Are you going to get it off the tabloids or enforce it with only the right kind of talk shows? What the actual fuck kind of fascist world do you want to live in that forces "truth"???
Isn't that more of a byproduct of postmodernism? Seriously, it is the academic equivalent of 'there is no truth, only warm fuzzy feelings' that has many advocates in all levels of academia pushing 'feels before reals'.
I am sorry, but 'fake news' has always been around. Social media allowed a boon by giving independent voices ability to reach more people. It didn't help that MSM (all of it) told a thousand little lies to promote a narrative. Is 'Hands up Don't Shoot' fake news? How many times do you see a 'Hands up Don't Shoot' narrative pushing little lie and start questioning how many other stories were lied about? How many little lies and narrative pushings does it take for an average person to reject that source of information? It is not an irrational thing to do unless you think that 'authoritative' sources gain their authority by some other means than telling the truth.
Experts calling people idiots that don't toe the line is why people stop listening to experts. Pundits and politicians calling everyone names is why people stopped listening to pundits and politicians because when people find out that the pundits and politicians were narrative crafting they stop listening. It is not an irrational thing to do.
You must be new to the internet. Ever heard of the occult rituals in the Bohemian Grove? There has always been shit like that. It isn't new. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not how they understand the information that they are presented with and if it is true or not. A snake oil salesmen eventually is found out. Maybe, if the media hadn't fucked their job and became pushers of political ideology telling a thousand little lies to promote a narrative they wouldn't be so distrusted creating a vacuum for other sources of information to pick up credibility. Social media only expedited that process by creating competition in the MSM oligarchy.
Such tolerance from the left. Idiots can vote and they vote D and R. There were many reasons to vote for Trump that were rational. Doing so does not undermine someones intelligence even if they are unable to articulate it. Stop acting like you are better than everyone and maybe you might be able to start talking to them without immediately being hostile and condescending. You just just show how you are missing part of the point of lgw's comment.
Here are some more enthusiastic Trump supporters:
Have you seen 'enthusiactic' Clinton cry babies since the election? They show that many of her followers fall in the bottom of a bell curve as well. Congratufuckinlations we got nowhere. However, I will note that I have seen more political violence from the left side lately. That is illegal. Racist views and salutes are not illegal. Here is a thought, why not deal with real problems and real legal issues instead of possibilities. Nothing has happened except an election and people are acting and talking as if Hitler burned the Congress. It's childish.
Trump and his supporters will not be normalized.
Quite the religious conviction to display by having your outcome determined before anything has happened. Way to generalize an entire group of people.
there are 3 million more people who voted for someone everybody hated instead of Trump.
Does not matter and if the left continues to think it can ignore half the electorate and act like you are acting then I would imagine the left continuing to lose. That makes me sad because that means I cannot vote for policies I may agree with. The ends do not justify the means.
claiming any mandate or legitimacy
Legitimacy through the constitution you moron. He doesn't mandate anything you moron. The most he can do is change the bureaucratic rules to enforce the 'mandates' i.e. laws.
Are you implying that what was in the emails are fake? Or are you conflating the source gatherer motives with the veracity of the source material? Honestly, your comment speaks of weak apologetics of 'one side' propaganda that is characteristic of 'fake news' pushers. Should we call the Ministry of Truth to ask if the veracity of those leaks corroborate with 'justifiable behavior' or acceptable outcome? Or should you, as a free agent, have the responsibility to inform your vote to clear your conscience and understand that everyone is trying to convince you of something. You should promote critical thinking and civic responsibility instead of evangelizing the 'fake news' i.e. propaganda in the 21st century. The methods by which it spreads has changed but that does not change propagandas potential to influence the real world. The internet opened avenues for which citizens may gather information. If there seems to be truth with information, such as those email leaks, then the motives of the source become secondary because truth is a more important factor in deciding if you want a war with Russia or not.
"manipulating elections" like Snowden manipulated domestic warrantless surveillance policy or Manning manipulated foreign policy. If showing the truth is "manipulation" you have bigger problems than Russia.
In the last election, while not the only choices, were the major choices. The DNC and media are a big part of why we had those choices. Pied piper and rigged primaries.
