Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
You don't have to stop at Jim Crow. This same argument works for literally any policy you could care to think of, regardless of how horrible it is, whether it was real in Human history or not.
If you follow this rabbit hole down to it's deepest extent, you will find yourself at the core of the issue. Just what rights do states have?
edited 15th Nov '16 12:10:21 PM by Gault
yey
x7
Eh, I'd say in some cases gradualism isn't unacceptable as a logistical counter against radicalism in the sense that it'd be nice to achieve immediate change overnight but sometimes it has to be fought for piecemeal, compromises made, before we can get the whole package. And even then it takes time to roll out and implement.
If you're saying "wait until a demographic change has happened and society is ready to accept you", then that's wrong. But if you're saying "wait until the forms have been modified and the courts are stable enough to issue marriage licenses" or "wait until intermediate legislation has created the necessary infrastructural foundation for your actual goal" (e.g. Marxist theory states that true communism can't occur without an intermediate socialist period) then that's not something you can rush without it collapsing on itself and resulting in snapback.
Which is what I think Fox was arguing. Gradualism isn't never appropriate but its justification has to come from policy implementation rather than culture. At which point I'm not sure it's even gradualism anymore.
edited 15th Nov '16 12:13:11 PM by AlleyOop
I just have this to say, if you voted for Trump for reasons unrelated to his racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all-around bigotry, you need to take a good hard look at yourself to determine whether or not you are in his crosshairs. Example: myself, I am white, I am male, I am cisgender. Logically, I should be relatively safe, right? I am also Jewish, and Trump was supported by Neo-Nazis, which puts me right back in his crosshairs. Odds are, there's something about you that someone on Trump's staff might object to, on a fundamental and dangerous level, whether it be your race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or a lack of religion, economic standing, political views on literally anything, friends, neighbors, family, or even the location where you live could be subject to oppression. If there's literally nothing about you that Trump or any of his staff might hate, you probably haven't looked hard enough.
I have to admit that as a brazilian the entire idea behind "states' rights" itself is bizarre to me. Not the idea that some things are ok for states to decide, but the idea that the government itself is some super oppressive enemy that you have fight tooth and nail against to preserve the sanctity of your way of life. I simply can't relate.
edited 15th Nov '16 12:18:42 PM by Draghinazzo
![]()
![]()
What is temporally possible and what is morally ideal have frequently been at odds. I just want to caution against the intellectual tendency to cross these two very different things. People responded to my argument about the moral imperative of Human rights with talk about utilitarianism and that's why I made the arguments I did, because procedural concerns cannot impinge on the validity of the moral imperative of Human rights.
I admit, I was being a bit obstinate, but it was for a reason. It's important to know which argument you're answering, and what is and what isn't an answer to said argument.
Isn't that how Brazilian right-wingers are characterizing Kirchner?
![]()
Very true. It's exceedingly difficult to fill out every single checkbox on the intersectionality privelige-o-meter with a favorable result.
edited 15th Nov '16 12:18:42 PM by Gault
yeyTo be clear, I'm in total agreement about the moral imperative. I just believe that utilitarianism is useful in getting people to view it as a moral imperative.
Oh God! Natural light!The sort of ironic thing about the alt-right voting for Trump is that his son-in-law and daughter are Jewish. His daughter apparently converted for the marriage and they're both practicing the religion as far as I am aware. Who this says more about, either Ivanna and her husband, or the alt-right, I am not sure.
So it seems the Trump transition is not going well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/politics/trump-transition.html
At least we won't have Ben Carson as Secretary of Education:
Anyone surprise by all this...sigh.
Maybe if they fail too spectacularly, someone can ask Obama to stay a bit longer, like 4 more years.
edited 15th Nov '16 12:29:36 PM by nightwyrm_zero
You know, if we viewed how important an election is based on how much power a position we're voting for has over our lives, congress would be getting a whole lot more attention. But Americans live in almost total ignorance of WTF is going on in that branch, while they like to turn out for the presidency, which (as we've seen with the aforementioned obstructionism) has very limited powers all by himself.
Americans feel that the presidency is the most important event in their lives because we have a tendency to idolize and idealize leaders, because we like the concept of a strong, independent driver at the wheel to go with our supposed rugged individualism. It doesn't matter if he spends his entire stay in the White House accomplishing jack and squat, we just figure like he's pulling all the strings that make everything happen, somehow. You know, 'thanks Obama' even when what we're blaming for is in no way his jurisdiction or fault.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.![]()
In that case, we might as well have just had a king. As they say, give the people what they want.
edited 15th Nov '16 12:30:27 PM by kkhohoho
You're correct, but this isn't a uniquely american phenomenon.
It applies pretty universally to any country you can think of, because the President, or Prime Minister, or whoever, is the person that is most often in the public eye, so they get the blame or credit as things go simply because they're the easiest target.
Isn't it possible Ben Carson might be playing the long game here? Recognizing the disaster the Trump administration will be, holding back his horses, so he can run in 2020 as the "new hope of the Republican party"?
"All you Fascists bound to lose."You know, I hate most of the people associated with Trump...but I can't hate Carson for some reason. I should, but there's just something about him that twists any hate for him I might have into mild amusement.
Oh God! Natural light!That New York Times article gives me the impression that the Trump administration might be so incompetent and poorly organized due to Trump's impulsiveness and frivolity that they might have trouble actually doing anything, even if what things they manage to accomplish will be disastrously bad.
Or maybe that's just wishful thinking.
edited 15th Nov '16 12:35:41 PM by Draghinazzo
![]()
![]()
I'm pretty sure most of those who ran for the GOP (including Carson) never wanted to win. They just want to make a name for themselves and sell some books. Carson? Carson knows he's ridden this trainwreck as long as he can and knows it's time to get off. He's not going to run in 2020. He'll try to get some cushy gig somewhere....maybe head to Nepal if he saw a movie this weekend.
edited 15th Nov '16 12:38:25 PM by nightwyrm_zero
Kirchner's from Argentina (both of them), and, while I have to say they did a very good (stellar, as a matter of fact) job on some particular issues (specifically: gender identity, marriage equality and making clear that the last dictatorship was bad), they were also authoritarian (see for example, this comment I made on page 6208
, I can elaborate on stuff if anyone wants) and promoting the sectarian "we are always right, anyone who opposes us is evil" thinking of the GOP. As a matter of fact, it's curious to see that the only politicians in Argentina who've explicitly came in favor of Trump are from the Kirchner administration (well, aside from the diplomatic "congrats on becoming president, Mr. Trump" from the current government), even as they claim the current government to be neoliberal fascists who want to destroy everything and make everybody poor (in fact, the current government had clearly said that they hoped Hillary would be president).
edited 15th Nov '16 12:45:07 PM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV

I ask again Bense—would you be in favour of Jim Crow still being on the books if the federal government hadn't intervened?