All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[godisawesome]

...They don't though. The whole persecution complex the right has is unequivocally false.

It also tends to go hand in hand with how certain right-wing stances require a screwed up "threat assessment disability" on their part: minor annoyances and inconveniences get treated like apocalyptic threats, allowing persecution of objectively non-harmful demographics, but at the same time there's a bad mixture of meaningless belligerence on one hand and a submissive obsequiousness on others, and then a weird lack of awareness towards obvious danger in other areas.

Being told "You're being an *******" is more terrifying than being Putin's bitch.

[Tami]

Liz Cheney Nukes the Supreme Court Over Trump Delay—and Hands Dems a Weapon

n the wake of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Donald Trump’s demand for absolute immunity from prosecution—potentially delaying his insurrection-related trial until after the election—Democrats should take careful note of Liz Cheney’s response to the decision:

Delaying the January 6 trial suppresses critical evidence that Americans deserve to hear. Donald Trump attempted to overturn an election and seize power. Our justice system must be able to bring him to trial before the next election. SCOTUS should decide this case promptly

Note that Cheney stated unequivocally that voters deserve to know whether Trump committed crimes while trying to overthrow democracy—and deserve a full accounting of those actions—precisely because the sheer gravity of what he did threatens the democratic system itself. As Will Stancil points out, Democrats sometimes hesitate to talk this way, out of fear of being perceived as trying to politicize legal processes.

But in this case, Democrats have an obligation to level with voters about what’s really happening here.

At this point, the notion that Trump would use presidential power to end prosecutions of himself is so widely accepted that news accounts note it in passing. “He could use the powers of his office to seek to dismiss the election interference indictment altogether,” The New York Times observes, as detachedly as it might report on Trump’s plans to alter the decor in the Oval Office.

[Tami]

Ghana intensifies crackdown on rights of LGBTQ people and activists

Ghana’s parliament has passed legislation that intensifies a crackdown on the rights of LGBTQ people and those promoting lesbian, gay or other non-conventional sexual or gender identities in the West African country.

The new legislation passed on Wednesday imposes a prison sentence of up to five years for the “wilful promotion, sponsorship or support of LGBTQ+ activities”.

The bill still has to be validated by the president before becoming law, which observers believe is unlikely before a general election in December.

Activist groups have called the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values bill a setback for human rights and urged President Nana Akufo-Addo’s government to reject it.

But the legislation is widely supported in Ghana, where Akufo-Addo has said gay marriage will never be allowed while he is in power.

Commonly referred to as the anti-gay bill, the sweeping legislation received sponsorship from a coalition comprising Christian, Muslim and Ghanaian traditional leaders, and passed through an unopposed voice vote.

While discrimination against LGBTQ people is common, no one has ever been prosecuted under the colonial-era law.

Under the provisions of the bill, same-sex relations could be punished with imprisonment ranging from six months to three years.

Those advocating for LGBTQ rights could be subject to harsher penalties, with potential jail terms of three to five years.

UN rights chief Volker Türk condemned the passing of the bill.

“I call for the bill not to become law,” he said. “Consensual same-sex conduct should never be criminalised.”

[Dalak]

I'd call all of conservatism sad political theater at this point if it wasn't so immeasurably harmful to so many.

+1

Of late, what have conservatives tried to conserve for the public health?

I've tried to come up with genuine and joking responses to that, but conservatives don't conserve anything anymore. They don't hold back opinions, facists, white supremecists, lies, or criminals. They do protect other conservatives, but that isn't conservation.

Man, going back and looking at the posts you point out? It’s almost HILARIOUS (if it weren’t so infuriatingly frustrating) that we are still having the same conversation with him now that was being had back then. Watching his responses to recent posts, though, is like watching an AI try to parse an existential question. The responses are just the same old lazy cut-and-pastes of other responses that don’t really address the questions being asked so much as they continue to illustrate the very behavior being criticized, without any sense of irony or self-awareness.

When he even bothers to respond to people giving him the proof, and context, and precedent he pedantically insists upon the importance of.

The more recent ones have seemed . . lazier to use a word. Pretending to lack basic reading comprehension or arithmetic in order to avoid making arguments he knows are somehow worse to defend the indefensible does seem more boring compared to acting like he misunderstood so he can give a long response to a Strawman. We do still get nuggets like admonishing Disney for DEADPOOL of all people saying something offensive to the right, which is good for a small laugh though.