"capitalism is the parasite atop free markets desperately clinging to some facsimile of feudalism"
lol, wut. Economic free markets are a byproduct of capitalism. Private ownership free to conduct commerce voluntarily. Capitalism is a product of freedom and the rights of property.
Uh, created a middle class too. Say what you want about greed but it is a primary motivator of capitalism that has done more for the poor person around the world than any other economic model without an archipelago of gulags. Sure, the disparity between rich and poor is great but the standard of living of the poor today, especially in the west, rivals that of royalty of old. Disparity is not the whole story to understand the standard of living of members of that society nor does it address the mobility those members may have.
Greed, just like any human trait can be used for good or ill. Spewing platitudes does not undermine the good things that has come about directly or indirectly because of some ass holes greed.
If education is falling behind, if there is a shortage of labor for industry, if companies are not upholding their civic duty, and if there are millions that are left behind globalization (which I think is all true). Would decreasing immigration with tighter controls create market incentives for local investments so that citizens get the education needed, fill the shortages, and give those millions a chance to catch up while ensuring companies fulfill their civic duty?
I think that is the perception and I don't think anyone knows the answer and even if there was an answer it would be distrusted because the monumental failure of media. Trade is good and immigration is generally good but sometimes you have to clean house before you invite more guests. There is nothing wrong with slowing things down a bit to reassess where the nation is at and trying to have a 'citizens' first approach to ensure that there are not 'millions left behind'.
The UK is doing the same thing and we are already finding it hard to get the skills we need.
While that maybe true it will create incentives for the UK (and US in similar situation) to help their citizens hopefully. If there was a problem that there was not enough local talent for an industry perhaps policies and market incentives (increase demand) to promote local talent education/training is a good thing?
It isn't a permanent thing but sometimes slowing down can help the citizens. A nations first priority should be to its citizens.
Holy shit hold the phone... Words don't mean what they really mean. They mean what we think they mean?... That some un-good double think. Yes, policies have consequences to a lot of people and in many cases it isn't a good one. That doesn't mean they are racist.
If you look at the exit polls you'll notice that immigration policy was an important issue to Trump voters (and some Clinton voters). I would argue that that includes the H1B visas in addition to border security. In Silicon Valley, there are some concerns that these programs and policies are not benefiting American citizens. (keyword citizen).
If a civic society is a society that works to benefit of its citizens by promoting the rights and duties of citizens, and if there are shortages of STEM workers, and if there is a problem with not enough higher education in STEM, and if there are problems with education; then perhaps maybe just maybe we should reassess these policies to be more civically oriented i.e. policies that promote citizens rights and duties. Civics as per Wikipedia is "the study of the rights and duties of citizenship."
Are those CEO's implementing policies that align with the rights and duties of citizenship if the previous conditions were true? Doesn't seem that way. If CEO's are taking advantage of the laws for a dollar at the citizens expense then they are undermining civic society. If a CEO has policies that do not promote the duties of a citizen, they are undermining civic society. If a CEO lobbies the congress for laws at the expense of citizens, they are undermining civic society. If a CEO is more concerned about foreign workers than local ones, they are undermining civic society. Disney, having citizens train foreign replacements undermine civic society. Again, civic society being a society for the rights and duties of citizens. You can be anti-civic and still be civil. Just because there maybe a group of 'un-civic' CEOs does not mean that they are 'not civil'.
Do you think Bannon knows the definition of 'civic'? With your un-good double think I don't think you do and you probably misconstrued that to mean 'civil'. If Bannon ment civil then by all means but he said 'civic'. What does that mean to the context of the conversation? Or are we going to be ignorant of the words we speak and use our feelings to understand?
Inner cities - I have never heard about the inner city work ethic (generational work ethic maybe). But I have heard and a culture that is very distrustful of institutions, police, and the establishment... Is that true? Is that racist? Fuck your double speak.
States rights - This is what made me comment. The point of states rights was to balance the power of the federal government and creating little experiments of democracy. If a state is doing better with an issue others can adopt it. The states are closer to the people and are more responsive to the people FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE. A lot of the problems we have from being a divided nation could be summed up by having too much power in the federal government which makes those 'little experiments of democracy' interchangeable. There is so little difference in the laws between the states now that one of the powers of the people has been undermined. The power to vote with your feet and move to a place that better reflects your morals and beliefs. So long as a state does not take away constitutionally protected rights it should not matter what laws they pass you ignoramus. It is the people of that state to decide the laws by which the live so long as the constitution is upheld.
