Eh, I don't have any stats on mobs. I don't think politics plays more of a role than "people are stupid panicky critters." *shrugs* I don't think I can compare mobbing at all.
Inciting to violence may be a crime, but I also think it shouldn't be. A skinhead march through, say, downtown Calgary; if anything is inciting to violence, that is- but I support the right of skinheads to peacefully assemble. If they get violent, there's laws for that, but "inciting to violence" isn't a bad thing, in my mind, unless there's actual violence to go with it. Speech itself cannot be bad, and "ah but this kind of speech surely we can criminalize" sets off my alarm bells- no matter how stupid, rhetorically violent, bigoted, or useless it is. So no, I don't have a problem with "hate speech" or "inciting to violence," in the let's-make-it-illegal way. Hate speech is thoughtcrime; it assigns motive to words, and punishes on the basis of those thoughts, not the words themselves.
For context, I say this in a nation (Canada) and province (Alberta) where I could be fined or possibly go to prison for using the words "fag" or "nigger" in public. Free speech must be free for everyone or it is free for no one.
Actually, many of the major players in developing America's public education system had very positive views of the Prussian system. It's why schools are set up (probably by accident) to promote an emotional dependence on approval from authority. 10 years of training to speak only when permitted, of being told by a teacher whether you're right or wrong, of obeying even when authority is wrong or evil? Compare the Japanese high schools- not that they're necessarily better, 'cause guess where they got the school uniform design from? (hint; rhymes with Russian) But their classrooms are more likely to seek consensus among the students than hand it down from the teacher. They have to work together. Not that it's better, necessarily, but the form of the classroom reflects and reshapes the culture that passes through it.
GP does sound like a nut, but to put it a different way, good citizens are ones who don't revolt, who like authority, and coincidentally who are easy to lie to. I think the first one's the result of design, and the other two are unhappy accidents. Teaching critical thinking is difficult, but teaching students to learn for themselves is, on the whole, a lot easier than spoon-feeding them everything; we spoon-feed them because the system is built to do so.
Easily readable source, though there are some books that go into much more detail on the whole subject; The Atlantic Magazine. A more radical take available here.
Of course "a conservative" advocated rounding up Arabs. Hundreds or thousands of them did. And "a liberal" has advocated burning all the churches, and "a muslim" has advocated killing all the Jews, and "a Christian" went on Crusade in the 13th century, &c. As for Coulter? I don't know- though I'll take it on faith that she did, to what level of seriousness I've no idea- and I don't care. The Threat To Domestic Harmony that Coulter (or Limbaugh or Fox News or whoever the whipping boy of the day is) represents is roughly equal to that presented by the Simpsons. Alert the press and start putting microphones in all the bars to hear more stupid, outrageous things said by people to get a rise or a laugh or make a point.
It amazes me that (presumably you) Americans are so hot about a media personality, whose job it is to say things, saying something. Every other week it's "XOMG LIMBAUGH SAID X" or "FSCK COULTER SAID Y." There's no screaming panic when Howard Stern says "tits," is there? Or maybe there is, I don't know. Why aren't you guys complaining that, like "the Republicans have presented a bill that is in opposition to what we perceive as the ideals of America, and we should rally public support against it so that well-meaning Democrats are not led astray!" I mean, surely the Republicans are doing that, yes? And surely an actual bill being discussed to, I don't know, revoke ACORN's tax-free status is of more importance than a talking head talking?
As it is, Limbaugh and Beck are the defacto leaders on the right and spout similar nonsense.
I think you will find that, in fact, the de jure leaders on the right are Michael Steele, Mitch McConnell, and John Boehner, and that Limbaugh and Beck are as about as integrated in Republican policy-making as the Simpsons are in the Democrats'.
If you want to be treated like a movement of adults
You seem to be under a false impression. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. In fact, I'm not even American. I don't support Republican policies any more than I support Democrat ones. My objection was to the (evidently not uncommon) position that Ann Coulter is some sort of Republican mastermind who can be taken as representative of the American right, when she's got as much political clout as Colbert. Which is to say, probably some, but seriously, I'm not even a Republican and I find the assertion offensively weak. If you're going to point and wail at how immature the Republicans are, point and wail at serving politicians, not people with radio shows.
Funny story; Coulter just had a speaking engagement in Canada canceled (by the the U of O, not her) because of left-wing mobbing offering physical danger. The defense offered by supporters of the mob was the same one that's repeated in Canada all the time; "free speech, but not if I disagree with it." In fact, we have thought crime boards that use Canada's hate-speech law to charge people and fine them- despite not having a single lawyer involved at any stage in the process. Thus far in Canada the law's been been used to silence a pastor, a Jewish lawyer, and a journalist making public statements of opinion in newspapers or magazines. There is no excuse for "free speech but."
