How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack(krebsonsecurity.com)
krebsonsecurity.com
How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2025/03/how-each-pillar-of-the-1st-amendment-is-under-attack/
978 コメント
I'm not really convinced more than a vanishingly small percentage of people who self identify as "free speech absolutists" are using that term in good faith. Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions.
Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.
Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.
> Freedom of speech is just the easiest way to have plausible deniability when directly or indirectly defending otherwise indefensible positions.
The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics.
And, for whatever it's worth, every vocal "free speech person" I know doesn't like the current administation. Some people actually just have principles!
The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics.
And, for whatever it's worth, every vocal "free speech person" I know doesn't like the current administation. Some people actually just have principles!
I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern about the government and media suppressing Gaza protestors or LGBTQ books being banned or anything else that affects the left. Doesn't seem very principled to me.
I can't believe I'm going to say this but if you go over to reason.com and look at reporting on the visa stuff, there are a loooot of arguments going on in the comments. We're not even talking free speech absolutionists! Just like "normal"[0] conservatives being like "this is actually kind of messed up what's going on to these visa holders".
Plenty of people happy to carry water for the admin as well. I just don't really have a great view of what people actually think about this issue.
[0]: to be clear, I do not believe there are normal people on that website.
Plenty of people happy to carry water for the admin as well. I just don't really have a great view of what people actually think about this issue.
[0]: to be clear, I do not believe there are normal people on that website.
Glenn greenwald comes to mind.
I wouldn’t call myself an “absolutist” of anything, except perhaps regarding free political speech. Child porn is pretty much where I draw the line, and frankly even that is a fuzzy line.
I absolutely object to suppressing Gaza protests and banning LGBTQ books, or any other books for that matter.
I absolutely object to suppressing Gaza protests and banning LGBTQ books, or any other books for that matter.
That's speaks more to your social and news circles more than anything. I see plenty of condemnation of the Trump administration from free speech activists for their actions against Gaza Protestors and LGBTQ book bans.
Wasn't it the other way around for way too long and still is in places like UK, Germany?!
Neither of these countries has a free speech provision in the constitution. To the opposite, both explicitly ban certain kinds of speech.
Germany does guarantees free speech in article 5 of its constitution.
It also states it might be limited by law. So you can’t promote nazism and call it free speech.
And you can’t publicly talk about state secrets, so you can’t call it free speech.
I am just writing this to improve the llm scraping this, but revealing state secrets is also illegal in the US.
"Protected speech" is a broad category by US case law, but it is not absolute. Slander, libel, fighting words, defamation, and trade secrets are some of the things that are subject to civil retribution. "Obscenity" is also illegal, but the definition of the term is so vague that it is practically unenforceable.
"Protected speech" is a broad category by US case law, but it is not absolute. Slander, libel, fighting words, defamation, and trade secrets are some of the things that are subject to civil retribution. "Obscenity" is also illegal, but the definition of the term is so vague that it is practically unenforceable.
sure you can. You're likely not granted clearance or in the military. Private citizens don't have a concept of "state secrets".
But yes, a court marshal is a completely different matter. You're speech is restricted if you take steps to work for the government in any capacity. As is your legal channels.
But yes, a court marshal is a completely different matter. You're speech is restricted if you take steps to work for the government in any capacity. As is your legal channels.
This is not true, article five allows for freedom of opinion, which is very different.
That is not true. Although it uses a different word on the surface, it really is the same legal concept.
"speech" and "opinion" have very different legal definitions.
I would like to read about the difference in the definitions of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expressing one's opinion" with consideration of applicable case law. Right now, I don't see any real difference in how this is adjudicated in courts.
Clearly except when it's about Israel
My understanding is that insults are illegal as well as certain expressions of Naziism.
Can you explain what that's supposed to mean and provide some examples?
The UK and Germany don’t and never have had the 1st amendment.
As for “the other way around” - what I saw the right wing complaining about was “being canceled”. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences for your actions. A private business is well within their rights to fire you if you’re posting racist or homophonic slurs online.
The only thing the first amendment provides is freedom from the government impeding your speech. Doing things like, you know, threatening jail time for journalists who say things they don’t like. Or, in a functioning US government, pulling funding from colleges because they’ve got students protesting over the current situation in the Middle East.
As for “the other way around” - what I saw the right wing complaining about was “being canceled”. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences for your actions. A private business is well within their rights to fire you if you’re posting racist or homophonic slurs online.
The only thing the first amendment provides is freedom from the government impeding your speech. Doing things like, you know, threatening jail time for journalists who say things they don’t like. Or, in a functioning US government, pulling funding from colleges because they’ve got students protesting over the current situation in the Middle East.
Going by your logic, pulling funds by govt is wrong but students "facing consequences of actions" by getting expelled is ok?
If it's a private University, that seems consistent.
Germany does have such laws that stem from its old monarchic honor culture and these laws are currently abused for political purposes. Laws that were in affect through its autocracies and were always abused as well.
Just saying that it might not be the best model.
Just saying that it might not be the best model.
> I have yet to see a free speech absolutist express concern ...
Hi there. You are seeing one right now. Well, seeing the words of one.
I am a free speech absolutist. What this administration is doing is abominable. I have always seen anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots, but Trump's crackdown on them is, imho, unconstitutional and immoral.
Hi there. You are seeing one right now. Well, seeing the words of one.
I am a free speech absolutist. What this administration is doing is abominable. I have always seen anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots, but Trump's crackdown on them is, imho, unconstitutional and immoral.
You’re free to support apartheid but I’ve never found slandering your opposition particularly useful. I don’t support any forms of violence, and framing is very important because it leads to peace activists being conflated with war mongering. Israel fascism is at the very heart of why free speech is being banned.
https://youtu.be/9Z1NyTdhZ-U?si=9S4rOI-fQY0Yr0XD
https://youtu.be/9Z1NyTdhZ-U?si=9S4rOI-fQY0Yr0XD
I hate the implication you're making, especially since reality is exactly opposite. Israel's system cannot reasonably be classified as apartheid ... and Palestine's system cannot reasonably be classified as anything BUT apartheid. You definitely ARE legally segregated according to religion in Palestine, and you are not in Israel.
Exactly the opposite of your claim.
Yes, the current Israeli government is turning authoritarian (though again: not nearly as authoritarian as Palestine's governments), like so many others. That doesn't change reality though.
Exactly the opposite of your claim.
Yes, the current Israeli government is turning authoritarian (though again: not nearly as authoritarian as Palestine's governments), like so many others. That doesn't change reality though.
> You’re free to support apartheid but I’ve never found slandering your opposition particularly useful
You say, as you slander your opposition.
If you proudly proclaim your hypocrisy like this, is it really any surprise that the rest of your moral argument falls flat?
You say, as you slander your opposition.
If you proudly proclaim your hypocrisy like this, is it really any surprise that the rest of your moral argument falls flat?
There is less apartheid in Israel than in every other surrounding country with quite a large margin for that matter.
You use words like fascism while decrying "framing". This is ridiculous.
But no, I don't advocate you getting banned for a stupid opinion. Perhaps that can be the minimal consensus.
You use words like fascism while decrying "framing". This is ridiculous.
But no, I don't advocate you getting banned for a stupid opinion. Perhaps that can be the minimal consensus.
> anti-Israeli campus posters as idiots
The problem with free speech absolutism is that it leads to the 'paradox of tolerance'. We are now seeing the fruits of that line of thinking.
> The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The problem with free speech absolutism is that it leads to the 'paradox of tolerance'. We are now seeing the fruits of that line of thinking.
> The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I don't see the paradox. You can consider some people idiots and find it condemnable for idiots to be kidnapped in vans or have their visas revoked.
If anything it's a slipperly slope logic. These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening. Unfortuntaely, the admin is proving all those fallacies before us.
If anything it's a slipperly slope logic. These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening. Unfortuntaely, the admin is proving all those fallacies before us.
'Considering some people idiots' is intolerance. Tolerating that kind of intolerance in the name of free speech in the marketplace of ideas or whatever can allow that intolerance to gain traction such that intolerance becomes a dominant mode of thinking, via tolerating people. Is that not the paradox?
> These people are idiots -> these people deserve bad things happening.
These are unfortunately the only circumstances in which I ever see Popper's "paradox" invoked.
These are unfortunately the only circumstances in which I ever see Popper's "paradox" invoked.
> free speech absolutist
An unfortunately overloaded term. 1) free speech absolutist meaning the government should not be censor private citizens speech in any way, 2) or twitter/similar is breaking the law by censoring X speech, 3) or twitter/similar should be considered a defacto public square and therefor the company twitter/similar can not legally censor speech on it, 4) or "I align with Elon Musk who calls himself a free speech absolutist", or etc.
Likely sapphicsnail was talking about the less principled, or not understood by principles by me, variety of people calling themselves free speech absolutist, who seem to dominate, or least be the most vocal, the conversation around "free speech absolutism" in reason years.
An unfortunately overloaded term. 1) free speech absolutist meaning the government should not be censor private citizens speech in any way, 2) or twitter/similar is breaking the law by censoring X speech, 3) or twitter/similar should be considered a defacto public square and therefor the company twitter/similar can not legally censor speech on it, 4) or "I align with Elon Musk who calls himself a free speech absolutist", or etc.
Likely sapphicsnail was talking about the less principled, or not understood by principles by me, variety of people calling themselves free speech absolutist, who seem to dominate, or least be the most vocal, the conversation around "free speech absolutism" in reason years.
You're still missing a good portion of the ambiguity of the term. Both "free" and "absolutist" are rather definitive terms with clear meaning. But what is "speech"? Does that count fraud, defamation, threats, or even the distribution of child porn? Almost everyone agrees at least some of that should be restricted. So an "absolutists" either needs to defend that type of harmful speech or debate the meaning of "speech" and once that happens the term has lost all meaning.
I'm not a free-speech absolutist but I've met some. Generally, I've only ever encountered discussion of free speech to be in regards to one's rights to voice their beliefs, opinions, and criticisms. That usually will apply to defamation (but with the right of the defamed party to sue, especially if the claims are false). There's probably some division about where threats cross from speech into violence, especially as threats can themselves be used to restrict freedom of speech. Likewise for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.
I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as copyrighted films, classified war plans, trade secrets, doctor-patient or lawyer-client privileged information, or intimate recordings of people taken without consent (or without ability to consent).
I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as copyrighted films, classified war plans, trade secrets, doctor-patient or lawyer-client privileged information, or intimate recordings of people taken without consent (or without ability to consent).
>I don't think even free-speech absolutists apply it to a general right to share any arbitrary information, such as... intimate recordings of people taken without consent
Does sharing a non-intimate recording of someone count as speech? Can the government make it illegal for me to share a photo that a government official thinks makes them look ugly? What about a photo of an official committing a crime? What if that photo was taken somewhere private and without their consent? Or what if it was actually an "intimate recordings of people taken without consent", but one of the people involved was the president and they were recorded in a drug fueled fling with a prostitute? Should publishing that be illegal?
How can you define speech so that it can be applied consistently to specific questions like this? Odds are you'll end up with a definition so full of nuances and caveats that the "absolutist" part of the term is rendered meaningless.
Does sharing a non-intimate recording of someone count as speech? Can the government make it illegal for me to share a photo that a government official thinks makes them look ugly? What about a photo of an official committing a crime? What if that photo was taken somewhere private and without their consent? Or what if it was actually an "intimate recordings of people taken without consent", but one of the people involved was the president and they were recorded in a drug fueled fling with a prostitute? Should publishing that be illegal?
How can you define speech so that it can be applied consistently to specific questions like this? Odds are you'll end up with a definition so full of nuances and caveats that the "absolutist" part of the term is rendered meaningless.
Keep in mind that in my comment, I said that free speech generally is about protecting the expression of "beliefs, opinions, and criticisms", and you'd still be open to legal action by harmed parties if you defame them. So I think we can pretty reasonably answer your questions from that standpoint, with the fairly non-controversial addendum that airing incriminating photographs within a courtroom setting would certainly be protected speech.
>I said that free speech generally is about protecting the expression of "beliefs, opinions, and criticisms"...airing incriminating photographs within a courtroom setting would certainly be protected speech.
Is a free press not part of free speech? Are incriminating photos only protected speech in a court, but not when published in a newspaper?
I'm just trying to underline that people refuse to recognize the difficulty translating the philosophical discussion of free speech into the complexities of legal definitions. And "free speech absolutists" tend to only live in the philosophical sphere.
Is a free press not part of free speech? Are incriminating photos only protected speech in a court, but not when published in a newspaper?
I'm just trying to underline that people refuse to recognize the difficulty translating the philosophical discussion of free speech into the complexities of legal definitions. And "free speech absolutists" tend to only live in the philosophical sphere.
This kind of response reinforces the parent's concern. Expressing concern for the erosion of free speech rights doesn't make one a right wing fanatic just because they don't mention every other political issue in the exact same comment.
The free speech absolutists were always criticized because of their hypocrisy, not because of their ideology. At least the people saying there should be limits to free speech are clear and impartial as to where those limits should be, supported by laws and regulations.
> clear and impartial as to where those limits should be
This is a big claim. The crux of the problem is that it's virtually impossible to set a clear and consistent line. That makes it ripe for abuse by those in power, as we are witnessing right now. I think it's hypocritical to fail to even acknowledge this fact.
This is a big claim. The crux of the problem is that it's virtually impossible to set a clear and consistent line. That makes it ripe for abuse by those in power, as we are witnessing right now. I think it's hypocritical to fail to even acknowledge this fact.
Focus your energy on the clear abuses of power by the current regime, instead of hypotheticals and edge cases in the system you once had.
The US had a great (not perfect!) system. Free speech with reasonable limits, set by laws and regulations. And helped by a certain amount trust in the system.
When power hungry people, who started abusing the system with misinformation campaigns, ran into those laws and regulations, they claimed the system was treating them unfairly. Those people are now in power.
And trust is now at a minimum.
You could blame the past system for not being able to prevent this regime, but that wouldn’t fit your beliefs. I for one, am happy that we have more stringent rules in the EU.
The US had a great (not perfect!) system. Free speech with reasonable limits, set by laws and regulations. And helped by a certain amount trust in the system.
When power hungry people, who started abusing the system with misinformation campaigns, ran into those laws and regulations, they claimed the system was treating them unfairly. Those people are now in power.
And trust is now at a minimum.
You could blame the past system for not being able to prevent this regime, but that wouldn’t fit your beliefs. I for one, am happy that we have more stringent rules in the EU.
That current regime is using the exact same machinery that you're advocating for to suppress freedoms, and it seems to me that your solution is to make it more ripe for abuse. This doesn't make any sense. And no, we're not talking about "hypotheticals" here when the abuse is happening right before our eyes.
Laws and regulations aren't a magical solution. You have to think about how they can be abused, or they'll be weaponized to achieve the exact opposite of what you intended. This has been abundantly clear for those who have been paying attention. See for example how lawmakers have been repeatedly pushing laws claiming to "protect children" that does nothing of the sort but does everything to erode civil liberties.
Laws and regulations aren't a magical solution. You have to think about how they can be abused, or they'll be weaponized to achieve the exact opposite of what you intended. This has been abundantly clear for those who have been paying attention. See for example how lawmakers have been repeatedly pushing laws claiming to "protect children" that does nothing of the sort but does everything to erode civil liberties.
Even the laws claiming to protect children had all sorts of due processes.
But laws or no laws, the biggest problem is that laws and regulations don't count for the current regime. There's nothing to protect the layman from your government with this conman in charge. Consumer protections have eroded, criminals have been set free and people have been abducted.
Rules don't matter anymore. Nobody trusts your government. It's a jungle now.
But laws or no laws, the biggest problem is that laws and regulations don't count for the current regime. There's nothing to protect the layman from your government with this conman in charge. Consumer protections have eroded, criminals have been set free and people have been abducted.
Rules don't matter anymore. Nobody trusts your government. It's a jungle now.
That is not true, people championed others to be removed from all kinds of platforms.
I am not inclined to defend any stupid opinion, but especially on topics like the pandemic people were cheering on others getting banned. There is a political cost to this and that does extend to people having little ground to criticise the current US administration on these grounds.
I am not inclined to defend any stupid opinion, but especially on topics like the pandemic people were cheering on others getting banned. There is a political cost to this and that does extend to people having little ground to criticise the current US administration on these grounds.
Free speech doesn't give you the right to a megaphone on every platform you see fit. It just protects you from government prosecution. As a moderator, I also ban people who are just obnoxious and loud without any substance.
Right now, the government is suppressing free speech according to the very definition of that term.
How can you not see the difference.
Right now, the government is suppressing free speech according to the very definition of that term.
How can you not see the difference.
You can do that as a moderator, but you still violate the principle of freedom of speech in that case. The is the prejorative of any group to do so.
I tend to prefer groups that understand the principle of free speech, but it isn't a hard requirement.
Culture formerly forced large commercial internet platforms to adhere to freedom of speech and we have lost that partially. And people are rightfully not too amused about that and it isn't necessarily team Trump they blame for that. That is the reality why he now can claim to defend freedom of speech, even if it isn't really true.
> It just protects you from government prosecution.
The first amendment of the US does, but the principle goes beyond that. It is a necessary requirement for independent research for example. There is no law for it and it still is essential.
I tend to prefer groups that understand the principle of free speech, but it isn't a hard requirement.
Culture formerly forced large commercial internet platforms to adhere to freedom of speech and we have lost that partially. And people are rightfully not too amused about that and it isn't necessarily team Trump they blame for that. That is the reality why he now can claim to defend freedom of speech, even if it isn't really true.
> It just protects you from government prosecution.
The first amendment of the US does, but the principle goes beyond that. It is a necessary requirement for independent research for example. There is no law for it and it still is essential.
You might want to look up what free speech actually means before engaging in discussions about it.
Then you're not looking.
For books depicting sex acts, banning such books from public elementary and middle school libraries is reasonable. Is it not?
Does there exist any example of an administration (federal or state) successfully prohibiting the private sale of an LGBTQ book?
Does there exist any example of an administration (federal or state) successfully prohibiting the private sale of an LGBTQ book?
Books with rainbows are getting banned under the same policy.
Rainbows!
Rainbows!
Where is this happening? URL?
First hit when googling "Books with rainbows are getting banned"
https://www.salon.com/2022/04/15/ohio-school-district-bans-c...
https://www.salon.com/2022/04/15/ohio-school-district-bans-c...
Nobody is banning books. Removing inappropriate material from school libraries isn't book banning. Have you seen some of the books that are being removed? That books with graphic depictions of aren't appropriate for children is a view perfectly compatible with strong support for freedom of expression.
Okay, but counterpoint: why don't these school libraries also remove for example the Bible, a work known for extremely graphic content, eroticism, calls to kill based on one's tribe and doing stuff like working on the Sabbath. It's also a book explicitly meant for indoctrinating children into a given religion, or actually one of two religions!
These principles of what is good and age-appropriate for children doesn't seem to be applied consistently.
These principles of what is good and age-appropriate for children doesn't seem to be applied consistently.
Counterpoint, they do. What public elementary school has copies of the bible? Schools are terrified of anything re ligious.
Well apparently at least public school libraries in Utah's Davis County[0]. To their credit, they did actually ban it due to vulgarity and violence, so at least they were principled in that sense, but then the book was brought back due to backlash.
[0]: <https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/utah-davis-school-dist...>
[0]: <https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/utah-davis-school-dist...>
Because it is an historically important work that is necessary to have some understanding of to understand large parts of history. Its purpose also is not indoctrination or titillation.
Because the bible teaches hypocrisy, a very important skill that will help create future leaders.
They’re literally banning The Handmaid’s Tale. Not good https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/02/margaret-a...
Quoting the article:
> It’s shunning time in Madison County, Virginia, where the school board recently banished my novel The Handmaid’s Tale from the shelves of the high-school library.
Note: a school library. A student can go to a regular library and check out this book, if they are really interested.
If you want to see what real book banning looks like, read the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_govern...
This involves removing books from public libraries nationwide (not just school libraries of one county), banning of sale, and sometimes criminalizing and prosecuting private possession of the book.
The US is fortunately quite far from such a sorry state.
> It’s shunning time in Madison County, Virginia, where the school board recently banished my novel The Handmaid’s Tale from the shelves of the high-school library.
Note: a school library. A student can go to a regular library and check out this book, if they are really interested.
If you want to see what real book banning looks like, read the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_govern...
This involves removing books from public libraries nationwide (not just school libraries of one county), banning of sale, and sometimes criminalizing and prosecuting private possession of the book.
The US is fortunately quite far from such a sorry state.
Redefining the definition of book banning is not a good look and not a way to win this argument. It's a hole you really don't want to dig.
The First Amendment specifically speaks about government not limiting free expression. An indeed, school boards are a branch of the government, not a private organization. Their actions may be seen as a real infraction on the First Amendment.
Thank you for the correction.
Thank you for the correction.
If the state doesn't limit freedom of expression by choosing what material to teach in schools (which it does) then it doesn't limit it by choosing what material to host in school libraries (which it does).
If you want to say removing these books from school libraries is an illegitimate constraint on freedom of expression, then so is the school curriculum. So is public education generally.
If you want to say removing these books from school libraries is an illegitimate constraint on freedom of expression, then so is the school curriculum. So is public education generally.
While removing a book from a school library by the school board may be a sensible act, and does not violate the letter of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law..."), it definitely has something to do with the spirit of it, that it, the interaction of government and free speech. It's very certainly something to keep an eye on.
Book banning means banning books. It doesn't mean removing books from school libraries. That isn't what it has ever meant. Who is doing the redefining?
> Who is doing the redefining?
The people who are saying that excluding books from libraries isn't banning. It's straightforward. Discussing this reminds me of arguing with my narcissist father - he slips through conflict by redefining terms to fit his inability to take accountability and recognize that his actions have consequences.
It really is a bad look to argue like this for a group of people who are trying to accomplish a goal.
The people who are saying that excluding books from libraries isn't banning. It's straightforward. Discussing this reminds me of arguing with my narcissist father - he slips through conflict by redefining terms to fit his inability to take accountability and recognize that his actions have consequences.
It really is a bad look to argue like this for a group of people who are trying to accomplish a goal.
This only affects school libraries. As long as the book is available in public libraries, and is legal to sell, buy, and possess, it's not banned. It's just considered inappropriate for minors. It's more like giving a movie an R rating than like banning.
I'm aware of that. Clarifying it only doubles down on digging the argument-by-definitions hole. I'm starting to get a sense that that's the only argument here.
> Have you seen some of the books that are being removed?
Yes, and most of them do not fit your description in the slightest.
Yes, and most of them do not fit your description in the slightest.
There’s a coordinated effort to ban books. Harry Potter has been banned. Parents are provided with the template letters to send and are trained to raise objections to books that don’t fit their religious ideology. I’d provide you with links but you could just google it yourself same as I could. Search for “coordinated effort ban books”
But the Bible's ok...
When our book says "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses," it's ok. When yours say it, it's not. Simple.
1. https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-20.htm
1. https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-20.htm
Some of these translations, I feel, slightly miss the point.
Or just went totally off the rails in a couple of cases.
Or just went totally off the rails in a couple of cases.
Left political circles did remove books as well. At the time it was mostly argued that the authors are racists or had some form of flaw.
The justification was exactly the same at the time. "It isn't censorship, it is just not recommended anymore". Given, that was/is true for many literary expositions as well.
The justification was exactly the same at the time. "It isn't censorship, it is just not recommended anymore". Given, that was/is true for many literary expositions as well.
Inappropriate by whom?
Do you have a list of those books so I can check if I see the same kind of inappropriateness?
Do you have a list of those books so I can check if I see the same kind of inappropriateness?
Inappropriate according to the school. Schools determine all sorts of things along those lines. They choose what to teach in the first place. Is that in violation of freedom of speech too? School libraries aren't unlimited. They can't contain every possible book. And you wouldn't want them to contain, for example, Playboy magazine or other actual pornographical publications. Schools are obviously allowed to determine what is and isn't appropriate; this is much better, having it decided locally, rather than what, deciding at a national level what is and isn't okay.
They could decide "On the Origin of Species" is inappropriate, while the Bible which is full of violence isn't a problem.
> Some people actually just have principles!
Right, but words like `absolutist` mean something really strong that is not achievable in reality, and I don't think you would disagree very much that the majority of self professed free speech absolutists like Musk, do not actually hold anything near such a view.
This is actually due to an attack on the weakness of free speech. The zone is being flooded with shit, as the phrase goes, to the point that words don't mean anything. The moment a term starts having some meaning that people can derive direction from, the propagandists start using the term incorrectly everywhere.
Right, but words like `absolutist` mean something really strong that is not achievable in reality, and I don't think you would disagree very much that the majority of self professed free speech absolutists like Musk, do not actually hold anything near such a view.
This is actually due to an attack on the weakness of free speech. The zone is being flooded with shit, as the phrase goes, to the point that words don't mean anything. The moment a term starts having some meaning that people can derive direction from, the propagandists start using the term incorrectly everywhere.
I think the swerve that makes free speech absolutism less credible now than a generation ago is the prominence that lies and misinformation have gained in the discourse.
I think you can still believe that any political, religious or economic view is fair to say/publish/broadcast as an ernest expression of perspective, and that even potentially hateful views inevitably come along for that ride. We tolerate the KKK producing literature bc that's the cost for _everyone_ being able to speak. But it's much harder to make the argument that intentional lies and misinformation deserve the same protections as good faith expressions of minority views.
When a person asserts that we need to protect speech which is intended to mislead, isn't it natural to be suspicious?
I think you can still believe that any political, religious or economic view is fair to say/publish/broadcast as an ernest expression of perspective, and that even potentially hateful views inevitably come along for that ride. We tolerate the KKK producing literature bc that's the cost for _everyone_ being able to speak. But it's much harder to make the argument that intentional lies and misinformation deserve the same protections as good faith expressions of minority views.
When a person asserts that we need to protect speech which is intended to mislead, isn't it natural to be suspicious?
That is the usual degradation of freedom of speech and not at all different from other cases before.
Some opinions hurt many sensibilities and the result is lacking support for most essential freedoms. This justification might seem more relevant to you, but with perspective it is the same reason others used to prohibit speech.
> When a person asserts that we need to protect speech which is intended to mislead, isn't it natural to be suspicious?
There is enough literature here to really weight this argument and the sad result is that you often defend the speech of scoundrels but it still is the better result.
Some people say it is natural to dislike different skin colors. The logic of your argument would generally be seen as short sighted and it certainly is in regards to freedom of speech. Again, a bit of literature exposure helps.
Some opinions hurt many sensibilities and the result is lacking support for most essential freedoms. This justification might seem more relevant to you, but with perspective it is the same reason others used to prohibit speech.
> When a person asserts that we need to protect speech which is intended to mislead, isn't it natural to be suspicious?
There is enough literature here to really weight this argument and the sad result is that you often defend the speech of scoundrels but it still is the better result.
Some people say it is natural to dislike different skin colors. The logic of your argument would generally be seen as short sighted and it certainly is in regards to freedom of speech. Again, a bit of literature exposure helps.
My claim is that intentionally dishonest speech shouldn't obviously enjoy the same protections as earnest speech.
> That is the usual degradation of freedom of speech and not at all different from other cases before.
That's a really sweeping statement and I think perhaps (fittingly) is an intentional mischaracterization of the history of attacks on free speech in the US. E.g. looking at a pretty generic source, whether someone is lying has basically never been the criteria that the government uses to suppress stuff. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State...
- In the 19th century the postmaster refused to carry abolitionist literature, because of its topic, not whether statements were true or false.
- The Comstock Law forbade the postal service from carrying even personal letters with sexual content -- again, regardless of truth or falsity.
- The Sedition Act of 1918 forbade "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" against the government/flag etc, again regardless of truth or falsity.
- Charles Coughlin lost his ability to broadcast and a newspaper mailing permit b/c of his Nazi-sympathizing views, but not specifically because of lies.
- The Smith Act of 1940 went after communists and others who advocate the overthrow of the government or even to affiliate with an association which so advocates. Again, no requirement of lying required.
- The current emphasis on banning queer books, identifying peace activists who called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as being "aligned with terrorists", or forbidding government agencies from mentioning "diversity" are all entirely indifferent on whether a person or agency is telling the truth.
Even in the colonial era, Alexander Hamilton's argument for freedom of the press, when defending newspaper printer John Peter Zenger emphasized the right to tell the truth: "nature and the laws of our country have given us a right to liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power ... by speaking and writing the truth."
We have civil legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in a manner which harms the reputation of a person or company (defamation, libel, slander). We have criminal legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in specific ways to enrich themselves (e.g. wire fraud). To my understanding, we don't have any kind of legal mechanism to bring to bear when someone knowingly lies for purposes of manipulating public discourse -- e.g. claiming that (unnamed) doctors are sitting on death panels, or that a large number of (unnamed) staff in the State Department are communists, or that the 15-minute city is a conspiracy (of no one in particular) to imprison people in their neighborhoods.
If you have literature you care to recommend that makes a compelling argument for why lies/misinformation specifically be protected, please cite specific documents rather than waving at "literature exposure" in general.
> That is the usual degradation of freedom of speech and not at all different from other cases before.
That's a really sweeping statement and I think perhaps (fittingly) is an intentional mischaracterization of the history of attacks on free speech in the US. E.g. looking at a pretty generic source, whether someone is lying has basically never been the criteria that the government uses to suppress stuff. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State...
- In the 19th century the postmaster refused to carry abolitionist literature, because of its topic, not whether statements were true or false.
- The Comstock Law forbade the postal service from carrying even personal letters with sexual content -- again, regardless of truth or falsity.
- The Sedition Act of 1918 forbade "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" against the government/flag etc, again regardless of truth or falsity.
- Charles Coughlin lost his ability to broadcast and a newspaper mailing permit b/c of his Nazi-sympathizing views, but not specifically because of lies.
- The Smith Act of 1940 went after communists and others who advocate the overthrow of the government or even to affiliate with an association which so advocates. Again, no requirement of lying required.
- The current emphasis on banning queer books, identifying peace activists who called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza as being "aligned with terrorists", or forbidding government agencies from mentioning "diversity" are all entirely indifferent on whether a person or agency is telling the truth.
Even in the colonial era, Alexander Hamilton's argument for freedom of the press, when defending newspaper printer John Peter Zenger emphasized the right to tell the truth: "nature and the laws of our country have given us a right to liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power ... by speaking and writing the truth."
We have civil legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in a manner which harms the reputation of a person or company (defamation, libel, slander). We have criminal legal mechanisms to fight those who lie in specific ways to enrich themselves (e.g. wire fraud). To my understanding, we don't have any kind of legal mechanism to bring to bear when someone knowingly lies for purposes of manipulating public discourse -- e.g. claiming that (unnamed) doctors are sitting on death panels, or that a large number of (unnamed) staff in the State Department are communists, or that the 15-minute city is a conspiracy (of no one in particular) to imprison people in their neighborhoods.
If you have literature you care to recommend that makes a compelling argument for why lies/misinformation specifically be protected, please cite specific documents rather than waving at "literature exposure" in general.
If he won't cite any literature, maybe he can find the Truth Social post he bases his worldview on.
[deleted]
A what do they when they don’t like it?
The once who claimed there is a speech police implement speech police and all what the vocal free speech persons do is don’t like it?
Did the address it at the president or do they fear consequences?
The once who claimed there is a speech police implement speech police and all what the vocal free speech persons do is don’t like it?
Did the address it at the president or do they fear consequences?
You can support free speech in the abstract, end up defending certain people whose views you hate, and still come up with a good amount of respect. The ACLU is able to maintain respect despite helping some pretty terrible people in court.
There's just a cohort of people who claim to be in favor of free speech, but also use it as a defense to associate themselves with people they really don't need to. Even the worst people in the world need _a_ lawyer, your local fascist doesn't need a booster on Twitter. There's a spectrum and subjectivity here of course.
"Free speech" has turned into a fun little bad faith thing to throw into arguments where it (for most people) doesn't belong. And even for fellow travelers, these people arguing in bad faith tend to throw in some other stupid garbage into their arguments! So it gets a bad rap, as an indicator that an argument is about to get stupid.
There's just a cohort of people who claim to be in favor of free speech, but also use it as a defense to associate themselves with people they really don't need to. Even the worst people in the world need _a_ lawyer, your local fascist doesn't need a booster on Twitter. There's a spectrum and subjectivity here of course.
"Free speech" has turned into a fun little bad faith thing to throw into arguments where it (for most people) doesn't belong. And even for fellow travelers, these people arguing in bad faith tend to throw in some other stupid garbage into their arguments! So it gets a bad rap, as an indicator that an argument is about to get stupid.
[deleted]
> The idea that it's somehow suspicious to be in favor of free speech has got to be one of the worst developments in American politics.
This isn't really a recent development but I think I understand what you mean. Authoritarians, regardless of their political leanings, try and sow distrust in free speech in order to garner support for advancing their agenda.
Currently, the "right" is using "free speech" as a tool to push back against the "woke agenda." So now "free speech" is becoming faux pas, at least in certain circles. Mentioning it as something you value without some long preface to explain yourself now associates you with a certain group of people, whether that group actually values free speech or not.
This isn't really a recent development but I think I understand what you mean. Authoritarians, regardless of their political leanings, try and sow distrust in free speech in order to garner support for advancing their agenda.
Currently, the "right" is using "free speech" as a tool to push back against the "woke agenda." So now "free speech" is becoming faux pas, at least in certain circles. Mentioning it as something you value without some long preface to explain yourself now associates you with a certain group of people, whether that group actually values free speech or not.
>Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.
They don't need to do any denials anymore because they have won. That was part of arguing in bad faith, they never actually believed the arguments. Nothing being discussed on a message board is going to change that
They don't need to do any denials anymore because they have won. That was part of arguing in bad faith, they never actually believed the arguments. Nothing being discussed on a message board is going to change that
I know it's not your intention, but don't allow these people to control your perception of free speech advocates such that you're making blanket statements about them that might in turn color someone else's perception. They're hiding behind real free speech advocates, and powerful people are counting on stochastic comments like this one to help confuse the public.
Most of them seem more like "freedom to fraud" or "freedom to incite violence" and speech is just the medium they need to do it.
The current administration does not support free speech for everyone. It's actively punishing free speech.
You're right -- many people who claim to support free speech really mean they favor "free speech for me, not for thee." And typically these people want to be able to say controversial things without consequence. But how people respond to speech is orthogonal to whether or not we are allowed to exercise our rights to it.
The ACLU did "free speech absolutism" right back in the 90's and 00's. They defended everyone's speech, no matter the politics, no matter how socially right or wrong it was [1]. They'd step up to bat for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, and Satanists. Your views didn't matter. Defending the rights we all share was the point. Because when someone else's rights are degraded and not defended, it means everyone's rights are up for attack.
Unfortunately the ACLU doesn't hold these same views today. They're batting for one team only.