It also tends to go hand in hand with how certain right-wing stances require a screwed up "threat assessment disability" on their part: minor annoyances and inconveniences get treated like apocalyptic threats, allowing persecution of objectively non-harmful demographics, but at the same time there's a bad mixture of meaningless belligerence on one hand and a submissive obsequiousness on others, and then a weird lack of awareness towards obvious danger in other areas.

Being told "You're being an *******" is more terrifying than being Putin's bitch.

Being called out for bad behavior you'd rather not acknowledge is worse than working to undermind democracy or world stability for some people. If folks were more open about what they believed instead of hiding behind convenient lies I think society would be a better one than it is today, even if it means hateful people are more openly hateful.

Liz Cheney Nukes the Supreme Court Over Trump Delay—and Hands Dems a Weapon

Dems need to shout this from the rooftops with far more if they want to get through to voters willing to vote for someone like Trump.

[zinderel]

Ghana intensifies crackdown on rights of LGBTQ people and activists

‘Family values’ being used as justification for the criminalizing and dehumanization of minorities for the crime of simply existing honestly?

This has the sticky fingerprints of American ‘Christianity’ all over it, same way Uganda’s laws did. I would be very interested to see the financial records of the people backing this nonsense, and would love to know if the churches involved have recently hosted American missionaries or representatives of the American Jesus corporation…

I wonder what Scott Lively is up to…

[Gray Lensman]

‘Family values’ being used as justification for the criminalizing and dehumanization of minorities for the crime of simply existing honestly?

This has the sticky fingerprints of American ‘Christianity’ all over it, same way Uganda’s laws did. I would be very interested to see the financial records of the people backing this nonsense, and would love to know if the churches involved have recently hosted American missionaries or representatives of the American Jesus corporation…

I wonder what Scott Lively is up to…

The Post-Christian American Church strikes again. I refer to it as Post-Christian because Christ seems to have little to do with it any more, to the point that one church had someone shout down the "liberal crap" being espoused when the preacher was reading from the Sermon on the Mount.

[zinderel]

The Post-Christian American Church strikes again. I refer to it as Post-Christian because Christ seems to have little to do with it any more, to the point that one church had someone shout down the "liberal crap" being espoused when the preacher was reading from the Sermon on the Mount.

To be fair, it appears that the Ghanaian Anglican Church - the church of the oppressor and colonizer who destroyed Ghanaian culture to replace it with white ‘Christian’ culture - is the major mover and shaker behind this law. But given its similarity to Uganda’s Kill the Gays laws, and Scott Lively’s ties to that (and through those ties, the American ‘Christian’ movement), I think it’s fair to wonder exactly how much influence American ‘Christianity’ had on this law.

‘Post-Christian’ christianity…I like that…

[CaptainEurope]

Haley rules out a No Labels bid for president. Manchin already did.
No Labels is dead.

[comictimes]

At least 112 killed while waiting for food aid near Gaza City



As I understand, there's been glorification of the gunning down of the crowd too, in social media. Something which apparently is as bad as the act itself.

[zinderel]

At least 112 killed while waiting for food aid near Gaza City



As I understand, there's been glorification of the gunning down of the crowd too, in social media. Something which apparently is as bad as the act itself.

We have to be careful, though. If we criticize this too strongly, or point to it as further evidence of the Israeli government’s genocidal intentions towards all Palestinians (not just Hamas), we might get called anti-Semites.

For not being willing to defend or turn a blind eye to the wholesale slaughter of a Semitic people by a Semitic people.

A wholesale slaughter ‘justified’ by small, desperate acts of terrorism. Slaughter and terrorism, pain and suffering, traumatized children and devastated communities on both sides, all over which magic book gives whom the right to decide who lives where…

[Catlady in training]

No, he doesn't. I mean, when I started posting about trans rights years ago, Mets was doing the same thing he's doing now. Nothing changes except the circumstances, which are getting worse, that Mets assures everyone we're just all overreacting to, or it's somehow our fault because we 'overreacted' that people 'don't take it seriously'.

