TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

pblades Since: Oct, 2009
#172626: Feb 5th 2017 at 1:06:33 AM

[up][up]Is it right to disregards the content of the speech in favor of its protection?

Your rights to fist-movement end where my nose begins, as the parlance goes. Such speech incites hate and exclusion against a certain group, thusly appropiate measures should be taken against them.

If this mean presenting a rational counterpoint in a debate at the venue, great. If, more realistically, this meant exercising the rights to political opinion by preventing the speaker from espousing their views unobstructed, it's only fair.

(This argument is that, say, arguing against homophobia offends the sensibilities of religious fundamentalists/far rights but doesn't affect their rights, whereas arguing against LGBT ideals could affect their rights, such as to services. Different things must be treated differently.)

edited 5th Feb '17 1:08:14 AM by pblades

Krieger22 Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018 from Malaysia Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: I'm in love with my car
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
#172627: Feb 5th 2017 at 1:08:28 AM

[up][up][up][up]Except that the only restrictions on freedom of speech prohibited by law in the US are those imposed by the government. You know, like this example.

The protests and antifa actions are ultimately capable of being ignored. Granted, a courage-lacking individual like Milo would never have done it, but it is technically possible to give the speech regardless. The protestors didn't exactly barricade themselves inside the venue and render it impossible to enter without getting killed or maimed in the process.

Oh, and being no-platformed for speaking in favor of LGBTQIA folk? Try hosting a speech at Liberty U and do just that.

[up]I'll be blunt here. No single College Republican group has ever hired Milo to speak in order to provide people with an alternative viewpoint. It's just rich bigoted honkies circlejerking about how they have money to burn.

edited 5th Feb '17 1:10:35 AM by Krieger22

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#172628: Feb 5th 2017 at 1:18:35 AM

@Draghinazzo: The antifa actions are preventing the university from exercising its right to allow or not allow fascist speakers. So that's not quite accurate.

The antifa types have, again, advocated for shutting down fascists' right to speak, period. They're not advocating for venues to have the right to exclude them.

[up]Read the article on the antifas. They're advocating actual violence, such as slamming Milo's head into the pavement - that's different from an obnoxious protest.

edited 5th Feb '17 1:19:42 AM by Ramidel

Advarielle Homicidal Editor Since: Aug, 2016
Homicidal Editor
#172629: Feb 5th 2017 at 1:27:40 AM

To be honest, the rights to free speech only protect you from the government. It do jack squat to protect you from fellow civilians who are offended by the things that are coming out from your mouth. At that point, it's the assault and battery's job or whatever you call that in the US.

Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.
Krieger22 Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018 from Malaysia Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: I'm in love with my car
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
#172630: Feb 5th 2017 at 1:34:31 AM

[up][up]Isn't that what the hired security is for? Or are you telling me that hiring a porn actor as your bodyguard is utterly fucking idiotic?

Milo and the Violent, Well-Funded Right-Wing Attacks on Academic Freedom

A week ago, Milo Yiannopoulos went to the University of Washington. Protesters and supporters assembled, and one of Yiannopoulos’ fans shot a protester in the stomach. In the aftermath, the school’s College Republicans issued a warning that future protesters at right-wing events might be punished with similar violence. “If you keep prodding the right,” they wrote, “you may be unpleasantly surprised what the outcome may be.” The College Republicans did not comment on the shooting. The victim, meanwhile, has asked for “dialogue and restorative justice” rather than pressing criminal charges. This incident — a right-winger shooting a left-wing protester, a threat of violence from a GOP-affiliated group, and a plea for more speech from the left-wing victim — got perhaps one-10th of the professional and social media coverage as a 2015 complaint from Oberlin College students about cultural appropriation (using the wrong type of bread for Vietnamese banh mi sandwiches) in the cafeteria. Somehow, overzealous Oberliners—students at one of the least typical colleges in America—have become the straw men for what people like to think is wrong with American higher education.

