minorities will get too much (ie, any at all) of the aid that rightfully belongs to them. Is everyone else supposed to pretend their fears about immigration, other religions, or simply the other are valid in order to trick them into voting for their best interests? They've spent the last several decades inventing a false reality in order to not have to vote for democrats, I have no confidence they will suddenly be swayed by any democratic argument.
Sure...some voters fit that description, but I refuse to believe this is the default mindset of every Republican voter, or even Trump voter. People are self-centered and prone to accepting simple (often too simple) narratives. If you want to win in rural areas or suburban areas that have gone red, Showing you care with a good ground game in those areas and a message that speaks to that audience will get some of those voters on your side.
I mean...as I have said...repeatably in this thread. If we are going with the narrative that everyone who voted Trump/Republican in the last election is a racist or bigot, than there is absolute no point for discussing anything here. There is no move forward and if you are a democrat/progressive the only options you have are to move to Canada or argue for a Calexit-type situation if you live in a deep blue state. I don't agree with that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure...some voters fit that description, but I refuse to believe this is the default mindset of every Republican voter, or even Trump voter. People are self-centered and prone to accepting simple (often too simple) narratives. If you want to win in rural areas or suburban areas that have gone red, Showing you care with a good ground game in those areas and a message that speaks to that audience will get some of those voters on your side.
I mean...as I have said...repeatably in this thread. If we are going with the narrative that everyone who voted Trump/Republican in the last election is a racist or bigot, than there is absolute no point for discussing anything here. There is no move forward and if you are a democrat/progressive the only options you have are to move to Canada or argue for a Calexit-type situation if you live in a deep blue state. I don't agree with that.
But similarly, if you're going to pretend that bigotry of various kinds is irrelevant, you're already living in a fantasy world.
I'm sure it's not everyone and it's often not that black and white - most often prejudice just puts a weight on the scales you have to overcome, rather than being an absolute bar.
And of course, even if everyone who voted for Trump is a racist bigot who can never be reached for a Democratic vote, that's still only a 1/4 of the population. Turning out people who didn't vote is a possible way forward, though a...
I don't deny racism as being a factor, it's just not a factor that democrats can do anything about. Throwing up your hands and blaming everything on racism does nothing going forward.
Just because reality occasionally peeps through, doesn't mean they're not frantically trying to close the blinds...They've spent the last several decades inventing a false reality in order to not have to vote for democrats, I have no confidence they will suddenly be swayed by any democratic argument.This last bunch of posts, I'm all like, stay out, Doodlebug, you don't care if the Democrats ever win back the "white worker" vote, don't get involved.
But this is some real bullshiznit. Decades? How about last presidential election?
But I shouldn't be surprised. Back in the sixties, the Democratic Party establishment used to blame their dragging their feet on civil rights on poor white trash, too.
It's neat to see how the classist bullshiznit lines up with the Hillarybotness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put, white workers will cut off their noses to spite their faces every time if they think minorities will get too much (ie, any at all) of the aid that rightfully belongs to them. Is everyone else supposed to pretend their fears about immigration, other religions, or simply the other are valid in order to trick them into voting for their best interests? They've spent the last several decades inventing a false reality in order to not have to vote for democrats, I have no confidence they will suddenly be swayed by any democratic argument.Sure...some voters fit that description, but I refuse to believe this is the default mindset of every Republican voter, or even Trump voter. People are self-centered and prone to accepting simple (often too simple) narratives. If you want to win in rural areas or suburban areas that have gone red, Showing you care with a good ground game in those areas and a message that speaks to that audience will get some of those voters on your side.
I mean...as I have said...repeatably in this thread. If we are going with the narrative that everyone who voted Trump/Republican in the last election is a racist or bigot, than there is absolute no point for discussing anything here. There is no move forward and if you are a democrat/progressive the only options you have are to move to Canada or argue for a Calexit-type situation if you live in a deep blue state. I don't agree with that.
maybe not.
But as I have pointed out earlier in this thread myself, bigots rely very heavily upon this line of reasoning in order to blend in. Not saying it's time for bigotry tests or anything just pointing out that offering them shrubbery helps them remain a perennial problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it acceptable to protest someone for the contents of their protected speech? It's one thing to accept that the American Nazi Party has a right to exist, publish articles, hold rallies and marches. It's another to argue that protesting when they hold such rallies and marches is a bad thing.Is the purpose of your "protest" to present a dissenting view, or to prohibit them from speaking in the first place?
The protest is to ask that they not be given a platform to speak in that place. They are of course completely free to speak anywhere else. Were there teeming throngs clamouring for the words of the speaker, they could as easily go to the nearest park, town square, or parking lot of a sympathetic business in order to speak to their heart's content.
The protests merely ask that the speaker not be provided a stage by the institution, and with it the apparent approval of the institution for the speaker's words.