Free speech is only free speech when you hate it but let it/demand it be heard anyway. "It's hateful" is not a reason to be taken before a court. I would demand that Hitler be allowed to speak on the benefits of pedophilia, if anyone was stupid enough to host/print/broadcast it, because silencing Hitler is morally equivalent to silencing Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, and Jesus. If Oberman was to say Christians should be camped, I would disagree with him vehemently- but I would also smack down anyone who said he didn't have the right to say it or that he should answer to the courts for saying something.
Ann Coulter also advocated that Muslims ride flying carpets instead of airplanes. There's a pretty strong current of entertainment in her work- unless you suggest we take, say, Huffpo as accurately representative of the left? I'm not really up on my American Political Media Figures or I'd offer someone in particular, sorry.
Not gonna comment on any of the views on issues you've offered, sorry.:D I prefer my conversations civilized, and I don't see that conversation going anywhere but down. I will, however, happily respond to your meta-politics.
their platform to privatize many Crown Corporations including Canada Post, CBC, and Petro-Canada. To be fair, Petro-Can did eventually start to lose money and the government eventually sold it to Suncor. The Reform Party was also very pro-life, opposed homosexual marriage, opposed government-funded bilingualism and multiculturalism, and opposed immigration policies that would "radically or suddenly alter the ethnic make up of Canada". I don't know about you, but those beliefs seem pretty radically right to me and, I would venture to guess, many other Canadians.
To Canadians, yep, that's a sea change in what government does. To Americans, however, they'd wonder what the big deal was with denationalizing, not having two official languages, and restricting immigration- and my motivation for pointing that out is that I didn't figure Americans would translate "Canadian far right" with "the Democrats only wish they had our policies." I would point out, on the other hand, that since a sufficiently hefty number of people voted for the Cons in the last two elections to give 'em power, it's not necessarily that the party's views on public funding of abortion or selling Crown Corps or gun control are shocking (or objectionable) to people, it's more that we had one party in charge for a long, long time, with very few changes in their basic views, and this is the first time there's been a substantial difference in federal government in a while. In other words, different ain't necessarily bad. Or good, see below.
Heavens, I wouldn't accuse you of being NDP- you made no demands that/. be nationalized and its corporate parent's assets distributed to the poor.;P I assume you're a Liberal, but don't care. I don't think it's reasonable to speculate on a politician's intentions, save for "they want more power" and "they want to use the power they have." I've heard a lot of paranoia from, say, CBC talking heads, or Layton, or Iggy, about how Harper is some radical-right Americanizing demon sent to destroy our soft-socialist utopia, and it really doesn't fly with me. I think he's a lying, slimy bastard, just like everyone else on the hill. He's right-wing for Canada, but not particularly so from a global or historical perspective, but that really only changes how he screws the people, not whether.
And, personally, I'm a political radical on just about any account, so the whole left-right thing seems kind of pointless to me. Nuke Parliament, it's the only way to be sure.
even falling to the right of centre on the American spectrum.
As a fellow Canadian, and someone who's not quite so virulently anti-Harper, allow me to provide some context of SpeedyDX's statements for our American friends- with the caveat that I also think Harper's a jerk, though for totally different reasons. However, the Canadian Conservatives are not "solidly on the right of the American political spectrum," and I'm not sure how- other than perspective from the opposite end- SpeedyDX would have got that impression.
Harper's government would like to move from a government-funded health care system to a system where people are legally permitted to pay for some procedures out-of-pocket if they want, and perhaps, someday, eliminate tax funding of abortions. Harper's government also wants to eliminate a national firearms registry. For these two policies, they have been labeled "ultra-right" in the Canadian press. The current goals of Harper's government are still farther left than Obama's, with the probable exception of involvement in the Middle East, which (surprisingly for everyone) Canada is currently showing more willingness to commit to. Of the four major federal parties, the Conservatives are the farthest right, still somewhere left of American Democrats, Liberals are "centrist" but openly in favour of firearm registries, state-supported welfare and medicare, and the laws we have banning open or concealed carry handguns. The NDP, a marginal party, is openly socialist, and the Bloc is a regional party focused on francophones. The Conservatives are "right wing" in Canada because everyone else is farther left; in America they would be considered pretty radical Democrats.
