All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[PwrdOn]

This seems to be an extreme interpretation, that anyone who doesn't agree with everything you've said (that a Congressman's statement was a signal to the GOP base, that he is suggesting all black people considered mildly threatening are worthy of being murdered, that he doesn't think the Atlanta shooter is worthy of severe punishment, etc.) is an idiot.

I think it's possible that Chip Roy wanted to make it clear that he thinks we should punish people who assault Asian-Americans, but that he's also concerned that this conversation is used an excuse to stifle legitimate discussion.

This is a sensitive issue, where there's a lot of misunderstanding. For example, there's the common idea that a cop said that the shooter was having a bad day, when he was explaining what the shooter had told him.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/sta...30763092975617

There also does not appear to be confirmation that the murdered women (who ranged in age from 44 to 69) were sex workers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ed-ncna1261575

Obviously what happened to them wouldn't be okay if they were sex workers, but it does reflect how there are major details about the story that we don't yet know.

Stifle legitimate discussion about what?

[Mister Mets]

Stifle legitimate discussion about what?

Wrongdoing by the Chinese government, double-standards (IE- the suggestion that any reference to COVID-19's Wuhan origins is racist while we refer to the British or Brazilian variants by their names), larger implications, the necessary response, accuracy of statistics, etc.

It's definitely a pretty standard view, there are literally dozens of similar comments from members across the party and its not hard to find them. It gets attention not because its outside the norm but because it's just plain wrong and deserves to be called out whenever its uttered.

There are dozens of comments by Republicans referring to lynching?

You're not. You've explicitly had multiple posters call you out on the things that are in the past two weeks.

Also, you don't seem to understand how conspiracy theories work, and are just throwing the term around in a "rubber/glue" fashion now to defend your own party doing it. The GOP have been called out for attempted stochastic terrorism now for several years, and irresponsible rhetoric. The rise in violence shows that people were right to predict what would happen. That this link exists, and they continue to openly use the same rhetoric shows they don't care. Similar to now how they are moving away from saying "thoughts and prayers" after attacks and to start maligning the victims in statements more frequently. That's... not a conspiracy. That's reality.

Y'know, the thing you're starting to refuse to accept because it doesn't agree with your political opinions. A hallmark of someone who's been radicalized.

Seek help. I say this out in the open because I'm hoping others start to advise you to do the same. This is not how I recall you conducting yourself on this forum around 5 years ago, and it appears your ability to discern truth from fiction is only deteriorating.

I know that you feel strongly about stochastic terrorism. It does appear to be a topic where reasonable people can disagree on the implications (IE- whether a particular statement is part of a larger effort to rile crazy people.)

People have disagreed with me on this board over the last two weeks (and obviously before that), but disagreement is not the same as suggesting that my views are radical, which would generally be defined as a view that is both objectionable, and held by an extreme minority.

Have I recently expressed a view that is both really objectionable and held by a small percentage of Americans? A counterargument could be that the entire Republican party has become radical, although that leads to the follow-up question: Have I recently expressed a view that is both really objectionable, and was recently held by a small percentage of Americans?

I think you're reading stuff into what I've said that isn't there, and using that to make obnoxious personal comments. It's disappointing.

[thwhtGuardian]

Wrongdoing by the Chinese government, double-standards (IE- the suggestion that any reference to COVID-19's Wuhan origins is racist while we refer to the British or Brazilian variants by their names), larger implications, the necessary response, accuracy of statistics, etc.

There are dozens of comments by Republicans referring to lynching?

I know that you feel strongly about stochastic terrorism. It does appear to be a topic where reasonable people can disagree on the implications (IE- whether a particular statement is part of a larger effort to rile crazy people.)

People have disagreed with me on this board over the last two weeks (and obviously before that), but disagreement is not the same as suggesting that my views are radical, which would generally be defined as a view that is both objectionable, and held by an extreme minority.

Have I recently expressed a view that is both really objectionable and held by a small percentage of Americans? A counterargument could be that the entire Republican party has become radical, although that leads to the follow-up question: Have I recently expressed a view that is both really objectionable, and was recently held by a small percentage of Americans?

I think you're reading stuff into what I've said that isn't there, and using that to make obnoxious personal comments. It's disappointing.

Come on man, when people say "similar comments " they mean exactly what it says and you know that. But fine, I'll play along. No, not specifically lynching but comments that are just as extremely racially charged. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are very common trends when it comes to Republican talking points these days and it's not even veiled anymore.

[Tami]

Wrongdoing by the Chinese government, double-standards (IE- the suggestion that any reference to COVID-19's Wuhan origins is racist while we refer to the British or Brazilian variants by their names), larger implications, the necessary response, accuracy of statistics, etc.