The right-wing attack on campus speech doesn’t just manifest in violence, of course. Over the past few years, GOP lawmakers and affiliated groups have increasingly sought to use the double power of coercive legislation and the threat of withholding federal funds to demand more right-wing ideology on campus. Although studies show that there are plenty of conservative professors and that they are are mostly pretty happy in the academy, many Republicans believe that colleges are simply too liberal and want to mandate certain kinds of content—and hiring practices (see below for examples). They couch this in the language of academic freedom, but using law and money to force speech is its antithesis. Speech codes, which have been proposed, should be resisted. But I do think that fascists shooting people on campus in the stomach for dissenting views might be worth a little more attention.

Meanwhile, the most frustrating thing has not been these would-be theocrats trying to replace a perceived liberal bubble with a conservative one—it’s been the centrist, usually white and male media figures whose “PC run amok” diatribes lend cover to hollow conservative arguments. Purported concern about free speech on campus almost always starts from the premise that the greatest threat to liberty comes from students of marginalized backgrounds who wish to change the way we talk about inequality and identity. Witness this cover story in The Atlantic, an Oberlin-based New Yorker feature, lots of top-five newspaper coverage about Oberlin and Yale University, and obsessive coverage from libertarian media and groups like FIRE. Indeed, when it comes to complaints about cafeterias, I might roll my eyes, even as I know that Oberlin is nothing like most other universities. Speech codes, which have been proposed, should be resisted. But I do think that fascists shooting people on campus in the stomach for dissenting views might be worth a little more attention.

And then there are the legislative and regulatory efforts. Back when Ben Carson was being considered for secretary of education, rather than for housing and urban development, we learned that his one idea was to “monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists.” The American Legislative Exchange Council, the conservative law-writing group funded by the Koch brothers, has been meeting with state legislators and handing out bills that would demand an annual count of events, checking to see how many featured conservatives, and then threaten to pull funding if they didn’t identify a sufficient number. In Wisconsin, after years of GOP attacks on tenure, legislators have been demanding the cancellation of a class on “Whiteness,” singled out a specific essay on homosexuality for removal from the curriculum, and threatened funding if their orders aren’t followed.

Bearing in mind these two trends — the media focuses on left-wing threats against speech while the right-wing threatens violence and coercive legislative action — let’s turn to the news of the day. I’ve intentionally buried the lede. As you likely know, a protest at the University of California–Berkeley resulted in the cancellation of Yiannopoulos’ latest speech. Social media is buzzing with right-wing and centrist condemnation of the protesters; none of these critics are offering concrete suggestions for what protesters should have done instead. Left alone, Yiannopoulos uses his speeches to target vulnerable people, as he did to a transgender student at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, who subsequently had to withdraw from school. Confronted peacefully, as in Washington, his backers escalated the violence, shooting someone. Confronted forcefully — and let’s be clear that the Berkeley protesters were forceful, though, of course, loud public protest is also a form of free speech — Yiannopoulos leverages the anger he’s caused in his foes to further his minions’ sense of permanent victimization.

Yiannopoulos has set a neat trap. I don’t pretend to know the answer. I want to be clear that the way forward is not simple. But given that President Donald Trump tweeted a threat to withhold funding if Berkeley doesn’t let people like Yiannopoulos speak (note that administrators did allow him to speak, but canceled for safety reasons — not content reasons), surely we have to consider the Berkeley incident in light of the pervasive attacks on academic freedom from the right, as well as from PC-run-amok.

This story isn’t going away. Yiannopoulos is going to keep drawing crowds into his theater and shouting “fire.” Conservative lawmakers will keep threatening to pull funding from universities. Right-wing agitators will keep bringing guns to protests. And the “liberal media” has to start treating these threats as comparably serious to Oberlin students wanting the correct bread for their Banh Mi sandwiches.

Reminder: People have been shot in Milo's name.

edited 5th Feb '17 1:35:24 AM by Krieger22

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
FluffyMcChicken My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare from where the floating lights gleam Since: Jun, 2014 Relationship Status: In another castle
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
#172631: Feb 5th 2017 at 1:36:35 AM

So it turns out that one of my high-school friends was one of the protestors at UC Berkeley, and managed to have a cameo in one of those Business Insider videos with huge in-your-face captions.