I hasten to add that I am not a particular supporter of Harper, and many of the points SpeedyDX makes about Harper (and Prentice, that lying scumbag, who's still trying to ram RIAA laws down our throats) are entirely correct. However, the American reader should be aware that SpeedyDX represents a fairly partisan view, and the phrasing used colours the points. The American reader should also be aware that I am also fairly partisan, though I restrict my activity to the provincial level and tell myself I base my partisanship on a deep distrust of all politicians.
How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of China after all it has been through!
It lost its great leader, it went through civil war. It had two fuckin splitters.
Tibet turned out to be an independent nation, a source of international conflict, and now China's going through a custody battle. All you people care about is.. readers and making money off of it.
China is a COUNTRY. What you don’t realize is that China is making you all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about it.
It hasn’t performed in the free market in years. Its song is called “March of the Volunteers” for a reason because all you people want is MORE! MORE-MORE, MORE: MORE!
LEAVE IT ALONE! You are lucky it even sold goods to you BASTARDS! LEAVE CHINA ALONE!..Please.
Listen to Ackbar. Someone in management is probably thinking or saying "It's a computer thing, we can get our guy to do it over a weekend and not have to pay big money."
Democrats: "This bill is mildly unpopular (40-50%), doing nothing (your proposal) is extraordinarily unpopular (4-6%)"
Not to quibble, but "mildly unpopular" isn't a synonym for "half the population opposes it." That's "very unpopular," and the synonym is "Republican majority next election." Not that I think it'll change anything- Democrat majority didn't, after all- but tsk.
Well, either they've still got challenging stuff for me to do after 4 or 5 years, at which point they still need me, or they don't, in which case I'm already gone.:) Or I get hired by a company with a fairly traditional view about internalizing and maintaining employee assets, and I can stay there until retirement, pottering around an incrementally increasingly impressive IT lab.:D
Because I will never get old or sick or want to retire. Right?;P
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, I don't have any stats on mobs. I don't think politics plays more of a role than "people are stupid panicky critters." *shrugs* I don't think I can compare mobbing at all.
Inciting to violence may be a crime, but I also think it shouldn't be. A skinhead march through, say, downtown Calgary; if anything is inciting to violence, that is- but I support the right of skinheads to peacefully assemble. If they get violent, there's laws for that, but "inciting to violence" isn't a bad thing, in my mind, unless there's actual violence to go with it. Speech itself cannot be bad, and "ah but this kind of speech surely we can criminalize" sets off my alarm bells- no matter how stupid, rhetorically violent, bigoted, or useless it is. So no, I don't have a problem with "hate speech" or "inciting to violence," in the let's-make-it-illegal way. Hate speech is thoughtcrime; it assigns motive to words, and punishes on the basis of those thoughts, not the words themselves.
For context, I say this in a nation (Canada) and province (Alberta) where I could be fined or possibly go to prison for using the words "fag" or "nigger" in public. Free speech must be free for everyone or it is free for no one.
Actually, many of the major players in developing America's public education system had very positive views of the Prussian system. It's why schools are set up (probably by accident) to promote an emotional dependence on approval from authority. 10 years of training to speak only when permitted, of being told by a teacher whether you're right or wrong, of obeying even when authority is wrong or evil? Compare the Japanese high schools- not that they're necessarily better, 'cause guess where they got the school uniform design from? (hint; rhymes with Russian) But their classrooms are more likely to seek consensus among the students than hand it down from the teacher. They have to work together. Not that it's better, necessarily, but the form of the classroom reflects and reshapes the culture that passes through it.
GP does sound like a nut, but to put it a different way, good citizens are ones who don't revolt, who like authority, and coincidentally who are easy to lie to. I think the first one's the result of design, and the other two are unhappy accidents. Teaching critical thinking is difficult, but teaching students to learn for themselves is, on the whole, a lot easier than spoon-feeding them everything; we spoon-feed them because the system is built to do so.
Easily readable source, though there are some books that go into much more detail on the whole subject; The Atlantic Magazine. A more radical take available here.
And when did you stop beating your wife?
Of course "a conservative" advocated rounding up Arabs. Hundreds or thousands of them did. And "a liberal" has advocated burning all the churches, and "a muslim" has advocated killing all the Jews, and "a Christian" went on Crusade in the 13th century, &c. As for Coulter? I don't know- though I'll take it on faith that she did, to what level of seriousness I've no idea- and I don't care. The Threat To Domestic Harmony that Coulter (or Limbaugh or Fox News or whoever the whipping boy of the day is) represents is roughly equal to that presented by the Simpsons. Alert the press and start putting microphones in all the bars to hear more stupid, outrageous things said by people to get a rise or a laugh or make a point.