[1] They defended Westboro Baptist Church and NAMBLA, FFS. I definitely hate both of these organizations, but free speech is free speech. By defending even the most reprehensible speech, it ensures that mine remains free regardless of how the political pendulum swings. That's how it should be, anyway.
You're right -- many people who claim to support free speech really mean they favor "free speech for me, not for thee." And typically these people want to be able to say controversial things without consequence. But how people respond to speech is orthogonal to whether or not we are allowed to exercise our rights to it.
The ACLU did "free speech absolutism" right back in the 90's and 00's. They defended everyone's speech, no matter the politics, no matter how socially right or wrong it was [1]. They'd step up to bat for Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, and Satanists. Your views didn't matter. Defending the rights we all share was the point. Because when someone else's rights are degraded and not defended, it means everyone's rights are up for attack.
Unfortunately the ACLU doesn't hold these same views today. They're batting for one team only.
[1] They defended Westboro Baptist Church and NAMBLA, FFS. I definitely hate both of these organizations, but free speech is free speech. By defending even the most reprehensible speech, it ensures that mine remains free regardless of how the political pendulum swings. That's how it should be, anyway.
It would be counter-intuitive if they defended the free speech of those who want to take away the free speech of others.
Part of Free Speech is that it does not matter to have it if nobody hears you, maybe because your voice is drowned out by powerful media, serving the interests of the few. Therefore we need Equal Rights to free speech for everybody, especially when it comes to elections.
Part of Free Speech is that it does not matter to have it if nobody hears you, maybe because your voice is drowned out by powerful media, serving the interests of the few. Therefore we need Equal Rights to free speech for everybody, especially when it comes to elections.
The ACLU did change course noticeably and there is ample criticism for that and this resulted in their diminished influence of today. There was even bipartisan consent on that, especially regarding the first amendment.
For example if you search for the "ACLU lost its way", you will find a lot about their behavior. I think the opinion pieces are often well argued.
For example if you search for the "ACLU lost its way", you will find a lot about their behavior. I think the opinion pieces are often well argued.
No it wouldn't. Part of freedom of expression is the right to express opinions of any kind. That includes the view that freedom of expression should be limited: that is a perfectly legitimate opinion.
>Therefore we need Equal Rights to free speech for everybody
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are entitled to a publicly funded megaphone or that anyone is required to listen to you.
>Therefore we need Equal Rights to free speech for everybody
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are entitled to a publicly funded megaphone or that anyone is required to listen to you.
I understand, constitution gives you the right to speak against free speech as well. I'm just saying it wouldn't make sense for ACLU to support people who want to take away your right to free speech.
Also you're right that we can't give everybody the one hour of free speech on TV, can we?.
But it is in the interest of the country as a whole that all viewpoints are heard. But if one person can buy all TV-stations then he will have free speech and nobody else really does. If nobody can hear you because somebody else is speaking so loudly, it doesn't matter if you have free speech or not.
It used to be law that there are limits to how many millions one person or corporation can use to win elections. But seems that is no longer the case thanks to Supreme Court judges nominated by Republican presidents.
Also you're right that we can't give everybody the one hour of free speech on TV, can we?.
But it is in the interest of the country as a whole that all viewpoints are heard. But if one person can buy all TV-stations then he will have free speech and nobody else really does. If nobody can hear you because somebody else is speaking so loudly, it doesn't matter if you have free speech or not.
It used to be law that there are limits to how many millions one person or corporation can use to win elections. But seems that is no longer the case thanks to Supreme Court judges nominated by Republican presidents.
>I'm just saying it wouldn't make sense for ACLU to support people who want to take away your right to free speech.
It is supporting their right to freedom of speech, not supporting them, in my view.
>But it is in the interest of the country as a whole that all viewpoints are heard. But if one person can buy all TV-stations then he will have free speech and nobody else really does.
Did nobody have freedom of expression before television? Broadcast media is just one way of communicating ideas, and TV is a decreasingly relevant part of the media. TV is worse than it used to be largely because nobody really watches it anymore except for sports.
>It used to be law that there are limits to how many millions one person or corporation can use to win elections.
There is very little evidence that spending more on election advertising actually does anything. Hillary and Harris both spend much more than Trump and lost. Biden spent more and won. Obama spent less and won. The statistics across a wide range of elections at different scales don't show it having much effect. It is probably important to even be an option, but it doesn't win elections.
It is supporting their right to freedom of speech, not supporting them, in my view.
>But it is in the interest of the country as a whole that all viewpoints are heard. But if one person can buy all TV-stations then he will have free speech and nobody else really does.
Did nobody have freedom of expression before television? Broadcast media is just one way of communicating ideas, and TV is a decreasingly relevant part of the media. TV is worse than it used to be largely because nobody really watches it anymore except for sports.
>It used to be law that there are limits to how many millions one person or corporation can use to win elections.
There is very little evidence that spending more on election advertising actually does anything. Hillary and Harris both spend much more than Trump and lost. Biden spent more and won. Obama spent less and won. The statistics across a wide range of elections at different scales don't show it having much effect. It is probably important to even be an option, but it doesn't win elections.
eh, I'm not going to cast stones at people who will voice support for the right to reprehensible speech and will fight for a system that makes sure even people with reprehensible speech have recognized rights and can get legal representation, even while they personally do not want to represent nazis etc. That's not a moral failing.
Suggesting a group is in some way a failure now because they don't use their speech how you think they should is, of course, at least a bit iffy while we're talking about this :) but FIRE is probably the group you're looking for today.
Suggesting a group is in some way a failure now because they don't use their speech how you think they should is, of course, at least a bit iffy while we're talking about this :) but FIRE is probably the group you're looking for today.
[deleted]
The Paradox of tolerance almost never means what the person invoking it as a rebuttal to free speech thinks it means. It's not some moral axiom that demands action to shut down problematic speech whenever it happens. It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold.
The most frequently quoted text I've seen is Karl Popper's writing, where he states that we must reserve the right to suppress intolerant philosophies, not that we should always suppress them.
Now, some people might have the opinion that we should be completely intolerant to intolerance and that might be a defendable position in its own right, but the paradox of tolerance is not intrinsically condoning that sort of response.
The most frequently quoted text I've seen is Karl Popper's writing, where he states that we must reserve the right to suppress intolerant philosophies, not that we should always suppress them.
Now, some people might have the opinion that we should be completely intolerant to intolerance and that might be a defendable position in its own right, but the paradox of tolerance is not intrinsically condoning that sort of response.
> ....It's not some moral axiom that demands action to shut down problematic speech whenever it happens.
No, that would probably end up in a logical paradox, if one were intolerant of any degree of intolerance.
> It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold.
I don't know enough to have a particular position on the ACLU, but at least in theory an organisation defending free speech might decide that conditions have become such that defending certain things will lead to the inability to defend other things and choose to proceed differently on that basis.
No, that would probably end up in a logical paradox, if one were intolerant of any degree of intolerance.
> It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold.
I don't know enough to have a particular position on the ACLU, but at least in theory an organisation defending free speech might decide that conditions have become such that defending certain things will lead to the inability to defend other things and choose to proceed differently on that basis.
I think Popper would be quite sad with how people abuse his intend with stating it.
Without a lot of context from Popper this principle isn't even a very good one and Popper certainly would agree here.
It just displays that you didn't put time into it thinking it through, especially if you just distribute links.
Without a lot of context from Popper this principle isn't even a very good one and Popper certainly would agree here.
It just displays that you didn't put time into it thinking it through, especially if you just distribute links.
> Anecdotally I've noticed these sorts of people much less often, at least on here as of late. Methinks their deniability isn't so plausible any more.
Been a lot more hysterical on here as of late. Methinks there's less reason to discuss political things now.
Been a lot more hysterical on here as of late. Methinks there's less reason to discuss political things now.
I don't think it fits completely, but for the sake of it, I am a free speech absolutist. I live in Europe for context.
Your insinuations isn't really a good faith argument either but I gladly join that group of "these sorts of people" because they are obviously more sensible than the others.
Your insinuations isn't really a good faith argument either but I gladly join that group of "these sorts of people" because they are obviously more sensible than the others.
I don't think anyone identifies as "free speech absolutists" in the first place, except for Elon Musk one famous time. Strong free speech advocates remain about as common as they've always been, as far as I can tell - I suspect you just don't notice so much during times when the strongest threats to free speech are people and groups you're already inclined to oppose.
The only free speech absolutist in America is Noam Chomsky. He's the only one.
Whenever conservatives talk about "free speech" just substitute "hate speech" because that's what they mean. Elon Musk has called himself a free speech absolutist while banning people from Twitter for hurting his feelings, for being journalists who are remotely critical of him, for making fun of him, for reporting ATC public data on the location of his private jet and for making jokes.
The media is absolutely complicit in not challenging the countless lies told by Republicans.
What didn't get a lot of attention is how Trump sued a bunch of media outlets (eg ABC/Disney) to defamation. These are cases he absolutely could not win on the merits. ABC presenter George Stephanopoulos made the on-air claim Trump was "liable for rape" after he lost the E. Jean Carroll case. Disney agreed to pay ~$16 million in what has all the apperances of a payoff.
Whenever conservatives talk about "free speech" just substitute "hate speech" because that's what they mean. Elon Musk has called himself a free speech absolutist while banning people from Twitter for hurting his feelings, for being journalists who are remotely critical of him, for making fun of him, for reporting ATC public data on the location of his private jet and for making jokes.
The media is absolutely complicit in not challenging the countless lies told by Republicans.
What didn't get a lot of attention is how Trump sued a bunch of media outlets (eg ABC/Disney) to defamation. These are cases he absolutely could not win on the merits. ABC presenter George Stephanopoulos made the on-air claim Trump was "liable for rape" after he lost the E. Jean Carroll case. Disney agreed to pay ~$16 million in what has all the apperances of a payoff.
It's pretty amazing that out of 350 million people in the United States, the only one who is a free speech absolutist happens to be someone I've heard of.
One thing not on the list (yet) is the freezing of protesters' bank accounts that happened in Canada.
Or the de-banking that happens to politicians in the UK.
Or the jailing of whistleblower lawyers that happens in Australia.
Or the de-banking that happens to politicians in the UK.
Or the jailing of whistleblower lawyers that happens in Australia.
I would prefer a higher signal to noise ratio. For example, Radio Free Asia is a project of the federal government. Defunding it is a political decision. Freedom of the press does not mean the government is obligated to fund media nonprofits it has funded in the past.
If those sounding alarms don't distinguish between political decisions they disagree with and violations of our rights, they will lose credibility ala Boy Who Cried Wolf, and struggle to mobilize people when it really matters.
If those sounding alarms don't distinguish between political decisions they disagree with and violations of our rights, they will lose credibility ala Boy Who Cried Wolf, and struggle to mobilize people when it really matters.
RFA is funded by USAGM a independent agency of the US federal government. Do you argue against the idea of an independent agency? Are you saying its dismantlement was legal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Agency_for_Global_Media
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...
No, I'm not opining here on whether stopping RFA is legal or a good idea. I'm only saying that I don't think it's an attack on the freedom of the press when the president stops funding media organizations, even if it's because of their viewpoint. I think the concept of freedom of the press was created to protect press organizations that are actually independent of the government from government interference. It cannot plausibly or sustainably extend to a government funding entitlement. If it did, it would mean perpetual entanglement of our precious universal, politically neutral liberal protections with the eternal mud-wrestling match of partisan politics.
If USAGM is entitled to funding by act of Congress, I consider that a separate issue from First Amendment freedom of the press.
If USAGM is entitled to funding by act of Congress, I consider that a separate issue from First Amendment freedom of the press.
> In June 2018, President Trump announced his intention to nominate documentary film producer Michael Pack to head the agency. He was confirmed by the Senate two years later, and served from June 5, 2020 until January 20, 2021, when he was asked to resign at the request of newly-inaugurated President Joe Biden.
Doesnt sound very independent to me if the President can exchange the agency head.
Doesnt sound very independent to me if the President can exchange the agency head.
When the government's reason for defunding a media organization is based on that organization's viewpoint, then it is absolutely an attack on freedom of the press. I'm not sure about Radio Free Asia, but Trump has specifically cited his objections to the viewpoints of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as the reason for destroying them.
> This is a really good compilation that should make any "free-speech absolutist" reconsider their support for the current administration.
The adoption of the "free speech absolutist" brand by certain elements of the Right was never an honest statement of ideology, it was a smokescreen of Orwellian doublespeak for efforts to impose right-wing bias on platforms both by platform owners and by government regulatory efforts.
Those people aren't going to reconsider their support for this administration because it isn't actually committed to free speech, because it is doing what the "free speech absolutist" label they adopted was always cover for.
> In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century.
The one thing that the "free speech absolutist" Right-wing crowd was always honest about was that their position had nothing to do with "commonplace interpretation of the first amendment". (
The adoption of the "free speech absolutist" brand by certain elements of the Right was never an honest statement of ideology, it was a smokescreen of Orwellian doublespeak for efforts to impose right-wing bias on platforms both by platform owners and by government regulatory efforts.
Those people aren't going to reconsider their support for this administration because it isn't actually committed to free speech, because it is doing what the "free speech absolutist" label they adopted was always cover for.
> In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century.
The one thing that the "free speech absolutist" Right-wing crowd was always honest about was that their position had nothing to do with "commonplace interpretation of the first amendment". (
Then the center-left Democrat progressives need to stop discussing the term "free speech absolutism" because it conceptually muddies the water. Leftists believe in free speech, freedom of inquiry, freedom of the press, even "burden of proof beyond doubt"--these are all liberal ideas. There's a mainstream pseudo-left that has decided to dispense with all nuance of these basic liberal values, and that is far worse in the long run, because that is happening inside the house, in service of Democrat elites. It's like internalized oppression: the fascists and reactionaries are so bad, that we've decided to forget our own principles.
You see the same thing in this thread. People mock free speech absolutists because Musk may have trolled them a year ago.
I believe this overall ineptitude will indeed not work in their favor and it is just a form of primitive reactionism.
I believe this overall ineptitude will indeed not work in their favor and it is just a form of primitive reactionism.
Do we deride free speech absolutists simply because Musk might have trolled us? Is that truly a reasonable explanation for anyone's motivations? Would you be so petty as to base your principles on that idea?
No. Our criticism is aimed at their inability to defend their own values, leading to fruitless debates and real-world situations where shameless hypocrisy undercuts everything they claim to support.
No. Our criticism is aimed at their inability to defend their own values, leading to fruitless debates and real-world situations where shameless hypocrisy undercuts everything they claim to support.
Yes, it is and this is projection again. We had years with arguments "they are a private company", "free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", etc. pp.
Perhaps integrity would demand that people speak up and in my experience they indeed still do. But you shouldn't be surprised if the criticism is quite a bit less loud if it concerns speech from a politicized crowd that demanded more content control and censorship just a few weeks before. Petty? Maybe. Wrong? Maybe. But certainly not surprising that bad life decisions in the past do have an effect.
Perhaps integrity would demand that people speak up and in my experience they indeed still do. But you shouldn't be surprised if the criticism is quite a bit less loud if it concerns speech from a politicized crowd that demanded more content control and censorship just a few weeks before. Petty? Maybe. Wrong? Maybe. But certainly not surprising that bad life decisions in the past do have an effect.
Listen up, because this needs to be crystal clear: there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with revoking someone’s platform when they violate terms and conditions that are no stricter than the rules you’d set for your own kids.
On the flip side, there is something profoundly, undeniably wrong — practically evil — when a government detains peaceful people not for breaking laws but for virally posting about their wish for an immediate cease-fire in the midst of violent conflict. Which is the exact inverse of having sensible limits.
You can rattle off half-baked “maybe” and “perhaps” scenarios all day long and keep twisting definitions beyond recognition. You can continue to argue that governmental abuse of power is an inevitable consequence simply because the world contains some ugly, petty sociopaths that will hold grudges until they die. But by that logic there shouldn't be norms, limits, rules, terms, conditions or laws at all, because it will only inconvenience sociopaths on their rise to power and they'll eventually come after you.
Welcome to the paradox of tolerance. We need rules because it keeps our imperfect society civil.
On the flip side, there is something profoundly, undeniably wrong — practically evil — when a government detains peaceful people not for breaking laws but for virally posting about their wish for an immediate cease-fire in the midst of violent conflict. Which is the exact inverse of having sensible limits.
You can rattle off half-baked “maybe” and “perhaps” scenarios all day long and keep twisting definitions beyond recognition. You can continue to argue that governmental abuse of power is an inevitable consequence simply because the world contains some ugly, petty sociopaths that will hold grudges until they die. But by that logic there shouldn't be norms, limits, rules, terms, conditions or laws at all, because it will only inconvenience sociopaths on their rise to power and they'll eventually come after you.
Welcome to the paradox of tolerance. We need rules because it keeps our imperfect society civil.
There is nothing wrong with it, that is your right.
Since the composition of the net is what it is a free speech culture protected people from being removed from platforms because of commercial interests. This protection has been removed because some people were too sensitive about the opinions of others and demanded their removal until more and more platforms gave in to those demands. This broke the prevailing culture and more and more views got removed. Plain and simple.
The conflict in the middle east is of no relevance here. Government already found a neat little trick and let commercial entities do their dirty work to remove non-sanctioned voices. Indirectly to not violate any laws. This has been abused by any political party already and in most other countries as well. Many just waited for a precedent that was promptly delivered.
> virally posting about their wish for an immediate cease-fire
How virally? Virally hateful? Yes, that pretty much qualifies for content removals as a direct consequence of these content controls.
Since the composition of the net is what it is a free speech culture protected people from being removed from platforms because of commercial interests. This protection has been removed because some people were too sensitive about the opinions of others and demanded their removal until more and more platforms gave in to those demands. This broke the prevailing culture and more and more views got removed. Plain and simple.
The conflict in the middle east is of no relevance here. Government already found a neat little trick and let commercial entities do their dirty work to remove non-sanctioned voices. Indirectly to not violate any laws. This has been abused by any political party already and in most other countries as well. Many just waited for a precedent that was promptly delivered.
> virally posting about their wish for an immediate cease-fire
How virally? Virally hateful? Yes, that pretty much qualifies for content removals as a direct consequence of these content controls.
Interesting you call it a "brand". People picked up the term because it was meant to be an insult and that is quite relevant to understand the current political situation and why Trump can sell himself as free speech defender while doing the opposite.
Bascially because his opposition is that much slower...
Bascially because his opposition is that much slower...
The problem isn't that the current US administration is seen as a good protector of freedom of speech. It is that its opposition dropped the ball on it so massively.
With support of the now decried platforms, the slogan "there is no freedom of speech without consequences" comes to mind. Helping corporations "clean house" against all the undesirables, people that "hate".
This again points at the Trump administration and how bad it would be. That isn't really a convincing message, it is that it opposition needs to rethink some arguments of the past.
With support of the now decried platforms, the slogan "there is no freedom of speech without consequences" comes to mind. Helping corporations "clean house" against all the undesirables, people that "hate".
This again points at the Trump administration and how bad it would be. That isn't really a convincing message, it is that it opposition needs to rethink some arguments of the past.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Read that, please.
I'd consider myself a free speech absolutist and I don't really agree. I feel like most of the list falls into "bad legal takes" category as almost nothing on the list has anything to do with the first amendment at all.
The freedom of the press category basically amounts to slander having never been protected speech. You can sue for slander.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/d...
The freedom of speech category in the article is largely a big nothing burger. Government employees have never had freedom in what they say while acting as government employees. That can say whatever they want on their own time given they're not releasing protected information. That one's been settled by supreme Court a number of times.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/
The government gets say over what data it releases. There's nothing in in the first amendment guaranteeing government releases of data. That's just bizarre to even think of as a first amendment issue at all. The first amendment protects the people from censorship, nothing in the amendment protects the government from censorship by the government.
I literally struggle to see how just about anything in the article relates to the actual protections the first amendment provides whatsoever.
The freedom of religion section seems like we're moving more in line with the constitution by removing special protections for religious institutions? Religious institutions having special protections seems like a pretty clear violation of the first amendment. I don't see why a church/mosque/temple should be any different as far as the government is involved than a Footlocker. By literal definition religion shouldn't get special treatment. Separation of church and state.
Read that, please.
I'd consider myself a free speech absolutist and I don't really agree. I feel like most of the list falls into "bad legal takes" category as almost nothing on the list has anything to do with the first amendment at all.
The freedom of the press category basically amounts to slander having never been protected speech. You can sue for slander.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/d...
The freedom of speech category in the article is largely a big nothing burger. Government employees have never had freedom in what they say while acting as government employees. That can say whatever they want on their own time given they're not releasing protected information. That one's been settled by supreme Court a number of times.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/
The government gets say over what data it releases. There's nothing in in the first amendment guaranteeing government releases of data. That's just bizarre to even think of as a first amendment issue at all. The first amendment protects the people from censorship, nothing in the amendment protects the government from censorship by the government.
I literally struggle to see how just about anything in the article relates to the actual protections the first amendment provides whatsoever.
The freedom of religion section seems like we're moving more in line with the constitution by removing special protections for religious institutions? Religious institutions having special protections seems like a pretty clear violation of the first amendment. I don't see why a church/mosque/temple should be any different as far as the government is involved than a Footlocker. By literal definition religion shouldn't get special treatment. Separation of church and state.
> Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been detaining and trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who are legally in the United States. The administration is targeting students and academics who spoke out against Israel’s attacks on Gaza, or who were active in campus protests against U.S. support for the attacks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters Thursday that at least 300 foreign students have seen their visas revoked under President Trump, a far higher number than was previously known.
How is "deportation without a trial" not a deliberate attack on people exercising their constitutional right to free speech?
How is "deportation without a trial" not a deliberate attack on people exercising their constitutional right to free speech?
What's the problem here, exactly?
Visas are granted as an extension of this country's good will, and if you violate that good will the visa is revoked. Is your issue that you don't believe the conduct to be worthy of revoking the visa? Honestly, it's a little irritating that people think it's normal for these visas to be so liberally granted in the first place. That's probably why we're in this situation at all.
Visas are granted as an extension of this country's good will, and if you violate that good will the visa is revoked. Is your issue that you don't believe the conduct to be worthy of revoking the visa? Honestly, it's a little irritating that people think it's normal for these visas to be so liberally granted in the first place. That's probably why we're in this situation at all.
The Visa isn’t being denied for a crime. It’s targeting specific speech of protestors and that should be unconstitutional. Anti-BDS laws fall in the same category and those impact US citizens. You can refuse to hire based on beliefs but the government has no right to tell you what to say. If you commit a crime or materially support terrorism you have a day in court.
Not following. These visas are at the pleasure of the government. The argument you're making is that once these visas are granted we are conferring the same rights as those of citizens, which is not true. If someone gets a student visa and comes here, to go to Columbia or NYU or Stanford or wherever, and all they do is agitate protests and cause trouble it seems reasonable that this visa should be revoked, yes? They are not studying, they are doing foreign activism. That's all well and good, but student visas are supposed to be for people who want to be ... students.
And where in the Constitution do we find this notion of "rights of citizens". The Constitution governs how the federal government is allowed to act and the powers it has been given (by the states and people).
Seems unrelated to my point. A visa is a privilege that can be revoked for bad or antisocial behavior. It would be very problematic if that were not the case.
I've got very mixed feelings on that.
I'm not entirely sure that someone should be able to come into another country as a non-citizen and go around drumming up support for our foreign enemies. I can tell you no other country on Earth would put up with that.
Whether or not the first amendment applies to non-citizens, especially non-permanent residents is clearly hotly debated. I can see both sides of it.
The almost perfectly clean split across the Federalist/Democratic-Republican line that the founders had on the Alien and Sedition Act I think makes pretty clear that even the founders didn't agree on whether or not it did.
I'm not entirely sure that someone should be able to come into another country as a non-citizen and go around drumming up support for our foreign enemies. I can tell you no other country on Earth would put up with that.
Whether or not the first amendment applies to non-citizens, especially non-permanent residents is clearly hotly debated. I can see both sides of it.
The almost perfectly clean split across the Federalist/Democratic-Republican line that the founders had on the Alien and Sedition Act I think makes pretty clear that even the founders didn't agree on whether or not it did.
They are welcome to bring up such arguments at a trial, where they can be contested fairly before judge, jury, and the general public.
Jury trials are another important constitutional right that's being infringed. Until the facts are resolved fairly, those accusations are suspect.
I will also remind you that some of those affected are (were?) permanent residents. If they can take that away without due process, it's only a matter of time before citizens are also on the chopping block.
Jury trials are another important constitutional right that's being infringed. Until the facts are resolved fairly, those accusations are suspect.
I will also remind you that some of those affected are (were?) permanent residents. If they can take that away without due process, it's only a matter of time before citizens are also on the chopping block.
I just wish there was always this much interest in free speech. The level of care in most circles tends to sway based on who is in office.
Theres no such thing as a free speech absolutist.
Supposed free speech absolutists demand reversals of bans from platforms for people due to hate speech.
Not 1 is demanding the same for spammers or fraudsters.
Supposed free speech absolutists demand reversals of bans from platforms for people due to hate speech.
Not 1 is demanding the same for spammers or fraudsters.
A libertarian will argue that fraud is an act that is not the same as free speech and hence is not covered by free speech. I don't agree with the libertarian viewpoints overall, however I will acknowledge they have a point about the distinction between those two things.
And what is spam? I can acknowledge fraud not being free speech (although it's a stretch as well), i.e. it's intended to harm (again one could argue about a lot of other speech as well), but how can they make the same argument for spam?
Spam is literally commerce. But almost every platform acknowledges it needs to be removed because its unwanted.
I'm not asking what spam is, I'm well aware.
We are in a discussion about free speech absolutism. Somebody who says they are a free speech absolutist who supports spam filtering, needs to either justify why spam is not speech (which is my question, why would it not be speech), or acknowledge that they agree there are limits to free speech.
Or is your argument that if it is commerce it's not free speech? That would allow all commerce to be censored (and we just kick the can down the road, what is commerce).
We are in a discussion about free speech absolutism. Somebody who says they are a free speech absolutist who supports spam filtering, needs to either justify why spam is not speech (which is my question, why would it not be speech), or acknowledge that they agree there are limits to free speech.
Or is your argument that if it is commerce it's not free speech? That would allow all commerce to be censored (and we just kick the can down the road, what is commerce).
No I am taking the view that spam is speech, and should be included in an absolutists agenda.
That's quite the take. My hat goes off to you, ya crazy bastard. <3
The problem with spam isnt the content, its the quantity.
Lots of spam emails are for genuine services. But its generally accepted that because the speech is unwanted and the quanity of it lowers the quality of the platform, that its fine to filter it off.
Free Speech absolutism should incorporate it, but doesnt. (Which sort of indicates its mostly about broadcasting their opinions rather than being in favour of all speech)
Lots of spam emails are for genuine services. But its generally accepted that because the speech is unwanted and the quanity of it lowers the quality of the platform, that its fine to filter it off.
Free Speech absolutism should incorporate it, but doesnt. (Which sort of indicates its mostly about broadcasting their opinions rather than being in favour of all speech)
> people I do not align with and have fundamental disagreements with with should adopt this absurd viewpoint I am presenting as their own.
*honk honk*
*honk honk*
They are welcome to change their moniker to "Free Speech Marginalist" otherwise, if they continue to advertise as absolutist I will continue to insist they live up to it.
Spam is far too obviously not speech is the thing. They will continue to use the moniker "Free Speech absolutist", and ignore you. But keep campaigning as the one lone voice with that, I'll still continue cheering you on while the rest of the world ignores your funny viewpoint that isn't believable for you to actually even have.
I'm a 3/4 black partially Jewish gay man, so you can imagine where I stand on "Free Speech absolutism". While I am for the most part on your "side", I want to stick to arguments that are persuasive.
I'm a 3/4 black partially Jewish gay man, so you can imagine where I stand on "Free Speech absolutism". While I am for the most part on your "side", I want to stick to arguments that are persuasive.
Spam can be whatever who so happens to be the site moderator, or maybe some very tiny yet obnoxiously vocal minority, wants it to be.
Beyond that practical matter, the least bad definition I have for spam (and this is just off the top of my head right now) is: advertising that is unsolicited and disseminated in a bad faith style.
Any of us who are being honest with ourselves, maybe with exception to the acutely socially challenged, know spam when we see it.
Beyond that practical matter, the least bad definition I have for spam (and this is just off the top of my head right now) is: advertising that is unsolicited and disseminated in a bad faith style.
Any of us who are being honest with ourselves, maybe with exception to the acutely socially challenged, know spam when we see it.
So free speech absolutism shouldnt extend to bad faith?
Well that brings us right back to the moderation free speech absolutists are angry about.
Well that brings us right back to the moderation free speech absolutists are angry about.
I suggest to review the comment you replied to.
Free speech absolutism shouldn't extend to: advertising that is unsolicited and disseminated in a bad faith style.
Sorry about the state of your reading comprehension (or lack of it). Unfortunate.
Free speech absolutism shouldn't extend to: advertising that is unsolicited and disseminated in a bad faith style.
Sorry about the state of your reading comprehension (or lack of it). Unfortunate.
As a person who lived in the States for a bit, and listened to a lot of news, I remember always this almost fawning over the Founding Fathers, checks and balances and great American constitution. It is remarkable, how easy it all goes, and most people don't do anything (i.e. out of 100 top law firms, only a handful joined the lawsuit against the government, etc.)
As an American, I agree - I'm pretty surprised at how nakedly transparent the whole thing has been. One basic example - I thought pretty much everyone agreed that at least some level of due process is just inherent to the rights of everyone in the US. When I hear administration figures arguing that flying the Venezuelans to El Salvadoran prisons is a good thing because "they're really bad dudes", I think "OK, and we're just supposed to trust that you and you alone can make that determination?" It has already been reported that multiple people had no ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, but were solely imprisoned due to their tattoos. When I took civics in high school this is exactly the type of stuff that we learned that basically "the US does not do", and there was an inherent pride in that fact. So like you I'm surprised at how quickly and transparently it all got washed away.
They started this tactic of "They're bad dudes trust us don't need a trial" during the Bush administration and many many people pointed out this would come to our shores soon, and it did and it's here again.
Yeah, not prosecuting serious violations of law like war crimes, tortue, and mass surveillance was a serious mistake that lead to this situation. It reinforced a culture of impunity for those in power.
Because people allowed this to happen, the current administration is now more emboldened than its recent predecessors ever have been.
Because people allowed this to happen, the current administration is now more emboldened than its recent predecessors ever have been.
Even if the Obama administration had prosecuted GWB, the recent Supreme Court ruling on Trump's presidential immunity would have superseded all that.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-supreme-...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-supreme-...
My point is that even getting to that ruling would've been much harder if there was actual respect for the law and more importantly, the democratic values behind those laws. And by respect, I mean the general population actually enforcing it by holding those in power accountable.
True, in the event that government fails to hold someone accountable, it falls on the people to do that instead. I think there are different visions of what that justice looks like when carried out that way.
Obama ordered the assassination of a US citizen[0] with no due process, so I don't think the rhetoric of "they're bad dudes trust us" ever really went away. Tried to hide it, maybe, but never gone.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
Venezuela claims zero were members fwiw
> Venezuela's Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello said on Friday that none of the hundreds of Venezuelans deported by the U.S. to a Salvadoran prison is a member of Venezuela's Tren de Aragua criminal gang, the reason Washington gave for expelling them.
> "I believe with absolute responsibility that not a single one appears on the organizational chart of the now-extinct Tren de Aragua organization, not a single one," Cabello said on a podcast, saying he had names of the deportees from U.S. media and his own source.
> Venezuela says Tren de Aragua was effectively wiped out in 2023, and that the idea that it still exists is based on a claim from the country's political opposition.
> Venezuela's Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello said on Friday that none of the hundreds of Venezuelans deported by the U.S. to a Salvadoran prison is a member of Venezuela's Tren de Aragua criminal gang, the reason Washington gave for expelling them.
> "I believe with absolute responsibility that not a single one appears on the organizational chart of the now-extinct Tren de Aragua organization, not a single one," Cabello said on a podcast, saying he had names of the deportees from U.S. media and his own source.
> Venezuela says Tren de Aragua was effectively wiped out in 2023, and that the idea that it still exists is based on a claim from the country's political opposition.
Venezuela, known for telling the truth
There's no evidence that Venezuela is lying in this case, because there is no evidence.
Due process is important for protecting the innocent, but due process is also important because it documents the crimes of the guilty.
Due process is important for protecting the innocent, but due process is also important because it documents the crimes of the guilty.
Exactly. I'm willing to believe some of these people were indeed "bad dudes", but literally 0 evidence was provided one way or the other. And these people weren't just deported back to their home countries - they were imprisoned in demonstrably brutal fashion.
Yeah, yeah, Godwin's Law and all that, but the similarities with mid-20th century fascism are undeniable here. The administration specifically started with targeting a small, well-defined minority (that is, people in the US illegally, or at least purported to be here illegally), and then extended to valid visa holders (what's the point of being on legal visa if it can be revoked at any moment with no judicial review and then you can be imprisoned for weeks/months) and now legal permanent residents. It's just classic creeping fascism.
Yeah, yeah, Godwin's Law and all that, but the similarities with mid-20th century fascism are undeniable here. The administration specifically started with targeting a small, well-defined minority (that is, people in the US illegally, or at least purported to be here illegally), and then extended to valid visa holders (what's the point of being on legal visa if it can be revoked at any moment with no judicial review and then you can be imprisoned for weeks/months) and now legal permanent residents. It's just classic creeping fascism.
Trump and Republicans, known for telling the truth
vs Trump, known for telling the truth?
what does this have to do with what Venezuela says?
Of course.
This is what happens when “rule of law” is subverted on the generational scale — eg, by enabling illicit mass migration opposed by the majority of the people. They eventually feel that appeals to “rule of law” are merely emotional manipulation used against them and stop caring in pursuit of a solution to what they perceive as a problem.
What did people expect to happen?
This is what happens when “rule of law” is subverted on the generational scale — eg, by enabling illicit mass migration opposed by the majority of the people. They eventually feel that appeals to “rule of law” are merely emotional manipulation used against them and stop caring in pursuit of a solution to what they perceive as a problem.
What did people expect to happen?
Do people really think imperfect enforcement of immigration law is an excuse to willfully discard the right to trial or constraints on presidential power?
The people that simply want an excuse to be racist do. That's a part of the country that people like trump enable. Happened in 2017 and is happening again.
What we’re experiencing is a group exploiting the biggest vulnerability in the American system, one that was known to the founding fathers. If you can get enough people to vote for you and your friends, then all of the checks and balances will eventually fail against you, because in the end they’re all dependent on the populace not voting for people who corrupt the system.
It probably wouldn’t have seemed plausible to them that someone could be impeached twice and convicted of fraud, then win the popular vote.
It probably wouldn’t have seemed plausible to them that someone could be impeached twice and convicted of fraud, then win the popular vote.
Not entirely true, they did consider that possibility, and their solution was the electoral college: the only reason for its existence is as a safeguard against installing a populist president that would corrupt the system.
the electoral college exists because small states wouldnt sign the constitution without it
If anything, it enabled it through acts like gerrymandering. That's how Trump won the first term in the 2nd or 3rd time in 250 years the electoral college defied the popular vote.