Cut taxes? Fiscal responsibility is a dog whistle for demonizing people of color? It has nothing to do with the 20 trillion in debt and the financial uncertainty young people have? You are delusional. Just because there are disagreements on where those tax cuts should be made does not mean it is a dog whistle to demonize people of color. Yes, people will lobby the government so the laws will benefit them. News at 11. Just because a rich g
The market by which each operate doesn't matter. AT&T was private but was forced by law to promote the rights of citizens by not disallowing customers on the basis of political ideology because it was seen as necessary for the good of the nation. The point of the Takings clause and eminent domain. If the government feels that a service provided is necessary for the citizens it will no longer operate like a private service but a public service. As a public service you become a steward of citizen rights.
You missing my point. Does Twitter have the right to enforce business policies that conform to their political ideology? Does AT&T? Does the Baker? Religion is a protected class except when you are a business owner and then the government may force you to abandon those beliefs while you operate your private business. Or if you reverse the roles. So, even though the constitution protects the exercise of religion and religious belief is a federally protected class, it is not protected the same way as sexual orientation (state law) because???? Twitter, that has an impact on our elections, gets a pass to implement business policies that conform to their political ideology in their private business because????
Yes, I see 'Twitter is a private business therefore they can ban anyone they want.' when there are other private entities that are held to a higher standard by force of law as hypocritical.
Twitter not being a monopoly does not exclude the fact that Twitter has had a big impact on our elections. If that impact is critical enough to the nation then Twitter and other platforms of speech should be stewards of free speech just like AT&T and just like the baker is now a steward of protected classes (except religious, because you know hypocrisy in the law).
lol, you make me laugh amimojo. I don't think you intend to but you do and I don't know why. Thank you for that.
Anyway, 'context of immigrants ruining everything'. If you look at the exit polls you'll notice that immigration policy was an important issue to Trump voters (and some Clinton voters). I would argue that that includes the H1B visas in addition to border security. In Silicon Valley, there are some concerns that these programs and policies are not benefiting American citizens. (keyword citizen).
If a civic society is a society that works to benefit of its citizens by promoting the rights and duties of citizens, and if there are shortages of STEM workers, and if there is a problem with not enough higher education in STEM, and if there are problems with education; then perhaps maybe just maybe we should reassess these policies to be more civically oriented i.e. policies that promote citizens rights and duties. Civics as per Wikipedia is "the study of the rights and duties of citizenship."
Are those CEO's implementing policies that align with the rights and duties of citizenship if the previous conditions were true? Doesn't seem that way. If CEO's are taking advantage of the laws for a dollar at the citizens expense then they are undermining civic society. If a CEO has policies that do not promote the duties of a citizen, they are undermining civic society. If a CEO lobbies the congress for laws at the expense of citizens, they are undermining civic society. If a CEO is more concerned about foreign workers than local ones, they are undermining civic society. Disney, having citizens train foreign replacements undermine civic society. Again, civic society being a society for the rights and duties of citizens. You can be anti-civic and still be civil. Just because there maybe a group of 'un-civic' CEOs does not mean that they are 'not civil'.
I don't care if Bannon is racist and even Trump disagreed with him. There was some back and forth in the 'trail off' and if you can interpret that 'trail off' to mean exactly racism in his next statements then by golly good for you. In the mean time the issue at hand needs to be discussed without fear of racist labels from half statements so that we can have a more 'civic' society because if Sanders and Trump were to be believed then there are a lot of policies that are undermining 'civic' society.
The idea of a melting pot is just public school lipservice.
I must have missed the quotes and diversity requirements in various segments of society. There are laws that force a 'melting pot'. It is much more literal than you say.
Actually I made a mistake with that word swap. It should be "While we agree that freedom of speech is important, no one's political ideology make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers.". It is the bakers religious belief that does not make it acceptable. As well as Twitters political ideology does not make it acceptable is how it should be read. The baker cannot break the law because of his religious belief just like Twitter cannot break the law because of their political ideology.