Check out the top two comments for said video though

sad

Krieger22 Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018 from Malaysia Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: I'm in love with my car
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
#172632: Feb 5th 2017 at 1:41:52 AM

[up]Can you really be surprised? It's been QED that white cisgender social media users are extremely upset by the very existence of people who disagree with them.

edited 5th Feb '17 2:08:21 AM by Krieger22

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
rmctagg09 The Wanderer from Brooklyn, NY (Before Recorded History) Relationship Status: I won't say I'm in love
The Wanderer
#172633: Feb 5th 2017 at 2:03:07 AM

So today (Or rather yesterday by now.) my mom and I found some mail from Citizens United asking for donations. (Just being near that letter made me feel unclean.)

But anyway, regarding the subject at hand, I don't really feel bad about whatever bad thing happens to the likes of Milo and Spencer at all, and they can go stay in their Stormfront and Breitbart gutters where they belong.

edited 5th Feb '17 2:07:29 AM by rmctagg09

Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.
Krieger22 Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018 from Malaysia Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: I'm in love with my car
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
#172634: Feb 5th 2017 at 2:12:16 AM

An appeals court has denied an emergency appeal from the U.S. Department of Justice to restore the Muslim refugee ban.

Graphic on how Trump uses Twitter.

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
Eschaton Since: Jul, 2010
#172635: Feb 5th 2017 at 2:48:41 AM

That's a good outline of how his twitter is effectively used.

However, I still refuse to believe for one second that any of that is a deliberate, conscious strategy on his part, rather than a natural, unconscious behavior developed in order to function in the world while still being a fucking stupid asshole.

Gault Laugh and grow dank! from beyond the kingdom Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: P.S. I love you
Laugh and grow dank!
#172636: Feb 5th 2017 at 3:37:48 AM

[up][up] I'm surprised- and relieved- that the pushback to this has been so effective. Does this really mean the law is, for all intents and purposes, annulled?

yey
Ingonyama Since: Jan, 2001
#172637: Feb 5th 2017 at 4:00:24 AM

@ Gault: I see where you're coming from and you've got a lot of good points, but I'm afraid you're indulging in false equivalency, as someone else pointed out a few pages back.

NOTE: I agree that jumping to the goal of actually attacking and killing someone for their speech, however racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. it is, is wrong and should not be condoned. Violence should be used either only in response to violence (i.e. self-defense), when there is no other option, or when it is the only way to protect yourself and/or your principles and way of life.

That said, if we're talking about just saying that these people should not be given a platform in the first place, then that is not only allowable, it is imperative and intrinsic to the First Amendment, not a double standard which undermines it. As that article on the previous page pointed out, and as other tropers have said, what Milo and his ilk are doing is essentially a form of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater or, more generally, hate speech which is outlawed (albeit not to the extent it is in Europe). It bears repeating that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

Basically, if one's speech only exists to incite hatred and violence in others, if it puts other people's rights and lives in jeopardy, then the one speaking it has given up their right to such speech. The Declaration of Independence says that the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable, but this does not mean they can never be taken away. Rights, depending on the context, can be privileges. The right to life is forfeited in states with the death penalty. The right to liberty is forfeited if you commit a crime, it's proven, and you are punished for it. And the right to pursuit of happiness is forfeited if what makes you happy (or what you do along the way in order to achieve it) harms others and/or takes away their happiness or ability to pursue it.

Your analogy re: progressives does not hold because in those cases, the platform for the people who wished to speak was asking for rights to be given, not taken away, for people to be protected, not harmed or excluded. Those who would shout them down and say they did not deserve a platform would be indulging in sophistry, because their rights and lives are not objectively threatened by the progressives—only in their minds does giving rights and protections to those they hate constitute harm to them, because they are losing their power and control. Milo and those like him actually, genuinely, demonstrably are bringing real harm to others with their speech, and this is why they should not be given a platform. It is indeed not fair to take away the right of people to speak out against injustice, oppression, hatred, and genocide. It is quite fair to deny the right of people to speak in favor of, and actively cause, those things.