It amazes me that (presumably you) Americans are so hot about a media personality, whose job it is to say things, saying something. Every other week it's "XOMG LIMBAUGH SAID X" or "FSCK COULTER SAID Y." There's no screaming panic when Howard Stern says "tits," is there? Or maybe there is, I don't know. Why aren't you guys complaining that, like "the Republicans have presented a bill that is in opposition to what we perceive as the ideals of America, and we should rally public support against it so that well-meaning Democrats are not led astray!" I mean, surely the Republicans are doing that, yes? And surely an actual bill being discussed to, I don't know, revoke ACORN's tax-free status is of more importance than a talking head talking?
As it is, Limbaugh and Beck are the defacto leaders on the right and spout similar nonsense.
I think you will find that, in fact, the de jure leaders on the right are Michael Steele, Mitch McConnell, and John Boehner, and that Limbaugh and Beck are as about as integrated in Republican policy-making as the Simpsons are in the Democrats'.
If you want to be treated like a movement of adults
You seem to be under a false impression. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. In fact, I'm not even American. I don't support Republican policies any more than I support Democrat ones. My objection was to the (evidently not uncommon) position that Ann Coulter is some sort of Republican mastermind who can be taken as representative of the American right, when she's got as much political clout as Colbert. Which is to say, probably some, but seriously, I'm not even a Republican and I find the assertion offensively weak. If you're going to point and wail at how immature the Republicans are, point and wail at serving politicians, not people with radio shows.
Funny story; Coulter just had a speaking engagement in Canada canceled (by the the U of O, not her) because of left-wing mobbing offering physical danger. The defense offered by supporters of the mob was the same one that's repeated in Canada all the time; "free speech, but not if I disagree with it." In fact, we have thought crime boards that use Canada's hate-speech law to charge people and fine them- despite not having a single lawyer involved at any stage in the process. Thus far in Canada the law's been been used to silence a pastor, a Jewish lawyer, and a journalist making public statements of opinion in newspapers or magazines. There is no excuse for "free speech but."
Free speech is only free speech when you hate it but let it/demand it be heard anyway. "It's hateful" is not a reason to be taken before a court. I would demand that Hitler be allowed to speak on the benefits of pedophilia, if anyone was stupid enough to host/print/broadcast it, because silencing Hitler is morally equivalent to silencing Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, and Jesus. If Oberman was to say Christians should be camped, I would disagree with him vehemently- but I would also smack down anyone who said he didn't have the right to say it or that he should answer to the courts for saying something.
And that's different from the rest of the entertainment industry how? /sarcasmbutnotreally
Psht, totally. "unless we take, say, Obama as representative of the l- oh, wait, shit."
Ann Coulter also advocated that Muslims ride flying carpets instead of airplanes. There's a pretty strong current of entertainment in her work- unless you suggest we take, say, Huffpo as accurately representative of the left? I'm not really up on my American Political Media Figures or I'd offer someone in particular, sorry.
their platform to privatize many Crown Corporations including Canada Post, CBC, and Petro-Canada. To be fair, Petro-Can did eventually start to lose money and the government eventually sold it to Suncor. The Reform Party was also very pro-life, opposed homosexual marriage, opposed government-funded bilingualism and multiculturalism, and opposed immigration policies that would "radically or suddenly alter the ethnic make up of Canada". I don't know about you, but those beliefs seem pretty radically right to me and, I would venture to guess, many other Canadians.
To Canadians, yep, that's a sea change in what government does. To Americans, however, they'd wonder what the big deal was with denationalizing, not having two official languages, and restricting immigration- and my motivation for pointing that out is that I didn't figure Americans would translate "Canadian far right" with "the Democrats only wish they had our policies." I would point out, on the other hand, that since a sufficiently hefty number of people voted for the Cons in the last two elections to give 'em power, it's not necessarily that the party's views on public funding of abortion or selling Crown Corps or gun control are shocking (or objectionable) to people, it's more that we had one party in charge for a long, long time, with very few changes in their basic views, and this is the first time there's been a substantial difference in federal government in a while. In other words, different ain't necessarily bad. Or good, see below.
Heavens, I wouldn't accuse you of being NDP- you made no demands that /. be nationalized and its corporate parent's assets distributed to the poor. ;P I assume you're a Liberal, but don't care. I don't think it's reasonable to speculate on a politician's intentions, save for "they want more power" and "they want to use the power they have." I've heard a lot of paranoia from, say, CBC talking heads, or Layton, or Iggy, about how Harper is some radical-right Americanizing demon sent to destroy our soft-socialist utopia, and it really doesn't fly with me. I think he's a lying, slimy bastard, just like everyone else on the hill. He's right-wing for Canada, but not particularly so from a global or historical perspective, but that really only changes how he screws the people, not whether.