There are dozens of comments by Republicans referring to lynching?

I know that you feel strongly about stochastic terrorism. It does appear to be a topic where reasonable people can disagree on the implications (IE- whether a particular statement is part of a larger effort to rile crazy people.)

People have disagreed with me on this board over the last two weeks (and obviously before that), but disagreement is not the same as suggesting that my views are radical, which would generally be defined as a view that is both objectionable, and held by an extreme minority.

Have I recently expressed a view that is both really objectionable and held by a small percentage of Americans? A counterargument could be that the entire Republican party has become radical, although that leads to the follow-up question: Have I recently expressed a view that is both really objectionable, and was recently held by a small percentage of Americans?

I think you're reading stuff into what I've said that isn't there, and using that to make obnoxious personal comments. It's disappointing.

Stifle legitimate discussion???

That's a euphemism for derailing a hearing on Violence against Asians and turning it into an attack on China.

That hearing was about Violence Against Asians in America. If Roy wanted a hearing on issues related to China, he could have that as a separate, unrelated meeting.

You can't hijack one hearing you don't like and turn it into something that it's not. And you can't use terminology that refers to violence against one group to question the legitimacy of a hearing on Violence against another, not in the way that Roy did.

[PwrdOn]

Wrongdoing by the Chinese government, double-standards (IE- the suggestion that any reference to COVID-19's Wuhan origins is racist while we refer to the British or Brazilian variants by their names), larger implications, the necessary response, accuracy of statistics, etc..

Just because it's technically possible to use a term in a non-racist way doesn't mean that the way you are using it is not racist. Last I heard there haven't been centuries of propaganda depicting British people as inherently filthy and disease ridden, ironic because it was British diseases were responsible for wiping out nearly the entire population of this continent, nor are British people being attacked on the street, nor is anyone even saying "UK Virus" or any terms like it. Besides, even among right wingers the "China Virus" term never really caught on and if anything the insistence on using it despite how obviously awkward and forced it always sounds is just another example of that political correctness that conservatives claim to always hate. To paraphrase Regina George, stop trying to make China Virus happen, it's not going to happen.

Stifle legitimate discussion???

That's a euphemism for derailing a hearing on Violence against Asians and turning it into an attack on China.

That hearing was about Violence Against Asians in America. If Roy wanted a hearing on issues related to China, he could have that as a separate, unrelated meeting.

You can't hijack one hearing you don't like and turn it into something that it's not. And you can't use terminology that refers to violence against one group to question the legitimacy of a hearing on Violence against another, not in the way that Roy did.

I'm glad he did though, just goes to show that despite how much Americans profess otherwise, it is still impossible for most to separate in their minds the Chinese government from American citizens that look anything remotely Chinese, which is apparently quite a wide net these days.

[Jack Dracula]

Wrongdoing by the Chinese government, double-standards (IE- the suggestion that any reference to COVID-19's Wuhan origins is racist while we refer to the British or Brazilian variants by their names), larger implications, the necessary response, accuracy of statistics, etc.

Trump, people from his administration, and right-wing pundits used the "China virus" label in a derogatory and ethnically charged manner in an effort to shame the Chinese government for their own political and economic gain. After their comments have caused violence against Asian-American citizens they still continue to use it demonstrating they don't care about the consequences.
Nobody is using the UK or British versions in a similar manner because there is no political or economic gain from it.
This is all obvious and it demonstrates bad faith on your part to pretend you don't understand it in an effort to steer the argument where you feel safer or simply to wear people down from having to continually explain the obvious.

So originalist Scalia decided that parts of the Constitution can be considered no longer applicable. Sounds right for that hypocrit.

The obvious counter-argument arose that since the first part of the amendment no longer applies it actually makes the entire amendment unnecessary as a whole. Scalia made the point that eliminating the amendment altogether is unconstitutional because it restricts citizens from defending themselves and their families.
Where it becomes bullshit is that reinterpreting the amendment in this way paved the way for relaxing existing regs on the number and lethality of weapons a person can own as well as who can purchase and how easily they can do so, etc. It was a cascade of deregulation which ultimately made all of us less safe.
So yes, Scalia was a hypocrite, but worse, he was an arrogant, short-sighted asshole whose ego and false idea of his own wisdom created a massive problem which is killing thousands of Americans every year and destabilizing entire South American nations.

[The Cool Thatguy]

China Virus, Kung Flu is clearly a different thing from UK variant, Mets. We all know how easy this is to understand, you're not fooling anyone.

Especially given that Trump was throwing those around long before the different variants became known.

