Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
If you can read this you are not following too closely.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Leverage Social Media to Counteract Racism

Set the wheels in motion to throw racism in the bin by the 22nd century
  (+4, -3)
(+4, -3)
  [vote for,

Prologue: When I refer to social media I’m usually thinking of twitter as that’s the one I’m on, I eschew arsebook and I don’t think the linked-in / instagram / other stuff is particularly social or pleasant or compelling. I’m mainly talking about twitter, then.

I propose that it could be possible over a fairly long term to counteract racism, using social media to seed mindsets and platforms of groupthink, in such a way as to mobilise and motivate people to reject primitive ways of thinking such as racism. Although having said that, racism itself isn’t particularly primitive, nevertheless it is very much a manipulated state and the weak mind will fall for it.

A similar set of changes of mindset are already in place in social media – not eating so much meat; avoiding sexism and the offshoots of that way of thinking; paranoia about climate change; about use of plastics, etc. None of this is new, but the methods of globally leveraging a networked communication medium in such a manner as to change so many minds so uniformly and so swiftly is. This idea can be another of those movements.

The mechanism I have in mind is roughly this:

Using acknowledged experts (either academic or from current literature realms) a good picture of the history of racism could be built up and honed, corrected and agreed upon. The motives and reasons behind racism through this history can be put into perspective to understand why it occurred and who it benefited at that time. This would help build a platform of knowing why such events occurred, and why they have no real credibility or justification in the longer wider view.

Once a history is in place for everyone to have dipped into, a structured way forward can be contributed to by, well, the people.

I think this could work. I also think it could have risks. The ‘understanding the history in order to build the future’ bit has to be done in such a way as to not cause the thicker portions of the populace to stick at one point or another and glorify it (kind of the exact opposite of the desired outcome). There are probably a good many other risks like this which would reverse the desired outcome. However, I think that a general educational increase in understanding why racism has been used to manipulate large populations for the gain of the few is perhaps a good thing overall rather than not.

What would you say to this? I’m quite fuzzy on a lot of the implementation stuff at this stage.

Ian Tindale, Mar 19 2019

Just make everyone green https://en.wikipedi...The_Lathe_of_Heaven
[theircompetitor, Mar 19 2019]

Destruction of Great Barrier Reef https://www.nytimes...a-barrier-reef.html
caused by man made global warming [xenzag, Mar 20 2019]

Enemy of the State | Tommy Robinson Interview https://www.youtube...watch?v=l72m8heICBk
[bigsleep, Mar 23 2019]

Rowan Atkinson: we must be allowed to insult each other https://www.telegra...ult-each-other.html
Telegraph news article from 2012 [bigsleep, Mar 25 2019]

Student suspended for expressing views on halal meat and Islam https://www.dailyma...sation-Britain.html
[bigsleep, Mar 25 2019]

Crowder: Hate Speech Isn't Real - Change My Mind https://www.youtube...watch?v=hBPbd_JYIdw
[bigsleep, Mar 26 2019]

Article 13 https://www.youtube...watch?v=-f17NWEhgwY
Buh-bye unfettered freedom of internet communication. [doctorremulac3, Mar 26 2019]

Get Ready for the Struggle (by Peggy Noonan) https://www.wsj.com...session-11552003346
[theircompetitor, Mar 27 2019]


       A good idea, but a few flaws:
1: Not everyone is ON social media.
2: This requires people to learn and think; some people don't like doing that.
But, our (visual) differences are largely due to geographical separation. With modern travel etc, eventually the human race will all look (more-or-less) the same (in a broad, vague sense), so racism should take care of itself, in the extremely long term. Of course, humans being human will no doubt find something else to fight about...
neutrinos_shadow, Mar 19 2019

       Racism hasn’t shown signs lately of taking care of itself. In my lifetime, it was fairly institutionally widespread in the 60s and 70s in the UK, in the 80s and 90s far less so. Now, we’re even worse than the 60s, I don’t know of earlier, I wasn’t born then.   

       I don’t think it’s a healthy option to just stand back and shrug – there’s no neutral position in the solution to this.
Ian Tindale, Mar 19 2019

       Oh, I agree that it's bad, and something needs to be done; but social media probably isn't the answer.
I think that, as with many things, education and simple non- confrontational exposure is at least a good first step.
(When I say "eventually", I'm talking a few thousand years or so, if we last that long...)
Disclaimer: I live in Christchurch. I know a thing or two about when racism goes too far...
neutrinos_shadow, Mar 20 2019

       You might be surprised at how it's, (kind of), sorting itself out in Canada. So many cultures and religions here and since it's still being built they are... integrating.   

       Almost all first generation foreigners who don't speak much English or French are completely blown away that we don't haggle here. The kids that grow up here go to school with the children of so many other cultures that, well... (my daughter going to university in Vancouver gets stared at on the bus because she's one of so few blue eyed white kids where she's staying and experiencing a complete reversal of what we've been conditioned to think of as normal), they are evolving their own interactions and rebelling against their parents as per usual and pretty much getting over the whole skin tone thing as we speak, at least here. <knocks on wood>   

       Areas of the planet with more entrenched cultural heritage will struggle with integration as their traditions are established already. Kids don't have any prejudices until they learn them. They seem to figure it out when they see enough diversity at a young enough age and are much less racist than when I was still in school.   