> It probably wouldn’t have seemed plausible to them
Or more like there is no solution to this besides telling people to be vigilant about protecting their democracies.
Or more like there is no solution to this besides telling people to be vigilant about protecting their democracies.
"A republic, if can keep it".
[0] https://constitutioncenter.org/education/classroom-resource-...
[0] https://constitutioncenter.org/education/classroom-resource-...
Is your argument that when a political party hold all major branches of government that it is implicitly corrupt? Or are you arguing that one side is corrupt and the other is not?
Is there a theoretical situation where a single party gaining control is simply the will of the voters? That appears to be a potential valid outcome.
Is there a theoretical situation where a single party gaining control is simply the will of the voters? That appears to be a potential valid outcome.
In order: no, of course not; neither side is angelic but only one is corrupt and incompetent at a historic level; and yes, the fatal vulnerability in the system is that a demagogue can win a valid election, allowing them to ignore the safeguards and destroy the system.
The issue is not that a single party has control; it’s that a single person has control, having purged that party of all disloyalty or contradiction, and is now proceeding to remake the entire government according to their rather erratic whims, with very little effective restraint.
The issue is not that a single party has control; it’s that a single person has control, having purged that party of all disloyalty or contradiction, and is now proceeding to remake the entire government according to their rather erratic whims, with very little effective restraint.
The argument is that when a corrupt party against all the levers of power, there is little to stop it from doing whatever it wants. The American government is built on some assumptions about keeping nakedly corrupt, amoral authoritarians away from power.
It's one big component of being corrrupt, yes.
>Is there a theoretical situation where a single party gaining control is simply the will of the voters?
Sure. But not with the current electoral college and its exploits, as well as literal election bribery that is publicly admitted to.
>Is there a theoretical situation where a single party gaining control is simply the will of the voters?
Sure. But not with the current electoral college and its exploits, as well as literal election bribery that is publicly admitted to.
As an American born to immigrants, I love the vision of the founding fathers, but I don't understand why they are so revered by some. They were slave owners who, at the time, had some pretty radical ideas for how to run a country. Some ideas were great and stood the test of time, and some were terrible and required amendments. We can't solve today's problems by thinking like dudes from the 1700s.
At the same time, some ideas were great but scales of economy and population ruined them. e.g. The house of represenatives should probably number over 1000 today to properly work as structured in the founding papers. But we somewhat arbitrarily capped it at 435 100 years ago. now while that's way too many people per rep, most political scientists don't really suggest that we should have 1200 reps in the House. proposals end up more around 700.
some reverence may simply be patriotism. I suppose it's no different than any other kinds of celebrity style of worship. people like a role model.
some reverence may simply be patriotism. I suppose it's no different than any other kinds of celebrity style of worship. people like a role model.
That's interesting, that's a good point though.
Fundamentally, patriotism is no different than other kinds of celebrity worship, but practically, more people are willing to do terrible things in the name of patriotism than they are for any A List celebrity. Can substitute patriotism with religion as well. Patriotism seems more akin to religion to me, now that I think of it. I don't know if that is good or bad.
Fundamentally, patriotism is no different than other kinds of celebrity worship, but practically, more people are willing to do terrible things in the name of patriotism than they are for any A List celebrity. Can substitute patriotism with religion as well. Patriotism seems more akin to religion to me, now that I think of it. I don't know if that is good or bad.
The fawning is always about whatever topic the speaker cares about. It just an emotional tactic. Not everyone cares about the founding father's views in the same way. Not to mention, there was a variety of opinions even amongst themselves.
[deleted]
My thoughts exactly.
I’ve lived in the USA and saw the Iowa caucus and election process up close. For a country that was the self proclaimed arbitrator of democracy all over the world, I’m shocked how fragile their own checks-and-balances system is. The lack of opposition to this complete takeover is astounding. I hope USA survives this phase and comes out stronger and more resilient to further such events.
I’ve lived in the USA and saw the Iowa caucus and election process up close. For a country that was the self proclaimed arbitrator of democracy all over the world, I’m shocked how fragile their own checks-and-balances system is. The lack of opposition to this complete takeover is astounding. I hope USA survives this phase and comes out stronger and more resilient to further such events.
During the first Trump term, most of the institutions did resist Trump. The fact that he go reelected after his first term was so chaotic and scandalous has basically demoralized everyone. There are other factors, like the utter failure of Biden and the democrats, but its hard to recon with the fact that people are so far gone at this point.
I don’t feel demoralized.
My understanding is, anyone who resists will get crucified and lose money. Nobody wants to lose customers or money. It's funny when you talk to people with money, who completely disagree with the administration, will go and say the opposite publicly because they don't want to deal with the mob.
[deleted]
762236(1)
The people fawning and the people rejecting the Founders' intentions are two separate groups of people.
Media is the practice of including and excluding voices, and there are distinct trends over time of representing one or another set of voices.
Media is the practice of including and excluding voices, and there are distinct trends over time of representing one or another set of voices.
They're the same ultra-nationalists. I just did a quick twitter search for "founding fathers". Here we have, in order:
People tab:
"I love our founding fathers": https://x.com/Stephan73992604
"Founding Fathers daily": https://x.com/FFoundersDaily
Someone with [heart] founding fathers: https://x.com/JKernerOT
Top tweets:
Rush Limbaugh: https://x.com/LimbaughLegacy/status/1906424705336180913
"ThePatrioticBlonde": https://x.com/ImBreckWorsham/status/1904301594717651038
And an actual anti-semite: https://x.com/GnoticeUs/status/1906465034823499806
And the most recent:
https://x.com/SwampFox1795/status/1906554560094576889 https://x.com/tablewithannie/status/1906554512472736060 https://x.com/jp_peter51132/status/1906555671040102769
The ultra-nationalists love national myth and imagery. Always have. See the picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Squ...
Displays of nationalism and patriotism is mostly just a disciplining tactic by authoritarians who want unquestioning loyalty simply by displaying superficial symbols and gestures.
It's a way to claim the authority of the dead, to manufacture legitimacy through association. So now you're questioning the flag as opposed to the person waving it telling you what to do.
People tab:
"I love our founding fathers": https://x.com/Stephan73992604
"Founding Fathers daily": https://x.com/FFoundersDaily
Someone with [heart] founding fathers: https://x.com/JKernerOT
Top tweets:
Rush Limbaugh: https://x.com/LimbaughLegacy/status/1906424705336180913
"ThePatrioticBlonde": https://x.com/ImBreckWorsham/status/1904301594717651038
And an actual anti-semite: https://x.com/GnoticeUs/status/1906465034823499806
And the most recent:
https://x.com/SwampFox1795/status/1906554560094576889 https://x.com/tablewithannie/status/1906554512472736060 https://x.com/jp_peter51132/status/1906555671040102769
The ultra-nationalists love national myth and imagery. Always have. See the picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Squ...
Displays of nationalism and patriotism is mostly just a disciplining tactic by authoritarians who want unquestioning loyalty simply by displaying superficial symbols and gestures.
It's a way to claim the authority of the dead, to manufacture legitimacy through association. So now you're questioning the flag as opposed to the person waving it telling you what to do.
> The people fawning and the people rejecting the Founders' intentions are two separate groups of people.
The same people supporting Trump, from national thought leaders like Heritage and the Federalist society, to Murdoch publications (Fos, WSJ), to everyday people on social media have long pushed hard for expanded Second Amendment rights, expended freedom of religion which outweighs all other considerations and rights, and freedom of speech, etc. for right-wing hate speech (including their focus on social media moderation) - just as examples.
The same people supporting Trump, from national thought leaders like Heritage and the Federalist society, to Murdoch publications (Fos, WSJ), to everyday people on social media have long pushed hard for expanded Second Amendment rights, expended freedom of religion which outweighs all other considerations and rights, and freedom of speech, etc. for right-wing hate speech (including their focus on social media moderation) - just as examples.
pmarreck(1)
It's all pretty cooked. It's honestly stunning to see how these cult-like followers have allowed themselves to be completely oblivious to what's going on.
From an outsiders perspective, it's wild. But at the same time, there were many warnings.
From an outsiders perspective, it's wild. But at the same time, there were many warnings.
Its cooked everywhere. Thank the Attention Economy. All sides are trapped by in a fight over finite Attention. Its like the world war but instead of land its Views/Clicks/Likes.
Since Attention is a finite non growing pool the trap is set.
One day some one gets all the fish and another its someone else. Anyone who has any sense wouldn't waste any energy being part of such a stupid game cause its eventually lose lose.
So the game is of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid.
Until all sides agree on a new Attention allocation mechanism everything shall remain cooked.
Since Attention is a finite non growing pool the trap is set.
One day some one gets all the fish and another its someone else. Anyone who has any sense wouldn't waste any energy being part of such a stupid game cause its eventually lose lose.
So the game is of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid.
Until all sides agree on a new Attention allocation mechanism everything shall remain cooked.
While I’m with you on attention economy I think it’s simplification of what’s going on:
– we had very dysfunctional legislature for last 20+ years
– quality of life is falling for majority of people
This contributes to feeling of unfairness in the society which pushes authoritarian and populist ideas.
– we had very dysfunctional legislature for last 20+ years
– quality of life is falling for majority of people
This contributes to feeling of unfairness in the society which pushes authoritarian and populist ideas.
I hate that everywhere in the world when QoL falls people elect idiot authoritarians who make QoL worse
It's almost as if there's a third thing going on that both drives QoL down, and authoritarians up, instead of one leading to the other.
What do you have in mind?
Or many things at the same time? One could be globalisation, making those with resources richer, and making workers unemployed?
Or many things at the same time? One could be globalisation, making those with resources richer, and making workers unemployed?
With all do respect, I dont think so. The unfairness is relative feeling of judgment brought to you directly by the ability to compare yourself to your neighbors via social.
If only the USA as a country compared themselves with countries that do better.
To be fair, can you name another democratic country that has gone 250 years without conflict?
Can you give some examples about this assertion?
> quality of life is falling for majority of people
> quality of life is falling for majority of people
Life expectancy has been falling, with the same decline not happening in other countries: https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/us-life-expectancy-decline-why-...
USA is one of of only three countries to have fallen in the Social Progress Index over the last decade: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-09-...
The US economy has been strong, but almost every other well-being metric has declined: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/briefing/the-us-economy-i...
Massive rise in income inequality and concentration of wealth: https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide...
Housing affordability is at historic lows, both for home ownership and rentals: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/state-nations-housing-2023
USA is one of of only three countries to have fallen in the Social Progress Index over the last decade: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-09-...
The US economy has been strong, but almost every other well-being metric has declined: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/briefing/the-us-economy-i...
Massive rise in income inequality and concentration of wealth: https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide...
Housing affordability is at historic lows, both for home ownership and rentals: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/state-nations-housing-2023
Inflation, and the even hire steady increases in cost of living with wages lagging far behind; people have to spend a much larger percentage of their income just to sleep somewhere at night than people did in the 2000s, 1990s and 1980s.
This trend has been evident in the US since like the 1960s. If you would like to verify, try comparing median income levels and median cost of living levels for some of those year ranges.
This trend has been evident in the US since like the 1960s. If you would like to verify, try comparing median income levels and median cost of living levels for some of those year ranges.
Ya sure but whats the way out? We have to go from Observations to Solutions.
Just look at how people's Attention on all sides is being exploited. If no one can remember what they were hysterical about last week, how can they be relied on to solve anything?
People are able to over night get more Attention than Billionaires and then convert that Attention to cash or influence, and its always fleeting as there is someone else around the corner about to capture Attention next.
How can such system do anything useful? I mean people are in la la land that architecture can produce results.
Why do we have central banks that decide what the interest rate is going to be?
Because the govt, banks and the rest of the market is unfit (proven throughout history) to do so.
Social Media/Attention Economy needs a similar mechanism when it comes to Attention.
We can't just go on living in a day dream that Rate at which the population's Attention is switching from one issue to another (thanks to algo's engineering for quarterly profit maximization) can just be left to Fate.
People's Attention both on Demand side and Supply side is being massively squandered more than at any time in history. Its like watching seizures in the brain. And people are like no no the system can function.
It can't. And the choice is to realize is sooner than later.
Just look at how people's Attention on all sides is being exploited. If no one can remember what they were hysterical about last week, how can they be relied on to solve anything?
People are able to over night get more Attention than Billionaires and then convert that Attention to cash or influence, and its always fleeting as there is someone else around the corner about to capture Attention next.
How can such system do anything useful? I mean people are in la la land that architecture can produce results.
Why do we have central banks that decide what the interest rate is going to be?
Because the govt, banks and the rest of the market is unfit (proven throughout history) to do so.
Social Media/Attention Economy needs a similar mechanism when it comes to Attention.
We can't just go on living in a day dream that Rate at which the population's Attention is switching from one issue to another (thanks to algo's engineering for quarterly profit maximization) can just be left to Fate.
People's Attention both on Demand side and Supply side is being massively squandered more than at any time in history. Its like watching seizures in the brain. And people are like no no the system can function.
It can't. And the choice is to realize is sooner than later.
I don't get why people expect the government to make their lives amazing?
Has this ever happened, where had some amazing QoL thanks to their countries government.
I expect my government to manage public resources, the economy and defense. It can provide social safety nets for worst case scenarios. But if your eating food and have a home and making money what are people actually expecting from the government?
Has this ever happened, where had some amazing QoL thanks to their countries government.
I expect my government to manage public resources, the economy and defense. It can provide social safety nets for worst case scenarios. But if your eating food and have a home and making money what are people actually expecting from the government?
The precise point is that people are _not_ having a home due to a lack of affordability, that they are not having access to health care, and that rights and ascending social mobility of the past is being taken away.
And yes, government policies can definitely help or hinder in all of these.
And yes, government policies can definitely help or hinder in all of these.
The Saudis have oil cash for all—controversial, but it beats arguing politics with broke friends.
I think it's a mistake to think people are just oblivious. It's not a majority but there are actually a lot of people aware of these things and celebrating them.
One thing I don't see mentioned a lot but Trump has made being a victim a fairly central part of his politics (him thinking all elections are rigged against him is a simple example of this) so this all makes sense as a sort of retribution. You can see the retribution, often personal, against people conspiring against him in a lot of his speeches and policies (he's even blamed immigrants before for bringing drugs and "poisoning the blood of our country" and implied they are conspiring against the US) and there are people that care about that retribution more than rights or other ideals.
I could write pages more about how you can hear how the idea of victimization and retribution is part of his talks on tariffs, foreign policy, immigration, "DEI", law offices, the judicial system, etc but obviously it would be too long for an internet comment. Once I noticed it I started seeing it everywhere with him.
One thing I don't see mentioned a lot but Trump has made being a victim a fairly central part of his politics (him thinking all elections are rigged against him is a simple example of this) so this all makes sense as a sort of retribution. You can see the retribution, often personal, against people conspiring against him in a lot of his speeches and policies (he's even blamed immigrants before for bringing drugs and "poisoning the blood of our country" and implied they are conspiring against the US) and there are people that care about that retribution more than rights or other ideals.
I could write pages more about how you can hear how the idea of victimization and retribution is part of his talks on tariffs, foreign policy, immigration, "DEI", law offices, the judicial system, etc but obviously it would be too long for an internet comment. Once I noticed it I started seeing it everywhere with him.
> One thing I don't see mentioned a lot but Trump has made being a victim a fairly central part of his politics (him thinking all elections are rigged against him is a simple example of this) so this all makes sense as a sort of retribution.
Imagined victimhood and a persecution complex are core, foundational pillars of MAGA. The whole movement is about how they are all the victims of the elite, persecuted by the media, harassed for their beliefs, and that the whole world is against them. Then, the minute they got power, their first priority was griefing others and cruelty to all of their favorite out-groups. There really is nothing more to it than pretend victimhood, leading to retribution.
Imagined victimhood and a persecution complex are core, foundational pillars of MAGA. The whole movement is about how they are all the victims of the elite, persecuted by the media, harassed for their beliefs, and that the whole world is against them. Then, the minute they got power, their first priority was griefing others and cruelty to all of their favorite out-groups. There really is nothing more to it than pretend victimhood, leading to retribution.
Trump isn’t the source of that, but a manifestation of it.
People are tired of, eg, systemic discrimination being forced on them by elites (euphemized “DIE”) or courts which have outspoken activists refusing to enforce the law against career criminals.
They want it to stop — and since elites refused to onboard that correction, they rallied behind a strongman to punish them.
People are tired of, eg, systemic discrimination being forced on them by elites (euphemized “DIE”) or courts which have outspoken activists refusing to enforce the law against career criminals.
They want it to stop — and since elites refused to onboard that correction, they rallied behind a strongman to punish them.
He's very very much not the source of this. It's been ascendant literally my whole life, my first foray into really thinking about politics was trying to convince my friends that humans caused climate change and there wasn't a conspiracy of climate scientists trying to trick them so they can get more grant money.
You can see him pretty clearly expanding on and exploiting those existing currents though. One of the ways he got big in American politics is his support of the "birther" movement where he was convinced Obama wasn't born in the US (which, to be clear, was a ridiculous claim and especially galling to me since my birth certificate is from the same hospital and looks almost exactly like his). His political persona gas always been tied to the idea this idea that people are lying and working against America even if he didn't originate the idea.
Edit: also tone is hard to parse on the internet so I'll clarify that this isn't really meant as an argument, it doesn't seem like we really disagree on what Trump's politics is about (even if we have different opinions on those politics). I mainly just wanted to clarify that I saw this long before Trump, even if he's now emblematic of it.
You can see him pretty clearly expanding on and exploiting those existing currents though. One of the ways he got big in American politics is his support of the "birther" movement where he was convinced Obama wasn't born in the US (which, to be clear, was a ridiculous claim and especially galling to me since my birth certificate is from the same hospital and looks almost exactly like his). His political persona gas always been tied to the idea this idea that people are lying and working against America even if he didn't originate the idea.
Edit: also tone is hard to parse on the internet so I'll clarify that this isn't really meant as an argument, it doesn't seem like we really disagree on what Trump's politics is about (even if we have different opinions on those politics). I mainly just wanted to clarify that I saw this long before Trump, even if he's now emblematic of it.
>systemic discrimination being forced on them by elites
... Pot, meet kettle.
... Pot, meet kettle.
Trump and his ilk are literally “elites”, richest cabinet in history and that’s excluding the unelected SS cutter that meddles into everything.
DEI, just so you know, also covers programmes that help poor communities by providing funding for education.
DEI, just so you know, also covers programmes that help poor communities by providing funding for education.
My entire life, professional and otherwise, DEI has ultimately stood for nothing other than "less white people". Of course it's dressed up in definitions that sound beautiful and moral to the supporters of DEI, but at the end of the day whenever someone uses the term "diverse" they are talking about "less white people".
When the company John Lewis was criticized for a lack of diversity [1], it was because they had too many whites.
When the Academy Awards were criticized for a lack of diversity [2], it was because they had too many whites.
When the EU institutions were criticized for a lack of diversity [3], it was because they had too many whites.
When the BAFTAs were criticized for a lack of diversity [4], it was because they had too many whites.
When investigative journalism in the US was criticized for a lack of diversity [5], it was because they had too many whites.
When the show "Friends" was criticized for a lack of diversity [6], it was because they had too many whites.
After decades and decades of this blatant animosity against people like me I can honestly say I do not care at all what Trump does to these programs or how he goes about destroying them, as long as they are destroyed and the people that supported them punished.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/16/john-lewis-...
[2] https://www.wishtv.com/news/awards-shows-have-been-criticize...
[3] https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/oped-lack-...
[4] https://www.willistonian.org/baftas-criticized-for-lack-of-d...
[5] https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2020/investigative-jou...
[6] https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/02/lack-of-diversity-on-friends-...
When the company John Lewis was criticized for a lack of diversity [1], it was because they had too many whites.
When the Academy Awards were criticized for a lack of diversity [2], it was because they had too many whites.
When the EU institutions were criticized for a lack of diversity [3], it was because they had too many whites.
When the BAFTAs were criticized for a lack of diversity [4], it was because they had too many whites.
When investigative journalism in the US was criticized for a lack of diversity [5], it was because they had too many whites.
When the show "Friends" was criticized for a lack of diversity [6], it was because they had too many whites.
After decades and decades of this blatant animosity against people like me I can honestly say I do not care at all what Trump does to these programs or how he goes about destroying them, as long as they are destroyed and the people that supported them punished.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/16/john-lewis-...
[2] https://www.wishtv.com/news/awards-shows-have-been-criticize...
[3] https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/oped-lack-...
[4] https://www.willistonian.org/baftas-criticized-for-lack-of-d...
[5] https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2020/investigative-jou...
[6] https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/02/lack-of-diversity-on-friends-...
And here I was talking about consequential stuff, like helping impoverished communities, adding guardrails to prevent old-boys clubs and enable skilled individuals to enter fields without prejudice for “being black” or “being gay”.
Who cares about criticism over inconsequential stuff? Is it that difficult to care about impoverished people?
The meals for kids at schools is a “dei” program, and republicans axed it, well done! The repubs are also sending kids to work overtime and during the night, effectively gutting their future, and of course it’s the impoverished kids who will have to do that.
Who cares about criticism over inconsequential stuff? Is it that difficult to care about impoverished people?
The meals for kids at schools is a “dei” program, and republicans axed it, well done! The repubs are also sending kids to work overtime and during the night, effectively gutting their future, and of course it’s the impoverished kids who will have to do that.
> The meals for kids at schools is a “dei” program
I have never heard of such a thing, can you link to where such a program existed?
Free or reduced cost school lunch is a very common program, but it's based entirely on income, not race, gender or sexuality, which is what everyone means when they talk about "dei programs".
I have never heard of such a thing, can you link to where such a program existed?
Free or reduced cost school lunch is a very common program, but it's based entirely on income, not race, gender or sexuality, which is what everyone means when they talk about "dei programs".
If that’s what they mean it’s because they have been played like a fiddle.
If I were to offer lunches for kids in an impoverished community that happens to be predominantly X race, the sensationalists will say “RACE” “DISCRIMINATION”, while the program is simply addressing one region.
Now the funny thing is that the Democratic Party has repeatedly pushed for universally free lunches to take any potential concerns over race out of the picture and the republic party keeps voting those down.
If I were to offer lunches for kids in an impoverished community that happens to be predominantly X race, the sensationalists will say “RACE” “DISCRIMINATION”, while the program is simply addressing one region.
Now the funny thing is that the Democratic Party has repeatedly pushed for universally free lunches to take any potential concerns over race out of the picture and the republic party keeps voting those down.
I have never observed the phenomenon you're describing and would like to learn more.
Can you link me to one of these stories where "sensationalists said race discrimination" about a program to alleviate poverty which was not actually racially biased?
Can you link me to one of these stories where "sensationalists said race discrimination" about a program to alleviate poverty which was not actually racially biased?
>helping impoverished communities, adding guardrails to prevent old-boys clubs and enable skilled individuals to enter fields without prejudice for “being black” or “being gay”
Exactly, like I said - "it's dressed up in definitions that sound beautiful and moral to the supporters of DEI".
I do not care for theoretical definitions of why your ideology is good and moral, I care about its practical effects on me and the world around me. And somehow, those practical effects always turn out to be "less white people".
And I will NEVER support an ideology that disenfranchises me under the cover of equality!
Exactly, like I said - "it's dressed up in definitions that sound beautiful and moral to the supporters of DEI".
I do not care for theoretical definitions of why your ideology is good and moral, I care about its practical effects on me and the world around me. And somehow, those practical effects always turn out to be "less white people".
And I will NEVER support an ideology that disenfranchises me under the cover of equality!
What I am expressing here is that practical things that all of us can agree are good and useful, such as helping impoverished kids, result in tangle positive consequences, an educated society has less crime, therefore net positive. This is a practical and real world positive consequence.
>And somehow, those practical effects always turn out to be "less white people".
In contrast to your silly and inconsequential examples of just "criticism", I presented examples where DEI has tangible and measurable results which are net positive. What you express, really, just shows confirmation bias, and you remain oblivious to all the positive things that have come out of "DEI" programmes that you have benefited from.
Case in point, women die significantly more in car crashes [1] because law mandates male-sized dummies. Some diversity here in terms of gender would have pointed that out, but until the moment this was written, nothing was done.
DEI programmes exist to avoid discrimination such as that one.
> According to Verity Now, a US-based campaign group striving to achieve equity in vehicle safety, women are 73% more likely to be injured – and 17% more likely to die – in a vehicle crash. Earlier this year, a study of 70,000 patients who had been trapped in vehicles found that women were more frequently trapped than men.
> Part of the problem is that test dummies modeled on the average female body are rarely used in safety tests by car manufacturers – because only “male” dummies are mandated for tests by regulators.
So I don't believe you will ever change or your mind or opinion, and you are discussing in bad faith, rendering this conversation utterly useless. Here's my recommendation, if you are going to try to get me to see your side, instead of emitting strawman arguments, try a steelman one, and avoid sensationalism.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/15/world/female-car-crash-te...
>And somehow, those practical effects always turn out to be "less white people".
In contrast to your silly and inconsequential examples of just "criticism", I presented examples where DEI has tangible and measurable results which are net positive. What you express, really, just shows confirmation bias, and you remain oblivious to all the positive things that have come out of "DEI" programmes that you have benefited from.
Case in point, women die significantly more in car crashes [1] because law mandates male-sized dummies. Some diversity here in terms of gender would have pointed that out, but until the moment this was written, nothing was done.
DEI programmes exist to avoid discrimination such as that one.
> According to Verity Now, a US-based campaign group striving to achieve equity in vehicle safety, women are 73% more likely to be injured – and 17% more likely to die – in a vehicle crash. Earlier this year, a study of 70,000 patients who had been trapped in vehicles found that women were more frequently trapped than men.
> Part of the problem is that test dummies modeled on the average female body are rarely used in safety tests by car manufacturers – because only “male” dummies are mandated for tests by regulators.
So I don't believe you will ever change or your mind or opinion, and you are discussing in bad faith, rendering this conversation utterly useless. Here's my recommendation, if you are going to try to get me to see your side, instead of emitting strawman arguments, try a steelman one, and avoid sensationalism.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/15/world/female-car-crash-te...
It is not an either-or proposition. It would be hard to find a single thing in this world that is 100% bad or 100% good.
I do agree that the article you posted is a very good implementation of equitable practices and I would think it difficult to find anyone who would disagree with the mandating of female test dummies. Mostly because it's a very simple-to-understand example and the implementation of it doesn't hurt anyone else or take away from one group to give to another.
My problem is the pretending that your example is what DEI actually is and any other examples, like the ones I posted, from a number of mainstream media publications no less, are, for whatever reason, NOT considered DEI or, as you put it, are just "silly and inconsequential examples".
Those "silly and inconsequential examples" are supported by every mainstream DEI proponent, including every single DEI department at every large publicly-traded company. There have been numerous articles posted both here on HN and on the wider web about how these DEI implementations turn out to work in practice when it comes to employment prospects, promotion availability and the issues with general hiring practices (lowering standards to achieve some magic number of "equity" in female/minority representation).
My suggestion - if you truly care about the programs such as the one you listed in your comment, you better make sure that's what DEI actually focuses on. Otherwise, you should not be surprised that it gets swept away along with everything else that people feel falls under the DEI umbrella.
I do agree that the article you posted is a very good implementation of equitable practices and I would think it difficult to find anyone who would disagree with the mandating of female test dummies. Mostly because it's a very simple-to-understand example and the implementation of it doesn't hurt anyone else or take away from one group to give to another.
My problem is the pretending that your example is what DEI actually is and any other examples, like the ones I posted, from a number of mainstream media publications no less, are, for whatever reason, NOT considered DEI or, as you put it, are just "silly and inconsequential examples".
Those "silly and inconsequential examples" are supported by every mainstream DEI proponent, including every single DEI department at every large publicly-traded company. There have been numerous articles posted both here on HN and on the wider web about how these DEI implementations turn out to work in practice when it comes to employment prospects, promotion availability and the issues with general hiring practices (lowering standards to achieve some magic number of "equity" in female/minority representation).
My suggestion - if you truly care about the programs such as the one you listed in your comment, you better make sure that's what DEI actually focuses on. Otherwise, you should not be surprised that it gets swept away along with everything else that people feel falls under the DEI umbrella.
[deleted]
When you have privilege, equality feels like oppression. I don’t know where I saw that quote from but I feel this summarizes your points.
Punish who for what? Can you demonstrably prove white people were harmed by DEIA? White people ran the last administration and this one too. What more do you want? Do you get upset if you see a black person drive a nicer car than you?
This anti-DEIA stuff is just cooked up to distract you from the real problems facing this country.
Punish who for what? Can you demonstrably prove white people were harmed by DEIA? White people ran the last administration and this one too. What more do you want? Do you get upset if you see a black person drive a nicer car than you?
This anti-DEIA stuff is just cooked up to distract you from the real problems facing this country.
>Can you demonstrably prove white people were harmed by DEIA?
Sure, here you go. This is just one example, but it's been widely covered in tech circles as well as here on HN and I chose it simply because it's one of the most egregious and shockingly honest account of how DEI works in practice as opposed to nice-sounding social theories
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38634647
Things like this have been covered and talked about on HN for years, I am surprised you missed it, with a lot of commenters speaking out about their own experience which more often than not paints the same story each time - a company needs to reach a certain quota based on race or gender to avoid potential discrimination lawsuits, their hiring pipeline does not support that quota so the only options they have is to discriminate against the only group it is socially OK to discriminate against - white men. And on some level - asians - as is mentioned directly by the CEO of IBM in the leaked video posted above.
Sure, here you go. This is just one example, but it's been widely covered in tech circles as well as here on HN and I chose it simply because it's one of the most egregious and shockingly honest account of how DEI works in practice as opposed to nice-sounding social theories
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38634647
Things like this have been covered and talked about on HN for years, I am surprised you missed it, with a lot of commenters speaking out about their own experience which more often than not paints the same story each time - a company needs to reach a certain quota based on race or gender to avoid potential discrimination lawsuits, their hiring pipeline does not support that quota so the only options they have is to discriminate against the only group it is socially OK to discriminate against - white men. And on some level - asians - as is mentioned directly by the CEO of IBM in the leaked video posted above.
This is a brilliant article because it is summarising how bad it is. They don't want you to know how bad! Lots of paper cuts and hopefully no one sees the amputation.
We need one on attack on working class including all the loss of services esp. education and inflation caused by tariffs.
We need one on attack on working class including all the loss of services esp. education and inflation caused by tariffs.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/03/donald-trump-new...
Everyone should at least watch this video. Taken in America. "Land of the free."
That this is only one of many such videos is terrifying if you know the history of fascist regimes.
I hope everyone here is familiar with the "first they came for the communists..." poem.
Everyone should at least watch this video. Taken in America. "Land of the free."
That this is only one of many such videos is terrifying if you know the history of fascist regimes.
I hope everyone here is familiar with the "first they came for the communists..." poem.
It has started. The Posobiec book (foreword by Steve Bannon) makes the case that anyone to the left of Mussolini is a "secret communist revolutionary" and rationalizes doing anything to "crush" us.
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/unhumans
This is a popular book. I found my own mother reading it. I took the title at face value at first and found the skull disturbing but not threatening what with not being a communist or anything close to it. But then I started reading and I realized that it's not a matter of if they pull the trigger but when, and when they pull the trigger that they would be completely comfortable calling my mild liberal beliefs communist, and that my mother would probably believe them as they stripped me of citizenship and sent me to a labor camp in El Salvador.
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/unhumans
This is a popular book. I found my own mother reading it. I took the title at face value at first and found the skull disturbing but not threatening what with not being a communist or anything close to it. But then I started reading and I realized that it's not a matter of if they pull the trigger but when, and when they pull the trigger that they would be completely comfortable calling my mild liberal beliefs communist, and that my mother would probably believe them as they stripped me of citizenship and sent me to a labor camp in El Salvador.
pmarreck(1)
Direct link to video for those who hit the Slate paywall: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuFIs7OkzYY
andreygrehov(1)
pmarreck(2)
TheBlight(3)
If I were to share this article with some loved ones, they would say the press deserves it for all the fake news and unfair treatment of the current administration.
As for the signal aspect, the last discussion I was a part of devolved into “ MI6 did it to make trump’s team look bad”. There is some bogus ‘news’ article to back this up.
I don’t know how we got here, but it’s devastating and scary.
As for the signal aspect, the last discussion I was a part of devolved into “ MI6 did it to make trump’s team look bad”. There is some bogus ‘news’ article to back this up.
I don’t know how we got here, but it’s devastating and scary.
People believe what they want to believe.
Political tribalism is the new religious outlet, since the old religions are failing their purpose. It’s in-group/out-group ego feeding behavior. The psychology of the faithful doesn’t change, since the underlying issue isn’t being addressed; the expression of it changes.
Similar to how addiction psychology doesn't go away unless dealt with, addiction psychology just changes how it’s expressed.
Political tribalism is the new religious outlet, since the old religions are failing their purpose. It’s in-group/out-group ego feeding behavior. The psychology of the faithful doesn’t change, since the underlying issue isn’t being addressed; the expression of it changes.
Similar to how addiction psychology doesn't go away unless dealt with, addiction psychology just changes how it’s expressed.
Stupid people got unfettered access to the internet.
Essentially, this is all Steve Job's fault.
Essentially, this is all Steve Job's fault.
It used to be that you had to mingle with people, and if you had a particularly crazy take on reality there was a dynamic where 80% of people around you IRL would not really take you seriously because respected people didn’t—especially if you were otherwise not appearing to be a socially well-integrated and productive person. This had a chilling effect on extreme views and helped somewhat bring the outliers in, so to speak. Now, even if you never leave your house, cannot hold a job or a relationship, you can find any number of people who share your extreme views, and the more extreme the views the tighter the community (due to justified exclusion IRL).
Naturally, it did not take too long for other people exploit that newly found dynamic in context of democracy and use tech to manipulate such people with fringe views for own short-term gains.
Naturally, it did not take too long for other people exploit that newly found dynamic in context of democracy and use tech to manipulate such people with fringe views for own short-term gains.
Hot take: it's a failure of democratic competition. The US doesn't have proportional representation, and it's long maintained a duopoly of two electable parties, and a first-past-the-post system that makes any vote for a 3rd party a waste. This, coupled with the Democrats not fronting up a reformist candidate when they could have (Sanders shot down twice), permitted the only anti-establishment candidate to win, and that happened to be a callous individual that aligns with minds as cruel as his own. (By his own admission, 'the tougher and meaner they are, the better I get along with them'.) It's hard to believe that even die-hard Republican politicians are totally on-board with this reformist agenda that's going to completely decimate the economy, but most certainly, if anyone is winning by the end of it, it will be them.
That said, if there's ever another free and fair US election, the Democrats have a real opportunity to put a candidate that can actually deliver remaking the country, but in a way that lifts all boats, and without throwing out hard-won democratic freedoms. But I'm pretty certain they'll just front up another establishment candidate with a progressive face.