Full fix: "While we all agree that freedom of speech is important, no one’s political ideology make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said staff attorney. “No one is asking Twitter’s owner to change their beliefs, but treating political opponents differently because of what they say is discrimination plain and simple"
'What you say' is constitutionally protected just as much as 'who you are'. Colorado has a state law that is saying if you are a business owner your religious belief doesn't apply in your business policies despite constitutional protection. Twitter can let their political ideology be applied to their business policies because of constitutional protection. You see the issue? Either the the constitution protects the baker and Twitter or it protects neither.
What they say is constitutionally protected just as much as who they are. AT&T cannot treat political opponents differently. The baker cannot treat gays differently. Yet, Twitter can treat whoever they want however they want.
Yes, I see 'Twitter is a private business therefore they can ban anyone they want.' when there are other private entities that are held to a higher standard by force of law as hypocritical.
Either the government is overstepping their limits by forcing private companies to do something they don't want to do that would normally be protected by the constitution or Twitter and other platforms of speech should be held to a similar standard regardless if Twitter is a private company or not.
Twitter not being a monopoly does not exclude the fact that Twitter has had a big impact on our elections. If that is critical enough to the nation then Twitter and other platforms of speech should be stewards of free speech just like AT&T and just like the baker is a steward of protected classes.
So, if the baker had refused service on the basis that the gay couple was pro-gay marriage it would be okay? You know, liberal isn't a protected class and all. Religion is a protected class except when you are a business owner and then the government may force you to abandon those beliefs while you operate your private.
The point of equal protection is 'all men are created equal'. You are saying the baker has less rights than Twitter because he cannot operate his private business in accordance to his religion. Yet, Twitter can operate their private business in accordance to their political ideology.
So, I am confused. Does equal protection apply when you are business owner or not? Political ideology is protected under the first amendment which protects Twitter's business policy but the baker cannot freely exercise his religious belief in his business policy....
Slashdot Mirror
What you do with that information is more important than whether or not the populace is too stupid. The ends do not justify the means.
Are you going to get it off the tabloids or enforce it with only the right kind of talk shows? What the actual fuck kind of fascist world do you want to live in that forces "truth"???
The ends do not justify the means you mongoloid.
"there is no truth, only that warm fuzzy feeling"
Isn't that more of a byproduct of postmodernism? Seriously, it is the academic equivalent of 'there is no truth, only warm fuzzy feelings' that has many advocates in all levels of academia pushing 'feels before reals'.
I am sorry, but 'fake news' has always been around. Social media allowed a boon by giving independent voices ability to reach more people. It didn't help that MSM (all of it) told a thousand little lies to promote a narrative. Is 'Hands up Don't Shoot' fake news? How many times do you see a 'Hands up Don't Shoot' narrative pushing little lie and start questioning how many other stories were lied about? How many little lies and narrative pushings does it take for an average person to reject that source of information? It is not an irrational thing to do unless you think that 'authoritative' sources gain their authority by some other means than telling the truth.
Experts calling people idiots that don't toe the line is why people stop listening to experts. Pundits and politicians calling everyone names is why people stopped listening to pundits and politicians because when people find out that the pundits and politicians were narrative crafting they stop listening. It is not an irrational thing to do.
You must be new to the internet. Ever heard of the occult rituals in the Bohemian Grove? There has always been shit like that. It isn't new. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not how they understand the information that they are presented with and if it is true or not. A snake oil salesmen eventually is found out. Maybe, if the media hadn't fucked their job and became pushers of political ideology telling a thousand little lies to promote a narrative they wouldn't be so distrusted creating a vacuum for other sources of information to pick up credibility. Social media only expedited that process by creating competition in the MSM oligarchy.
Sigh.
Or are Trump voters kind of stupid people?
Such tolerance from the left. Idiots can vote and they vote D and R. There were many reasons to vote for Trump that were rational. Doing so does not undermine someones intelligence even if they are unable to articulate it. Stop acting like you are better than everyone and maybe you might be able to start talking to them without immediately being hostile and condescending. You just just show how you are missing part of the point of lgw's comment.
Here are some more enthusiastic Trump supporters:
Have you seen 'enthusiactic' Clinton cry babies since the election? They show that many of her followers fall in the bottom of a bell curve as well. Congratufuckinlations we got nowhere. However, I will note that I have seen more political violence from the left side lately. That is illegal. Racist views and salutes are not illegal. Here is a thought, why not deal with real problems and real legal issues instead of possibilities. Nothing has happened except an election and people are acting and talking as if Hitler burned the Congress. It's childish.