Fair enough. It still seemed like the argument that we shouldn't sound alarms until someone literally starts systematically murdering people is on a completely new level, especially if politicians already said that they want trans people eradicated. But his response seems like I should get used to that kind of reasoning.

Case in point:

The piece starts with the murder of the socialists (or with the murder of communists in a longer version by the Holocaust Memorial trust.)

But I'm trying to figure out the connection between an actress writing on Twitter that her pronouns are beep/bop/boop, and a new Holocaust.

Do you think that the quote was referring to that one "joke"? Or that perhaps it could have been referring to all of the anti-trans laws that Tendrin frequently posts about and the rhetoric that politicians use when talking about trans people?

[Zelena]

Alexei Navalny funeral: multiple mourners detained; crowds in Moscow chant ‘Putin is a murderer’ and ‘Russia without Putin’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...raine-war-live

[comictimes]

slaughter of a Semitic people by a Semitic people

The Semitic ancestry of Israelis has been questioned since '76. The fact that you need a court order to have your DNA tested in Israel doesn't inspire much confidence in the rejection of that theory.

[Mister Mets]

...They don't though. The whole persecution complex the right has is unequivocally false.

And again this reads as someone who doesn't deal with HR as they don't have to release documents to the public, as those are typically private and with good reason. I'm sure at the court case they will no doubt be presented with the documentation and I imagine it'll be pretty similar documentation that I role played above. On date X we had a conversation with employee stating the following, employee signed and dated that above conversation took place. On date y we had a conversation about non-compliance spoken about in prior documented conversation; remediation class requested and employee dated and signed. On date z we had another conversation about non-completion of offered remediation class, requested documentation for deadline extension but none was provided and so employee was terminated pursuant with clause w in their contract which they previously signed and dated on date m.

It's all very cut and dry and is a complete non-issue. It's just a sad example of political theater much like the war on Christmas.

There are several questions here. What's legal? What's right? What's the best approach for a company with an ideologically diverse audience?

I'm not making claims about Disney breaking the law. I have no idea what's going to come out in the trial, if anything relevant to Carano. Usually companies tend not to hide things that look good for them.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...sk-1235817466/

As I've noted, a belief of mine that doesn't map onto being conservative is my opposition to an aspect of at-will employment, which is the idea that someone can be fired for any reason without explanation. In general, I think companies should give an explanation and I support laws which would mandate this. As a private citizen, I encourage companies to be honest about why people are fired and will discuss the wisdom of such policies in forums like this.

There seems to be an expectation in the media that everyone who works for even ostensibly mainstream outlets conform to the cultural norms of elite left-wingers. It may generate a backlash if customers realize that if they worked there, they'd have to attend a remediation class. I do also want the media to be transparent about their internal policies because they're helping the rest of us make sense of the world, and covering those kinds of details about other companies.

Fair enough. It still seemed like the argument that we shouldn't sound alarms until someone literally starts systematically murdering people is on a completely new level, especially if politicians already said that they want trans people eradicated. But his response seems like I should get used to that kind of reasoning.

Case in point:


Do you think that the quote was referring to that one "joke"? Or that perhaps it could have been referring to all of the anti-trans laws that Tendrin frequently posts about and the rhetoric that politicians use when talking about trans people?

The post was in reference to a comment someone else made about Carano, so it is a response to that joke.

There is a chasm between her joke and the systemic murder of minorities. Pointing it out isn't the same as saying we shouldn't sound alarms until people are systemically murdering minorities.

If you're worried it may happen, there is a valid question of how you think the country could get there. And if you think things may get bad, but not that bad, we should raise different alarm bells.

[Dalak]

Fair enough. It still seemed like the argument that we shouldn't sound alarms until someone literally starts systematically murdering people is on a completely new level, especially if politicians already said that they want trans people eradicated. But his response seems like I should get used to that kind of reasoning.

Case in point:


Do you think that the quote was referring to that one "joke"? Or that perhaps it could have been referring to all of the anti-trans laws that Tendrin frequently posts about and the rhetoric that politicians use when talking about trans people?

As you can see, Mets would rather limit things to one joke rather than all the other important context just involving Carano, let alone Tendrin's history of posts. That doesn't seem like any sort of focus on specifics to me.

EX: "Employers need to say why they fire people" ignores how Disney told Carano what behavior was upsetting them and told her to stop it, and she chose to continue despite it.