That said, if there's ever another free and fair US election, the Democrats have a real opportunity to put a candidate that can actually deliver remaking the country, but in a way that lifts all boats, and without throwing out hard-won democratic freedoms. But I'm pretty certain they'll just front up another establishment candidate with a progressive face.
Makes sense to me. I've been thinking: The US was doomed from the start? Because of the laws that makes it a two party country? It was just a matter of time, and for mass manipulation tools to appear?
Are there any more doomed two party countries waiting to go authoritarian / fascist?
Are there any more doomed two party countries waiting to go authoritarian / fascist?
Maybe. I'm not sure if FPTP necessarily leads to authoritarianism, but there's a whole bunch of countries that sill use the system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Cou...
I think, though, that the US won't go full top-down authoritarian, because a large enough portion of the population is armed. Should some kind of coup ever be attempted, it could well spark a civil war – which is still doom, but not a subjugating kind of doom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Cou...
I think, though, that the US won't go full top-down authoritarian, because a large enough portion of the population is armed. Should some kind of coup ever be attempted, it could well spark a civil war – which is still doom, but not a subjugating kind of doom.
The population is unarmed. Small arms don't count, they're good for the shooting range and mass shootings, but not against a modern military.
But yes let's hope there will be elections again
But yes let's hope there will be elections again
Numbers matter. Only a small amount of insurgents are needed to occupy the military, but if even 2% of the civilian population took up arms, the situation would become untenable. All the armed forces together constitute not much more than one million troops. And there would be also conscientious resistance within the armed forces to executive orders to shoot civilians.
Actually Steve Jobs, in an interview, strongly argued against a wild west internet and called for "authoritative news organs" iirc. It was on YT a few years ago, may still be there.
There's always something scary for those whose team lost the last election.
And treating politics like team sports is the root of the problem
It started with the Free Palestine protesters. Tesla protesters are next. Citizens will be shipped to El Salvador, non-citizens to where they came from.
just to be clear, they aren't just detaining palestine protesters. they are also detaining labor activists: https://peoplesdispatch.org/2025/03/26/ice-is-kidnapping-imm...
government is going after activists for other political issues, not just palestine protestors
government is going after activists for other political issues, not just palestine protestors
Not if we protest en mass and all stick together. The thing that will kill us is if we obey in advance and don’t do these things.
As far as I can see nobody is sticking by the F1 students who are being deported.
The deportations are just flashy cruelty to obscure everything else.
It's also cruelty to folks who have absolutely nothing to defend themselves with. They are doing this just to deter people from practicing right to assembly and protest.
I think it's more of a typical tactic by authoritarian countries to do some high profile arrests with no recourse to strike fear into everyone's hearts that the same can happen to them and they'll have no recourse; which Ivy League grad students or faculty are going to join protests now?
Trump has repeatedly suggested that he will use the military on the "enemy from within". Protests could end up looking like what we see in Belarus and Russia - masked "police" shows up and they beat them up and / or take them away.
and that makes you scared? you are playing into his hand if so. that makes me want to go to the streets even more.
They didn't use the term scared, and being scared is not implicitly "going into hiding".
It's because I'm scared that I'm going to protest on April 5 in my state capital.
It's because I'm scared that I'm going to protest on April 5 in my state capital.
context clues suggest to me that the commenter is worried about militarized violence against protestors (scared)
If those protesters were harassing Jewish students (as happened at various times during these protests) or openly supporting a designated terrorist organization, they should be referred to law enforcement.
What many of them are doing isn’t a legally protected form of protesting.
Free Palestine protesters have been shutting down roads with their protests, this is illegal.
Tesla protesters are vandalizing the vehicles of private citizens and burning down dealerships. This is also illegal, and due to its political goals, it seems to fit the textbook definition of terrorism.
> the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
Had we not spent years tolerating these illegal forms of protest, maybe people would remember these are in fact illegal, and wouldn’t be so emboldened to keep doing them.
If someone wants to protest, that is their right. If someone is protesting by infringing on the free movement of other people, or using intimidation and violence to stir up fear to get people to comply with their ideology… that crosses well established lines.
Free Palestine protesters have been shutting down roads with their protests, this is illegal.
Tesla protesters are vandalizing the vehicles of private citizens and burning down dealerships. This is also illegal, and due to its political goals, it seems to fit the textbook definition of terrorism.
> the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
Had we not spent years tolerating these illegal forms of protest, maybe people would remember these are in fact illegal, and wouldn’t be so emboldened to keep doing them.
If someone wants to protest, that is their right. If someone is protesting by infringing on the free movement of other people, or using intimidation and violence to stir up fear to get people to comply with their ideology… that crosses well established lines.
> Free Palestine protesters have been shutting down roads with their protests, this is illegal.
If someone does something illegal, they can be charged with a crime and the legal process (access to a lawyer, courts, etc). It's not complicated and should not have any exceptions.
If someone does something illegal, they can be charged with a crime and the legal process (access to a lawyer, courts, etc). It's not complicated and should not have any exceptions.
You are taking large movements with at least tens of thousands of participants and cherry-picking actions of a few people, you are contributing to the free speech problem by making false associations.
If someone is breaking the law, they should be charged with a crime.
How are we at the point where that statement is a partisan issue?
How are we at the point where that statement is a partisan issue?
Most Tesla protests have been peaceful. There have been THOUSANDS of them the past few months in cities across the US. You’re cherry-picking the violent ones that get much louder reporting.
> Free Palestine protesters have been shutting down roads with their protests, this is illegal.
Yeah, and so? Is shutting down roads a "threat to US national security" and therefore warranting arrest without due process and green card revocation? The protesters should be charged with whatever city laws (certainly it's not a federal offense) they broke, and fined or whatever.
Yeah, and so? Is shutting down roads a "threat to US national security" and therefore warranting arrest without due process and green card revocation? The protesters should be charged with whatever city laws (certainly it's not a federal offense) they broke, and fined or whatever.
writing an oped isn't illegal. why is that grounds for being detained?
... Excuse me sir, could I interest you into what happened on January 6 of 2020?
That was also wrong and I thought it was horrible.
And then? In the end, who did you vote for? The attorney or the coupist?
They were rounded up, given due process, and locked away.
The coupist then got elected and freed his minions. The coupist is not giving the same dignity to these protesters, or even some american citizens who just look brown.
What's your point here?
The coupist then got elected and freed his minions. The coupist is not giving the same dignity to these protesters, or even some american citizens who just look brown.
What's your point here?
2021*
You mean this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF2MHRtONo4 and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmBk3T935CI is just free speech?
Here's the deal. You want free speech don't intimidate, threaten and vandalize.
I own a Tesla. I bought one because I wanted an EV to reduce my emissions and that was the best one (years ago). Your right to free speech doesn't trump (heh, see what I did there) my right to be safe.
EDIT: FWIW I am not American. Where I live there is no such thing as "free speech" like in America. We also don't all carry guns like in America. You guys do you. But I'm pretty sure the my links are not free speech, even in America.
Here's the deal. You want free speech don't intimidate, threaten and vandalize.
I own a Tesla. I bought one because I wanted an EV to reduce my emissions and that was the best one (years ago). Your right to free speech doesn't trump (heh, see what I did there) my right to be safe.
EDIT: FWIW I am not American. Where I live there is no such thing as "free speech" like in America. We also don't all carry guns like in America. You guys do you. But I'm pretty sure the my links are not free speech, even in America.
No, that is obviously not "just free speech". Sheesh. C'mon, man.
I am trying to make a point. Apparently very poorly.
Either way, these Tesla protests are just idiotic. The vandalism is criminal. If this is the way Americans save their democracy and the rest of us rely on them then we're all doomed.
Either way, these Tesla protests are just idiotic. The vandalism is criminal. If this is the way Americans save their democracy and the rest of us rely on them then we're all doomed.
I went to a Tesla protest. It was entirely peaceful. I personally don't fault someone for buying a Tesla, particularly before Elon went loony. My goal for the protest is to bring to attention the fact that the owner of that car company is party to the authoritarian takedown of my country, and that people should not support that company any more if they can avoid it.
I agree that vandalizing peoples' cars is illegal, I don't think it is practically useful, and golly gee, we still have a criminal justice system (for now) that can be used to punish those who commit acts of violence.
I agree that vandalizing peoples' cars is illegal, I don't think it is practically useful, and golly gee, we still have a criminal justice system (for now) that can be used to punish those who commit acts of violence.
We're not relying on them! The vandals are so harmful to our cause they're on the other side.
If you're relying on someone else to save your democracy then you are indeed doomed
I agree with you on vandalism, but how are the protests idiotic? And what's your suggestion for Americans saving their democracy?
Tesla is a large US company. Elon owns (less than?) 20% of it personally. They make cars in the US. I'll make Elon hurt by hurting Tesla is childish and counter-productive. Elon's not gonna care. So instead of protesting Tesla protest against the government.
Musk has power in part because he can pour enormous amounts of money into political races. A lot of that money is based on his Tesla and SpaceX holdings, so lower share prices directly reduce his ability to borrow against those shares.
We should treat the Free Palestine and Tesla protesters the same way J6 protesters were treated. Throw them in prison until the next Democrat president pardons them.
J6 wasn't a protest
I agree. Anybody who supports pardoning the J6 terrorists is obviously NOT supporting free speech because they support people who used violence to silence speech in congress.
When somebody uses violence it is not free speech it is suppression of free speech. You can't really speak freely when somebody hits you with a flagpole or pepperspray. Or even just threatens you with violence.
When somebody uses violence it is not free speech it is suppression of free speech. You can't really speak freely when somebody hits you with a flagpole or pepperspray. Or even just threatens you with violence.
The court seems to disagree. None of them were charged with insurrection.
weird. they didn't charge leaders of the confederate states of america with insurrection either (aka the civil war)
[deleted]
Recent win: US Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to New York Times vs. Sullivan. So less than four justices even thought it was worth looking at this issue again.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-turns-away-ca...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-turns-away-ca...
As a European for decades in the US, it is the first time in my life that I feel fear for expressing my opinions.
Ps does HN offer the capability of completely deleting the account and all of the comments ?
Ps does HN offer the capability of completely deleting the account and all of the comments ?
> Ps does HN offer the capability of completely deleting the account and all of the comments ?
They claim to allow deleting the account (just the name, they keep the comments up), but in practice they ignore requests. Source: personal experience.
They claim to allow deleting the account (just the name, they keep the comments up), but in practice they ignore requests. Source: personal experience.
Is that even legal for a CA based company?
Not as of 2018 with the CCPA: https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa#sectiond
they have 45 days to respond and another 45 days to delete the info.
they have 45 days to respond and another 45 days to delete the info.
Too late, they're already archived and you're better off buying that plane ticket North.
HN is archived by tens of 3rd party DBs (for better or worse) so requesting a full deletion is a step but it won’t scrub everything
Doing something is better than nothing.
I mule my account every few years. Just post something super-offensive to get banned and then create a new account.
We have no idea about YCombinator's retention of IP addresses and logs.
You can demand it under gdpr right to be forgotten and see where that gets you. Even being a US site they have to be compliant for EU users.
> Even being a US site they have to be compliant for EU users.
Why? What happens if not? EU-wide DNS ban? I haven't seen that yet...
Why? What happens if not? EU-wide DNS ban? I haven't seen that yet...
Comments are not personal data. You can't publish a book and then GDPR your publisher to stop publishing it.
They are personal data, and it's not a commercialized one (the main point of GDPR). I see no reason you cannot delete your own public comments, at least on the primary site.
That's a feature many have begged for, for years.
I thought this country was founded on the principles of enlightenment. And the same principles made it a world leader. Now that enlightenment values are actively being dismantled what next can we expect?
I think it starts with undermining the values: Note the disparagement of freedom, of knowledge, science, and education as ways humans can make their world better - even the idea of making the world better and of truth itself; of the rule of law rather than the rule of power, and the embrace of violence, athletics, etc. Notice the contempt for the enlightenment and embrace of ancient Rome and other sub-democratic or dictatorial government.
I don't think it's accidental; I think people have a plan to bring down institutions, and it's working so far.
I don't think it's accidental; I think people have a plan to bring down institutions, and it's working so far.
I don't think it's accidental either but the way to understand why it's happening is to ask who benefits from it. In most cases it would seem to be, Putin. He benefits from diminishing US, from stopping US support for democracy all over the world.
If the whole world is governed by say 3 dictators they can easily make peace with each other and share the spoils. But they won't because wars will increase their domestic support. Orwell wrote about this.
If the whole world is governed by say 3 dictators they can easily make peace with each other and share the spoils. But they won't because wars will increase their domestic support. Orwell wrote about this.
It wasn’t the MAGA movement that started dismantling Western culture in the US.
That’s been happening from Leftist criticism for generations.
That’s been happening from Leftist criticism for generations.
> That’s been happening from Leftist criticism for generations.
I'm talking about the principles: freedom, rights, and self-determination as self-evident, essential goods; progress as essential and good (real progress, not padding bank accounts); knowledge as the way humans can change their world; and knowledge provided by science and scholarship.
The left has criticized many things as lacking in knowledge and threats to freedom and rights, and the institutions, but not these principles.
> It wasn’t the MAGA movement that started dismantling Western culture in the US.
It was a branch of conservatives before them, but MAGA has fully embraced it. Look at the denial of freedom and human rights, replaced by a naked, aggressive embrace of oppression and cruelty. Look at the contempt for those things and progress, in the name of power. Look at replacing science with ideological disinformation - at even aggressively destroying science - even when it costs millions of lives, such as during a pandemic. How much blood is on their hands - how many needless deaths? Nobody talks about it.
I'm talking about the principles: freedom, rights, and self-determination as self-evident, essential goods; progress as essential and good (real progress, not padding bank accounts); knowledge as the way humans can change their world; and knowledge provided by science and scholarship.
The left has criticized many things as lacking in knowledge and threats to freedom and rights, and the institutions, but not these principles.
> It wasn’t the MAGA movement that started dismantling Western culture in the US.
It was a branch of conservatives before them, but MAGA has fully embraced it. Look at the denial of freedom and human rights, replaced by a naked, aggressive embrace of oppression and cruelty. Look at the contempt for those things and progress, in the name of power. Look at replacing science with ideological disinformation - at even aggressively destroying science - even when it costs millions of lives, such as during a pandemic. How much blood is on their hands - how many needless deaths? Nobody talks about it.
Do you mean academic Marxists or something?
Their impact outside of minor student circles has been 0. And for sure none of those are MAGA or Le Pen or AfD voters...
Their impact outside of minor student circles has been 0. And for sure none of those are MAGA or Le Pen or AfD voters...
It wasn’t America's principles that made it the world leader at the time—it was the fact that, unlike other major powers, it emerged from the world wars largely unscathed. Both peace settlements following the wars were widely criticized as unstable and unlikely to last, and they didn't.
I'd think peace after WWII lasted for 77 years (between 1945-2022 until the ukraine war broke out which appears to be the beginning of a new hot war).
I'd say war became hot again way back when with Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Korea. Proxy wars but wars nonetheless. A major war? Perhaps 2022 was the start of it like you said, that tracks. Hopefully not though.
One difference is that Ukraine is an international, cross-border war of conquest - the kind that was outlawed after WWII and hardly happened since. Vietnam and Korea were civil wars where the US sought no territory. Afghanistan had a different motive, but no conquest was desired.
I guess it depends how Europe responds to Greenland being invaded.
Europe will respond in 2 ways:
1. Short term: nothing major because it can't at the moment.
2. Long term: build up a military that is a credible military deterrent to the US, probably abandon NATO if the US doesn't, and form alliances with Canada and the UK.
1. Short term: nothing major because it can't at the moment.
2. Long term: build up a military that is a credible military deterrent to the US, probably abandon NATO if the US doesn't, and form alliances with Canada and the UK.
> Both peace settlements following the wars were widely criticized as unstable and unlikely to last, and they didn't.
Do you mean that "the" post-WWII peace settlement didn't last? It seems to have worked very well.
> It wasn’t America's principles that made it the world leader at the time—it was the fact that, unlike other major powers, it emerged from the world wars largely unscathed.
That certainly played a big role. Also, American principles that created a post-war order based on univeral human rights, the rule of law, and free-market capitalism (including free trade). Those principles led to treatment of the losing powers in that image, rather than in retribution, cruelty or oppression (compare to the USSR in Eastern Europe). In fact, Japan surrendered when they did mainly in order to surrender to the US and not to the USSR - those principles had very significant effects. They also led to the Marshall Plan in Europe.
The principles and the resulting actions created 'soft power' which may be unmatched in history. The general alliance with European powers has lasted over 80 years; the NATO military alliance, of mutual self-defense, has lasted almost as long - has there been anything like it?
People around the world fought and struggled for the vision of American freedom. I've spoken to people from different countries who, even in the first Trump administration, still had the American dream; they still saw the 'city on the hill'.
Beyond a doubt, the US also has done plenty of awful things. But what has distingiushed it, beyond every great power in history, are those principles.
Do you mean that "the" post-WWII peace settlement didn't last? It seems to have worked very well.
> It wasn’t America's principles that made it the world leader at the time—it was the fact that, unlike other major powers, it emerged from the world wars largely unscathed.
That certainly played a big role. Also, American principles that created a post-war order based on univeral human rights, the rule of law, and free-market capitalism (including free trade). Those principles led to treatment of the losing powers in that image, rather than in retribution, cruelty or oppression (compare to the USSR in Eastern Europe). In fact, Japan surrendered when they did mainly in order to surrender to the US and not to the USSR - those principles had very significant effects. They also led to the Marshall Plan in Europe.
The principles and the resulting actions created 'soft power' which may be unmatched in history. The general alliance with European powers has lasted over 80 years; the NATO military alliance, of mutual self-defense, has lasted almost as long - has there been anything like it?
People around the world fought and struggled for the vision of American freedom. I've spoken to people from different countries who, even in the first Trump administration, still had the American dream; they still saw the 'city on the hill'.
Beyond a doubt, the US also has done plenty of awful things. But what has distingiushed it, beyond every great power in history, are those principles.
No, war by proxies is not peace.
Agreed, but there is far less war of any sort, and - almost miraculously - the near-total elimination of international war. It's a staggering accomplishment.
To say that some war remains is to make perfection the only standard. Let's reduce it even more, but to claim the post-war order hasn't overseen extraordinary peace, freedom and prosperity is ridiculous.
To say that some war remains is to make perfection the only standard. Let's reduce it even more, but to claim the post-war order hasn't overseen extraordinary peace, freedom and prosperity is ridiculous.
>I thought this country was founded on the principles of enlightenment.
I'm gonna be honest, the actual founding fathers as individuals aside, most of the people coming over where arguably running away from the Enlightenment rather than towards it, and a superstitious and fantastical isolationism was the norm, not the exception for most of America's history, while the post WWII leadership role was more of an accident. In some ways, this is old habits reasserting themselves
I'm gonna be honest, the actual founding fathers as individuals aside, most of the people coming over where arguably running away from the Enlightenment rather than towards it, and a superstitious and fantastical isolationism was the norm, not the exception for most of America's history, while the post WWII leadership role was more of an accident. In some ways, this is old habits reasserting themselves
Reading _First Principles_ by Thomas Ricks a few years ago was an eye opener -- the founding fathers and national civic culture definitely drew deeply from enlightenment thinking and further back classical civics and philosophy.
Towards the end of his book, Ricks notes the populist / religious backlash to enlightenment thinking that was already underway by the early 19th century.
It's strange to realize the post WWII America most of us have lived may really be exceptional, and how many either don't understand how big a part the liberal order has played in making America great since FDR, or have a different vision of greatness that requires tearing much of what we've enjoyed down.
Towards the end of his book, Ricks notes the populist / religious backlash to enlightenment thinking that was already underway by the early 19th century.
It's strange to realize the post WWII America most of us have lived may really be exceptional, and how many either don't understand how big a part the liberal order has played in making America great since FDR, or have a different vision of greatness that requires tearing much of what we've enjoyed down.
> may really be exceptional
That's a claim of its enemies, who look for any rationalization to destroy the greatest success of its kind in human history - when there isn't even a crisis.
That's a claim of its enemies, who look for any rationalization to destroy the greatest success of its kind in human history - when there isn't even a crisis.
Enlightenment - and slavery. And the ethnic cleansing of the natives.
Americans from the very beginning started playing on words - "all men are equal, but women aren't men, natives aren't citizens, and negros aren't even humans"
Americans from the very beginning started playing on words - "all men are equal, but women aren't men, natives aren't citizens, and negros aren't even humans"
Absolutely, but they reject those things now, by following the Enlightenment principles - except for the people attacking the Enlightenment institutions, who are embracing these old prejudices and hatred and oppression.
I was under the impression the US became a world leader mostly because of being in the right place after WW2. It wasn't really a leading country before that?
Read some Adam Smith (1776 -- Wealth of Nations). How highly he talks about America back then. It was always leading economically.
[deleted]
Dark age?
1) Dark enlightenment:
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/dark-enlightenment-elon...
(Does this ring a bell -- as in Dark MAGA?)
2) The Interview Curtis Yarvin Says Democracy Is Done. Powerful Conservatives Are Listening. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in...
3) The philosophy behind Trump’s Dark Enlightenment An English magus of anti-democratic neoreaction has become a touchstone for the alt-right https://archive.is/SWAFE
(Does this ring a bell -- as in Dark MAGA?)
2) The Interview Curtis Yarvin Says Democracy Is Done. Powerful Conservatives Are Listening. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in...
3) The philosophy behind Trump’s Dark Enlightenment An English magus of anti-democratic neoreaction has become a touchstone for the alt-right https://archive.is/SWAFE
mychael(5)
The 22nd Amendment is also under attack: https://apnews.com/article/trump-third-term-constitution-22n...
> many GOP lawmakers are now heeding their leadership’s advice to stay away from local town hall meetings and avoid the wrath of constituent
I hope the opposition party realizes what an opportunity this is
I hope the opposition party realizes what an opportunity this is
> I hope the opposition party realizes what an opportunity this is
They do and have been exploiting it for a while.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/5220...
“House Democrats are ramping up their aggressive strategy of conducting town halls in Republican-held districts, vying to exploit the GOP’s advised moratorium on the events to make inroads with frustrated voters, pick up battleground seats, and flip control of the House in next year’s midterms.
“A number of Democrats who ventured this month into GOP territory said they liked what they saw: anxious voters who are up in arms over both President Trump’s dismantling of the federal government and the reluctance of the majority Republicans to provide a check on executive power.
“Encouraged by their experiences, Democrats say they not only intend to return to those battleground districts, they’re also eyeing plans to broaden their range in the weeks and months to come. The Democrats’ campaign arms, in some cases, are helping to coordinate the effort.”
They do and have been exploiting it for a while.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/5220...
“House Democrats are ramping up their aggressive strategy of conducting town halls in Republican-held districts, vying to exploit the GOP’s advised moratorium on the events to make inroads with frustrated voters, pick up battleground seats, and flip control of the House in next year’s midterms.
“A number of Democrats who ventured this month into GOP territory said they liked what they saw: anxious voters who are up in arms over both President Trump’s dismantling of the federal government and the reluctance of the majority Republicans to provide a check on executive power.
“Encouraged by their experiences, Democrats say they not only intend to return to those battleground districts, they’re also eyeing plans to broaden their range in the weeks and months to come. The Democrats’ campaign arms, in some cases, are helping to coordinate the effort.”
I think we are severely underestimating what Democrats are up against here.
A recent episode of This American Life Ten Things I Don't Want to Hate About You[0] gives just a absolutely mind bending look at just how bad the situation is with a subset of the American public.
The synopsis is that the father in this family has been so taken by conspiracy theories that it's breaking apart a family. To settle things, he makes a $10k bet with his son over a series of 10 events he believes will absolutely happen in 2024. As the clock ticks over to 2025 and not a single prediction came true, he simply moves the goal posts and does not admit any wrong, even as his wife divorces him and his daughter becomes estranged.
It's a showcase of how absolutely lost in the flood of actual fake news some Americans have become and it's scary because these folks that are divorced from reality are typically the highly motivated voter that actually goes out there and votes.
My point here is that if you listen to this and think "Democrats have an opportunity", then you may not understand just how bad it is and that democracy is up against a cult.
[0] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/854/ten-things-i-dont-want-...
A recent episode of This American Life Ten Things I Don't Want to Hate About You[0] gives just a absolutely mind bending look at just how bad the situation is with a subset of the American public.
The synopsis is that the father in this family has been so taken by conspiracy theories that it's breaking apart a family. To settle things, he makes a $10k bet with his son over a series of 10 events he believes will absolutely happen in 2024. As the clock ticks over to 2025 and not a single prediction came true, he simply moves the goal posts and does not admit any wrong, even as his wife divorces him and his daughter becomes estranged.
It's a showcase of how absolutely lost in the flood of actual fake news some Americans have become and it's scary because these folks that are divorced from reality are typically the highly motivated voter that actually goes out there and votes.
My point here is that if you listen to this and think "Democrats have an opportunity", then you may not understand just how bad it is and that democracy is up against a cult.
[0] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/854/ten-things-i-dont-want-...
If the cult doesn't vote or is overrun by engaged normal people, then we can dismisss them as that father did his family. Cults aren't necessarily known for their majority rule (exposing them to the public is often poison to them).
People engaged in going to townhalls are absolutely a great measure of what will actually happen at the polls. Especially in non-national elections which often have a small fraction of turnout and a few hundred votes can swing an entire election.
People engaged in going to townhalls are absolutely a great measure of what will actually happen at the polls. Especially in non-national elections which often have a small fraction of turnout and a few hundred votes can swing an entire election.
We need a new political party not beholden to a certain lobby. From my perspective (which spans decades) this has been a (somewhat barely) disguised pas de deux.
If using Signal to discuss a bombing was done to evade FOIA, how many other cases do American citizens remain unaware of (and probably can never learn about)?
I'm still scratching my head at how some people are surprised by this overreaction. It seems a lot of people think the current fawning over authoritarianism came out of a vacuum. All of the sudden a majority of America came out of stasis and flocked to the polls to elect a dictator.
Well, if you look at it from the perspective of faithless reporting like that from Fox News and Newsmax, the information pipeline has been selling a narrative that the left has been on an authoritarian tear since Obama. The newscasts are chilling: every one of them for more than two decades has taken a position that the left is an existential threat to the United States.
With that kind of context, it's really no wonder there's support from the right for an authoritarian leader. They honestly just think they're playing the democrats game and playing it better.
It _is_ a bit odd there's a complete lack of reflection on some of these moves though, but I suppose so long as the current executive branch veers away from changing the second amendment and manages to carve out enough exceptions for their most ardent supporters, all's good from their standpoint.
With that kind of context, it's really no wonder there's support from the right for an authoritarian leader. They honestly just think they're playing the democrats game and playing it better.
It _is_ a bit odd there's a complete lack of reflection on some of these moves though, but I suppose so long as the current executive branch veers away from changing the second amendment and manages to carve out enough exceptions for their most ardent supporters, all's good from their standpoint.
A lot of people don't like being told to what say/think/do. It turns out if you bully those people enough they elect a dictator. It wasn't and still isn't a surprise to me.
Perhaps we made the mistake of thinking that the people who "don't like being told to what[sic] say/think/do" actually had something resembling principles rather than a petty and childish desire to dictate what others are allowed to say/think/do.
[deleted]
I think what we know about disinformation shows people don't have to actually be bullied, they just have to think they're being bullied. Disinformation is cheap and apparently yields great returns.
I mean, this is exactly the kind of thinking that got us here. We just attribute everything to disinformation and throw our hands up as if none of this was avoidable. I'm convinced that people on the right were called Nazi's long enough that some people literally think _every_ one of them is a literal, actual Nazi. To the point where they think there's no hope in ever reaching them.
I saw this coming years ago. The rhetoric on both sides was never going to end up in anything remotely resembling healthy. Both sides are too busy pointing fingers now to really want to do anything about it.
I saw this coming years ago. The rhetoric on both sides was never going to end up in anything remotely resembling healthy. Both sides are too busy pointing fingers now to really want to do anything about it.
> We just attribute everything to disinformation
The full effect that disinformation has had on Americans is probably impossible to measure, but with evidence like the Mueller report, you cannot deny that it has had some tangible effect. With Russia's efforts and the outcome of the 2016 election, I would be surprised if they did not continue and even ramp up their efforts in subsequent elections.
The full effect that disinformation has had on Americans is probably impossible to measure, but with evidence like the Mueller report, you cannot deny that it has had some tangible effect. With Russia's efforts and the outcome of the 2016 election, I would be surprised if they did not continue and even ramp up their efforts in subsequent elections.
> We just attribute everything to disinformation and throw our hands up as if none of this was avoidable
Well yes. it was. This was avoidable, but not by those fooled with fear from lies. It came from the rational people who felt their vote didn't matter, or that fell for obvious distractions as if somehow Trump was better because their aligned candidate wasn't the perfect progressive.
>Both sides are too busy pointing fingers now to really want to do anything about it.
if you only focus on the radicals, it's not surprising you become radical yourself and cast aside the grand majority of moderates. That both sidesing narrative is also a trick.
Well yes. it was. This was avoidable, but not by those fooled with fear from lies. It came from the rational people who felt their vote didn't matter, or that fell for obvious distractions as if somehow Trump was better because their aligned candidate wasn't the perfect progressive.
>Both sides are too busy pointing fingers now to really want to do anything about it.
if you only focus on the radicals, it's not surprising you become radical yourself and cast aside the grand majority of moderates. That both sidesing narrative is also a trick.
Leaders and others on the right have been embracing white (male) supremacy and Nazis, including Musk. It's not subtle; it's often brazen.
> some people literally think _every_ one of them is a literal, actual Nazi
I've never heard that. Can you give an example?
I think much of what you say comes from the right-wing disinformation machine - it's their talking points, and doesn't reflect anything I've experienced. Can you provide some evidence for any of it?
> some people literally think _every_ one of them is a literal, actual Nazi
I've never heard that. Can you give an example?
I think much of what you say comes from the right-wing disinformation machine - it's their talking points, and doesn't reflect anything I've experienced. Can you provide some evidence for any of it?
> I think much of what you say comes from the right-wing disinformation machine
Here we are again. It seems to be the default mode for anything that doesn't match the mainstream narrative. Perhaps you've never heard of it because you haven't been misidentified with the right before? As a centrist, it happens a lot, and there have been plenty of instances where I was called a Nazi.
Of course it's impossible for either one of us to prove how regularly this happens. However, it seems silly to be surprised that someone on the left is unaware of it. Of course, they are. It's completely logical, just like someone on the right being completely unaware of how the right often treats left-wing individuals.
Here we are again. It seems to be the default mode for anything that doesn't match the mainstream narrative. Perhaps you've never heard of it because you haven't been misidentified with the right before? As a centrist, it happens a lot, and there have been plenty of instances where I was called a Nazi.
Of course it's impossible for either one of us to prove how regularly this happens. However, it seems silly to be surprised that someone on the left is unaware of it. Of course, they are. It's completely logical, just like someone on the right being completely unaware of how the right often treats left-wing individuals.
So do you have any evidence or support what is so far an empty assertion?
"some people literally think _every_ one of them is a literal, actual Nazi"
If that's true in any significant way, there should be plenty of public examples.
Instead of engaging in a serious discussion, you resort to changing the subject, and (effectively) disinformation about me. I take that as a signal that the rest of what you say is equally baseless and only repeats the right-wing talking points.
"some people literally think _every_ one of them is a literal, actual Nazi"
If that's true in any significant way, there should be plenty of public examples.
Instead of engaging in a serious discussion, you resort to changing the subject, and (effectively) disinformation about me. I take that as a signal that the rest of what you say is equally baseless and only repeats the right-wing talking points.
No, the occasional hazy reflection of the constant barrage of "socialist/communist/Marxist" accusations from the right did not cause the problem and Democrats being even more limp-wristed would not have fixed it.
Isn't the dictator telling people what to say/think/do far more than any government leader in US history?
But a government is supposed to tell you what to say, think, and do. This dictatorial government is actually enforcing that you say and think what they want, unlike all the others.
And yet they're being told to say/think/do every single day by Trump, Fox News, and the rest of conservative or alt right media, including people like Alex Jones and Joe Rogan.
They love being told what to think.
They love being told what to think.
You can literally watch this stuff real time on the internet now. Trump does something awful. Conservatives online are confused and start asking questions. Talking points from Fox News come out and basically every single conservative online is parroting the party talking points handed down to them. No more confusion.
Thank you for pointing this pattern out. I've seen it time and time again, most prominently after Jan 6. I think a big part is the manipulation of online spaces, e.g. the subreddits - threads and comments counter the narrative are quickly deleted, and they start piling onto anyone who still disagrees, calling them RINOs and so on.
It's scary just how cult-ish this pattern is.
It's scary just how cult-ish this pattern is.
I always wonder what that must be like. There is no authority I trust and believe as much as they do Fox News or Trump. There's no simple answer, no easy solution. Trying to figure out what actually happened can take days, weeks, even years. And even then, it might remain unclear and there's often no certainty to be had. But for them, the answer, the cause, whatever, is there for them the very next evening. In bite-sized nuggets they can repeat without thinking.
The left has been authoritarian. Rewind the clock to 2018, and speak your mind freely on a college campus and at some point you’ll say something that makes you lose your job. That’s one of many examples of the left being actually authoritarian.
I’m not saying two wrongs make a right and I’m not justifying the current administration. But if we look to how we got here, that’s a lot of why, if not mostly why.
I’m not saying two wrongs make a right and I’m not justifying the current administration. But if we look to how we got here, that’s a lot of why, if not mostly why.
Calling overzealous campus progressives of 2018 authoritarian is quite silly next to the actual demonstrations of actual authoritarian behavior from the actual authorities actually happening right now.
The right, as they have for decades, would find something to demonize - it has nothing to do with campus politics.
Also, you can't compare their power to a US president, congressional majority, and Supreme Court justices. How many people live on campuses and how many are in the country? And finally, they didn't seek to take power from others, but to empower them - whether or not you like to see that happen or their strategies.
Also, you can't compare their power to a US president, congressional majority, and Supreme Court justices. How many people live on campuses and how many are in the country? And finally, they didn't seek to take power from others, but to empower them - whether or not you like to see that happen or their strategies.
I'm amenable to hearing out this argument, but it would be rude to let you slip by with "in 2018, if you spoke your mind, you'd get fired." You and I both know that wouldn't fly in middle school debate class, even, and I don't want to cheapen our relationship by nodding along to it.
I think it's fair to call out a action reaction flow that got us here; but if we can't see we have swag into something far more destructive to free speech as the article outlines; I don't count this as intellectual honest discussion.
We are past the point of "everyone has their perspective on this" right and left have their own version of this etc. The system that protected people's right to have different opinions is being dismantled.
We are past the point of "everyone has their perspective on this" right and left have their own version of this etc. The system that protected people's right to have different opinions is being dismantled.