Trump and his supporters will not be normalized.
Quite the religious conviction to display by having your outcome determined before anything has happened. Way to generalize an entire group of people.
there are 3 million more people who voted for someone everybody hated instead of Trump.
Does not matter and if the left continues to think it can ignore half the electorate and act like you are acting then I would imagine the left continuing to lose. That makes me sad because that means I cannot vote for policies I may agree with. The ends do not justify the means.
claiming any mandate or legitimacy
Legitimacy through the constitution you moron. He doesn't mandate anything you moron. The most he can do is change the bureaucratic rules to enforce the 'mandates' i.e. laws.
Are you implying that what was in the emails are fake? Or are you conflating the source gatherer motives with the veracity of the source material? Honestly, your comment speaks of weak apologetics of 'one side' propaganda that is characteristic of 'fake news' pushers. Should we call the Ministry of Truth to ask if the veracity of those leaks corroborate with 'justifiable behavior' or acceptable outcome? Or should you, as a free agent, have the responsibility to inform your vote to clear your conscience and understand that everyone is trying to convince you of something. You should promote critical thinking and civic responsibility instead of evangelizing the 'fake news' i.e. propaganda in the 21st century. The methods by which it spreads has changed but that does not change propagandas potential to influence the real world. The internet opened avenues for which citizens may gather information. If there seems to be truth with information, such as those email leaks, then the motives of the source become secondary because truth is a more important factor in deciding if you want a war with Russia or not.
"manipulating elections" like Snowden manipulated domestic warrantless surveillance policy or Manning manipulated foreign policy. If showing the truth is "manipulation" you have bigger problems than Russia.
In the last election, while not the only choices, were the major choices. The DNC and media are a big part of why we had those choices. Pied piper and rigged primaries.
"capitalism is the parasite atop free markets desperately clinging to some facsimile of feudalism"
lol, wut. Economic free markets are a byproduct of capitalism. Private ownership free to conduct commerce voluntarily. Capitalism is a product of freedom and the rights of property.
I think Adam Smith and Milton Friedman are smarter than you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Uh, created a middle class too. Say what you want about greed but it is a primary motivator of capitalism that has done more for the poor person around the world than any other economic model without an archipelago of gulags. Sure, the disparity between rich and poor is great but the standard of living of the poor today, especially in the west, rivals that of royalty of old. Disparity is not the whole story to understand the standard of living of members of that society nor does it address the mobility those members may have.
Greed, just like any human trait can be used for good or ill. Spewing platitudes does not undermine the good things that has come about directly or indirectly because of some ass holes greed.
And walking... err rolling.
How many little lies does it take to warp reality into what you want?
Is it easier to spot a thousand little lies or one big lie?
I still don't know if a thousand little lies is worse than a big lie.
At least the big lie is easier to falsify.
I still don't know which is worse; 1000 little lies or a big lie.
I guess the big lie is easier to falsify?
If education is falling behind, if there is a shortage of labor for industry, if companies are not upholding their civic duty, and if there are millions that are left behind globalization (which I think is all true). Would decreasing immigration with tighter controls create market incentives for local investments so that citizens get the education needed, fill the shortages, and give those millions a chance to catch up while ensuring companies fulfill their civic duty?
I think that is the perception and I don't think anyone knows the answer and even if there was an answer it would be distrusted because the monumental failure of media. Trade is good and immigration is generally good but sometimes you have to clean house before you invite more guests. There is nothing wrong with slowing things down a bit to reassess where the nation is at and trying to have a 'citizens' first approach to ensure that there are not 'millions left behind'.
Sounds like other MSM outlets. How are they different again?
The UK is doing the same thing and we are already finding it hard to get the skills we need.
While that maybe true it will create incentives for the UK (and US in similar situation) to help their citizens hopefully. If there was a problem that there was not enough local talent for an industry perhaps policies and market incentives (increase demand) to promote local talent education/training is a good thing?
It isn't a permanent thing but sometimes slowing down can help the citizens. A nations first priority should be to its citizens.
Holy shit hold the phone... Words don't mean what they really mean. They mean what we think they mean? ... That some un-good double think. Yes, policies have consequences to a lot of people and in many cases it isn't a good one. That doesn't mean they are racist.