And, personally, I'm a political radical on just about any account, so the whole left-right thing seems kind of pointless to me. Nuke Parliament, it's the only way to be sure.
As a good friend of mine said at the time, "don't give powers to Harry Reid that you wouldn't give to Nancy Pelosi."
even falling to the right of centre on the American spectrum.
As a fellow Canadian, and someone who's not quite so virulently anti-Harper, allow me to provide some context of SpeedyDX's statements for our American friends- with the caveat that I also think Harper's a jerk, though for totally different reasons. However, the Canadian Conservatives are not "solidly on the right of the American political spectrum," and I'm not sure how- other than perspective from the opposite end- SpeedyDX would have got that impression.
Harper's government would like to move from a government-funded health care system to a system where people are legally permitted to pay for some procedures out-of-pocket if they want, and perhaps, someday, eliminate tax funding of abortions. Harper's government also wants to eliminate a national firearms registry. For these two policies, they have been labeled "ultra-right" in the Canadian press. The current goals of Harper's government are still farther left than Obama's, with the probable exception of involvement in the Middle East, which (surprisingly for everyone) Canada is currently showing more willingness to commit to. Of the four major federal parties, the Conservatives are the farthest right, still somewhere left of American Democrats, Liberals are "centrist" but openly in favour of firearm registries, state-supported welfare and medicare, and the laws we have banning open or concealed carry handguns. The NDP, a marginal party, is openly socialist, and the Bloc is a regional party focused on francophones. The Conservatives are "right wing" in Canada because everyone else is farther left; in America they would be considered pretty radical Democrats.
I hasten to add that I am not a particular supporter of Harper, and many of the points SpeedyDX makes about Harper (and Prentice, that lying scumbag, who's still trying to ram RIAA laws down our throats) are entirely correct. However, the American reader should be aware that SpeedyDX represents a fairly partisan view, and the phrasing used colours the points. The American reader should also be aware that I am also fairly partisan, though I restrict my activity to the provincial level and tell myself I base my partisanship on a deep distrust of all politicians.
7) America includes Canada on a list of "pirate nations" because our laws permit private, non-commercial copying.
:D Thanks for the props, guys.
haha, thanks- I don't think I've got the golden locks for it, though, and Seth Green pretty much nailed the parody.
LEAVE CHINA ALONE!
How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of China after all it has been through!
It lost its great leader, it went through civil war. It had two fuckin splitters.
Tibet turned out to be an independent nation, a source of international conflict, and now China's going through a custody battle. All you people care about is.. readers and making money off of it.
China is a COUNTRY. What you don’t realize is that China is making you all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about it.
It hasn’t performed in the free market in years. Its song is called “March of the Volunteers” for a reason because all you people want is MORE! MORE-MORE, MORE: MORE!
LEAVE IT ALONE! You are lucky it even sold goods to you BASTARDS! LEAVE CHINA ALONE!..Please.
I remember when reading cyberpunk novels felt like escapism.
:T
Pastafarianism clearly descends from and owes a great deal to Christianity, since both deities are edible.
Religious debate-y enough for ya? ;P
you should be happy in the fact that you now have to pay a little more taxes.
Man, what colour is the sky in your world?
A small minority of people
porn
Sir, I believe I have discovered a flaw in your argument.
Listen to Ackbar. Someone in management is probably thinking or saying "It's a computer thing, we can get our guy to do it over a weekend and not have to pay big money."
Democrats: "This bill is mildly unpopular (40-50%), doing nothing (your proposal) is extraordinarily unpopular (4-6%)"
Not to quibble, but "mildly unpopular" isn't a synonym for "half the population opposes it." That's "very unpopular," and the synonym is "Republican majority next election." Not that I think it'll change anything- Democrat majority didn't, after all- but tsk.
This bill tries to get the people who earn more help
There is a difference between "try to get people to help" and "threaten with tax evasion charges if people don't help." Charity under threat is theft.
I have to admit, they are cautious and generally stable.
Well, either they've still got challenging stuff for me to do after 4 or 5 years, at which point they still need me, or they don't, in which case I'm already gone. :) Or I get hired by a company with a fairly traditional view about internalizing and maintaining employee assets, and I can stay there until retirement, pottering around an incrementally increasingly impressive IT lab. :D
Because I will never get old or sick or want to retire. Right? ;P
Perhaps Canada could send a colonization effort?