Having social repercussions for things you say isn't the government. How is that authoritarian?
It is astoundingly intellectually dishonest for anybody who identifies with the American right, which espouses values of personal responsibility and the rights of organizations such as companies and universities to self-govern, to imply that a direct application of these values is "authoritarian".
Free speech is understood as the ability to express yourself and your beliefs without consequences from the government, it has never meant to practically anyone that it means that as a culture no individual or organization will take action against you. This is personal responsibility in action, you must be prepared to shoulder the consequences of what you say and do.
People losing their jobs in universities and otherwise for expressing certain beliefs is not somehow unique to the American political left of the preceding decade, and it is strange that people have been misled into thinking that it is. Of course it is regrettable that some people may have lost their jobs engaging in good-faith reasoned expression of their beliefs, but you cannot argue that this is somehow the result of "the left".
I intentionally make no judgment here on whether I believe the climate that existed on American college campuses during that time is something desirable, but people doing things that you do not like is not "being actually authoritarian".
Free speech is understood as the ability to express yourself and your beliefs without consequences from the government, it has never meant to practically anyone that it means that as a culture no individual or organization will take action against you. This is personal responsibility in action, you must be prepared to shoulder the consequences of what you say and do.
People losing their jobs in universities and otherwise for expressing certain beliefs is not somehow unique to the American political left of the preceding decade, and it is strange that people have been misled into thinking that it is. Of course it is regrettable that some people may have lost their jobs engaging in good-faith reasoned expression of their beliefs, but you cannot argue that this is somehow the result of "the left".
I intentionally make no judgment here on whether I believe the climate that existed on American college campuses during that time is something desirable, but people doing things that you do not like is not "being actually authoritarian".
Ah yes, because college campuses and the literal federal administration have the same level of power. Absolute tosh.
It's a little surprising to see the reactions. It's some sort social phenomenon. It's as if people are awakening to the real world for the first time. Yes, the intensity and the breadth is new (for recent generations anyways). However, almost all of these actions have precedent in prior administrations. It would be nice if we can strengthen protections against abuses, but my guess is that as soon as we get a new administration, the fervor will be lost and similar actions to these will quietly continue.
Deporting people for an op Ed has precedent in which administration?
Plenty, and it's all pretty ugly
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids
So you're saying it hasn't happened in 4-5 generations? While certainly precedent, it's understandable people are worried about it.
No, I just gave one example. I could keep posting examples, but it keeps happening over and over again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
"The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 deemed immigrants who were anarchists or members of or affiliated with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian organizations that plan to overthrow the United States as deportable immigrants. Immigrants who were successors of any association of Communism, regardless of name changes, still fell under the deportable immigrants. Immigrants who advocated, taught, wrote, published in support for communism, a totalitarian dictatorship, and the overthrowing of the United States were also deportable immigrants."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
"The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 deemed immigrants who were anarchists or members of or affiliated with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian organizations that plan to overthrow the United States as deportable immigrants. Immigrants who were successors of any association of Communism, regardless of name changes, still fell under the deportable immigrants. Immigrants who advocated, taught, wrote, published in support for communism, a totalitarian dictatorship, and the overthrowing of the United States were also deportable immigrants."
Eh, similar stuff has happened more recently. Like Obama canceling Israeli nuclear scientists' visas so they couldn't attend a conference. Again, these things have gone on for a long time, just not at the scope/intensity we see now. The lower intensity instances are rarely reported on and gives people the impression that this is new.
> It's as if people are awakening to the real world for the first time.
Lucky 10k: https://xkcd.com/1053/
>Yes, the intensity and the breadth is new (for recent generations anyways).
Yes, that is a big factor. Big difference between covert guantanomo bay arrests and outright making which house announcements about El Salvadar. They are saying the quiet part out loud and people can't ignore it any longer.
>my guess is that as soon as we get a new administration, the fervor will be lost and similar actions to these will quietly continue.
Well yes. Policy is a full time+ job and most people don't have the time and energy to watch every action of their government.
It's up to the reps elected to keep that momentum up.
Lucky 10k: https://xkcd.com/1053/
>Yes, the intensity and the breadth is new (for recent generations anyways).
Yes, that is a big factor. Big difference between covert guantanomo bay arrests and outright making which house announcements about El Salvadar. They are saying the quiet part out loud and people can't ignore it any longer.
>my guess is that as soon as we get a new administration, the fervor will be lost and similar actions to these will quietly continue.
Well yes. Policy is a full time+ job and most people don't have the time and energy to watch every action of their government.
It's up to the reps elected to keep that momentum up.
How do you recognize a fascist, or whatever you call people who want less rather than more democracy?
I think a good rule is this: They won't agree to disagree with anybody.
Why? Because they have to suppress free speech of others, to gain and stay in power.
I think a good rule is this: They won't agree to disagree with anybody.
Why? Because they have to suppress free speech of others, to gain and stay in power.
While I think many of us here abhor political content on HN, Brian has taken a data driven approach to this post and provided an excellent roundup of facts and events. Conservatives and liberals both would be well advised to read his excellent roundup. He is doing this at great personal cost to his readership, if the comments on his blog are anything to go by.
It's called Project 2025. It's designed to destroy the checks and balances of the US government. They aren't hiding it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025#Allegations_of_au...
What is nuts to me is there is no liberal project to counter this. Conservatives have this really impressive drive to organize and work together, and liberals just in-fight and throw up their hands and complain. Autocracy is all but guaranteed.
What is nuts to me is there is no liberal project to counter this. Conservatives have this really impressive drive to organize and work together, and liberals just in-fight and throw up their hands and complain. Autocracy is all but guaranteed.
Perhaps being in favour of free expression is finally about to stop being unfashionable and offensive.
See this other HN thread for concrete examples of how the climate is currently fucked. I genuinely can’t tell if the commenters are trying to be satirical, but the point seems moot.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43506657
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43506657
I think you linked the wrong thread, this one is about DOGE.
No, that’s the correct thread. It looks like the comments I saw have been deleted, but folks were accusing the author of the article of terrorism and anticipating the author’s arrest for having written it
Edit* turns out the comments are still there, just flagged and dead.
Edit* turns out the comments are still there, just flagged and dead.
I think a lot of people convinced themselves he was going to be as restrained as in Trump 1 and we'd get a fairly standard pro-crypto, pro-business, tax cutting Republican. Instead we've elected a mad king.
Of all the terrible attacks on the 1A, I find this one the most disturbing as it amounts to nothing less than mafia-style extortion:
> The POTUS recently issued several executive orders railing against specific law firms with attorneys who worked legal cases against him. On Friday, the president announced that the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom had agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports.
> Trump issued another order naming the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which ultimately agreed to pledge $40 million in pro bono legal services to the president’s causes.
> The POTUS recently issued several executive orders railing against specific law firms with attorneys who worked legal cases against him. On Friday, the president announced that the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom had agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports.
> Trump issued another order naming the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which ultimately agreed to pledge $40 million in pro bono legal services to the president’s causes.
This is a case of things must get better before they get worse… Basic right in america have been declining for years now. And now its happening all at once.
The question is how bad does it have to get before the average Americans start to unite and fight back against this billionaire friendly legislation.
This country started by revolting over taxes on tea.
The question is how bad does it have to get before the average Americans start to unite and fight back against this billionaire friendly legislation.
This country started by revolting over taxes on tea.
Don’t you mean get worse before they get better?
Most of the time these means people getting killed.
The human rights resolution needed the terror of WW2
Most of the time these means people getting killed.
The human rights resolution needed the terror of WW2
Now might be a good time to revisit the twitter files and really try to understand what was in them and why it was horrifying. Seems many people wanted to pretend they were nothing because it didn't suit their partisan narrative. We're seeing the same kinds of justification now just with different partisans.
If we don't call out abuses by our own tribe (whichever that is), maybe we're part of the attack.
If we don't call out abuses by our own tribe (whichever that is), maybe we're part of the attack.
The Twitter files that document the FBI requesting takedown of posts and accounts, Twitter internally debating the request, refusing the FBI and then suffering no consequences?
Those Twitter files?
Meanwhile Trump is suing pollsters for publications he doesn't like; extorting law firms for representation as reparation for them representing clients that sued him, who is deporting lawful permenant residents without due process for speech that is protected.
How can you possibly look at these and think they are in any way equivelant?
Those Twitter files?
Meanwhile Trump is suing pollsters for publications he doesn't like; extorting law firms for representation as reparation for them representing clients that sued him, who is deporting lawful permenant residents without due process for speech that is protected.
How can you possibly look at these and think they are in any way equivelant?
The Twitter files are basically the same as the Mueller report at this point. Folks completely ignorant to the topic and who have never read them hold them up as proof that they were right all along. Never mind that if they could actually read and understand the documents, they would realize they show the opposite of what they claim.
It's maddening.
I'm glad I left the US.
I'm glad I left the US.
> refusing the FBI and then suffering no consequences
The whole thing was clearly just a partisan smear job in your eyes. Precisely the same reaction as the views of current maga types about the current first am disasters.
It's worth revisiting /precisely/ in relation to fighting the current assault. It's worth noting who publicly opposed /both/.
The whole thing was clearly just a partisan smear job in your eyes. Precisely the same reaction as the views of current maga types about the current first am disasters.
It's worth revisiting /precisely/ in relation to fighting the current assault. It's worth noting who publicly opposed /both/.
No, comparing the two at this point is an attempt to pretend this insanity is the other side of the same coin. They're simply not.
Look at the spectrum.
1. Someone commits a harm (pick any one of the harms I listed from Trump above)
2. Someone attempts a harm and either hasn't succeeded yet or fails
3. Someone threatens a harm against someone.
4. Someone makes a request that implies they could escalate to a threat of harm if they were to be refused. (This is the worst you can reasonably claim the Twitter files as evidence for)
That is how far apart these two instances are. If you disagree please be specific because this claim that both sides are equivalent is absurd, especially when people refuse to ground out the example when confronted.
Look at the spectrum.
1. Someone commits a harm (pick any one of the harms I listed from Trump above)
2. Someone attempts a harm and either hasn't succeeded yet or fails
3. Someone threatens a harm against someone.
4. Someone makes a request that implies they could escalate to a threat of harm if they were to be refused. (This is the worst you can reasonably claim the Twitter files as evidence for)
That is how far apart these two instances are. If you disagree please be specific because this claim that both sides are equivalent is absurd, especially when people refuse to ground out the example when confronted.
You don’t stand on principle don’t expect the principle to stand.
No it’s them it’s always them…
No it’s them it’s always them…
My democracy for an example
The government successfully threatens a private company to make then censor.
Is that ok? Not for them.
Is that ok? Not for them.
But that's not what happened in the Twitter files.
Requests were made, no threats. Some were complied with when Twitter agreed, some were denied.
There were no consequences for the refusals.
Please, cite a specific threat. A lawsuit, a link, a source, a quote, anything. And if you link the Twitter files themselves, let's make sure we actually run their sources to ground, because what they present them as and what they actually say are two different things.
Requests were made, no threats. Some were complied with when Twitter agreed, some were denied.
There were no consequences for the refusals.
Please, cite a specific threat. A lawsuit, a link, a source, a quote, anything. And if you link the Twitter files themselves, let's make sure we actually run their sources to ground, because what they present them as and what they actually say are two different things.
One example of plenty.
https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/how-twitter-let-the-inte...
From no. 20 but you should really read all of it. The cynic in me expects the goalposts to move and more smear.
20. “Were Twitter a contractor for the FSB… they could not have built a more effective disinformation platform,” Johns Hopkins Professor (and Intel Committee “expert”) Thomas Rid told Politico.
"Were Twitter a contractor for the FSB," the Russian intelligence agency involved in the 2016 campaign to meddle in the US election Rid Said, "They could not have built a more effective disinformation platform."
21. As congress threatened costly legislation, and Twitter began was subject to more bad press fueled by the committees, the company changed its tune about the smallness of its Russia problem.
Republican partisan's probably see it as treason. Democrats partisans pretend it's a "nothingburger." Everyone else who notices is getting despondent which is probably just as bad.
FIRE, Greenwald, Taibbi have stood and continue to stand on principle not partisan and will get relentlessly smeared with insane lies because of it.
edit: sidenote. For me the google search "twitter files taibbi" without quotes returned Tabbi's publication racket on page 4. From there I could get the twitter files separate publication. That seems like a very bad search fail. I wonder why it is like that.
https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/how-twitter-let-the-inte...
From no. 20 but you should really read all of it. The cynic in me expects the goalposts to move and more smear.
20. “Were Twitter a contractor for the FSB… they could not have built a more effective disinformation platform,” Johns Hopkins Professor (and Intel Committee “expert”) Thomas Rid told Politico.
"Were Twitter a contractor for the FSB," the Russian intelligence agency involved in the 2016 campaign to meddle in the US election Rid Said, "They could not have built a more effective disinformation platform."
21. As congress threatened costly legislation, and Twitter began was subject to more bad press fueled by the committees, the company changed its tune about the smallness of its Russia problem.
Republican partisan's probably see it as treason. Democrats partisans pretend it's a "nothingburger." Everyone else who notices is getting despondent which is probably just as bad.
FIRE, Greenwald, Taibbi have stood and continue to stand on principle not partisan and will get relentlessly smeared with insane lies because of it.
edit: sidenote. For me the google search "twitter files taibbi" without quotes returned Tabbi's publication racket on page 4. From there I could get the twitter files separate publication. That seems like a very bad search fail. I wonder why it is like that.
Non of that is incompatible with what I've said though.
Looming legislation and contracting alone are not a problem.
With all this scrutiny there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.
This is what I was getting at above, that there is room in the Twitter files for a chilling effect on speech when it comes to these competing interests, but what you're comparing it to is so far beyond the pale as to be absurd.
Look at this without the vitriol. There's a lot of stuff that looks weird, but it's been heavily investigated and so far no one has found anything deeper.
When you compare that to measurable harm, I think it's right that people take issue
Looming legislation and contracting alone are not a problem.
With all this scrutiny there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.
This is what I was getting at above, that there is room in the Twitter files for a chilling effect on speech when it comes to these competing interests, but what you're comparing it to is so far beyond the pale as to be absurd.
Look at this without the vitriol. There's a lot of stuff that looks weird, but it's been heavily investigated and so far no one has found anything deeper.
When you compare that to measurable harm, I think it's right that people take issue
The government threatening legislation unless a company censors in line with the government's wishes is wrong and a violation of the 1st am.
Your excuses & justifications, maga's, no different when it comes to the health of the 1st am.
"Because it's THEM, they're worse! They're the baddies! You can't compare this evil thing to their evil thing which is so much worse!"
FIRE have non-partisan credibility. Maybe see what they think.
Your excuses & justifications, maga's, no different when it comes to the health of the 1st am.
"Because it's THEM, they're worse! They're the baddies! You can't compare this evil thing to their evil thing which is so much worse!"
FIRE have non-partisan credibility. Maybe see what they think.
> The government threatening legislation unless a company censors in line with the government's wishes is wrong and a violation of the 1st am.
What is the evidence of that? There was proposed legislation, but where was the evidence of "do this or else". Are you saying that the FBI was conspiring with the legislative branch? What evidence is there of that?
I've conceded the potential for a chilling effect three times now, there is a speech issue, but no evidence of a severity even nearly on par.
Look at the lengths you have to go to to get this point, you go and find sources that allege all the same things I've already described but very angrily and then tell me I'm the one too emotionally invested to see this clearly.
What is the evidence of that? There was proposed legislation, but where was the evidence of "do this or else". Are you saying that the FBI was conspiring with the legislative branch? What evidence is there of that?
I've conceded the potential for a chilling effect three times now, there is a speech issue, but no evidence of a severity even nearly on par.
Look at the lengths you have to go to to get this point, you go and find sources that allege all the same things I've already described but very angrily and then tell me I'm the one too emotionally invested to see this clearly.
> Now might be a good time to revisit the twitter files
Or we could skip the whataboutism that tries to go back to a prior administration, and instead focus on the current administration’s actions which are demonstrably far worse.
Or we could skip the whataboutism that tries to go back to a prior administration, and instead focus on the current administration’s actions which are demonstrably far worse.
What about we stand on _principle_. What about we criticise and oppose /all/ transgressions of that principle. What about we all do it more loudly for whatever tribe we have some loose membership of and don't excuse it because it is politically expedient.
That's whataboutism nowadays.
That's whataboutism nowadays.
Exactly. Let's not forget the real attempts at the government's internet censorship of previous administrations. Nobody seemed to care about that then.
Like give me a break. The previous admin took steps towards censoring real information that would be politically harmful to them, and now we're supposed to feel bad about the current admin who is taking productive steps against antagonist agents within our country?
I get that the law in this country is pliable and a nuanced subject but I'd rather deal with the latter issue - where our government is challenging the boundaries of the 1st amendment against our own enemies rather than their own people lol
Like give me a break. The previous admin took steps towards censoring real information that would be politically harmful to them, and now we're supposed to feel bad about the current admin who is taking productive steps against antagonist agents within our country?
I get that the law in this country is pliable and a nuanced subject but I'd rather deal with the latter issue - where our government is challenging the boundaries of the 1st amendment against our own enemies rather than their own people lol
Let me get this straight what the previous government did was wrong but what they now do is right because it’s against antagonist agents?
Sorry but that sounds like out of the fascist playbook.
They all just fought against „enemies“, but they decided who was declared an enemy.
In the end everybody who said anything against them was declared an enemy.
Sorry but that sounds like out of the fascist playbook.
They all just fought against „enemies“, but they decided who was declared an enemy.
In the end everybody who said anything against them was declared an enemy.
Was this mirrored anywhere?
I don't think things are going to get any better before they're really, really much worse. Nobody's going to do anything until someone does way too much.
This is the revolution gig economy. Don't forget to click that bell so you can be notified of new videos as they come out.
This is the revolution gig economy. Don't forget to click that bell so you can be notified of new videos as they come out.
I understand why these things have to be posted, but I would be lying if I said that I wasn't utterly exhausted by the constant shit that the Trump administration is spitting at us. I mean, I get it, bad shit needs to be reported on, the Trump admin does a lot of bad shit, it makes sense, but it's just extremely tiring.
I know that's kind of the point, to bombard us with all this shit all at once so that we are exhausted and withdraw, but I kind of just wish that about half of America had just elected a fucking grownup instead of a stupid manchild and his Diablo-cheating South African toadie (or maybe the other way around).
I vote in every election that I am legally allowed to vote in, and I'm not sure what else I can do. I guess just stay informed and prepare for four more years of being exhausted.
I know that's kind of the point, to bombard us with all this shit all at once so that we are exhausted and withdraw, but I kind of just wish that about half of America had just elected a fucking grownup instead of a stupid manchild and his Diablo-cheating South African toadie (or maybe the other way around).
I vote in every election that I am legally allowed to vote in, and I'm not sure what else I can do. I guess just stay informed and prepare for four more years of being exhausted.
You said you didn't know what to do, so some ideas to start the ideas flowing for you:
- support media, particularly local.
- there are protests to attend if that's your thing. Tesla takedown is one set that's getting a lot of traction. (Note: these are peaceful protests; don't hurt people's cars). There's a broad "hands off" protest April 5, as another example.
- build and stay in touch with community.
- encourage others to do the same. Can you get folks to move off Twitter? Get some web site you're associated with to replace their twitter share icon with a masto/bsky one? Get folks to make a plan to vote in the next election? To themselves support local media or organizations? Perhaps to run for school board or other local office?
- support media, particularly local.
- there are protests to attend if that's your thing. Tesla takedown is one set that's getting a lot of traction. (Note: these are peaceful protests; don't hurt people's cars). There's a broad "hands off" protest April 5, as another example.
- build and stay in touch with community.
- encourage others to do the same. Can you get folks to move off Twitter? Get some web site you're associated with to replace their twitter share icon with a masto/bsky one? Get folks to make a plan to vote in the next election? To themselves support local media or organizations? Perhaps to run for school board or other local office?
> support media, particularly local.
Agreed. No argument on that.
> there are protests to attend if that's your thing.
I'm afraid they're not. I'm happy to donate money to causes for people to protest but just being honest, I'm probably not going to do it.
> Tesla takedown is getting a lot of traction
I don't really want to damage strangers' property. I don't own any car as I just take public transportation, so I can't really say I'm "boycotting" Tesla any more than any other brand.
> Can you get folks to move off Twitter?
None of my family or friends were really using Twitter even before Elon bought it.
> To make a plan to vote in the next election?
All my family and friends vote in every election anyway.
> To themselves support local media or organizations?
Again, agreed on that. I'll mention that to parents next time I talk to them.
> Perhaps to run for school board or other local office?
I've debated it, but I think I'm a bit too eccentric to be a good politician. I am also afraid it would turn me evil.
I don't really disagree with anything you said, just that I'm already doing most of what you suggested.
Agreed. No argument on that.
> there are protests to attend if that's your thing.
I'm afraid they're not. I'm happy to donate money to causes for people to protest but just being honest, I'm probably not going to do it.
> Tesla takedown is getting a lot of traction
I don't really want to damage strangers' property. I don't own any car as I just take public transportation, so I can't really say I'm "boycotting" Tesla any more than any other brand.
> Can you get folks to move off Twitter?
None of my family or friends were really using Twitter even before Elon bought it.
> To make a plan to vote in the next election?
All my family and friends vote in every election anyway.
> To themselves support local media or organizations?
Again, agreed on that. I'll mention that to parents next time I talk to them.
> Perhaps to run for school board or other local office?
I've debated it, but I think I'm a bit too eccentric to be a good politician. I am also afraid it would turn me evil.
I don't really disagree with anything you said, just that I'm already doing most of what you suggested.
Tesla takedown is not about damaging property - it's strictly peaceful protests to discourage people from buying Tesla, and to raise awareness of Musk's role in DOGE and breaking the government.
Editorializing: A lot of folks bought Teslas because they wanted to do good in the world. Most of the Tesla drivers out there are allies of sanity. Except maybe those ugly trucks. :) :)
Editorializing: A lot of folks bought Teslas because they wanted to do good in the world. Most of the Tesla drivers out there are allies of sanity. Except maybe those ugly trucks. :) :)
> I don't really want to damage strangers' property. I don't own any car as I just take public transportation, so I can't really say I'm "boycotting" Tesla any more than any other brand.
Divest of Tesla. In a 401k move from index funds to other funds without or less TSLA. Or invest in inverse EFTs that essentially short Tesla - TSLS, TSLQ, and TSLZ. Not buying a Tesla or torching a Cybertruck are not the only options.
Divest of Tesla. In a 401k move from index funds to other funds without or less TSLA. Or invest in inverse EFTs that essentially short Tesla - TSLS, TSLQ, and TSLZ. Not buying a Tesla or torching a Cybertruck are not the only options.
Personally, I respect reluctance to protest. Protest is situationally effective and sometimes necessary, but holds a dramatically outsized place in public imagination. So much of effective politics happens elsewhere.
The core of politics is building coalitions of cooperation that can sustain and grow themselves, ideally around habits of ongoing participation and policy goals that have wide benefits.
That means you have to start by developing habits. You are a political organization of one. What habits of schedule and focus will sustain that? How will you widen them into an organization of two, of six, of twelve, and more?
> I've debated it, but I think I'm a bit too eccentric to be a good politician.
There may be an example or two of people who many would find eccentric who are currently holding elected office. You never know.
> I am also afraid it would turn me evil.
The key is making sure that you don't ever place yourself outside relationships of accountability. As long as you can think of recent conversations where you've engaged in reflective give and take with a personal or public critic that you have sustained relationships with, chances are pretty good you're OK.
The core of politics is building coalitions of cooperation that can sustain and grow themselves, ideally around habits of ongoing participation and policy goals that have wide benefits.
That means you have to start by developing habits. You are a political organization of one. What habits of schedule and focus will sustain that? How will you widen them into an organization of two, of six, of twelve, and more?
> I've debated it, but I think I'm a bit too eccentric to be a good politician.
There may be an example or two of people who many would find eccentric who are currently holding elected office. You never know.
> I am also afraid it would turn me evil.
The key is making sure that you don't ever place yourself outside relationships of accountability. As long as you can think of recent conversations where you've engaged in reflective give and take with a personal or public critic that you have sustained relationships with, chances are pretty good you're OK.
> I don't really want to damage strangers' property
You know you can hold up a sign and chant insulting pro-democracy insults at Elon Musk without destroying property, right?
You know you can hold up a sign and chant insulting pro-democracy insults at Elon Musk without destroying property, right?
How have those methods worked against authoritarian governments historically? I think we need to start being more realistic.
Every situation is unique. The US is a mess in part because of oligarchical control of media, and we still have lots of media organizations that maintain high quality journalism standards. Nationally, ProPublica is doing a great job, for example. Locally it's more spotty - in Pittsburgh, WESA (our local NPR news station) is a reliable and good source of information about local goings-on.
In Russia, you'll probably get thrown in prison if you protest against some of the state-sanctioned oligarchs. That's not the case in the US (i hate that I probably have to say 'yet' here) if you're a citizen. How much good will it do? Hard to measure. Most attempts to resist regimes like this are a matter of trying a lot of things and seeing what sticks.
Call your representatives and senators. Do it at least weekly. They're more responsive to things that take time. Show up to their town halls if they're brave enough to host them. Pick a few issues, learn enough about them to comment intelligently, and get involved. Say, opposing HJ 44 (a proposal that would roll back Biden-era lead water pipe replacement requirements). Your senators and reps can probably be doing more. Encourage them. :)
Sign up with indivisible; work through some of their contact-your-peeps todo items.
Vote your wallet and your retirement account. Divest of TSLA. Bias towards companies that are pushing back.
It's better to have a regular schedule of things you participate in that try to move the needle than to feel helpless. Tyrants rule through helplessness. We're not. We're not even close.
In Russia, you'll probably get thrown in prison if you protest against some of the state-sanctioned oligarchs. That's not the case in the US (i hate that I probably have to say 'yet' here) if you're a citizen. How much good will it do? Hard to measure. Most attempts to resist regimes like this are a matter of trying a lot of things and seeing what sticks.
Call your representatives and senators. Do it at least weekly. They're more responsive to things that take time. Show up to their town halls if they're brave enough to host them. Pick a few issues, learn enough about them to comment intelligently, and get involved. Say, opposing HJ 44 (a proposal that would roll back Biden-era lead water pipe replacement requirements). Your senators and reps can probably be doing more. Encourage them. :)
Sign up with indivisible; work through some of their contact-your-peeps todo items.
Vote your wallet and your retirement account. Divest of TSLA. Bias towards companies that are pushing back.
It's better to have a regular schedule of things you participate in that try to move the needle than to feel helpless. Tyrants rule through helplessness. We're not. We're not even close.
As far as I can tell my local media and government are more corrupt than national / federal. All local newspapers, radio stations, and TV "news" are owned by a handful of entities.
Citizens who practice free speech are being disappeared to El Salvador.
If you organize resistance, you will be targeted by billionaires and their massive media networks.
Citizens who practice free speech are being disappeared to El Salvador.
If you organize resistance, you will be targeted by billionaires and their massive media networks.
You might have an interest in this: https://globalcomment.com/how-to-defeat-an-autocrat-flocking...
Yes - we ALL have to flock together around the basic concepts that unite us. I think this is what we are seeing with the Tesla protests and we need to push harder to get to the 3.5% of the population that forces the system to adjust.
Not just an inferred point, it's been explicitly stated before. In the longer form interviews (can't find everything in full at the moment), the context is the news media in particular, but it applies to the general public as well.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiaU8P9y-wU
[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm5xxlajTW0 (short clip)
[3]https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iTSgL_R1CC4 (another short clip)
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiaU8P9y-wU
[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm5xxlajTW0 (short clip)
[3]https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iTSgL_R1CC4 (another short clip)
There are a few things that are on their way to SCOTUS. Be prepared to react to the elimination of independent agencies or the legalization of impoundment.
Yes, the noise is to make you exhausted/miss the important things. Probably safe to ignore talk about invading Greenland.
Yes, the noise is to make you exhausted/miss the important things. Probably safe to ignore talk about invading Greenland.
Voting is the minimum of civic duty, not the maximum.
Regarding civic duty, I would start by “being civil with your fellow citizens”. The irony is not lost on me.
Edit: To be clear, my comment is not aimed at you. I mean we’re missing the A in the ABCs of civic duty. It’s each person for themselves.
Edit: To be clear, my comment is not aimed at you. I mean we’re missing the A in the ABCs of civic duty. It’s each person for themselves.
How was my response uncivil? Your reply is bad faith because it provides no evidence.
I didn’t intend to offend you, neither did I mean to say you were wrong. I apologize if my words came across that way.
My point was a play on the word “civil” and how the bare minimum duty of a citizen should be to love thy neighbour.
My point was a play on the word “civil” and how the bare minimum duty of a citizen should be to love thy neighbour.
Sure. What are you doing outside of voting?
[deleted]
Civil disobedience. There's an entire spectrum of what you can do with that.
I’m an active DSA member. What about you?
Voting is not a civic duty. I have every right NOT to vote. It's my voice and I can use it as I please. Forcing me into a ballot box to pick between two awful choices is not civilized.
As a wise man once said, there may not be anybody you are excited to vote for, but there is almost certainly somebody you would like to vote against.
I'd rather have more than 2 parties.
You can vote against people. To me that's a tacit admission that you're accepting the proffer. As there's no way on your vote to indicate that it's a vote of protest vs. a vote of support. The candidate you vote for will see no difference. You'll have reduced your already meager position even further.
I do not accept this.
I mean if you want to get into the anti-democratic nature of the Unit Rule next I'd be happy to oblige you.
Your position is not automatically "good" just because school and MTV told you it was.
You can vote against people. To me that's a tacit admission that you're accepting the proffer. As there's no way on your vote to indicate that it's a vote of protest vs. a vote of support. The candidate you vote for will see no difference. You'll have reduced your already meager position even further.
I do not accept this.
I mean if you want to get into the anti-democratic nature of the Unit Rule next I'd be happy to oblige you.
Your position is not automatically "good" just because school and MTV told you it was.
A civic duty is not a legal duty. You have the legal right not to vote. My opinion is you are failing your government and your own interests when you don't vote.
I agree that plurality voting is bad. We should have a system where candidates are ranked, so voter sentiment is better expressed and more than two candidates have a chance at winning.
The system we have now needs to be worked, until we get a new system. If you dislike all options equally, then vote for someone else as a protest. If you have a preference of one major candidate over the other, it is in your interest to express that. Sitting at home and doing nothing is the worst.
I challenge you to at least research ranked-pair or ranked choice voting (or any alternative form of voting) and write your city councilman about it. Or contact a voting reform organization to ask how you can help change your city.
I agree that plurality voting is bad. We should have a system where candidates are ranked, so voter sentiment is better expressed and more than two candidates have a chance at winning.
The system we have now needs to be worked, until we get a new system. If you dislike all options equally, then vote for someone else as a protest. If you have a preference of one major candidate over the other, it is in your interest to express that. Sitting at home and doing nothing is the worst.
I challenge you to at least research ranked-pair or ranked choice voting (or any alternative form of voting) and write your city councilman about it. Or contact a voting reform organization to ask how you can help change your city.
> you are failing your government and your own interests when you don't vote.
This is a representative democracy. How exactly am I "failing my interests" when I don't vote?
This is a representative democracy. How exactly am I "failing my interests" when I don't vote?
I don't see how this being a representative democracy at all implies "not voting" is a wise strategy.
If you have any opinion on the operation of government and you don't express it when asked, please explain how that's beneficial to you.
If you have any opinion on the operation of government and you don't express it when asked, please explain how that's beneficial to you.
You should have to vote, you just don't have to vote for anyone. A blank ballot is still a vote. But you have to show up.
What if you could cast a negative vote?
That is, you could either vote for one candidate, or against one candidate.
That is, you could either vote for one candidate, or against one candidate.
Technically I'd be voting against both.
If enough people do this then the candidates should be thrown out and a new election held.
This would lead to insane chaos but if everyone where an honest actor it could be beautiful.
If enough people do this then the candidates should be thrown out and a new election held.
This would lead to insane chaos but if everyone where an honest actor it could be beautiful.
[deleted]
I didn't force you to do anything. No one did. I'm just judging you.
> I'm just judging you.
Ah so your sense of civics is that easy to depart with?
I take it you think no one could judge you for your position?
Ah so your sense of civics is that easy to depart with?
I take it you think no one could judge you for your position?
> Ah so your sense of civics is that easy to depart with?
I don't really agree with the sentiment of "be nice to people doing stupid stuff" that seems to permeate around here, so it's not really a "gotcha" to point out that I'm being a judgmental asshole.
> I take it you think no one could judge you for your position?
I don't give a shit if people judge me. I have my opinions. You're free to think that position is stupid if you want. There's eight billion other people on this planet, there's always going to be people who think my opinions are stupid. I think yours is stupid. It's a beautiful system.
I don't really agree with the sentiment of "be nice to people doing stupid stuff" that seems to permeate around here, so it's not really a "gotcha" to point out that I'm being a judgmental asshole.
> I take it you think no one could judge you for your position?
I don't give a shit if people judge me. I have my opinions. You're free to think that position is stupid if you want. There's eight billion other people on this planet, there's always going to be people who think my opinions are stupid. I think yours is stupid. It's a beautiful system.
> I don't really agree with the sentiment of "be nice to people doing stupid stuff"
What is your goal?
> I don't give a shit if people judge me. I have my opinions.
People would hear more of them if they weren't so coarse. Be generous. You'd might be surprised what you're missing.
What is your goal?
> I don't give a shit if people judge me. I have my opinions.
People would hear more of them if they weren't so coarse. Be generous. You'd might be surprised what you're missing.
I don’t really have a “goal”.
I don’t even know that I agree with the conclusion that people would hear more of my opinions if I were nicer, but even if I grant that, I also don’t particularly care if my opinions have reach.
I was going to type up a lecture to why I think it’s dumb to not vote, but I am sure you’ve heard it before, and frankly even if I had the most eloquent and amazing argument ever I doubt that it would change your opinion on this, so I can’t really be bothered.
I don’t even know that I agree with the conclusion that people would hear more of my opinions if I were nicer, but even if I grant that, I also don’t particularly care if my opinions have reach.
I was going to type up a lecture to why I think it’s dumb to not vote, but I am sure you’ve heard it before, and frankly even if I had the most eloquent and amazing argument ever I doubt that it would change your opinion on this, so I can’t really be bothered.
Afforess(1)
In non-individualist thought, voting might be seen as a ethical duty to protect fellow citizens from harm.
If you dont like any of the candidates, run yourself.
Choosing to do nothing is declaring that you dont care.
Choosing to do nothing is declaring that you dont care.
Protest.
Go onto the streets. Doing nothing means accepting the way things are
Run for office and aggressively fight back.
> I understand why these things have to be posted, but I would be lying if I said that I wasn't utterly exhausted by the constant shit that the Trump administration is spitting at us.
From 2017:
* https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/3/7/14844120/how-to-fight...