If you look at the exit polls you'll notice that immigration policy was an important issue to Trump voters (and some Clinton voters). I would argue that that includes the H1B visas in addition to border security. In Silicon Valley, there are some concerns that these programs and policies are not benefiting American citizens. (keyword citizen).
If a civic society is a society that works to benefit of its citizens by promoting the rights and duties of citizens, and if there are shortages of STEM workers, and if there is a problem with not enough higher education in STEM, and if there are problems with education; then perhaps maybe just maybe we should reassess these policies to be more civically oriented i.e. policies that promote citizens rights and duties. Civics as per Wikipedia is "the study of the rights and duties of citizenship."
Are those CEO's implementing policies that align with the rights and duties of citizenship if the previous conditions were true? Doesn't seem that way. If CEO's are taking advantage of the laws for a dollar at the citizens expense then they are undermining civic society. If a CEO has policies that do not promote the duties of a citizen, they are undermining civic society. If a CEO lobbies the congress for laws at the expense of citizens, they are undermining civic society. If a CEO is more concerned about foreign workers than local ones, they are undermining civic society. Disney, having citizens train foreign replacements undermine civic society. Again, civic society being a society for the rights and duties of citizens. You can be anti-civic and still be civil. Just because there maybe a group of 'un-civic' CEOs does not mean that they are 'not civil'.
Do you think Bannon knows the definition of 'civic'? With your un-good double think I don't think you do and you probably misconstrued that to mean 'civil'. If Bannon ment civil then by all means but he said 'civic'. What does that mean to the context of the conversation? Or are we going to be ignorant of the words we speak and use our feelings to understand?
Inner cities - I have never heard about the inner city work ethic (generational work ethic maybe). But I have heard and a culture that is very distrustful of institutions, police, and the establishment... Is that true? Is that racist? Fuck your double speak.
States rights - This is what made me comment. The point of states rights was to balance the power of the federal government and creating little experiments of democracy. If a state is doing better with an issue others can adopt it. The states are closer to the people and are more responsive to the people FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE. A lot of the problems we have from being a divided nation could be summed up by having too much power in the federal government which makes those 'little experiments of democracy' interchangeable. There is so little difference in the laws between the states now that one of the powers of the people has been undermined. The power to vote with your feet and move to a place that better reflects your morals and beliefs. So long as a state does not take away constitutionally protected rights it should not matter what laws they pass you ignoramus. It is the people of that state to decide the laws by which the live so long as the constitution is upheld.
Cut taxes? Fiscal responsibility is a dog whistle for demonizing people of color? It has nothing to do with the 20 trillion in debt and the financial uncertainty young people have? You are delusional. Just because there are disagreements on where those tax cuts should be made does not mean it is a dog whistle to demonize people of color. Yes, people will lobby the government so the laws will benefit them. News at 11. Just because a rich g
The market by which each operate doesn't matter. AT&T was private but was forced by law to promote the rights of citizens by not disallowing customers on the basis of political ideology because it was seen as necessary for the good of the nation. The point of the Takings clause and eminent domain. If the government feels that a service provided is necessary for the citizens it will no longer operate like a private service but a public service. As a public service you become a steward of citizen rights.
You missing my point. Does Twitter have the right to enforce business policies that conform to their political ideology? Does AT&T? Does the Baker? Religion is a protected class except when you are a business owner and then the government may force you to abandon those beliefs while you operate your private business. Or if you reverse the roles. So, even though the constitution protects the exercise of religion and religious belief is a federally protected class, it is not protected the same way as sexual orientation (state law) because???? Twitter, that has an impact on our elections, gets a pass to implement business policies that conform to their political ideology in their private business because????
Yes, I see 'Twitter is a private business therefore they can ban anyone they want.' when there are other private entities that are held to a higher standard by force of law as hypocritical.
Twitter not being a monopoly does not exclude the fact that Twitter has had a big impact on our elections. If that impact is critical enough to the nation then Twitter and other platforms of speech should be stewards of free speech just like AT&T and just like the baker is now a steward of protected classes (except religious, because you know hypocrisy in the law).
lol, you make me laugh amimojo. I don't think you intend to but you do and I don't know why. Thank you for that.
