Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[ZombieHavoc]

Heard about the high profile Facebook bans this mourning. While I have no sympathy the individuals banned, I'm still a little conflicted. I mean...Paul Joseph Watson is a "dangerous person?"

Zuckerburg is evil, but it's his company.

I mean, if someone opened a sandwich store, and 30 people started hanging out there all the time, and then two people came and started spreading lies and hate and radicalized 10 of the 30 people who hung out there, it'd be within the store owner's rights to say he didn't want those two people hanging out at his store any more.

[ed2962]

Zuckerburg is evil, but it's his company.

I mean, if someone opened a sandwich store, and 30 people started hanging out there all the time, and then two people came and started spreading lies and hate and radicalized 10 of the 30 people who hung out there, it'd be within the store owner's rights to say he didn't want those two people hanging out at his store any more.

I don't question his right to do so, just his effectiveness. Half the people on the list are media buffoons and trolls. Someone like Richard Spencer is way more dangerous than Alex Jones. Spencer can present his hate speech in a way that sounds rational and articulate. Jones goes on about turning the fogs gay. Linda Loomer may be an A-hole, but is she threat to our democracy?

[ZombieHavoc]

I don't question his right to do so, just his effectiveness. Half the people on the list are media buffoons and trolls. Someone like Richard Spencer is way more dangerous than Alex Jones. Spencer can present his hate speech in a way that sounds rational and articulate. Jones goes on about turning the fogs gay. Linda Loomer may be an A-hole, but is she threat to our democracy?

I don't know, I'd almost classify Jones as more dangerous than Spencer. Granted Jones has been at it longer, but Infowars has done a lot of damage to people's brains over the past couple decades.

[ZombieHavoc]

But to be fair, I also think Facebook has done as much to poison minds and destroy the country as Infowars so...

[williamtheday]

Chubby Chadsworth was funnier thn Billy Bright.

[TriggerWarning]

You are forgetting two things. The first is that Clinton was a lurch towards the center for the Democrats. By using him as the baseline you are creating a false starting point.

Second, the claim that Clinton banned gays from the military has already been debunked as they were already banned. Don't ask, don't tell was a step forward at the time that even the left seems to have forgotten.

I used the word "continued" the ban.

And in no way was DADT a step forward because it was effectively no different. If you said you were gay before or after DADT you were banned. If they found out you were gay you were banned. There are actual cases from the Clinton era where the military found out via roundabout means that a member was gay and they were booted. One case I recall was where police had to respond to a home where the gay service member was a victim of domestic violence. In the process it became clear she was in a lesbian relationship. The military found out via the police report and kicked her out. She never told but was banned. So it was no different than before no matter how you spin it.

And even Obama was against gay marriage at the start of his presidency. His views didn't "evolve" until about the time the courts settled the issue in the Obergfell case.

Hilary didn't change her views til 2013 when she was gearing up to run for president again.

So obviously the democrats have lurched strongly to the left on this issue amongst many others leaving the republicans to be where the dems were less than a decade ago. Yay for the democrats. One of the many reasons I hate the Clintons is that the main reason I voted for Bill in 1992 was his promises to support gay marriage and to allow gays to serve openly in the military. He betrayed those promises and set the LGBT movment back 15 years when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act which remained law until the Obergfell case.

Its just ludicrous to call the dems centrist right now given how far they've shifted on most things in the last 20 years. I get that as democrats some of you don't want to admit that the dems have gone lunatic left on some issues just like the right has lunatic right. Thats not saying they are equally bad but it is saying that both sides are going to the extremes leaving many of us who were moderates shaking our heads wishing there were better choices on either side. Trump or Clinton was like choosing to stick a knife in the top or bottom electrical socket. By the way, gay marriage and gays in the military are not lunatic left issues - I'm just using it as an obvious example of how the left shifted, even if it took the courts to force it, massively to the left in just the 11 years since Obama first took office and especially in the 27 since Clinton first took office.

[Tuck]

And in no way was DADT a step forward because it was effectively no different.

Before Don't Ask Don't Tell, a gay soldier had to commit perjury to join. For which they could serve time if discovered. It was different.

[Emperor-of-Dragons]

Look back at Bill Clinton's days and policies. He was saying the exact same things as Trump about the border. He continued the ban on gays in the military and set the LGBT movement back 15 years by signing the Defense of Marriage act. He doubled down on tough on crime policies started by George H.W. Bush that decimated inner city minority communities. Yet he was considered a moderate liberal. Now all these things are basically Trump's positions. So explain how it is you feel the democrats are centrist when they've run so far to the left that mainstream conservatives are now little different than liberals were just 20 years ago?

That proves my point!!!! Lol

[DrNewGod]

I don't question his right to do so, just his effectiveness. Half the people on the list are media buffoons and trolls. Someone like Richard Spencer is way more dangerous than Alex Jones. Spencer can present his hate speech in a way that sounds rational and articulate. Jones goes on about turning the fogs gay. Linda Loomer may be an A-hole, but is she threat to our democracy?

One step at a time. Debunk the ludicrous first. The insidious after, when the logical absurdity of the ludicrous is established. Unfortunately, we have to use inoculation theory, which is what Fox News has done.

[dancj]

The person who came up with the concept considered it dystopian and was annoyed people subscribed to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ri...he_Meritocracy

The concept goes back at least to ancient China - even if the word doesn't

[Tuck]

The concept goes back at least to ancient China - even if the word doesn't

China under Confucianism actually tested the population to place people. They didn't just assume the talented people would emerge from the chaos.

[dancj]

China under Confucianism actually tested the population to place people. They didn't just assume the talented people would emerge from the chaos.

Neither does meritocracy

[PwrdOn]

Meritocracy sounds like a nice idea but it fails a pretty basic test, in that everyone who advocates for it naturally assumes that they have merit and thus will be privileged by the system. How do you think most people would react if you gave them the opportunity to live in a meritocratic society, but told them that they didn't have what it took to make it to the top? Not to mention that in practice, meritocracy would get hit hard by the inverse Dunning-Kruger effect, as smart people are smart enough to be aware of how much they don't know and thus tend to be dithering and indecisive. This is why most governments throughout history have had some blustering meathead sit at the head of the table, delegating the work of crafting policy to the bureaucrats but ultimately making the final decision himself.

[Tuck]

Neither does meritocracy

It kind of does. There may be scholarships and all that, but there's no concentrated effort to cultivate the general population's talent in any place that champions meritocracy.

In China the government actively sought out and nurtured people with promise. It's closer to what the Soviet Union did if anything.

[dancj]

It kind of does. There may be scholarships and all that, but there's no concentrated effort to cultivate the general population's talent in any place that champions meritocracy.

In China the government actively sought out and nurtured people with promise. It's closer to what the Soviet Union did if anything.

The concept of meritocracy and what's actually been put into practice are different things. It'll probably never completely happen anywhere, but it's a good thing to strive for.