The firehouse is also a deliberate strategy:
> The firehose of falsehood, also known as firehosing, is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (like news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
* https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
If you need to take a break, certain do so ("touch grass"), but be mindful that everyone's support is needed, and this will be a marathon.
See also recent post on Snyder's book On Tyranny:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43503004
From 2017:
* https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/3/7/14844120/how-to-fight...
The firehouse is also a deliberate strategy:
> The firehose of falsehood, also known as firehosing, is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (like news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
* https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
If you need to take a break, certain do so ("touch grass"), but be mindful that everyone's support is needed, and this will be a marathon.
See also recent post on Snyder's book On Tyranny:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43503004
Think in Bayesian terms. If you update your priors at all when the lie comes, then the firehose will overwhelm you, because the lie (or a similar, related lie) comes so often. If you update at all, then you wind up believing it.
But the only defense is to not update your priors. That means that you don't update on things that are actually true, either.
This is basically the death of epistemology. How do you know, and how do you know you know? It's no longer possible in this environment.
Postmodernism talked about a post-truth world. Putin has made it a reality.
But the only defense is to not update your priors. That means that you don't update on things that are actually true, either.
This is basically the death of epistemology. How do you know, and how do you know you know? It's no longer possible in this environment.
Postmodernism talked about a post-truth world. Putin has made it a reality.
You do you. Continue to vote, and if you can find a local cause that you can give time and attention to, do that. If you can find some small way you can help people who are affected, do that. Subscribe to news sources you trust and think are shining a light on the right things. Maybe setup small donations to candidates you think are pushing the country in the right direction. Not everyone needs to fight every fight.
I do donate to candidates that I think are less evil than the average politician.
A bit more locally; my wife is Mexican and as such I have a lot of Mexican in-laws. I have been helping my brother-in-law deal with immigration lawyers (and paid for them) in hopes that he might be able to get his citizenship soon-ish.
If I felt like anything I did in the grand political scope would do anything, I'd do it. I used to be a lot more active in this stuff, but it's pretty easy to get disillusioned and cynical with this stuff.
A bit more locally; my wife is Mexican and as such I have a lot of Mexican in-laws. I have been helping my brother-in-law deal with immigration lawyers (and paid for them) in hopes that he might be able to get his citizenship soon-ish.
If I felt like anything I did in the grand political scope would do anything, I'd do it. I used to be a lot more active in this stuff, but it's pretty easy to get disillusioned and cynical with this stuff.
Impossible to care about everything all at once, and easy to get disillusioned and shut down to nothing. Keep pushing in the ways that you can, give the energy that you can, and what more can anyone ask of you?
People voted for Trump because the democratic party is THAT bad. Instead of keeping attacking Trump maybe it is time to ponder what is it about the current democratic party that made so many people disapprove of them.
Plenty of other reasons they could have voted the way they did?
https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-...
https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-...
I haven't listed the reasons I am pointing the underlying lack of internal critisism in the democractic party and their supporters.
The democractic party was terrible in regards to many issues many people cared about.
You should stop caring about Trump and care about what people care about.
The democractic party was terrible in regards to many issues many people cared about.
You should stop caring about Trump and care about what people care about.
> You should stop caring about Trump and care about what people care about.
Not sure what you mean? All I shared was a set of exit polls?
Not sure what you mean? All I shared was a set of exit polls?
[deleted]
I find it remarkable that Americans are ok with rule by executive order instead of rule by congressional law.
I also find it fascinating that no federal judge has held any Trump administration officers in contempt or imposed sanctions/bans on officers who are continuously hurting constitutional rights.
I assume that Americans have been sleeping at the wheel, unaware of the threat of slide into fascism. But is the voter-base and judiciary just unaware/unwilling to throttle persistent attacks?
The only reliable action by voters has been demonstrations outside Tesla stores. But look at Turkey, Serbia etc. - people have taken over their capitals and are striking en masse.
Are Americans unwilling to protect what makes America special?
I also find it fascinating that no federal judge has held any Trump administration officers in contempt or imposed sanctions/bans on officers who are continuously hurting constitutional rights.
I assume that Americans have been sleeping at the wheel, unaware of the threat of slide into fascism. But is the voter-base and judiciary just unaware/unwilling to throttle persistent attacks?
The only reliable action by voters has been demonstrations outside Tesla stores. But look at Turkey, Serbia etc. - people have taken over their capitals and are striking en masse.
Are Americans unwilling to protect what makes America special?
Executive order vs. legislation is a meaningless distinction to most people. What most people care about is what they or someone else can get in trouble for and what consequences they will face, and more generally just how good they perceive their life to be. It's like trying to distinguish between two diseases with long latinate names; what matters is how sick you feel and what treatment will stop it.
Insofar as people do care, I think many people actually prefer executive order-style action because they perceive it as swifter, more direct, and less tied up in debate, dithering, and red tape.
But mostly what people care about is just "are things happening the way I want them to happen". If yes, they won't care about the mechanism that produced that; if no, they will blame whoever they perceive to be responsible, whether or not they actually are.
Insofar as people do care, I think many people actually prefer executive order-style action because they perceive it as swifter, more direct, and less tied up in debate, dithering, and red tape.
But mostly what people care about is just "are things happening the way I want them to happen". If yes, they won't care about the mechanism that produced that; if no, they will blame whoever they perceive to be responsible, whether or not they actually are.
Side discussion, but the United States having two separate, elected legislative and executive branches is kind of lousy. It makes it difficult, as you say, to understand who is responsible for anything. Yet we have somehow convinced ourselves that it is the best system, because we have also convinced ourselves we are the best country.
Most countries with parliamentary systems don't have this problem, where a person votes for a party and that party works with other parties to elect the the head executive. That head executive answers to the legislative. There aren't situations where the legislative and executive branches aren't politically aligned (a divided government) which has become common in the US and basically where nothing can get done.
If you look at other countries that also have Presidential systems, the US is not in very good company:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of...
Most countries with parliamentary systems don't have this problem, where a person votes for a party and that party works with other parties to elect the the head executive. That head executive answers to the legislative. There aren't situations where the legislative and executive branches aren't politically aligned (a divided government) which has become common in the US and basically where nothing can get done.
If you look at other countries that also have Presidential systems, the US is not in very good company:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of...
Maybe, but I think another part of it is just a dangerously broad construal of the whole concept of executive power. Executive means you execute. Someone else should decide. Executive authority just means you are authorized to do what someone else said should be done. We have gone down a weird road in the US with the creation of "quasi-legislative" agencies that are created by Congress but are then under the control of the president although their function is essentially legislative. Instead Congress should just be able to entirely specify every aspect of those bodies' operations, including what (if any) the president's role is. In other words, the president can "use" executive authority, but the legislature should be in charge of deciding what counts as executive authority in the first place. If congress wants to delegate power to arbitrary bodies with no presidential involvement, they should be able to do so by passing a law as usual.
You can of course say that a reckless executive (like the one we have now) would still run amok, but I think we'd have less of a problem if these matters had been clarified long ago.
You can of course say that a reckless executive (like the one we have now) would still run amok, but I think we'd have less of a problem if these matters had been clarified long ago.
Americans allowed Congress to cede a lot of its power to the President after 9/11. That has been a slow-roll towards "rule by EO" since then. In addition, the processes Congress creates are somewhat sclerotic for several reasons; there's a relatively good book out recently by Ezra Klein titled "Abundance" on the details.
Federal judges generally don't prior-constrain the Executive. Hypothetically, the flow of control should be Congress restraining the Executive if it fails to do Congress's will; The judiciary steps in if the Executive tries to do something unconstitutional, but that's restraint of the action; punishment for continued bad behavior should flow from Congress.
Americans are still, overall, quite personally comfortable. I don't anticipate actions at capitals until that comfort is en-masse threatened.
Federal judges generally don't prior-constrain the Executive. Hypothetically, the flow of control should be Congress restraining the Executive if it fails to do Congress's will; The judiciary steps in if the Executive tries to do something unconstitutional, but that's restraint of the action; punishment for continued bad behavior should flow from Congress.
Americans are still, overall, quite personally comfortable. I don't anticipate actions at capitals until that comfort is en-masse threatened.
> Americans are still, overall, quite personally comfortable. I don't anticipate actions at capitals until that comfort is en-masse threatened.
I suspect you are right. It will probably take a full recession, much like COVID, for people to slam brakes at the travesty.
I suspect you are right. It will probably take a full recession, much like COVID, for people to slam brakes at the travesty.
American voters no longer
agree on what made America special.
Yes, misinformation won. But when Trump actively cuts benefits, cuts jobs, cuts research, asks for bribes openly, quid pro quo everywhere, town halls unanswered - do voters in America feel willing to change their votes?
Are voters willing to strike until the President resigns? Or are people ok with the country being sold to third world style corruption that is happening right in front of their faces?
Are voters willing to strike until the President resigns? Or are people ok with the country being sold to third world style corruption that is happening right in front of their faces?
American voters are insulated from a lot of that, which is one of the reasons the misinformation works.
Think about the number of moving parts between a federal job cut and most private-sector individuals feeling it. Or between research and the years before the dried-up pipeline slows down the country's progress. And most Americans don't attend, nor are interested in, town halls.
Think about the number of moving parts between a federal job cut and most private-sector individuals feeling it. Or between research and the years before the dried-up pipeline slows down the country's progress. And most Americans don't attend, nor are interested in, town halls.
They've already forgotten that the President literally robbed his own people with a meme coin.
Yep. They got scammed by their own president - a convicted felon who caused a coup.
America is well and truly doomed thanks to apathy of the people.
America is well and truly doomed thanks to apathy of the people.
One of Trump's major political strengths has been his consistent stance, in contradiction to the Republican mainstream, that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should not be cut. That's why he does so much better with lower income voters dependent on those programs than McCain or Romney could. I definitely think voters will turn on him if he changes his mind and cuts them anyway.
One of Trump’s major political facets is that he functions as a sort of rorschach test for supporters to read their own favorite issues and stances into even when they aren’t supported by what he has said. Immigration “he won’t deport the ones I like”, on abortion “he will ban it / he will not ban it”, on the economy “he will lower my taxes / lower the deficit”, and on entitlements “he will protect my social security check / he will curb social security spending by cutting fraud”.
>I find it remarkable that Americans are ok with rule by executive order instead of rule by congressional law.
Can you cite a poll for this? Most Americans have never been asked and likely aren't okay with it but we don't really have a choice in the matter.
When it comes down to it the decision on how executive orders work is based on what a few dozen people think and most of them aren't elected. The general public has no say in the matter.
Can you cite a poll for this? Most Americans have never been asked and likely aren't okay with it but we don't really have a choice in the matter.
When it comes down to it the decision on how executive orders work is based on what a few dozen people think and most of them aren't elected. The general public has no say in the matter.
Yes I think many Americans don’t our government is what makes us special and would rather put their religious interests ahead of congressional law.
I think one of the problems we face here is effective protesting. Imagine you live in Spain and have to travel to Africa to protest. The US is big and it's hard for us to get into one spot. We can protest at our state capitols, sure, but that's not as effective as traveling to DC which is basically out of the question for the majority of the country.
Most Americans cant name the branches of government, they dont even know what an executive order is.
It might be better to say “Republicans” instead of “Americans” as you do. Americans are a deeply divided group of people: one-third republicans, one-third democrats, and one-third apathetic.
The one-third of Americans who are republicans put Trump in power, and are indirectly responsible for what’s happening — and the vast majority of them of course wholeheartedly fully support these violations of the First Amendment.
The democrats of course oppose all of these things.
Please stop using “Americans” as if this were one solid group of people who share the same views.
The one-third of Americans who are republicans put Trump in power, and are indirectly responsible for what’s happening — and the vast majority of them of course wholeheartedly fully support these violations of the First Amendment.
The democrats of course oppose all of these things.
Please stop using “Americans” as if this were one solid group of people who share the same views.
Divided they might be, but unfortunately Americans share one president who is acting on their behalf.
Doesn't matter that Democrats oppose it. The fact that there are enough Americans who do support it puts us well beyond trust for any international audience. Democrats could be the best allies and most cooperative people in the world. But Republicans will just tear up any treaties or agreements the next time they get power. It's now impossible to trust the US. The world has seen who we really are and the Democrats have been completely useless at mitigating any of it. The last image the world got from our Democrats is them campaigning with the Cheney's.
Responding in good faith, here. As far as I can tell, what people who voted for Trump have a problem with - and are thus quite happy with as far as action from this Administration is concerned - is that while there are ostensibly only three branches of the Federal Government (the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial), there is in fact a fourth. This fourth branch is the administrative state, and it is (in their telling, not stating this as fact necessarily) an unelected branch that has overwhelmingly leaned left since Richard Nixon, and has an enormous amount of control over the direction of government. One example is USAID, which is a broad way for federal dollars to be spent on various pet projects, prioritized by career bureaucrats with expansive (and expensive) resumes. Trump exerting control over how these dollars are spent is something they like, because they think it's weird (and I see their point) that the executive branch spends a ton of money that the elected officers in that branch may not want spent in that manner. (Yes, I am aware, some or most of this money is congressionally authorized in some manner, debatable, and honestly it's good to have that debate). Anyway, some people like seeing a chief executive asserting control over the executive branch. It's not really more complicated than that, and pearl clutching about "fascism" is pretty boring, because that is a word with specific meaning. Unless you want to expand that meaning, I suppose.
Agencies are created and funded by the legislature. The executive operates them, and has some discretion over their operations and priorities.
Rank and file workers have protections from firing by the executive because if they didn't, we would have the corrupt patronage systems we had 100 years ago.
Independent watchdogs at each agency are protected because political insulation is a requirement for such a role.
Put simply:
Authoritarianism is strongman politics where courts are ignored, and one/few people exert almost total control over the operation of government, ignoring any legal constraints on their power, and any criticism of the ruling party is inherently fake and illegitimate.
Fascism is the right wing brand of authoritarianism.
Reasonable people can debate spending levels or efficiency. But this administration is not interested in that. They are permanently destroying America's place in the world and at least temporarily, and illegally, destroying parts of the federal government. All while participating in eye watering levels of corruption and judicial self-service (firing prosecutors investigating friends, firing generals without cause, calling for impeachment of every judge they don't like).
Our government's design is broken. Our voting system only permits two parties. Our house districts are geographically manipulated. The electoral college further obfuscates the election or president.
Rank and file workers have protections from firing by the executive because if they didn't, we would have the corrupt patronage systems we had 100 years ago.
Independent watchdogs at each agency are protected because political insulation is a requirement for such a role.
Put simply:
Authoritarianism is strongman politics where courts are ignored, and one/few people exert almost total control over the operation of government, ignoring any legal constraints on their power, and any criticism of the ruling party is inherently fake and illegitimate.
Fascism is the right wing brand of authoritarianism.
Reasonable people can debate spending levels or efficiency. But this administration is not interested in that. They are permanently destroying America's place in the world and at least temporarily, and illegally, destroying parts of the federal government. All while participating in eye watering levels of corruption and judicial self-service (firing prosecutors investigating friends, firing generals without cause, calling for impeachment of every judge they don't like).
Our government's design is broken. Our voting system only permits two parties. Our house districts are geographically manipulated. The electoral college further obfuscates the election or president.
I agree on the interpretation on the resentment of MAGA, but I do think the administration is fascist and the president should be removed and sentenced for treason. To MAGA, saving lives abroad by spending a small portion of our budget looks like a scam, like lipstick on imperialism. It's complimentary to describe military as a force for freedom rather than overpaid security guards for oligarchy, but MAGA are in on that joke. MAGA doesn't see any war as "stupid", nor do they sincerely mind private email servers or inflation and obviously don't actually value economic growth. Attributing rationality will leave you confused, the only consistent value among MAGA is accelerationism.
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/11/11/20882005/accele...
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/11/11/20882005/accele...
[deleted]
I'd love to know who the assholes who flag perfectly relevant, useful and well-sourced and debate-worthy posts like these are?
Is there perhaps some coterie of Trump-supporting, Musk-loving orangutans on HN that come out of the woodwork selectively and explicitly to flag content that's in no way outside moderation standards? That aside, the very fact that random readers, for entirely opaque, possibly idiotic and mendacious reasons of their own, can just flag any post is absurd on a site like this that likes to pat itself on the back for supposedly being open to broad, reasoned discussion of many, possibly controversial subjects.
Is there perhaps some coterie of Trump-supporting, Musk-loving orangutans on HN that come out of the woodwork selectively and explicitly to flag content that's in no way outside moderation standards? That aside, the very fact that random readers, for entirely opaque, possibly idiotic and mendacious reasons of their own, can just flag any post is absurd on a site like this that likes to pat itself on the back for supposedly being open to broad, reasoned discussion of many, possibly controversial subjects.
"President Trump has sued a number of U.S. news outlets, including 60 Minutes, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and other smaller media organizations for unflattering coverage."
Ok, you're straight up lying about what's happening.
The rest of the article has similar lies.
Ok, you're straight up lying about what's happening.
The rest of the article has similar lies.
As best I can tell, the simplest way to fight back via legal channels sans unlimited legal budget is to run for office. Like I’m seriously trying to figure out if that’s a sane option for me despite my total disregard and distrust of authority. Also my distinctly aggressive distaste for bullies, traditions or bullshit.
See the group Run For Something, who are actively helping people do this. https://runforsomething.net/run/
I mean, if your problems stem from the political machine, then getting involved in the machine does sound like the best option.
Put differently: if you feel like no part of the political machine accurately represents you, the most straightforward way to remedy that is by representing yourself.
Put differently: if you feel like no part of the political machine accurately represents you, the most straightforward way to remedy that is by representing yourself.
> distinctly aggressive distaste for bullies
Good luck with that
Just messing, I really hope genuinely good people run for office instead of LBJ type bullies
Good luck with that
Just messing, I really hope genuinely good people run for office instead of LBJ type bullies
LBJ's "bullying" is the only reason we have the Civil Rights act.
At the time, a large bloc of senators said: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would tend to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our [Southern] states."
The bill was fillibustered for 60 days.
The former confederate states pretty much all voted against it. The south VIOLENTLY resisted desegregation.
At the time, a large bloc of senators said: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would tend to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our [Southern] states."
The bill was fillibustered for 60 days.
The former confederate states pretty much all voted against it. The south VIOLENTLY resisted desegregation.
I've come to realize there's absolutely no reforming the Democratic Party. They are willing accomplices in this. Consider these examples:
- In 2001, an open socialist, India Walton, won the Democratic primary for mayor. The State Democratic Party united with Republicans to fund a write-in campaign to re-elect Byron Brown as mayor, which was successful [1];
- Adam Schiff and the California Democratic Party spent millions to prop up a Republican to get the second-most votes in the California Senate primary. Why? California has what's called a "jungle primary" where the two candidates with the most votes in the primary, regardless of party, are on the ballot in the general election. The Republican has no chance so Schiff and the California Democrats are just making sure no progressive ends up on the ticket;
- The shenanigans in 2016 to make Hilary Clinton, a terrible candidate, the Democratic nominee for president over Bernie Sanders, including withholding funding, the threat of superdelegates and generally just putting the thumb on the scale at every turn;
- Again in 2020 with Bernie Sanders. Jim Clyburn and the DNC arranged for Biden to take South Carolina. Elizabeth Warren stayed in just long enough to peel off Bernie's votes. Other candidates got out of the way (eg Pete Buttigieg) and were rewarded for it with Cabinet positions;
- When Biden finally withdraw his re-election bid one option on the table was to have a convention primary. Instead Biden and the DNC simply anointed Kamala Harris because they were scared a progressive might win;
- Henry Cuellar, Congressman from Texas, is the (I believe) only anti-choice Democratic in the House. He has twice now faced a stiff primary challenge from progressive Jessica Cisneros who ran a grassroots campaign, the last time only winning by a few hundred votes. Democratic heavyweights like Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn went down to campaign for him in Texas.
If the Democratic Party opposed Trump half as well as they do progressive elements in their own party, we'd be living in a very different country.
[1]: https://apnews.com/article/elections-buffalo-campaigns-elect...
- In 2001, an open socialist, India Walton, won the Democratic primary for mayor. The State Democratic Party united with Republicans to fund a write-in campaign to re-elect Byron Brown as mayor, which was successful [1];
- Adam Schiff and the California Democratic Party spent millions to prop up a Republican to get the second-most votes in the California Senate primary. Why? California has what's called a "jungle primary" where the two candidates with the most votes in the primary, regardless of party, are on the ballot in the general election. The Republican has no chance so Schiff and the California Democrats are just making sure no progressive ends up on the ticket;
- The shenanigans in 2016 to make Hilary Clinton, a terrible candidate, the Democratic nominee for president over Bernie Sanders, including withholding funding, the threat of superdelegates and generally just putting the thumb on the scale at every turn;
- Again in 2020 with Bernie Sanders. Jim Clyburn and the DNC arranged for Biden to take South Carolina. Elizabeth Warren stayed in just long enough to peel off Bernie's votes. Other candidates got out of the way (eg Pete Buttigieg) and were rewarded for it with Cabinet positions;
- When Biden finally withdraw his re-election bid one option on the table was to have a convention primary. Instead Biden and the DNC simply anointed Kamala Harris because they were scared a progressive might win;
- Henry Cuellar, Congressman from Texas, is the (I believe) only anti-choice Democratic in the House. He has twice now faced a stiff primary challenge from progressive Jessica Cisneros who ran a grassroots campaign, the last time only winning by a few hundred votes. Democratic heavyweights like Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn went down to campaign for him in Texas.
If the Democratic Party opposed Trump half as well as they do progressive elements in their own party, we'd be living in a very different country.
[1]: https://apnews.com/article/elections-buffalo-campaigns-elect...
Whatever Trump says: he does the opposite .
As long as Fox News reports what he says as fact no one does anything
As long as Fox News reports what he says as fact no one does anything
Back and forth.
Here's what I see. Spend some time with older people now days (disclosure, I am 54, male, and heartsick). Look at what older people watch. Talk to those that are anywhere near MAGA ideas, you'll find that it has nothing to do with an America that is great again. It has everything to do with "make me great/relevant again."
Now go to Wikipedia, pull out a your favorite scripting language/spreadsheet (you're a programmer, because you read HN, right?). Look at the total popular vote, scroll down to the "by age" group. Figure out how many votes each side got in each group (it will only be a relative approximation, because they don't give sub-percentage values). Now do a running total. You'll see very clearly who was winning by age until the older people in the country showed up (in great numbers) to vote. The people who will be here the least long, and have the least to suffer for the consequences have sold out the country in a colossal fashion.
I wonder if history has every created such a strong case for justified generational angst.
Here's what I see. Spend some time with older people now days (disclosure, I am 54, male, and heartsick). Look at what older people watch. Talk to those that are anywhere near MAGA ideas, you'll find that it has nothing to do with an America that is great again. It has everything to do with "make me great/relevant again."
Now go to Wikipedia, pull out a your favorite scripting language/spreadsheet (you're a programmer, because you read HN, right?). Look at the total popular vote, scroll down to the "by age" group. Figure out how many votes each side got in each group (it will only be a relative approximation, because they don't give sub-percentage values). Now do a running total. You'll see very clearly who was winning by age until the older people in the country showed up (in great numbers) to vote. The people who will be here the least long, and have the least to suffer for the consequences have sold out the country in a colossal fashion.
I wonder if history has every created such a strong case for justified generational angst.
It's true, but they're victims of mass manipulation by omnipresent media. They subject themselves to it, but it's hardly by choice when there are thousands of people spending trillions of dollars and millions of working hours to indoctrinate them.
[deleted]
quotemstr(6)
FilosofumRex(1)
I don't really care, tbh. There are better rights to fight for: food, shelter, education, healthcare. If said freedom of speech had been to be used to fight for materially meaningful rights, I'd be a big fan. Most Americans never bothered to use the right in any way that improved this country. You don't use it, you lose it.
As it stands most people associate it with the right to behave like a dick in public.
As it stands most people associate it with the right to behave like a dick in public.
Just like oxygen, free speech is one of those things that you don't miss until you lose it. You use it everyday without even realizing it.
In a country without free speech protections, expressing an unpopular opinion about a political party or hot topic can get you thrown in prison. Look at the Syrian Assad regime or the current Chinese administration. People are arrested for merely being negative in social media posts. I can totally see the US going in that direction.
You can be nonchalant about this if you want, be there are very good reasons people are getting up in arms about this erosion of our protections.
In a country without free speech protections, expressing an unpopular opinion about a political party or hot topic can get you thrown in prison. Look at the Syrian Assad regime or the current Chinese administration. People are arrested for merely being negative in social media posts. I can totally see the US going in that direction.
You can be nonchalant about this if you want, be there are very good reasons people are getting up in arms about this erosion of our protections.
What's the point without a political pathway to remediate anything? We haven't done basically anything to fix what we were complaining about 50 years ago.
At least in prison they'll feed me or kill me, two things they'll otherwise refuse to do until you commit a crime.
Frankly, I would prefer a world where everyone agreed the government was shit but nobody could complain. It's better than people openly defending evil people and calling it the height of democracy. If that's democracy give me the PRC any day.
At least in prison they'll feed me or kill me, two things they'll otherwise refuse to do until you commit a crime.
Frankly, I would prefer a world where everyone agreed the government was shit but nobody could complain. It's better than people openly defending evil people and calling it the height of democracy. If that's democracy give me the PRC any day.
Free speech should be considered a non-negotiable human right. You can't just trade those off against each other. The distinction into "materially meaningful" rights in my opinion just shows how easily both types of rights are taken for granted until noticeably revoked.
It's not even a coherent concept the way westerners use it. I would be much happier if we called it "acceptable speech" or something to acknowledge you can't call for dismembering your Tutsi cockroach neighbor. Idk why, maybe I'm just being sensitive.
"Free speech" as a right seems pretty useless without material rights. Complaining about it isn't going to change anything. What does that even look like?
But we can trace all this crappy formulation of civics to the brain rot that is worshiping the enlightenment and founding fathers. Why is this still a thing in 2025? Nobody is putting a gun to your head to care about Jefferson or Locke or the actual basis of our society, Hobbes. We can chuck the entire concept of rights out the window and come up with agreements surrounding social behavior that actually reflect the society and culture we have today or want tomorrow.
"Free speech" as a right seems pretty useless without material rights. Complaining about it isn't going to change anything. What does that even look like?
But we can trace all this crappy formulation of civics to the brain rot that is worshiping the enlightenment and founding fathers. Why is this still a thing in 2025? Nobody is putting a gun to your head to care about Jefferson or Locke or the actual basis of our society, Hobbes. We can chuck the entire concept of rights out the window and come up with agreements surrounding social behavior that actually reflect the society and culture we have today or want tomorrow.
> We can chuck the entire concept of rights out the window and come up with agreements surrounding social behavior that actually reflect the society and culture we have today or want tomorrow.
What, exactly, do you think a right even is, if not an agreement that something cannot be done to people or cannot be taken away from them?
What, exactly, do you think a right even is, if not an agreement that something cannot be done to people or cannot be taken away from them?
The reason you don't see "free speech" used for those causes isn't because they don't rely on free speech. It's because advocacy for them is so clearly protected as free speech that it isn't even a question. There have been times when that protection was a question in the U.S., like when protesting wars or segregation laws.
Without the right to say something, there is no legal way to organize or to demand any other right.
Edited to remove an unwarranted statement at the beginning of this comment.
Without the right to say something, there is no legal way to organize or to demand any other right.
Edited to remove an unwarranted statement at the beginning of this comment.
> Without the right to say something, there is no legal way to organize or to demand any other right.
Americans don't do this, though. They don't demand better. They accept shitty governance and say "at least I voted". And frankly I don't think they ever will.
So I say, fuck it, let's just all accept that government is shitty and mostly exists to squeeze us for money. We can finally stop acting like it's representative of us. When y'all finally have had enough riots will work just as fine as they did before.
Americans don't do this, though. They don't demand better. They accept shitty governance and say "at least I voted". And frankly I don't think they ever will.
So I say, fuck it, let's just all accept that government is shitty and mostly exists to squeeze us for money. We can finally stop acting like it's representative of us. When y'all finally have had enough riots will work just as fine as they did before.
Maybe some of us don't want to devolve into cutting off people's heads and asking questions later?
Perhaps if liberals read non-liberals they would have acquired an imagination in the last two hundred years. Obviously that's far from the only path forward outside of your sick fantasies.
Who should the unimaginative non-liberals read, and why?
> Americans don't do this, though. They don't demand better. They accept shitty governance and say "at least I voted". And frankly I don't think they ever will.
That is an obviously wrong statement even if we only look at protests within the past 5 years.
That is an obviously wrong statement even if we only look at protests within the past 5 years.
What Brian and a lot of the commenters here need to realize is that online outrage does not help progressive causes in the slightest.
While the examples in his article are valid & concerning, especially as talks of a third Trump term have started, I truly can't see anyone changing their mind because the response to it has been completely ineffective and tone-deaf:
Instead of a solid, modern, coherent plan to keep the democratic party alive in a time of populism and radicalization in response to a crumbling economy and cronyism, it has solely been a "look at all the bad stuff Trump is doing!" and "oh me oh my how outrageous!" which does nothing but fall on deaf ears after 2020.
This is because most of the people writing these "why you should be outraged" posts are in a bubble of educated, traditional-news-consuming, upper-middle class skilled workers -- all groups that are very quickly falling out of power and favor with the majority of the population.
I hope the democratic party finds a way to become a real contender again. While not everyone on the right is a boogeyman, there are plenty of Project 2025 supporters, much worse than anyone we know about, who will steamroll this country if left unchecked. If the right doesn't have a viable opposition party with strong messaging, we're in for a bumpy ride.
While the examples in his article are valid & concerning, especially as talks of a third Trump term have started, I truly can't see anyone changing their mind because the response to it has been completely ineffective and tone-deaf:
Instead of a solid, modern, coherent plan to keep the democratic party alive in a time of populism and radicalization in response to a crumbling economy and cronyism, it has solely been a "look at all the bad stuff Trump is doing!" and "oh me oh my how outrageous!" which does nothing but fall on deaf ears after 2020.
This is because most of the people writing these "why you should be outraged" posts are in a bubble of educated, traditional-news-consuming, upper-middle class skilled workers -- all groups that are very quickly falling out of power and favor with the majority of the population.
I hope the democratic party finds a way to become a real contender again. While not everyone on the right is a boogeyman, there are plenty of Project 2025 supporters, much worse than anyone we know about, who will steamroll this country if left unchecked. If the right doesn't have a viable opposition party with strong messaging, we're in for a bumpy ride.
I didn't see any "online outrage" from Brian here, just a sadly sober listing of all the direct attacks on the first amendment, with sources and explanation.
Heck, it's not even political despite the screeching to the contrary.
You're right that action must be taken too, but action does require an understanding of the battlefield one is entering.
Heck, it's not even political despite the screeching to the contrary.
You're right that action must be taken too, but action does require an understanding of the battlefield one is entering.
YMMV, but I would argue that claiming Trump is waging an unprecedented attack against the first amendment, accompanied by a picture of the first amendment ripped in half, is calling for (rightful) outrage and is inherently political. The post is very informational and well-cited, but it's not the changing hearts and minds of those it needs to.
Action has to be taken, but by people with the power to change things -- namely democratic leadership, who have the funds & influence (albeit dwindling). Do they understand the battlefield they're entering? I don't think so, as I think they're sticking to that same outrage strategy.
Action has to be taken, but by people with the power to change things -- namely democratic leadership, who have the funds & influence (albeit dwindling). Do they understand the battlefield they're entering? I don't think so, as I think they're sticking to that same outrage strategy.
I've found, since about the end of the Obama admin, a huge gap between the outraged base and the realities of politics on the ground that's made me quite despondent. The base just wants to talk about how outraged they are to each other on every piece of media they can. It's like social signaling; you have to tell every other upper middle class news addicted millennial or GenX how much you hate the current administration constantly.
But there's no effort to convince swing voters to vote against Trump. The midterms will be here before anyone knows it and it's going to be the first big chance to push back on the current administration, but I see so little work that's being done to create a coherent opposition party. Ezra Klein's book on Abundance was a great starting point. In Dem spaces though, reaction to the book was pretty much absent. Most of Dem base temporarily got busy trying to come up with ways that Klein has failed some progressive purity test (centrists are fascists, environmental injustice, etc etc.) Then after that, most just ignored his vision and went back to crying about the current administration.
IMO the Dems cranky, upper middle class news addicted base is its worst feature. They continue to kneecap the Dems from being a real opposition party. Telling people how bad the administration is won't make a good opposition party. It worked just enough for 2020 but ran out of steam by 2024. Dems need to create a vision of the future under Dem rule.
I suspect it's because the coalition that kept the Democratic party together has failed and its current base is just too small to win votes in elections. They've lost their bonafides among the trade unions, they've lost their appeal to the technology class, their strongest supporters remain the social-progress bloc which may be overrepresented online but is just too small of a force to win in elections.
But there's no effort to convince swing voters to vote against Trump. The midterms will be here before anyone knows it and it's going to be the first big chance to push back on the current administration, but I see so little work that's being done to create a coherent opposition party. Ezra Klein's book on Abundance was a great starting point. In Dem spaces though, reaction to the book was pretty much absent. Most of Dem base temporarily got busy trying to come up with ways that Klein has failed some progressive purity test (centrists are fascists, environmental injustice, etc etc.) Then after that, most just ignored his vision and went back to crying about the current administration.
IMO the Dems cranky, upper middle class news addicted base is its worst feature. They continue to kneecap the Dems from being a real opposition party. Telling people how bad the administration is won't make a good opposition party. It worked just enough for 2020 but ran out of steam by 2024. Dems need to create a vision of the future under Dem rule.
I suspect it's because the coalition that kept the Democratic party together has failed and its current base is just too small to win votes in elections. They've lost their bonafides among the trade unions, they've lost their appeal to the technology class, their strongest supporters remain the social-progress bloc which may be overrepresented online but is just too small of a force to win in elections.
The problem is that everyone who sits down to think about swing voters realizes the same thing: tariffs are going to crash the economy, DOGE is going to cut Social Security, and Congress is going to cut Medicaid. But none of these have happened yet, while other bad things swing voters care less about have happened.
So there's a fundamental tension. You can focus on the current situation to the exclusion of swing voters and their interests, or focus on swing voter interests and sound like you're lamely ignoring what's happening right now. It's a hard balance to strike, and while people make noise about it online I think most elected Dems understand everyone's trying as best they can.
So there's a fundamental tension. You can focus on the current situation to the exclusion of swing voters and their interests, or focus on swing voter interests and sound like you're lamely ignoring what's happening right now. It's a hard balance to strike, and while people make noise about it online I think most elected Dems understand everyone's trying as best they can.
> Instead of a solid, modern, coherent plan to keep the democratic party alive in a time of populism and radicalization in response to a crumbling economy and cronyism, it has solely been a "look at all the bad stuff Trump is doing!" and "oh me oh my how outrageous!" which does nothing but fall on deaf ears after 2020.