[Mister Mets]

Come on man, when people say "similar comments " they mean exactly what it says and you know that. But fine, I'll play along. No, not specifically lynching but comments that are just as extremely racially charged. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are very common trends when it comes to Republican talking points these days and it's not even veiled anymore.

We may have been arguing past one another.

I referred to Chip Roy as a hack in a post in which I said that people who expect conservatives to call out Republicans who are wrong to do the same if they think a progressive is wrong on this message board.

You said "But that Hack's views are held and expressed just as freely by the mainstream party members..."

I said "The fact that it got a lot of attention suggests that those are not standard Republican talking points."

You said "It's definitely a pretty standard view, there are literally dozens of similar comments from members across the party and its not hard to find them. It gets attention not because its outside the norm but because it's just plain wrong and deserves to be called out whenever its uttered."

I was focusing on the implied lynching parts of the comment, while you may have been talking about everything he said. I was trying to figure out what the policy views would be that relate to "get a tall oak tree" for people who commit violence against Asian-Americans.

Stifle legitimate discussion???

That's a euphemism for derailing a hearing on Violence against Asians and turning it into an attack on China.

That hearing was about Violence Against Asians in America. If Roy wanted a hearing on issues related to China, he could have that as a separate, unrelated meeting.

You can't hijack one hearing you don't like and turn it into something that it's not. And you can't use terminology that refers to violence against one group to question the legitimacy of a hearing on Violence against another, not in the way that Roy did.

To be clear, articulating a position is not the same as endorsing it. I wasn't asked about whether it was correct for him to hijack the hearing the way he did.

China Virus, Kung Flu is clearly a different thing from UK variant, Mets. We all know how easy this is to understand, you're not fooling anyone.

Especially given that Trump was throwing those around long before the different variants became known.

Saying an argument exists is not the same as endorsing it.

The idea that diseases may be named after their place of origin was well-known before COVID-19 emerged (see the Spanish flu, which likely emerged in Kansas) and there should be an argument that it could have been possible to refer to COVID-19 in a similar way without encouraging the persecution of people who are in the US because they, or their ancestors, prefer America to the Chinese government.

[thwhtGuardian]

We may have been arguing past one another.

I referred to Chip Roy as a hack in a post in which I said that people who expect conservatives to call out Republicans who are wrong to do the same if they think a progressive is wrong on this message board.

You said "But that Hack's views are held and expressed just as freely by the mainstream party members..."

I said "The fact that it got a lot of attention suggests that those are not standard Republican talking points."

You said "It's definitely a pretty standard view, there are literally dozens of similar comments from members across the party and its not hard to find them. It gets attention not because its outside the norm but because it's just plain wrong and deserves to be called out whenever its uttered."

I was focusing on the implied lynching parts of the comment, while you may have been talking about everything he said. I was trying to figure out what the policy views would be that relate to "get a tall oak tree" for people who commit violence against Asian-Americans.

To be clear, articulating a position is not the same as endorsing it. I wasn't asked about whether it was correct for him to hijack the hearing the way he did.

Progressives do tend to hold people in their party accountable though...

[shooshoomanjoe]

Progressives do tend to hold people in their party accountable though...

While conservatives either excuse their party or outright refuse to believe it happened.

[CaptainEurope]

While conservatives either excuse their party or outright refuse to believe it happened.

Or praise and celebrate it happening.

[JackDaw]

Progressives do tend to hold people in their party accountable though...

Do they?

I must admit I’ve not seen any real evidence of that in UK politics...both Labour and Conservative politicians tend to forgive/ overlook transgressions from members of their own party that would see them calling for a sacking or resignation if a member of their own party did something similar.

Can you quote a few high profile cases where Democratic politicians acted decisively against fellow Democrats acting poorly?

[babyblob]

Do they?

I must admit I’ve not seen any real evidence of that in UK politics...both Labour and Conservative politicians tend to forgive/ overlook transgressions from members of their own party that would see them calling for a sacking or resignation if a member of their own party did something similar.

Can you quote a few high profile cases where Democratic politicians acted decisively against fellow Democrats acting poorly?

The only thing I can think of in recent memory is the ongoing Cuomo scandal and all the Dems that have called for him to resign.

[Kirby101]

Al Franken. And compared to Trump, he was a Saint.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Do they?

I must admit I’ve not seen any real evidence of that in UK politics...both Labour and Conservative politicians tend to forgive/ overlook transgressions from members of their own party that would see them calling for a sacking or resignation if a member of their own party did something similar.

Can you quote a few high profile cases where Democratic politicians acted decisively against fellow Democrats acting poorly?

John Boehner, Al Franken, John Conyers are the ones that come to my mind. And of course, currently with Cuomo.