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
Sure but the guy stretches credibility when he keeps talking about assult weapons without ever defining the term, if he wants all semi-automatic weapons banned then say semi-automatics, not assult weapons, because assult weapons can include a gun just because you put two safety features on it to prevent flash (which could blind) and burn, thus the term assult weapon is meaningless.
Bill Clinton did a lot of harm with the AWB, he could have forced universal background check, banned private sales, proper national licensing, but instead he decided to ban guns for having particular safety features and wasted a ton of political capital and discredited the gun regulation movement for a generation.
edited 18th Jun '16 6:11:31 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranCanada has anti-hate speech laws, and the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear what context it applies in. Hateful speech made in a public space without any constructive purpose. Basically, it ties into the public disturbance laws. If someone is saying something in private, nothing will happen (beyond what the others in the conversation might do.) It also depends on how much the province in question cares. Quebec, for example, has a whole lot of "Religious Freedom" gibberish going on, some of which gets way too close to the line for comfort.
Granted, our rights were codified in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, so they're a lot more current than the US Constitution.
![]()
Indeed. Hell in US colleges some of the "safe space" arguments have actually been used to shutdown unrest, with administration claiming protestors make the staff feel unsafe. And of course anything that goes against Israel is considered anti Semitic. And I'm sure one day China will argue that any protest against glorious one China on US universities should be shutdown because it makes their students feel unsafe.
Even without the mention of China, that was a bunch of extreme extrapolation from fairly isolated examples. One protest at one college isn't exactly reflective of all colleges, or even necessarily an indication that our laws or constitution regarding free speech are going to change any time soon. And the whole thing about being critical of Israel? LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE CRITICAL ABOUT ISRAEL AT THIS POINT IN TIME. And they're not necessarily being called anti-Semitic for it. Opinions about Israel and the situation with Palestine are actually quite divided among those who know something about the situation. The problem is that it's kind of rough for anyone in Congress to criticize Israel without it affecting international relations.
The incident being referenced didn't have anything to do with China, actually. It's just a bugaboo that Jack likes to mention often. The college protest thing was over Halloween costumes, some professor or their wife writing an open letter about the students handling the costume situation maturely, and then a whole bunch of protests started demanding the professor quit. At like... not Harvard, but some famous place. It wasn't some wide spread thing, it was just that one college and while people are, in fact, discussing things like safe spaces, what language can be used, and what should be taught in school/whether there should be 'trigger warnings' (which by the way, if you didn't read the syllabus to figure out what was in the class you're on your fucking own discovering what's being taught in class as far as I'm cocnerned), this one incident didn't actually stay in the news cycle for more than a week or two.
To be clear the "everyone critical of Israel is an anti Semite" thing was meant sarcastically. But yeah I have heard of colleges using that excuse to shut down BDS. As for China, I was referring to the potential, not something that has actually happened yet, for the Chinese government to force Universities to shut down protests of say, it's abducton of certain book store owners in Hong Kong for example, because protesting the CCP would make the Thousands of Chinese students currently studying at American universities "uncomfortable."
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Not everybody who criticises Israel is anti-Semitic (cf., y'know, various people in Israel that criticise it, Obama, Kerry, etc) but the BDS definitely is.
W.r.t safe spaces, the loonier bits are definitely bad — hello, racial segregation!
Hello, almost getting thrown out because you've, gasp! Raised your hand!
— and the idea by itself is just bad for all of the people involved.
edited 19th Jun '16 5:29:33 AM by desdendelle
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.The Edinburgh case is certisnly absurd and as for the Goldmsiths case, Goldsmith's SU has at this point in developed a reputation for being incredibly racist, sexist and generally bigoted, hopefully the uni will get sued for it in time.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAt this point the uni may be turning a blind eye to racial discrimination and could itself get in trouble, the SU seems to be run by idiots more then happy to die for their racist cause.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranApropos safe spaces, The Coddling of the American Mind
explains why it's bad.
And here's a counterpoint to that
.
Considering the amount of otherisation minorities in the US are facing these days, in addition to the normalisation of hateful rhetoric flung at them, I reckon giving people who aren't Rich White Christian Cisgender Males a break from all of that won't result in the fall of Western civilization.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotCracked interviewed a former 9/11 conspiracy nut.
I used to be one. Visiting whatreallyhappened.com now is embarrassing; it's pretty much what you'd expect. Orlando shooting was faked or caused by government somehow, only gold will have any value so buy it now, etc.
When governments have a shitty time covering up all kinds of scandals that bring people down or erode trust in the institution of government itself, who the hell could still believe they can cover up something as big as 9/11 or evidence of alien life or whatever?
Although in the case of 9/11, many do at least believe that the government used it as a convenient excuse to invade two unrelated countries - that I do find plausible. Though I can see how it's a small leap from there to "they did it in the first place," which I don't believe.
edited 19th Jun '16 8:03:00 AM by BonsaiForest
![]()
Honestly, any 9/11 theory that goes beyond "at least some top officials found out about the plot before the fact and allowed it to happen to engineer a Casus Belli." is pure delusion, and that itself is at the edge of plausibility. My own view is that, like Austria-Hungary on the eve of World War I, the United States' military elite were waiting for any excuse, however mild (and a narrowly thwarted 9/11 attack would do that and then some) to go to war. Hence forces in the area mobilizing for Afghanistan immediately after hearing news of the attack.
edited 19th Jun '16 8:16:58 AM by CaptainCapsase
The perception of the US by the youth at the time was that of a supremely strong supervillain (think a Frieza or a Plutonian) that just got a bloody nose for the first time in God knows how long, and reacted by nuking a city. It was a worldwide race to scream "We didn't do it, we didn't support it, we didn't know about it, we are all for your righteous vengeance. please please please oh please don't kill us!" *genuflects* *US glares* *genuflects harder*
How did they know to go to Afghanitan?
Yeah that's the impression I got from the reactions of the governments of America's various enemies. Only the Iraqi's were stupid enough to taunt us. I will give you one guess which country got invaded after Afghanistan. If anything proves how idiotic Bush was it was not using this opportunity to negotiate with our enemies. And in the case of Libya, he did, though Iran was left out in the cold.
The US may have been chomping at the bit to attack Iraq, the global consensus on the sanctions was growing weaker by the day and the fear was that Saddam would use newfound oil revenue to build a giant army and attack Saudi Arabia or something like that. Of course the thought that we could just beat their asses like we did the first time apparently never occurred to anyone. But we didn't want war in Afghanistan. In fact we offered to leave the Taliban alone if they turned over Bin Laden and kicked Al Qaeda out of the country.
Nobody remembers this because it is inconvenient to everyone. To conspiracy nutters and anti war activists the fact that Bush actually gave peace a chance and wasn't jacking off at the thought of conquering Afghanistan would be damaging to their brand. And to those who love to proclaim about how the war is about freedom and how the Taliban are a threat to America, the fact that we might have allowed a government like that to remain, and given the way the war was going, probably allow them a seat at the UN would be appealing.
edited 19th Jun '16 8:55:48 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

I don't think you're using the word fodder correctly there, pweigle. In any case, just because he's a comedian doesn't mean he's not factually correct. This stuff is easy enough to look up.