People by and large do not want "solid, modern, coherent plans". Both kamala and hillary clinton had those.
People want to be told the strong man will make everything better if you just give up a few rights.
Can the democratic party play that game? Sure. Should they? Maybe? I mean, it would be nice to have someone with an iq over 80 and at least a shred of morality and self-respect somewhere in our elected officials.
Does your post, in specific, say anything meaningful? Not really, you just throw out some vapid complaints and then tell us you hope the world will change.
People by and large do not want "solid, modern, coherent plans". Both kamala and hillary clinton had those.
People want to be told the strong man will make everything better if you just give up a few rights.
Can the democratic party play that game? Sure. Should they? Maybe? I mean, it would be nice to have someone with an iq over 80 and at least a shred of morality and self-respect somewhere in our elected officials.
Does your post, in specific, say anything meaningful? Not really, you just throw out some vapid complaints and then tell us you hope the world will change.
> People by and large do not want "solid, modern, coherent plans".
Surely a mother-knows-best attitude will work.
> Both kamala and hillary clinton had those.
Surely denying massive campaign problems, such as "basket of deplorables" and not distancing herself from Biden, will work.
> People want to be told the strong man will make everything better if you just give up a few rights.
Surely strawmanning any solid, modern, coherent plan as stripping away rights will work.
>Does your post, in specific, say anything meaningful? Not really, you just throw out some vapid complaints and then tell us you hope the world will change.
Did you want me to go say some full-time working-class person working paycheck to paycheck can just go run for office and singlehandedly defeat Trump in a landslide victory?
Surely a mother-knows-best attitude will work.
> Both kamala and hillary clinton had those.
Surely denying massive campaign problems, such as "basket of deplorables" and not distancing herself from Biden, will work.
> People want to be told the strong man will make everything better if you just give up a few rights.
Surely strawmanning any solid, modern, coherent plan as stripping away rights will work.
>Does your post, in specific, say anything meaningful? Not really, you just throw out some vapid complaints and then tell us you hope the world will change.
Did you want me to go say some full-time working-class person working paycheck to paycheck can just go run for office and singlehandedly defeat Trump in a landslide victory?
> Surely denying massive campaign problems, such as "basket of deplorables" and not distancing herself from Biden, will work.
Yeah, those are totally "massive campaign problems". Massive. Gigantic. Career ending.
Oh wait, Trump constantly throws out insults and associated with morally repugnant people. He insults christians and veterans and still got elected. I don't think these are the real issues.
Yeah, those are totally "massive campaign problems". Massive. Gigantic. Career ending.
Oh wait, Trump constantly throws out insults and associated with morally repugnant people. He insults christians and veterans and still got elected. I don't think these are the real issues.
If calling half of your opponents supporters bigots while simultaneously giving the bigots the marketing opportunity of a lifetime isn't a massive campaign problem, then what is? I still see and block people who have "deplorable" in their name eight years later.
He insults christians and veterans, and yet they vote for him overwhelmingly. The rules and issues are obviously different for the left and the right, and whataboutism just doesn't work. Fighting the "fair fight" instead of the actual fight won't end well.
He insults christians and veterans, and yet they vote for him overwhelmingly. The rules and issues are obviously different for the left and the right, and whataboutism just doesn't work. Fighting the "fair fight" instead of the actual fight won't end well.
If Trump wins the next election, take that as the signal of the point of no return. It happened to Rome, it can happen to America.
We are already long past the point of no return. He is the manifestation of a popular will. Even if he vanished tomorrow, those voters will remain.
They will not be daunted by an electoral setback. They control the Supreme Court, and will for decades. They control a majority of state legislatures -- which control how voting and districting work.
We've been past the point of no return since 2016. If you still had hope then, it should have died the same day Ruth Bader Ginsburg did. At this point it's all just telling ourselves fairy stories. It gets monotonically worse from here, and there is no longer anything we can do about it.
They will not be daunted by an electoral setback. They control the Supreme Court, and will for decades. They control a majority of state legislatures -- which control how voting and districting work.
We've been past the point of no return since 2016. If you still had hope then, it should have died the same day Ruth Bader Ginsburg did. At this point it's all just telling ourselves fairy stories. It gets monotonically worse from here, and there is no longer anything we can do about it.
They were barely more than half of the voters, and did not represent a single unified ideology. This doesn't mean they won't vote against their own interests again.
Less than half the voters (49.8% of popular vote), due to third-party candidates.
mptest(4)
> It gets monotonically worse from here, and there is no longer anything we can do about it.
For decades now, government policy has had approximately nothing to do with the will of the public. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...)
This situation is now being corrected. Anyone who sees this as a catastrophe, as getting "monotonically worse", is no fan of a republican form of government
For decades now, government policy has had approximately nothing to do with the will of the public. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...)
This situation is now being corrected. Anyone who sees this as a catastrophe, as getting "monotonically worse", is no fan of a republican form of government
This republican form of government was explicitly created to insulate law and justice from the direct will of the public.
So whose preferences should policy reflect? NGO presidents? Tech company employees in gatekeeper positions? Editorial column writers? Why these people and not the public? What gives them the right to rule?
Are you asking why america has a republican form of government designed to minimize the power of the majority of the population?
Well, partly because travel and communications were extremely slow when the constitution was written, but mostly because the rich land owners (and white males) were the ones writing it.
Well, partly because travel and communications were extremely slow when the constitution was written, but mostly because the rich land owners (and white males) were the ones writing it.
Ideally not thin-skinned demagogic grifter kleptocrats with no respect for the Constitution or rule of law.
Seems like a low bar to hurdle, yet here we are.
Seems like a low bar to hurdle, yet here we are.
It can also fail outright if voters and Congress pick up the scent of Emperor at midterms. History does not always repeat. If it did, we would not have had democracy to begin with.
I think in this case it will require the non-voters picking up the scent of a monarch. This is why I believe that point is yet to come (though I do believe that the belief that we are passed it is also very rational, only history will know).
He can't run again.
On paper he can't do a lot of things but the amount of gutting and cutting that's happened in the last two(!) months makes one realize the laws aren't worth the paper they're written on without a proactive congress interested in keeping the executive in check. Suspending birthright citizenship as established in the 14th amendment is a big one that "he can't do." Challenges to E.O. 14160 are going through the courts right now so we'll see.
Legally speaking, I think an outright challenge to the 22nd amendment will be interesting. As a 20th century amendment the language is pretty clear. But once again we look to what would actually enforce it?
Legally speaking, I think an outright challenge to the 22nd amendment will be interesting. As a 20th century amendment the language is pretty clear. But once again we look to what would actually enforce it?
The scotus would need to strike down the 22nd amendment. Even with as horribly morally bankrupt of a scotus as we have now, I don’t think they’d sink to the low of striking down the 22nd.
I don't believe scotus can invalidate an amendment. The best they can do is interpret it in a way that allows a third term.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down a constitutional amendment, that is true.
But in other common law countries, like India, whose legal system is very similar to the U.S., have had cases where the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment.
For more on this, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine
With regard to the Indian case above: while I support the goal of judgement, as the goal of the judgment itself is good, the idea of a Supreme Court overriding a constitutional amendment is quite startling.
The supreme courts of several other countries, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda have copied this doctrine.
Who knows when the U.S. Supreme Court will decide to copy this doctrine as well.
But in other common law countries, like India, whose legal system is very similar to the U.S., have had cases where the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment.
For more on this, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine
With regard to the Indian case above: while I support the goal of judgement, as the goal of the judgment itself is good, the idea of a Supreme Court overriding a constitutional amendment is quite startling.
The supreme courts of several other countries, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda have copied this doctrine.
Who knows when the U.S. Supreme Court will decide to copy this doctrine as well.
Not sure if it is the same in India but in the US there needs to be a supermajority of both houses and the amendment must be ratified by the states. Since the first ten amendments are considered more or less integral to the constitution, I have a hard time believing even this court would consider itself above amendments.
And even then, term limits would be a weird hill to die on, since it would open the door for future courts to strike down constitutional amendments.
And even then, term limits would be a weird hill to die on, since it would open the door for future courts to strike down constitutional amendments.
He was already ineligible this election based on the 14th amendment, but SCOTUS bailed him out.
They could pull a Trump v. Anderson, and say neither courts nor states can't keep him off the ballot - only the people, the College, or the Congress can stop it.
I don’t have a ton of faith in scotus right now, but I think they understand their only power is in whether people consider them independent. Allowing a third term for Trump would be accepting that they’re basically in charge of parking tickets.
I don't think the current Scotus cares in any way about looking independent. Quite the opposite.
They legalized bribery in plain sight for everyone to see for fucks sake. They stated that the president is above the law. It's insane to me that anyone thinks our institutions will save us.
Thankfully elections in the US are not run by the federal government, they're run separately in every state. Trump may be able to illegally get on the ballot in some states with the support of friendly state governments but he definitely won't get on all of them.
Even seemingly-friendly southern states may have state governments that will take a dim view of Trump attempting to get on the ballot. Kentucky, for example, has a Democrat as governor who is very popular. Kentucky has also had its bourbon industry devastated by Trump's senseless trade war. I would be shocked if Trump managed to illegally get on the ballot in Kentucky in 2028.
Even seemingly-friendly southern states may have state governments that will take a dim view of Trump attempting to get on the ballot. Kentucky, for example, has a Democrat as governor who is very popular. Kentucky has also had its bourbon industry devastated by Trump's senseless trade war. I would be shocked if Trump managed to illegally get on the ballot in Kentucky in 2028.
SCOTUS didn't allow Colorado to remove him from the ballot this time, what makes you think they won't do the same next time?
This time they have the 22nd amendment on their side. The law is crystal clear. He would need SCOTUS to ignore the constitution in his favour.
Many people think that the conservative majority on the court would automatically side with him and rubber-stamp his candidacy. I highly doubt that. He has already been publicly repudiated by Roberts (chief justice nominated by GW Bush) for his attacks on federal courts [1]. I am confident Roberts would not support any attempt by Trump to ignore the 22nd amendment.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/18/john-roberts-donald...
Many people think that the conservative majority on the court would automatically side with him and rubber-stamp his candidacy. I highly doubt that. He has already been publicly repudiated by Roberts (chief justice nominated by GW Bush) for his attacks on federal courts [1]. I am confident Roberts would not support any attempt by Trump to ignore the 22nd amendment.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/18/john-roberts-donald...
It's a good thing none of the political parties have recently been floating detailed plans to pack the supreme Court with extra justices. < /s >
If they added 10 young MAGA judges to the supreme Court this year, that would be the biggest legacy of the administration. All the XO can just be undone on day one, assuming we have another pro-democracy president.
If they added 10 young MAGA judges to the supreme Court this year, that would be the biggest legacy of the administration. All the XO can just be undone on day one, assuming we have another pro-democracy president.
You say that now. Every system designed to protect the constitution has been captured by him.
America has 4 years to set things right, it had better make it count.
America has 4 years to set things right, it had better make it count.
Supreme Court Judges have careers that outlive Presidents.
I think people consistently misinterpret the overturning of Roe (a calculated, focused effort that took decades and overturned specific judicial precedent that basically had created a right-to-privacy from whole cloth) with "Trump has SCOTUS in his pocket." He doesn't. The GOP got the two things they wanted from tilting the SCOTUS in their direction; there's no reason to believe this SCOTUS is about to start looking at the bare-face text of the Twenty Second Amendment and decide there aren't any words there.
The incentives just aren't there. Especially because it's pretty obvious that if they do ignore that text, it becomes pitchfork time and their necks are no less vulnerable than the President's.
(ETA: And that's ignoring that individual states are not obligated to put him on the ballot if he's inelligible to run for a third term, and by-and-large, Americans do not vote for names not on the ballot because they don't know their own civil rights).
I think people consistently misinterpret the overturning of Roe (a calculated, focused effort that took decades and overturned specific judicial precedent that basically had created a right-to-privacy from whole cloth) with "Trump has SCOTUS in his pocket." He doesn't. The GOP got the two things they wanted from tilting the SCOTUS in their direction; there's no reason to believe this SCOTUS is about to start looking at the bare-face text of the Twenty Second Amendment and decide there aren't any words there.
The incentives just aren't there. Especially because it's pretty obvious that if they do ignore that text, it becomes pitchfork time and their necks are no less vulnerable than the President's.
(ETA: And that's ignoring that individual states are not obligated to put him on the ballot if he's inelligible to run for a third term, and by-and-large, Americans do not vote for names not on the ballot because they don't know their own civil rights).
For me, it was the assertion of presidential immunity that lost my trust.
That's complicated, but not actually unexpected. The Constitution lays out the process and authority to check the President's power, and that process flows from Congress. SCOTUS essentially said "If Congress didn't even find a violation that moved them to invoke their maximum penalty of removal-from-office, why on Earth does anyone think we would impose the law to punish the President's official actions where Congress did not?" SCOTUS can restrain Presidential action (by saying, essentially, "that order is illegal" so nobody need comply) but they've never claimed to have the authority to punish the person in the office for doing the job as best he can. Granted, this was new territory because no previous administration had opened the question of such a sanction... But it's not surprising that SCOTUS responded "Jail the President for doing Presidential stuff? Hold on, let me check the Constitution... Nope, don't see it."
I get what you're arguing but isn't "Jail the President for doing Presidential stuff" a bit charitable? "Nope, don't see it" isn't so simple, I think a lot of people would argue that this follows from the rule of law set down in the constitution in the form of things like the supremacy clause and implied by our entire legal/political structure.
> isn't "Jail the President for doing Presidential stuff" a bit charitable?
One of our Presidents, against the will of Congress and in an era where the right to levy war on the part of Congress was far more closely tied to troop deployment (because we weren't yet in the era of Pax Americana with permanent overseas bases on every continent, much less the post-9/11 era of massive power delegation to the Executive), moved our Naval assets away from the Atlantic coast toward Europe and basically tried to hide it from Congress. It would have been extremely impeachable... But then we ended up in a World War soon after. A war we, conveniently, already had our Atlantic assets positioned to fight, over the previous desires of an isolationist American representative legislature.
That President never came under question of whether he should be jailed for putting Americans in harm's way when we were not involved in the European conflict (yet), and Congress had no intention of involving the country (yet). The things Trump did in office were far less risky to life and limb. I'm not implying they were correct or just things; I'm saying that when we talk about whether the other branches should be able to jail the President for malfeasance in-office, this is the realm of decisions and standards we're talking about.
One of our Presidents, against the will of Congress and in an era where the right to levy war on the part of Congress was far more closely tied to troop deployment (because we weren't yet in the era of Pax Americana with permanent overseas bases on every continent, much less the post-9/11 era of massive power delegation to the Executive), moved our Naval assets away from the Atlantic coast toward Europe and basically tried to hide it from Congress. It would have been extremely impeachable... But then we ended up in a World War soon after. A war we, conveniently, already had our Atlantic assets positioned to fight, over the previous desires of an isolationist American representative legislature.
That President never came under question of whether he should be jailed for putting Americans in harm's way when we were not involved in the European conflict (yet), and Congress had no intention of involving the country (yet). The things Trump did in office were far less risky to life and limb. I'm not implying they were correct or just things; I'm saying that when we talk about whether the other branches should be able to jail the President for malfeasance in-office, this is the realm of decisions and standards we're talking about.
This is assuming one needs to campaign in an election in order to continue their command of the executive branch and the military. I'm pretty sure the president's claim that he can serve a 3rd term means he'll serve for however long he determines, as an official act. Any court that dares issue an order to the contrary will have as little power to enforce their order as they are demonstrating now.
He could certainly kick off a Constitutional crisis by just ignoring the law, on that we agree. But that's always a risk. He could make a kill list of Congress members to assassinate starting alphabetically and it would be the same category of problem.
And the same people would defend it as not a constitutional crisis for whatever reason Fox News ran with.
He was ineligible this time based on the 14th amendment, but SCOTUS told Colorado they couldn't keep him off the ballot.
Unfortunately, he was never convicted of treason or any other crime that would involve the 14th Amendment.
I think we can understand why SCOTUS would ban Colorado from making that decision themselves, for much the same reason it bans Mississippi from having its own interpretation of the parts of the 14th Amendment about due process or citizenship.
In contrast, the 22nd Amendment is plain-letter law, so obvious that it brooks no interpretation.
I think we can understand why SCOTUS would ban Colorado from making that decision themselves, for much the same reason it bans Mississippi from having its own interpretation of the parts of the 14th Amendment about due process or citizenship.
In contrast, the 22nd Amendment is plain-letter law, so obvious that it brooks no interpretation.
I disagree it's as obvious as you think. He could run for VP and then act as de-facto President. It says that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" - in that case, he would have been _elected_ Vice President, not President.
And as as far as the 12th Amendment goes, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
The 22nd amendment doesn't explicitly say he cannot serve as President, it just says "no person shall be _elected_ to the office of President".
Yes, the spirit of the constitution clearly prevents a 3rd term, but it could be possible to employ a very literal interpretation that allows the above.
And as as far as the 12th Amendment goes, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
The 22nd amendment doesn't explicitly say he cannot serve as President, it just says "no person shall be _elected_ to the office of President".
Yes, the spirit of the constitution clearly prevents a 3rd term, but it could be possible to employ a very literal interpretation that allows the above.
He's stated he is contemplating getting Vance to run, then for Vance to step down in favor of Trump.
> Trump, 78, said in the interview that he was serious about seeking a third term in office.
> "A lot of people want me to do it," Trump said, according to NBC News. "But we have – my thinking is, we have a long way to go. I'm focused on the current."
> When asked about specific plans for seeking a third term, Trump confirmed one method — Vice President JD Vance wins the White House in a future election and then hands over the presidency. Trump said there were other plans, but he refused to say what they wer
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/30/g-s1-57231/trump-third-term
> Trump, 78, said in the interview that he was serious about seeking a third term in office.
> "A lot of people want me to do it," Trump said, according to NBC News. "But we have – my thinking is, we have a long way to go. I'm focused on the current."
> When asked about specific plans for seeking a third term, Trump confirmed one method — Vice President JD Vance wins the White House in a future election and then hands over the presidency. Trump said there were other plans, but he refused to say what they wer
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/30/g-s1-57231/trump-third-term
That plan fails the requirement that to run for Vice president you have to be eligible for president. But sure, Trump trying to pull what Putin did with Medvedev in the 2000s seems about right for a wannabe dictator.
> He's stated he is contemplating getting Vance to run, then for Vance to step down in favor of Trump
Technically illegal due to the Twelfth Amendment: “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States” [1].
Simpler: run two randos, have the House choose Trump as Speaker [2], have the randos resign [3].
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-speaker-non-member-of-con...
[3] https://www.usa.gov/presidential-succession
Technically illegal due to the Twelfth Amendment: “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States” [1].
Simpler: run two randos, have the House choose Trump as Speaker [2], have the randos resign [3].
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-12/
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-speaker-non-member-of-con...
[3] https://www.usa.gov/presidential-succession
I presume you are familiar with the standard counter argument that the Constitution says "elected" rather than "serve"?
Here's a Constitutional law professor arguing 25 years ago that Bill Clinton was constitutionally eligible to run again as VP: https://web.archive.org/web/20051001004410/http://archives.c...
It's easy to claim that Trump running as VP would violate the spirit of the 12th amendment, but I think there is genuine doubt as to how the Supreme Court might rule.
Separately, could you contact me by the email in my profile? I've got a (mostly unrelated) question I've been meaning to ask you. No hurry.
Here's a Constitutional law professor arguing 25 years ago that Bill Clinton was constitutionally eligible to run again as VP: https://web.archive.org/web/20051001004410/http://archives.c...
It's easy to claim that Trump running as VP would violate the spirit of the 12th amendment, but I think there is genuine doubt as to how the Supreme Court might rule.
Separately, could you contact me by the email in my profile? I've got a (mostly unrelated) question I've been meaning to ask you. No hurry.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/30/us/politics/trump-third-t...
I agree but he doesn’t and neither do his voters.
Keep watching. He's got close to 4 years to figure out how to cross that Rubicon.
He can be VP and then succeed by the president stepping down.
The 12th Amendment disagrees:
> But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
> But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
You cannot become VP if you are not _also_ eligible to be President.
Why not? Because a piece of paper says he’s not allowed to? Pieces of paper say a lot of things; sometimes they’re followed, sometimes not.
If that piece of paper isn't being followed, what are the rules of the game? And are you agreeing that force does settle it? Should it?
John Adams might agree with you though. He said the constitution was intended for a moral (and religious) people. Maybe Americans are simply out of virtue, and don't deserve the Constitution anymore?
Sounds pretty expensive.
John Adams might agree with you though. He said the constitution was intended for a moral (and religious) people. Maybe Americans are simply out of virtue, and don't deserve the Constitution anymore?
Sounds pretty expensive.
To be clear, I hope it’s followed; I’m just not confident it will be.
Nayib Bukele is limited to one term by the Salvadoran constitution. He’s currently on his second. Turns out that if nobody stops you, you can just do whatever you want.
Nayib Bukele is limited to one term by the Salvadoran constitution. He’s currently on his second. Turns out that if nobody stops you, you can just do whatever you want.
That "piece of paper" is the only thing saying that the president has any power. He wants us to not follow it? Fine, but he may not like the consequences, which are that he's no longer someone that we have to listen to or who has any actual power. He's just a real estate developer who thinks he's somebody important.
> That "piece of paper" is the only thing saying that the president has any power.
No it isn't. People have power because people with guns follow their orders, not because of what a piece of paper says.
No it isn't. People have power because people with guns follow their orders, not because of what a piece of paper says.
And the people with guns swore an oath to the piece of paper, not to the man. If the piece of paper stops saying that he's the man...
Trump that he's serious about running for a third term and that there are methods to do it.
That was just earlier today. https://apnews.com/article/trump-third-term-constitution-22n...
We've had ten years of "Trump can't do X."
That was just earlier today. https://apnews.com/article/trump-third-term-constitution-22n...
We've had ten years of "Trump can't do X."
Yes but we've also had ten years of flooding the zone. I am inclined to believe this is the latter. He will get everything he needs from this term - primarily an escape from his Jan 6 and classified documents charges.
I think raising the third term was largely about pushing Signalgate off the front pages, and of course it worked.
Putin was also term limited around 2012 iirc?
This is what these people do.
This is what these people do.
I think this is a foolish belief.
> The third presidential term of Franklin D. Roosevelt began on January 20, 1941, when he was once again inaugurated as the 32nd president of the United States, and the fourth term of his presidency ended with his death on April 12, 1945
There's already precedent.
> The third presidential term of Franklin D. Roosevelt began on January 20, 1941, when he was once again inaugurated as the 32nd president of the United States, and the fourth term of his presidency ended with his death on April 12, 1945
There's already precedent.
There's a whole Amendment about this.[1]
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/
True, famously, this administration is strictly bound by laws. Don't worry guys, we're safe.
One inferred point of the article is that eroding the first amendment makes the rest less imposing to circumvent.
I think it's the other way around: giving an insurrectionist the most powerful office in the land, a violation of the 14th, is a recipe for wanton malfeasance in office. All the other violations were made possible by that first one.
They're already pitching the idea that the 22nd amendment only prevents someone who had two consecutive terms from running again. Looking at the language of the amendment, I have no idea how they can justify that. But stranger things have happened recently. :-/
The 22nd amendment was passed after that though.
FDR was seen as getting America out of the Great Depression and navigating America through WW2 successfully. Oh and alcohol became legal again so you could celebrate the roaring manufacturing economy and military victories with a beer. Trump is no FDR.
FDR was seen as getting America out of the Great Depression and navigating America through WW2 successfully. Oh and alcohol became legal again so you could celebrate the roaring manufacturing economy and military victories with a beer. Trump is no FDR.
He said today he was serious about seeking a 3rd term and has multiple ways to do so... it would be absolutely foolish to pretend like 'norms' or the Supreme Court would constrain him.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-third-te...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-third-te...
I’m aware; I’m mostly saying the third term of FDR is not really “precedent” given the degree of popular support FDR enjoyed and the lack of the 22nd amendment at the time.
Trump seeking a third term will be out of the ordinary, and if he were to “win” the election and be recognized as the president, it would mean the end of the constitution. And that could happen.
Trump seeking a third term will be out of the ordinary, and if he were to “win” the election and be recognized as the president, it would mean the end of the constitution. And that could happen.
Yeah that's fair - I don't think he'd be elected via a popular uprising of support. It's a very different scenario that has my worried.
At some point every dictator was more popular with a crowd, sometimes even the moral crowd (Mugabe was aligned with liberating Zimbabwe from colonial rule). Who's to know what FDR would have become if biology hadn't saved him from extended exposure to power.
Trump merely happened to be far gone prior to stepping into office for the first time.
Trump merely happened to be far gone prior to stepping into office for the first time.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted, he is openly stating he plans to try to violate the 22nd amendment of the Constitution[1].
If you think that can't happen, think about this: the Constitution already prohibited him from running as an insurrectionist. Multiple states found that he committed insurrection and the US Supreme Court forced him on their ballots anyway. The reason: they assert that the amendment isn't self-enforcing, and congress must proactively write a law in order to create enforcement measures for the 14th amendment's prohibition on insurrectionists. They didn't, so he was allowed to run and take office.
That same logical jiu-jitsu the GOP used to successfully violate the 14th amendment could just as easily be used on the 22nd.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-third-term-president-con...
If you think that can't happen, think about this: the Constitution already prohibited him from running as an insurrectionist. Multiple states found that he committed insurrection and the US Supreme Court forced him on their ballots anyway. The reason: they assert that the amendment isn't self-enforcing, and congress must proactively write a law in order to create enforcement measures for the 14th amendment's prohibition on insurrectionists. They didn't, so he was allowed to run and take office.
That same logical jiu-jitsu the GOP used to successfully violate the 14th amendment could just as easily be used on the 22nd.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-third-term-president-con...
Don't discuss comment voting :) [1]. I'm an adult and can handle it, corrective votes will be issued by others if its warranted.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We’re a long way from that:
1. He’ll have to change some rules to run again. There will be a lot of resistance.
2. Midterm elections (November of 2026) could take away majorities in the house and the senate, and hopefully bring impeachment back into the picture.
3. There are special elections next Tuesday - 2 house seats in Florida and a Supreme Court justice in Wisconsin. It’s encouraging that Republicans are worried about these, the apartheid billionaire is spraying money all over Wisconsin.
Yes it’s dark and depressing, but things can be changed long before the next Presidential election.
1. He’ll have to change some rules to run again. There will be a lot of resistance.
2. Midterm elections (November of 2026) could take away majorities in the house and the senate, and hopefully bring impeachment back into the picture.
3. There are special elections next Tuesday - 2 house seats in Florida and a Supreme Court justice in Wisconsin. It’s encouraging that Republicans are worried about these, the apartheid billionaire is spraying money all over Wisconsin.
Yes it’s dark and depressing, but things can be changed long before the next Presidential election.
> If Trump wins the next election[..] It happened to Rome
In Rome, Cezar didn't become the dictator for life, he got stabbed to death. What happened is that his successor, Octavian, took control of real power while pretending that the republic was fine.
In reality Republic died before Cezar, while Octavian played Weekend at Bernie's.
In Rome, Cezar didn't become the dictator for life, he got stabbed to death. What happened is that his successor, Octavian, took control of real power while pretending that the republic was fine.
In reality Republic died before Cezar, while Octavian played Weekend at Bernie's.
He's already 78.
Edit: Born June 14, 1946 - you do the math.
Edit: Born June 14, 1946 - you do the math.
> In a $10 billion lawsuit against 60 Minutes and its parent Paramount, Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election. The TV news show last month published transcripts of the interview at the heart of the dispute, but Paramount is reportedly considering a settlement to avoid potentially damaging its chances of winning the administration’s approval for a pending multibillion-dollar merger.
`Trump "claims" they selectively edited`. This is intellectually dishonest of the OP to say this. It is clear from the published original transcript, it is clear that they did in fact swap out Harris' nonsensical reply to some critical questions with something else she spoke 20-30 mins prior to make it sound like she gave a coherent answer. This is obvious for anyone looking at the original raw footage published by PBS.
Why is the OP saying "Trump claims" when it has in fact been proven to be true? He makes it sound like PBS folks did real journalistic work and Trump is trying to use his power in government to intimidate well-meaning journalists. That is not true.
`Trump "claims" they selectively edited`. This is intellectually dishonest of the OP to say this. It is clear from the published original transcript, it is clear that they did in fact swap out Harris' nonsensical reply to some critical questions with something else she spoke 20-30 mins prior to make it sound like she gave a coherent answer. This is obvious for anyone looking at the original raw footage published by PBS.
Why is the OP saying "Trump claims" when it has in fact been proven to be true? He makes it sound like PBS folks did real journalistic work and Trump is trying to use his power in government to intimidate well-meaning journalists. That is not true.
Because that’s the claim of the lawsuit.
Even if true this is irrelevant, the first amendment is agnostic to truth or good propriety.
Unless a lawsuit is settled with either a ruling or an admission of guilt in a settlement, it is a "claim".
It's the same reason news articles always use "alleged".
It's the same reason news articles always use "alleged".
I think these lawsuits with large damages against media companies are going in a bad direction. But this also includes the lawsuit against Alex Jones and the Covington kids lawsuit but I don't think you will find many people that have some kind of consistent principal when dealing with this. They will just have some magic rule that will mean the law suit against Alex Jones is good and Trump's law suit is bad or vice versa. There is even a similar thing going with this list of 1A violations from the current administration. Similar things went on with the last administration but I didn't see a Kreb's summary post but maybe I missed it.
Ehh lots of things being said that were being forced unsaid before 2025 so I think you're wrong Krebs.
Watching the debacle from across the pond, wondering what everyone voting for Trump feared in the alternative. Kamala, extreme leftist? Guess youve never heard of USSR. And even not they were extreme.
People didn't vote for trump because they were afraid of kamala.
People _didn't_ vote for kamala because shes a milquetoast unqualified candidate that represents a party that has lost touch with it's base. It turns out, "just vote (for whoever we decide on at the dnc)." Is not a viable strategy.
People _didn't_ vote for kamala because shes a milquetoast unqualified candidate that represents a party that has lost touch with it's base. It turns out, "just vote (for whoever we decide on at the dnc)." Is not a viable strategy.
Right, but it's what their news outlets tell them is going on. They fully believed Kamala was a threat to their gun ownership, and her race and gender (let's face it) was a threat to their ego.
That is all true, but it can’t be understated just how much people didn’t like her as a person. People didn’t really find her funny or charismatic.
Obviously policy matters very little here; personality is king and many Americans love Trump’s personality. It’s why none of the policy arguments do much to sway anything.
People like the man, and they can dislike his policies separately, but they only dislike the policies that really impact them personally in a negative way. They like the man enough to just support whatever less visible policies he has.
I think race, gender, class, and culture have a lot to do with these preferences.
Obviously policy matters very little here; personality is king and many Americans love Trump’s personality. It’s why none of the policy arguments do much to sway anything.
People like the man, and they can dislike his policies separately, but they only dislike the policies that really impact them personally in a negative way. They like the man enough to just support whatever less visible policies he has.
I think race, gender, class, and culture have a lot to do with these preferences.
> her race and gender (let's face it) was a threat to their ego.
Its more common for right wing parties to elect a female leader than for left wing parties to, so if you look at leaders of countries most women are right wing. So if anything it is the left that has an issue with female leaders, not the right.
Its more common for right wing parties to elect a female leader than for left wing parties to, so if you look at leaders of countries most women are right wing. So if anything it is the left that has an issue with female leaders, not the right.
That perfectly explains why women make up 42% of the Democratic congressional body while only 15% for Republicans.
But it still directly contradicts the assumption of the parent and I would agree that it is a wrong judgement. Probably more a sentiment that was widely spread in Trumps opposition and perhaps this lack of judgement lead to a loss.
> Its more common for right wing parties to elect a female leader than for left wing parties to
If we define "leader" as executive or legislative positions at the federal or state level, definitely not true in the US, by a pretty large margin.
If we define "leader" as executive or legislative positions at the federal or state level, definitely not true in the US, by a pretty large margin.
There's no need to wonder, as polls of which issues voters find most important are common in the US. See https://news.gallup.com/poll/651719/economy-important-issue-... if you're curious.
I'm hesitant to write politics here because of how many people write scathing and rude comments, but I'll attempt to give a US perspective on the last election.
I think there were just a series of events that led to nobody getting excited by D in the election, allowing Trump to win. Especially when you consider that moderates and NPAs always decide the elections.
Inflation was out of control(by US standards) for Biden's entire term. In fairness this started at the end of Trump1 but carried on for years. Will Trump fix it? Who knows, I think most expect tariffs to make it even worse.
Immigration seemed unchecked, which itself probably wouldn't have been a huge issue, but news and social media 'investigators' came out about how much the gov was giving them - money, housing, healthcare, etc. Struggling and newly struggling people got really, really angry about money being spent there. That was a super easy play for R's all election season.
But the nail in the coffin IMO was the debate disaster, CNN turning on Biden as not fit to be president overnight, then last minute odd resignation letter via Twitter. Then injected with a candidate nobody had a say in, to boot.
So in short, a combination of people angry at 'the system' rebelling, and a candidate without much real support. I don't feel like R's won the election as much as I feel like D's imploded themselves. For the sake of not having an uniparty, I hope they rethink things. I feel like Newsom making a more moderate shift is a play in that direction, we'll see.
Just my .02.
I think there were just a series of events that led to nobody getting excited by D in the election, allowing Trump to win. Especially when you consider that moderates and NPAs always decide the elections.
Inflation was out of control(by US standards) for Biden's entire term. In fairness this started at the end of Trump1 but carried on for years. Will Trump fix it? Who knows, I think most expect tariffs to make it even worse.
Immigration seemed unchecked, which itself probably wouldn't have been a huge issue, but news and social media 'investigators' came out about how much the gov was giving them - money, housing, healthcare, etc. Struggling and newly struggling people got really, really angry about money being spent there. That was a super easy play for R's all election season.
But the nail in the coffin IMO was the debate disaster, CNN turning on Biden as not fit to be president overnight, then last minute odd resignation letter via Twitter. Then injected with a candidate nobody had a say in, to boot.
So in short, a combination of people angry at 'the system' rebelling, and a candidate without much real support. I don't feel like R's won the election as much as I feel like D's imploded themselves. For the sake of not having an uniparty, I hope they rethink things. I feel like Newsom making a more moderate shift is a play in that direction, we'll see.
Just my .02.
In my section of the internet a lot of people who would have voted for the Democrats didn't vote at all. Many of them already disliked Harris because she's not a socialist or communist. And what pushed them to completely dismiss her was her siding with Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict. They felt like voting for her was them voting in support of genocide.
Unfortunately it was hard to convince people that was a terrible reason because not countering Trump votes with votes for Harris was just ensuring a Trump win. Which of course meant the same outcome or worse for Palestinians and also awful shit for Americans and other countries that rely on the US.