Because free speech is only free when it brings no harm. Arguing otherwise isn't being fair, balanced, or fighting against double standards—it's offering civilized protections to those who have shown by their words and actions that they have willingly given them up (because they erroneously believe that a place which denies them the power to speak and act as nastily as they wish against those whom they hate is not itself civilized by their standards), and do not deserve them.

edited 5th Feb '17 4:06:49 AM by Ingonyama

3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#172638: Feb 5th 2017 at 4:01:55 AM

Its not a 'law' its an Executive Order, and its lifted until a final decision by the court (and following appeals) as I understand it.

"You can reply to this Message!"
PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#172639: Feb 5th 2017 at 4:18:16 AM

My belief regarding violence, is that all non-violent problems can be solved with non-violent solutions, and most violent problems should be solved with non-violent solutions. Violent solutions are only optimal when there is a violent problem that cannot be solved through non-violent solutions. Let's be clear, I don't think starting a fire as a protest qualifies as 'violence', not unless it hurts people or is intended to hurt people.

AngelusNox Warder of the damned from The guard of the gates of oblivion Since: Dec, 2014 Relationship Status: Married to the job
Warder of the damned
#172640: Feb 5th 2017 at 4:55:45 AM

Non violence only works with groups and actors that are not willing to engage in violence. The only reason why the US KKK and Neo Nazis aren't going full brown shirts on everyone they don't like is exactly because they didn't amass enough power to do that with impunity. Also one of the reasons why, at least the alt-right, isn't overtly violent or preaching violence is so they can gather sympathy by claiming that they are the ones being oppressed. Which anyone with two thinking neurons can see through but there are a lot of closet bigots who will rally behind their rights.

Those closet bigots are going to be against the protest, violent or not, regardless of how they develop, because it is another show of how their views aren't being accepted and the people trying to bring them back to the main stream are being shunned and ostracized from society, which by extension also applies to them if they decide to voice their bigotry.

There is also the issue when hate groups use free speech and other freedom of expression to justify their right to express bigotry as just an expression of opinion and using a change of language to veil their hate speech into something palpable.

For example, the use of (((echos))) to single out Jewish individuals or groups instead of directly calling the kikes or Jews. Breibart doesn't use open racial, religious or sexist slurs in their articles and you'd wouldn't find open bigotry in their articles with simple glance, however a more a detailed read you can find their articles framing minorities, specific religious groups, dissenters and women in a negative light. Milo himself is the poster boy of that masked presentation, because by having an openly gay and Jewish mouthpiece they can use it to shelter themselves from bigotry claims, We're not homophobic we have a kike fag...homosexual jew on our side, which puts him in the useful idiot status.

While the protests are good thing and Neo-Nazis are in the need of getting their faces punched once in a while to remind them that they aren't going to be tolerated.

The black blocks is a mixed bag, they bring the counterfource needed to prevent the far right groups from getting violent on the protesters but they, thanks to the media and manipulation, help paint the protests in a bad light. But the biggest value of the Anti-Fa has is making the far right being afraid of retaliating against the protests opposing them.

edited 5th Feb '17 4:57:20 AM by AngelusNox

Inter arma enim silent leges
IFwanderer use political terms to describe, not insult from Earth Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
use political terms to describe, not insult
#172641: Feb 5th 2017 at 7:09:54 AM

An analysis of Trump's manner of speech.

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
DeMarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#172642: Feb 5th 2017 at 8:04:38 AM

Im leaning toward Gaults view here. If Milo had been engaging in actual hate speech during his public appearences, that would be one thing, but so far as I can tell, he doesn't appear to be doing that. Protest is absolutely the right response, violent protest is not.