Anyway, 'context of immigrants ruining everything'. If you look at the exit polls you'll notice that immigration policy was an important issue to Trump voters (and some Clinton voters). I would argue that that includes the H1B visas in addition to border security. In Silicon Valley, there are some concerns that these programs and policies are not benefiting American citizens. (keyword citizen).
If a civic society is a society that works to benefit of its citizens by promoting the rights and duties of citizens, and if there are shortages of STEM workers, and if there is a problem with not enough higher education in STEM, and if there are problems with education; then perhaps maybe just maybe we should reassess these policies to be more civically oriented i.e. policies that promote citizens rights and duties. Civics as per Wikipedia is "the study of the rights and duties of citizenship."
Are those CEO's implementing policies that align with the rights and duties of citizenship if the previous conditions were true? Doesn't seem that way. If CEO's are taking advantage of the laws for a dollar at the citizens expense then they are undermining civic society. If a CEO has policies that do not promote the duties of a citizen, they are undermining civic society. If a CEO lobbies the congress for laws at the expense of citizens, they are undermining civic society. If a CEO is more concerned about foreign workers than local ones, they are undermining civic society. Disney, having citizens train foreign replacements undermine civic society. Again, civic society being a society for the rights and duties of citizens. You can be anti-civic and still be civil. Just because there maybe a group of 'un-civic' CEOs does not mean that they are 'not civil'.
I don't care if Bannon is racist and even Trump disagreed with him. There was some back and forth in the 'trail off' and if you can interpret that 'trail off' to mean exactly racism in his next statements then by golly good for you. In the mean time the issue at hand needs to be discussed without fear of racist labels from half statements so that we can have a more 'civic' society because if Sanders and Trump were to be believed then there are a lot of policies that are undermining 'civic' society.
The idea of a melting pot is just public school lipservice.
I must have missed the quotes and diversity requirements in various segments of society. There are laws that force a 'melting pot'. It is much more literal than you say.
Actually I made a mistake with that word swap. It should be "While we agree that freedom of speech is important, no one's political ideology make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers.". It is the bakers religious belief that does not make it acceptable. As well as Twitters political ideology does not make it acceptable is how it should be read. The baker cannot break the law because of his religious belief just like Twitter cannot break the law because of their political ideology.
Full fix: "While we all agree that freedom of speech is important, no one’s political ideology make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said staff attorney. “No one is asking Twitter’s owner to change their beliefs, but treating political opponents differently because of what they say is discrimination plain and simple"
'What you say' is constitutionally protected just as much as 'who you are'. Colorado has a state law that is saying if you are a business owner your religious belief doesn't apply in your business policies despite constitutional protection. Twitter can let their political ideology be applied to their business policies because of constitutional protection. You see the issue? Either the the constitution protects the baker and Twitter or it protects neither.
What they say is constitutionally protected just as much as who they are. AT&T cannot treat political opponents differently. The baker cannot treat gays differently. Yet, Twitter can treat whoever they want however they want.
Yes, I see 'Twitter is a private business therefore they can ban anyone they want.' when there are other private entities that are held to a higher standard by force of law as hypocritical.
Either the government is overstepping their limits by forcing private companies to do something they don't want to do that would normally be protected by the constitution or Twitter and other platforms of speech should be held to a similar standard regardless if Twitter is a private company or not.
Twitter not being a monopoly does not exclude the fact that Twitter has had a big impact on our elections. If that is critical enough to the nation then Twitter and other platforms of speech should be stewards of free speech just like AT&T and just like the baker is a steward of protected classes.
lol, whooops. Yes, "while you operate your private"... ima operate my privates tonight. tee hee hee. ;)
while you operate your private business.*
So, if the baker had refused service on the basis that the gay couple was pro-gay marriage it would be okay? You know, liberal isn't a protected class and all. Religion is a protected class except when you are a business owner and then the government may force you to abandon those beliefs while you operate your private.
The point of equal protection is 'all men are created equal'. You are saying the baker has less rights than Twitter because he cannot operate his private business in accordance to his religion. Yet, Twitter can operate their private business in accordance to their political ideology.
So, I am confused. Does equal protection apply when you are business owner or not? Political ideology is protected under the first amendment which protects Twitter's business policy but the baker cannot freely exercise his religious belief in his business policy....