Unfortunately it was hard to convince people that was a terrible reason because not countering Trump votes with votes for Harris was just ensuring a Trump win. Which of course meant the same outcome or worse for Palestinians and also awful shit for Americans and other countries that rely on the US.
Well, it didn't start in a vacuum.
It's been under attack a lot longer than the current administration.
"free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences",
"free speech does not apply to hate-speech",
"we must suppress and limit the spread of misinformation",
It really seems that people do not believe in free speech anymore, and only appeal to it as a principle to defend themselves, never to defend those they disagree with.
"free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences",
"free speech does not apply to hate-speech",
"we must suppress and limit the spread of misinformation",
It really seems that people do not believe in free speech anymore, and only appeal to it as a principle to defend themselves, never to defend those they disagree with.
> "free-speech does not mean freedom from consequences"
This is a actually a slogan in support of free speech. Of course people are allowed to say transphobic things online or downtown, but that would surely make some of their coworkers uncomfortable and that's pretty disqualifying from most employment. You're allowed to say things, but colleagues are allowed to respond in kind within the law.
This is a actually a slogan in support of free speech. Of course people are allowed to say transphobic things online or downtown, but that would surely make some of their coworkers uncomfortable and that's pretty disqualifying from most employment. You're allowed to say things, but colleagues are allowed to respond in kind within the law.
Of course people are allowed to say MAGA-phobic things online or downtown, but that would surely make some of their coworkers uncomfortable and that's pretty disqualifying from most employment. You're allowed to say things, but colleagues are allowed to respond in kind within the law.
I'm not certain what MAGA-phobic could mean etymologically, since a "phobia" is an irrational fear of something, such as an irrational fear of people transitioning sex. Opposition to MAGA is typically rooted in the very rational and well-evidenced fear that one might be persecuted for their religious affiliation or sexuality, among other things.
> Opposition to MAGA is typically rooted in the very rational and well-evidenced fear
Opposition to LGBT is typically rooted in the very rational and well-evidenced fear...
Opposition to LGBT is typically rooted in the very rational and well-evidenced fear...
Please refrain from trolling on Hacker News.
I'm just trying to express the idea that "it's obviously us who are the good guys and them who are the bad guys" applies equally to both sides.
You haven't attempted to do that. You asked us to imagine a rational fear of queer people, but there isn't one. You've simply asserted a dogma without substantiating it.
Are you trying to flip the table against them? because I agree with all of that. If certain employees are causing problems with other employees, the company has every right to fire them.
> If certain employees are causing problems with other employees, the company has every right to fire them.
This used to be the biggest argument against hiring women into all-male teams. Nowadays it's the biggest argument against hiring men into all-female teams.
This used to be the biggest argument against hiring women into all-male teams. Nowadays it's the biggest argument against hiring men into all-female teams.
Not it is not and it is also contradicting the definition of freedom of speech, first sentence:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
"Consequences" are to be understood as sanctions or censorship, or does it mean something different to you? Then please elaborate.
Doesn't make a popular XKCD wrong, but it makes some ideas rather stupid.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
"Consequences" are to be understood as sanctions or censorship, or does it mean something different to you? Then please elaborate.
Doesn't make a popular XKCD wrong, but it makes some ideas rather stupid.
Again, the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship, not actions taken by private entities.
Yes, the first amendment is restricted to that, but you proposed some statement would be supportive of freedom of speech. But instead it is contradictory to the definition.
[deleted]
Fair enough, and I agree to an extent. But a lot of the complaints leveled at Trump amount to the same thing. For example, visa holders are free to say whatever they want, but may have to return to their country of origin, etc.
No, because "revoking your visa" is a thing the GOVERNMENT does to someone. Revoking someone's Visa for their speech is explicitly what the 1st is about!
Whereas, your PRIVATE employer deciding they don't want to pay you money because you are an asshole (whether that's because you hate LGBTQ people, or aggressively defend their rights with your speech) is THEIR first amendment rights.
The 1st is about: Freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Limiting a private company's ability to fire you for your speech is against their 1st amendment rights! Indeed, several attempts to build a civil rights framework in the US failed judicial review for this exact reason, and the one we eventually got had to make great efforts to justify that it's limited "protected class" framework was acceptable. I predict it gets overturned.
The inverse is also true: The government CAN limit the speech of people in their government jobs. Teachers can legally be prevented from saying things as teachers, without it being an infringement on their speech rights.
Whereas, your PRIVATE employer deciding they don't want to pay you money because you are an asshole (whether that's because you hate LGBTQ people, or aggressively defend their rights with your speech) is THEIR first amendment rights.
The 1st is about: Freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Limiting a private company's ability to fire you for your speech is against their 1st amendment rights! Indeed, several attempts to build a civil rights framework in the US failed judicial review for this exact reason, and the one we eventually got had to make great efforts to justify that it's limited "protected class" framework was acceptable. I predict it gets overturned.
The inverse is also true: The government CAN limit the speech of people in their government jobs. Teachers can legally be prevented from saying things as teachers, without it being an infringement on their speech rights.
Don’t both-sides this. 99% of the attacks have been under the Trump administration.
Trump is obviously attacking free-speech, but the attacks have been going on by both sides. The examples I gave are _very_ prevalent and common, and not coming from the Trump camp. Very few people seem to actually believe in free speech, when it comes to protecting their political rivals... which is the only place the principle actually much matters.
[deleted]
Free speech has been in retreat for years. The previous administration just targeted a different flavor of 'offending speech' and cracked down hard on it.
As a European, I can confirm it’s at least as bad here, if not worse. We’re just gagged by a different set of taboo ideas.
I bought into Trump’s campaign promise to 'restore free speech' — partly because he’d been censored so aggressively himself. I figured he’d get its value. But I didn’t see the Israel exception coming: apparently, Israel and its actions are untouchable, no matter the cost.
As a European, I can confirm it’s at least as bad here, if not worse. We’re just gagged by a different set of taboo ideas.
I bought into Trump’s campaign promise to 'restore free speech' — partly because he’d been censored so aggressively himself. I figured he’d get its value. But I didn’t see the Israel exception coming: apparently, Israel and its actions are untouchable, no matter the cost.
There is no free speech without limits unless you think speech as such has no effect.
Otherwise the speech of one can silent the speech of orhers.
Otherwise the speech of one can silent the speech of orhers.
Trump is elected and everybody suddenly start caring about civil rights
Actually government officials started ignoring the FOIA, firing federal oversight employees, deporting students, and cutting federal funding for colleges that have protests the administration doesn’t like.
"Trump claims they selectively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election"
Wasn't the full video released and it established that they did edit the video? The article is making it sound like they are being forced to settle a false allegation?
edit: the response was edited, not just the video. details: https://x.com/i/grok/share/KODjBWCrzF8oPmKyPCFuVj1c7
Wasn't the full video released and it established that they did edit the video? The article is making it sound like they are being forced to settle a false allegation?
edit: the response was edited, not just the video. details: https://x.com/i/grok/share/KODjBWCrzF8oPmKyPCFuVj1c7
This is weird that you are citing an LLM
If you ask Grok, it will point you to the source. But let me do that for you below.
Original Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles that were just meant to attack the Israelis, and the people of Israel. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents Iran, I think that it is without any question our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks. Now, the work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages, and create a ceasefire. And we're not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel, and in the region, including Arab leaders.
Edited Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles.
PS: The above transcripts were linked from CBS site: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-publishes-transcript...
Original Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles that were just meant to attack the Israelis, and the people of Israel. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents Iran, I think that it is without any question our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks. Now, the work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages, and create a ceasefire. And we're not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel, and in the region, including Arab leaders.
Edited Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles.
PS: The above transcripts were linked from CBS site: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-publishes-transcript...
All videos are edited.
They cut and pasted answers from a different question so that it sounded less like her usual word salad non-answers. No biggie.
Source?
let me paste the source for the fifth time in this conversation:
If you ask Grok, it will point you to the source. But let me do that for you below.
Original Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles that were just meant to attack the Israelis, and the people of Israel. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents Iran, I think that it is without any question our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks. Now, the work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages, and create a ceasefire. And we're not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel, and in the region, including Arab leaders.
Edited Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles.
PS: The above transcripts were linked from CBS site: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-publishes-transcript...
If you ask Grok, it will point you to the source. But let me do that for you below.
Original Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles that were just meant to attack the Israelis, and the people of Israel. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents Iran, I think that it is without any question our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks. Now, the work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages, and create a ceasefire. And we're not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel, and in the region, including Arab leaders.
Edited Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles.
PS: The above transcripts were linked from CBS site: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-publishes-transcript...
[deleted]
> They cut and pasted answers from a different question
No, the transcript you pasted shows it's part of her answer from the same question.
No, the transcript you pasted shows it's part of her answer from the same question.
Only one deflection? Nice, so I take it you have no rebuttal for the rest and concede the point of Trump's assault on the 1A!
Every video that has been broadcast has been edited I'm not sure what your point is.
Harris' response to a question was edited, that is not fine.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/KODjBWCrzF8oPmKyPCFuVj1c7
https://x.com/i/grok/share/KODjBWCrzF8oPmKyPCFuVj1c7
Using an LLM built and controlled by Musk is only evidence of your ineptitude.
If you ask Grok, it will point you to the source. But let me do that for you below.
Original Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles that were just meant to attack the Israelis, and the people of Israel. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents Iran, I think that it is without any question our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks. Now, the work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages, and create a ceasefire. And we're not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel, and in the region, including Arab leaders.
Edited Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles.
PS: The above transcripts were linked from CBS site: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-publishes-transcript...
Original Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles that were just meant to attack the Israelis, and the people of Israel. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents Iran, I think that it is without any question our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks. Now, the work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages, and create a ceasefire. And we're not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel, and in the region, including Arab leaders.
Edited Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles.
PS: The above transcripts were linked from CBS site: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-publishes-transcript...
I don't understand how you think this is a smoking gun?
He mentioned military aid in the part you cut out of your quote of the transcript. She responded to that by characterizing the military aid and why it was necessary, but they cut out her response to the mention of military aid because they wanted a response to only the second part of Whitaker's statement (ie the "no sway" part). Seems reasonable for a TV interview that needs to fit a tight schedule, no?
Those links are the same.
How do either of those help or hurt Trump?
How do either of those help or hurt Trump?
fixed the link.
RE: How do either of those help or hurt Trump? I am not going to speculate that. But looking at the diff of the edit, anything of "substance" is removed from the response, and what remains is a non-answer.
RE: How do either of those help or hurt Trump? I am not going to speculate that. But looking at the diff of the edit, anything of "substance" is removed from the response, and what remains is a non-answer.
It is both candidates competing to outdo each other on who will drop more bombs. It is a smoking gun, but not in the way you think it is.
That CBS should owe trump money or face any sort of repercussions over the perceived sleight is absolutely ridiculous. This is the behavior of a narcissistic snowflake, not grown man and last of all a president.
That CBS should owe trump money or face any sort of repercussions over the perceived sleight is absolutely ridiculous. This is the behavior of a narcissistic snowflake, not grown man and last of all a president.
Try again with a source that isn't AI crap.
If you ask Grok, it will point you to the source. But let me do that for you below.
Original Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles that were just meant to attack the Israelis, and the people of Israel. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents Iran, I think that it is without any question our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks. Now, the work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages, and create a ceasefire. And we're not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel, and in the region, including Arab leaders.
Edited Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles.
PS: The above transcripts were linked from CBS site: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-publishes-transcript...
Original Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles that were just meant to attack the Israelis, and the people of Israel. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents Iran, I think that it is without any question our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks. Now, the work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages, and create a ceasefire. And we're not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel, and in the region, including Arab leaders.
Edited Transcript: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2v8g39z2ab1jo0waj6tn4/AJhMeQd...
MR. BILL WHITAKER: And yet Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris Administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire, he's resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon, he went in anyway. Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu? VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles.
PS: The above transcripts were linked from CBS site: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-publishes-transcript...
I assume you're at least as upset by the cleanup that NYT and WaPo have done to Trump's utterances. During his helicopter news conferences, we'd see and hear what he said, and it was nothing like what was reported.
was it an interview? give details.
Not really clear what this article is about. If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredding mails when caught.
If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment.
If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors
I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror.
If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment.
If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors
I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror.
Increadible that "but what about her emails" is still the only defense for sending military secrets over a non secure line to a journalist
That was, as I mentioned a mistake not intentional. If anything was intentional it was the so called journalist giving it publicity instead of doing his duty as a citizen to report it, delete it. Doing anything else is in my books treason.
As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers.
As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers.
Your best argument is that journalists should look the other way when serious problems land in their lap?
> As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers.
This analogy would make sense if the messages went to an employee of the federal government, but they didn’t.
It’s mind-bending that someone could be so bought into a bad situation that they try to shift blame to outside parties like this.
> As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers.
This analogy would make sense if the messages went to an employee of the federal government, but they didn’t.
It’s mind-bending that someone could be so bought into a bad situation that they try to shift blame to outside parties like this.
Journalist has all rights to write about it and perhaps mention enough to prove he's not without proof but not reveal as much as he did.
That's reckless.
Repeat - revealing sensitive info even if you come across by accident or someone's mistake is a crime. Esp national ones not just corporate secrets.
That's reckless.
Repeat - revealing sensitive info even if you come across by accident or someone's mistake is a crime. Esp national ones not just corporate secrets.
What information did they reveal that was sensitive? The strikes had already taken place and so nothing they shared had any strategic value after the fact, other than to confirm the validity. To be clear it is utterly fucking insane (borderline "Russian bot" talking point) that you are entertaining this line of reasoning and I feel dirty for even engaging you.
Ha the "Russian talking point" weapon! Never failed. Anyone that doesnt repeat what the ecosystem wants is Russian agent.
Kind of defeats the argument that content of messages will set back relations, affect future intelligence collection etc we kept hearing endlessly?!
Make up your mind. It's either important or not.
Kind of defeats the argument that content of messages will set back relations, affect future intelligence collection etc we kept hearing endlessly?!
Make up your mind. It's either important or not.
It's more like anyone who wants to dismantle the free press is a Russian agent in this case. Not really moved by your protest.
The journalist who reported it committed treason. Wow, congratulations on having the most unhinged take I've ever seen on this site, well done.
> Not really clear what this article is about.
The article is quite clear: It’s about exactly what the title explains. I’m not sure how you would find it unclear unless you were skimming too fast to read it or you went in trying to find an angle to push a different agenda.
> If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredding mails when caught.
This is just “whataboutism”. If you want to play the whataboutism game, then what about all of the theatrics and threats that came with the email server story? Why have the rules suddenly changed so that something far worse is suddenly no big deal?
> If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment.
If the best complaint you can muster is that it’s a different issue than the headline issue, that’s hardly a defense.
> If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors
Again, a weak attempt at whataboutism.
And again, it doesn’t make sense for you to try to defend one thing by comparing it to another perceived thing you don’t like (“cancel culture”).
Is your biggest concern with your article that it focused on current events instead of dwelling on these past issues? It’s an article about the current administration. Trying to drudge up past grievances is irrelevant.
> I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror.
I suspect your comment will be poorly received because it’s a weak attempt at whataboutism. It’s also logically inconsistent, given that you’re trying to downplay the current administration’s actions by comparing them to prior administration’s actions or vague culture war material. If you’re determined to dismiss any criticisms as a mirror of something, maybe pause and take some time to first think about how your own arguments could be made without reaching for whataboutism or past grievances. Try focusing on the matter at hand and who’s currently in charge, because it’s not Hilary Clinton or your “cancel culture” bogeymen making any of these decisions or lawsuits, but that’s all you want us to look at.
The article is quite clear: It’s about exactly what the title explains. I’m not sure how you would find it unclear unless you were skimming too fast to read it or you went in trying to find an angle to push a different agenda.
> If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredding mails when caught.
This is just “whataboutism”. If you want to play the whataboutism game, then what about all of the theatrics and threats that came with the email server story? Why have the rules suddenly changed so that something far worse is suddenly no big deal?
> If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment.
If the best complaint you can muster is that it’s a different issue than the headline issue, that’s hardly a defense.
> If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors
Again, a weak attempt at whataboutism.
And again, it doesn’t make sense for you to try to defend one thing by comparing it to another perceived thing you don’t like (“cancel culture”).
Is your biggest concern with your article that it focused on current events instead of dwelling on these past issues? It’s an article about the current administration. Trying to drudge up past grievances is irrelevant.
> I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror.
I suspect your comment will be poorly received because it’s a weak attempt at whataboutism. It’s also logically inconsistent, given that you’re trying to downplay the current administration’s actions by comparing them to prior administration’s actions or vague culture war material. If you’re determined to dismiss any criticisms as a mirror of something, maybe pause and take some time to first think about how your own arguments could be made without reaching for whataboutism or past grievances. Try focusing on the matter at hand and who’s currently in charge, because it’s not Hilary Clinton or your “cancel culture” bogeymen making any of these decisions or lawsuits, but that’s all you want us to look at.
I'm open to reasonable criticism like yours appears to be.
It's not wrong to mention past given that past has great chances of returning as future. Not just in US context, but in most electoral democracies.
By not discussing issues objectively the article just reads like another NYT, MSNBC rant. Sure be my guest and go ahead but we know what the credibility of that approach is.
It's not wrong to mention past given that past has great chances of returning as future. Not just in US context, but in most electoral democracies.
By not discussing issues objectively the article just reads like another NYT, MSNBC rant. Sure be my guest and go ahead but we know what the credibility of that approach is.
> By not discussing issues objectively
The article discusses issues objectively.
The article is about current events. The discussion is objective.
Your desire to bring past events into the discussion is irrelevant. That’s not what objective means. Comparing things to other things is relativism, not objectivity.
You’re just grasping at straws, but your arguments aren’t even logically consistent. I really don’t understand how someone can get in so deep that their thought process starts trying to rationalize things away like this.
The article discusses issues objectively.
The article is about current events. The discussion is objective.
Your desire to bring past events into the discussion is irrelevant. That’s not what objective means. Comparing things to other things is relativism, not objectivity.
You’re just grasping at straws, but your arguments aren’t even logically consistent. I really don’t understand how someone can get in so deep that their thought process starts trying to rationalize things away like this.
It's the authors choice to make it a current affairs discussion but it being an important constitutional, free speech one as they argue.
When there's two big parties both enjoying power in cycles, pretending that issues started on 21st Jan 2025 is not a clever way of convincing anyone other than the already converted.
As I mentioned, be my guest.
When there's two big parties both enjoying power in cycles, pretending that issues started on 21st Jan 2025 is not a clever way of convincing anyone other than the already converted.
As I mentioned, be my guest.
The right is now at loss because they are the party in power. Yet they try to hang on to their hate of Biden and Hillary and even Obama. But people can see that it doesn't matter how bad previous governments may or may not have been. What matters is how "good" the current government is.
That's a great piece of advice only wish KH ran on her record instead of trying to scare Americans about how evil DT is! Maybe we won't be in this mess!
Trump had allegedly fired people responsible for FOIA but at the same time we are finally seeing documents that the DOJ and FBI have been slow walking for almost 8 years or longer.
Some examples, file metadata for Seth Rich's laptop, and obviously files related to the JFK assassination.
Some examples, file metadata for Seth Rich's laptop, and obviously files related to the JFK assassination.
That they released a set of pretty inconsequential documents and might release some info on political opponents doesn't make up for gutting FOIA!
Both of these things can be true: the administration can fire people responsible for FOIA while fast-tracking requests they consider high priority with the remaining staff.
A bunch of papers related to the JFK assassination that say Lee Harvey Oswald did it and acted alone. Who cares?
This certainly isn't something that means you should ignore the fact that people are being abducted by plainclothes agents who refuse to identify themselves, and sent to Salvadorean prison camps without any chance for appeal.
This certainly isn't something that means you should ignore the fact that people are being abducted by plainclothes agents who refuse to identify themselves, and sent to Salvadorean prison camps without any chance for appeal.
> A bunch of papers related to the JFK assassination that say Lee Harvey Oswald did it and acted alone. Who cares?
That's not what people are concluding in the information spaces I'm in at all. Many of the CIA documents show highly suspicious travel, activities, and statements, particularly for James Angleton, William King Harvey, and a few others who's names escape me. They lend credence to the theory that Allen Dulles possibly conspired to kill JFK, putting into action henchmen of his still at the CIA after he was fired. You should care if the unelected bureaucrats that run our global intelligence agency can act with such impunity that they can murder a sitting President and cover it up for decades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1bbdOgIzrI
We had a Senator say on mainstream news "the intelligence community has 6 ways to get back at you" (in reference to Trump having an antagonistic relationship with the intel community) and nobody batted an eye. Why the fuck would it ever be ok for the CIA to have ways to "get back at" the Commander-in-Chief? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OYyXv2l4-I
That's not what people are concluding in the information spaces I'm in at all. Many of the CIA documents show highly suspicious travel, activities, and statements, particularly for James Angleton, William King Harvey, and a few others who's names escape me. They lend credence to the theory that Allen Dulles possibly conspired to kill JFK, putting into action henchmen of his still at the CIA after he was fired. You should care if the unelected bureaucrats that run our global intelligence agency can act with such impunity that they can murder a sitting President and cover it up for decades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1bbdOgIzrI
We had a Senator say on mainstream news "the intelligence community has 6 ways to get back at you" (in reference to Trump having an antagonistic relationship with the intel community) and nobody batted an eye. Why the fuck would it ever be ok for the CIA to have ways to "get back at" the Commander-in-Chief? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OYyXv2l4-I
Delusional people will see all information as supporting their delusion.
Who is delusional here? Dulles did explicitely support political murders. It maybe was a different time, but without other evidence what would make you suggest that this isn't in a realm of possiblities?
This was and perhaps still is the modus operandi of some public figures. To ignore it is strange at least.
This was and perhaps still is the modus operandi of some public figures. To ignore it is strange at least.
On top of that, violating public records laws by using signal chat for official communications with disappearing messages turned on.
Are there settings you can apply to Signal that make them compatible with record retention laws?
Turns out you don’t need FOIA when the participants free the information by accident.
Impeding the release of government info requested by the general public and selectively releasing only items of political value to you or your coalition sounds like exactly the kind of corruption FOIA was supposed to address.
Nothing in this article actually makes a case for infringing upon the first amendment.
"...But barely two months into his second term, the president has waged an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment rights of journalists, students, universities, government workers, lawyers and judges."
Should journalists who make a career destroying lives with false narratives not have consequences?
Should students who hate America be allowed to study here?
Should employees who don't work be fired?
Should we hinder innovation and progress with frivolous lawsuits?
If it is within the legal framework to impeach a judge, why can't the president call for it, but other elected officials can call for his impeachment?
You can't deny this has been the most effective first 100 days in decades. That upsets you. This is what we voted for.
The winning will continue.
-2008: Obama -2012: Obama -2016: Hillary -2020: Biden -2024: Trump
"...But barely two months into his second term, the president has waged an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment rights of journalists, students, universities, government workers, lawyers and judges."
Should journalists who make a career destroying lives with false narratives not have consequences?
Should students who hate America be allowed to study here?
Should employees who don't work be fired?
Should we hinder innovation and progress with frivolous lawsuits?
If it is within the legal framework to impeach a judge, why can't the president call for it, but other elected officials can call for his impeachment?
You can't deny this has been the most effective first 100 days in decades. That upsets you. This is what we voted for.
The winning will continue.
-2008: Obama -2012: Obama -2016: Hillary -2020: Biden -2024: Trump
Where’s the due process? Executive orders for this stuff are not the way forward for a democracy to exist. We have laws, we should use them and let the judicial system work. You’d want the same for yourself if the roles were reversed.
> You can't deny this has been the most effective first 100 days in decades. That upsets you. This is what we voted for.
A circus isn't effective, but it's entertaining at least.
A circus isn't effective, but it's entertaining at least.
I don't deny the circus.
Establishing Government (perplexity): "No president has moved faster than Donald Trump in 2024 to appoint Cabinet members and agency heads. By November 23, 2024, just over two weeks after Election Day, Trump had announced nominees for all 15 executive agencies, far outpacing his first term and other recent presidents like Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who took nearly 40 days to reach similar milestones. Additionally, the Senate has confirmed Trump’s nominees at a faster rate compared to his first term and Biden’s early days in office."
Illegal immigration: down to near 0
DOGE: Cut $260B in spending as of this post: https://www.usdebtclock.org/
Is there a counterpoint to this?
Something Obama, Biden, Clinton, or GW Bush did in first 100 days?
Establishing Government (perplexity): "No president has moved faster than Donald Trump in 2024 to appoint Cabinet members and agency heads. By November 23, 2024, just over two weeks after Election Day, Trump had announced nominees for all 15 executive agencies, far outpacing his first term and other recent presidents like Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who took nearly 40 days to reach similar milestones. Additionally, the Senate has confirmed Trump’s nominees at a faster rate compared to his first term and Biden’s early days in office."
Illegal immigration: down to near 0
DOGE: Cut $260B in spending as of this post: https://www.usdebtclock.org/
Is there a counterpoint to this?
Something Obama, Biden, Clinton, or GW Bush did in first 100 days?
Doing lots of things fast is not the same as being effective.
I want prices to be lower. An immigration crackdown and tariff threats seem contradictory to this purpose.
DOGE's numbers are extremely optimistic. I have not seen anything substantiating them anywhere near $260B. Realistic estimates put in the range of $10B. Worth the chaos and destruction of institutions that exist to help ensure our way of life?
I want prices to be lower. An immigration crackdown and tariff threats seem contradictory to this purpose.
DOGE's numbers are extremely optimistic. I have not seen anything substantiating them anywhere near $260B. Realistic estimates put in the range of $10B. Worth the chaos and destruction of institutions that exist to help ensure our way of life?
I remember when the last administration jailed Douglass Mackey for tweeting
He created fake election campaign posters enticing people to cast their vote via some phone number. I think it's a little disingenuous to say he was jailed for tweeting. It's like saying someone charged with a DUI was charged for "driving their car around".
Chipping away a pillar always starts with something that you can say was a good reason.
Like committing actual crimes tried by a judge and convicted by a jury of his peers? Lol yes truly an indictment of our system.
He had a fair trial and a 12 member jury of his peers agreed that he was suppressing the vote.
I have a feeling if the current administration had a problem with your social media posts, maybe you said something about Tesla that they could construe as supporting the current protests and/or vandalism, and similarly venue-shopped for a federal court, say East Texas, (using the U.S. v Mackey precedent to claim jurisdiction because some fiber carrying data might go through it) where the 12 jurors would be on team red, you would not feel like it would be a fair trial if you got convicted.
Do you think trying to mislead people with fake signs and numbers so their vote doesn't get counted is a thing people should be allowed to do by law? What about fraud?
As a juror, I would expect such a trial to at least be able to produce a single victim that could testify on the stand that they got deceived before I would vote guilty.
I'm not following your reasoning. No one falling for it means they didn't commit a crime, or it's evidence they weren't really trying to deceive anyone? I don't think federal crimes have to have a single "victim" for it to be a crime, though obviously I'm not lawyer.
A victimless crime?
I don't understand. This is literally what people voted for, isn't it?
The US Government has checks and balances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Checks_an...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#Checks_an...
I understand that, but the people literally voted for someone who promised to get rid of checks and balances, and rule as a dictator. Isn't that what they wanted?
Republicans and independents indicated in polls that they did not take what Trump said during the 2024 campaign literally. Voters didn’t give him a mandate, they thought they were voting for a troll.
https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/10/22/many-voters-...
https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/10/22/many-voters-...
An oversimplification is that people voted against the status quo, not necessarily "for" Trump. Since the US only has a two-party system, the actual policies were irrelevant.
I don't think he is condoning it or saying it's legal, simply that it was a campaign promise being fulfilled.
Maybe the T-800 comes back reprogrammed to save us.
He is feeling out of place, his stock is down, his popularity has tanked.
He probably got what he wants from the current admin.
Hope it doesn’t get late.
He is feeling out of place, his stock is down, his popularity has tanked.
He probably got what he wants from the current admin.
Hope it doesn’t get late.
This is partisan garbage, I’ve been in infosec circles long enough to see democrats always get a pass for doing the same thing republicans do. Selective outrage is fake outrage.
Did Krebs comment on government suppressing discussion during COVID? The article reads like suddenly there are attacks on freedom of speech. It's been raging over the past four years.
It's amazing, as a kid I always wondered how fascism could take hold in a country, in history books they seemed to lay out the steps so clearly it should be easy to see and coming and stop it. Now that it's happening here, I now wonder how countries ever managed to keep fascism at bay. All it really takes is an unscrupulous public in love with its own opinions, and someone with a big voice who will tell them comforting fictions.
As yes the tyranny of small Government
If you read TFA then it's not possible you think it's only about "small government" (whether you agree or not). Small government is a cute euphemism for intentionally turning everything to shit, though, keep it up.
+1
False equivalency works!
[deleted]
He’s helping make the left care about free speech again. Something they wanted to continue censoring.
Ah yes, nothing screams “free speech hero” like a guy who tried to censor the press, punish critics, and begged Twitter to silence his enemies.
Flagging Krebs is certainly a choice. This was the correct choice, IMHO. I don't like it but I understand this topic will very quickly attract full political discussions and Godwin's law. Go somewhere else for that.
I would like to think: what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. There's an argument to be made that the US system of checks and balances will be stronger after all of this. We just haven't seen it in action, yet...
Considering the impact of the immunity decision last year I'm thinking that adage isn't actually true.
I believe the pendulum will swing back eventually, but I don't know anyone in my communities who believes minority groups will come out of this doing better than they were in 2020. The Democrat party is giving no indication that they intend to strengthen protection for minority groups, especially transexual people, when they are able to.
If the signal story mattered they would lead with the content of the messages. Perhaps they would not even reveal the method of the info was obtained. Since the story is reversed, and the public is not talking about what is said, I'm guessing nothing happened.
> they would lead with the content of the messages
They did, but with some information only described, but then they were called liars so they released the content that showed those accusing them of lying were in fact lying.
> Perhaps they would not even reveal the method of the info was obtained
The idiocy that led to them obtaining the info was very much part of the story.
They did, but with some information only described, but then they were called liars so they released the content that showed those accusing them of lying were in fact lying.
> Perhaps they would not even reveal the method of the info was obtained
The idiocy that led to them obtaining the info was very much part of the story.
> The idiocy that led to them obtaining the info was very much part of the story.
Yep. It’s the whole story.
Yep. It’s the whole story.
What a bizarre take. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.
Everyone who disagrees with the article gets flagged.
You are not the "free speech" people you pretend to be.
You are not the "free speech" people you pretend to be.
And this is fine because hacker news is just a web site and getting flagged may damage one’s ego but it doesn’t impact your freedom. Law firms being attacked by POTUS for their lawful actions, networks being frivolously sued and people being arrested without due process are the issue here.
lol, the article is now flagged because it spoke against dear leader.
This submission violates the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
i guess it is off topic.
I can’t remember anyone respecting mainstream US news for the last 30+ years. Aren’t most news agencies, directly or indirectly, owned by BlackRock, State Street, or the Vanguard Group? That’s a real question.
> Aren’t most news agencies, directly or indirectly, owned by BlackRock, State Street, or the Vanguard Group? That’s a real question
It’s a stupid question easily dismissed with a modicum of research. (Most papers aren’t public.)
It’s a stupid question easily dismissed with a modicum of research. (Most papers aren’t public.)
Example (using “a modicum of research): MSNBC -> NBCUniversal News Group -> Comcast Corp (and Vivendi) -> The Vanguard Group (largest shareholder).
Good job, you found one. Here’s a hint: you’ll find the same not only for heather other publicly-traded media companies, but almost every publicly-traded company. (If you want to go full lunatic, look up Cede & Co.)
The problem with the original assertion is that most media outlets, including an overwhelming majority of newspapers, are privately owned. Notoriously, among the biggest ones, by billionaires.
The problem with the original assertion is that most media outlets, including an overwhelming majority of newspapers, are privately owned. Notoriously, among the biggest ones, by billionaires.
You’re quick with the insults. Keep it classy. I can think of another example off the top of my head: Fox News -> Disney -> Vanguard Group, BlackRock, and State Street (edit (I looked it up): the top institutional shareholders).
> Fox News -> Disney
Nope [1].
[1] https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/walt-disney-company-acquire...
Nope [1].
[1] https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/walt-disney-company-acquire...
You're right Disney doesn't own own Fox News but BlackRock, State Street, and the Vanguard Group are significant institutional shareholders in Fox Corporation, the parent company of Fox News Media. At this point you should realize my question isn't naive or "stupid".
> BlackRock, State Street, and the Vanguard Group are significant institutional shareholders in Fox Corporation
How much control do they have? Have you heard of the Murdochs?
> At this point you should realize my question isn't naive or "stupid"
If you said television media, it would have still been wrong, but not stupid. (Because it depends on understanding how voting control and passive vs active investing works, none of which is common knowledge.) Generalising to all media, most of which isn’t publicly owned, is.
How much control do they have? Have you heard of the Murdochs?
> At this point you should realize my question isn't naive or "stupid"
If you said television media, it would have still been wrong, but not stupid. (Because it depends on understanding how voting control and passive vs active investing works, none of which is common knowledge.) Generalising to all media, most of which isn’t publicly owned, is.
slowhadoken(2)
Those companies run ETFs. They “own” lots of companies because they sell broad market funds to basically every passive investor in America.
That sounds like a yes. Larry Fink famously announced that “you have to force behaviors” when describing how ESG is tied into investments proving he has weight to throw around.
Asset managers do not control the news. Jack Bogle died with a net worth of $80mm. He was not even powerful enough to afford a top-tier penthouse in Manhattan, let alone control the media.
BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard Group each respectably manage trillions of dollars in asset, private equity, and debt. They're independent firms but each own substantial shares in one another. Together these 3 firms are major shareholders in FAANG (big US tech) and mainstream US news agencies. BlackRock alone has disclosed through their latest SEC filings that it holds stakes in 5,387 companies globally.
https://fintel.io/i/blackrock
https://ecell.iitm.ac.in/blog/post/above-the-fold-a-company-...
If managing clients' shares gives them such colossal power, how come the founder of Vanguard was worth less than the founder of In-N-Out Burger?
The Medici Family was powerful because they were bankers of the papacy, i.e., they managed the Pope's finances.
Are Democrats constantly in violation of the constitution, and openly hostile to the first amendment? Yes.
Does that make any of this acceptable? No. And a good deal of this is even more concerning.
Does that make any of this acceptable? No. And a good deal of this is even more concerning.
What are these violations of the constitution committed by democrats you speak of?
Probably 2nd Amendment. Democrats do push a pretty tortured interpretation of 2A, it's true.
Can you elaborate? This article is talking about the threats posed by the Trump administration not by the Democrats who have no real power in the federal government at the moment.
In my understanding, the commonplace interpretation of the first amendment is largely due to a series of landmark cases through the early to mid-20th century. A lot of expansions were provided to the amendment that have been taken for granted since then and we are now going to see challenged. We'll see how many hold in due time but I wouldn't put good odds on it.