The reason has less to do with speech rights than political effectiveness. American voters do not like violent protests. Rights cannot be protected without a plurality of voters supporting them. If you alienate more voters than you recruit to your cause, then the action was counterproductive, by definition. Do what wins.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Pseudopartition Screaming Into The Void from The Cretaeceous Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
Screaming Into The Void
#172643: Feb 5th 2017 at 8:22:00 AM

All I really have to add about the Berkeley protests is:

1. They should have cancelled/not allowed the speech in the first place, as - regardless of anything else - Yiannopolous singles out students at the schools he talks to for harassment, and those schools need to shut him down because it's inappropriate and threatens their students.

2. The protests were valid, but those idiots who set off road flares were putting innocent people in danger and need to be prosecuted if at all possible.

Relatedly, I've heard some discussion in recent weeks from left-wing folks along the lines of "I'm considering getting a gun because I do not feel safe anymore." Okay, but I'm begging you - do not do this unless you are also going to take courses on firearm safety and proper use. Don't be senseless, I'm fairly certain an untrained person with a firearm is often more dangerous to themselves and innocent people.

Also, I'm kind of confused about this whole 'antifa' thing, does anyone have a link to a good overview of what exactly is going on with that?

Other than that, I mostly agree with the article Krieger 22 posted (although, I find it interesting that Oberlin is singled out specifically as being a "liberal-bubble" school, when I've only heard of the school in regards to an antisemitism problem). Compare coverage of protests like this to the riots some white folks have when their hockey team loses. Even when serious damage is caused, young male sports fans are just 'passionate.' note 

edited 5th Feb '17 8:24:26 AM by Pseudopartition

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#172644: Feb 5th 2017 at 8:25:59 AM

What is Antifa? I've heard them mentioned and gather they go out of their way to cause trouble, but is Antifa a general term for people like that? Is there an organization? Or are they just a bunch of Final Fantasy VII fans with bad grammar?

IFwanderer use political terms to describe, not insult from Earth Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
use political terms to describe, not insult
#172645: Feb 5th 2017 at 8:29:21 AM

[up][up][up]What would constitute "actual hate speech" to you? because I'd be willing to argue fascism is inherently hate-speech.

[up]Antifa is short for Anti-fascism, meaning (violent) opposition to fascism, usually it's done by anarchists.

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV
carbon-mantis Collector Of Fine Oddities from Trumpland Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Married to my murderer
Collector Of Fine Oddities
#172646: Feb 5th 2017 at 8:32:15 AM

[up][up] "Pay evil unto evil" in a shellnut.

TerminusEst from the Land of Winter and Stars Since: Feb, 2010
#172647: Feb 5th 2017 at 8:44:38 AM

There are organisations that are also called Antifa in Europe, but they're often nothing more than anarchists (destruction of public property etc.). Depending on the branch, this can be limited to a few idiots or it's their main schtick.

edited 5th Feb '17 8:45:42 AM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#172648: Feb 5th 2017 at 8:51:13 AM

Over here what you guys call antifas seem to be called the Black Block, my biggest issue with the Back Block so that they tend to start fights with the police at otherwise peaceful protests, thus giving the police the opportunity to shut down the entire protest, they're basically useful idiots for authoritarians.

I've seen them turn up to peaceful protests with helmets and shields, the police weren't the ones to start the violence there.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#172649: Feb 5th 2017 at 9:13:44 AM

I'm not sure how it works in California, but here in Texas public universities (like A&M or Texas State) can rent same for private events, but have no say of what happens after it's rented out.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#172650: Feb 5th 2017 at 10:01:16 AM

Milo singles students out for targeting by his goons. At one of his prior events, someone got shot by an alt-right psycho. At this point Milo has forfeited his right to claim free speech, because he is not only indirectly and passively, but directly and actively infringing on the rights of others.

As to Gault's position, s/he seems to be ignoring the fact that if Milo has the right to speak, people have the right to protest him doing so, and the university has the right to decide whether they want his business or to remain in the good graces of the protestors.

edited 5th Feb '17 10:02:17 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar


Total posts: 417,856
Top