       It's at the point here now where I bet dollars to doughnuts that city wide Christmas decorations will be a thing of the past here within five years.
Think about it. Why should the tax dollars of our Hindu, Jewish, Atheist, Pastafarian, etc. members of society be forced to fund such nonsense when their own holidays and festivals do not receive an equal share of the decoration budget they are beginning to fund a majority of?

       There are several bones of contention springing up of course such as; How do you enforce helmet laws when a Sikh male can not remove his turban without violating that mans religious freedom? It's a slippery slope. We've got citizens taking their children home on vacation to be mutilated when that means a jail sentence by our laws. How does that get resolved? But by and large exposure to many cultures at a young age seems to work given a couple of decades past the culture-shock stage... and then the racist parents die leaving fewer and fewer people who don't understand what the fuss was about.   

       We are getting there, but sadly there remains a fairly vocal minority of evil cunts.
zen_tom, Mar 20 2019

       //throw racism in the bin by the 22nd century//   

       Until there are coffee coloured people worldwide its just going to continue. Tribalism is inherent to humans and so bigotry (the fear of the other group) needs to be educated out of every single generation until there are no differences to discover, there are no more tribes.   

       As John Sweeney of Panorama proved by his hatred of the working class, even divisions of wealth distribution is a cause for tribalism and bigotry.   

       I think most societal problems should be tackled like drug problems. You legalise the problem, let people talk about the problem, its upsides and downsides and then society will sort it out. To have neighbours gossiping about drugs without fear of being criminalised themselves lets druggies know how people around them think and to apply that social pressure needed to get them into rehab.   

       Anything outside of that is just brow-beating and there is already too much of that surrounding identity politics. Let people think for themselves and even the wrong things for a while. There are some identity politics activist groups that actually believe they can physically harm people for their wrong thoughts and words. They will learn in time that acting as judge, jury and executioner and acting above the law without due process is pretty much the definition of fascism. They are wrong-thinking for a while.   

       //Using acknowledged experts (either academic or from current literature realms)//   

       Isn't an 'acknowledged expert' someone who can be lobbied these days ? Peter Ridd tried to expose that the Great Barrier Reef is doing just fine but he got demonised and had a gag order placed on him. And as far as I can figure, epidemiology which is the basis for modern medicine and dietary advice is 95% bullshit, but despite that, a possibly deadly narrative has taken hold in both industries.   

       And this is where I agree with Steve Bannon - just turn the matter over to the common people - no censorship, uphold the first ammendment. Let people talk about everything and come to some decent conclusions.   

       If I could change one thing I'd just require organisations purporting to have journalistic integrity to gain a certificate of integrity which they would lose if using tabloid tactics for clicks and views. Coverage would be required to be unbiassed and have a certain percentage of moderated long format discussion.   

       The world would be a better place just without the mainstream media echoing the outrage rampage going on in some darker corners of the internet. It's not journalism to stick the boot in alongside the other outrage groups.
bigsleep, Mar 20 2019

       // integrity to gain a certificate of integrity //   

       Ah, but who certifies the integrity of the integrity certifiers?   

       //We are getting there, but sadly there remains a fairly vocal minority of evil cunts.//   

       From what I've seen, the evil cunts don't say boo until they're scared. Then they scream bloody murder that they are being persecuted by exactly the crimes they're guilty of, trying to cast those crimes on others to distract attention away from themselves.   

       Overly-vocal evil asswipes might be a good sign.   

       Good idea. It would silence the orange Mekon baby in the Whitehouse for a start.
xenzag, Mar 20 2019

       This is exactly the sort of idea that Adolf Hitler, sorry [Ian Tindale], would come up with ...
8th of 7, Mar 20 2019

       Ah yes, but if the idea had come earlier, then no one would ever have heard of Hitler. It's interesting in the context of events in New Zealand where the PM refuses to even use the name of the suspect, and Facebook along with youtube and other social media have made efforts to purge his broadcast. If I decide to print a newspaper, do I not have the right to decide whether or not I repeat the mouthings of someone with whom I totally disagree in my paper?
xenzag, Mar 20 2019

       Re destruction of the Great Barrier Reef mentioned in a comment - see link, which is only one of many. It's only the greedy oil companies and poorly educated simpletons like Trump who are in denial over man made global warming. Shutting them up would be a positive initiative.
xenzag, Mar 20 2019

       yes, yes, if only everyone could speak their mind freely except for the people I disagree with, it would be ideal.   

       In what way is this idea anything except a [WIBNI]?   

       You're on Twitter -- do you watch much TV? Have you noticed casting in any recently made shows? You think it's accidental?
theircompetitor, Mar 20 2019

       //If I decide to print a newspaper, do I not have the right to decide whether or not I repeat the mouthings of someone with whom I totally disagree in my paper?//   

       Given that newspapers and reporters have more rights - some entrenched in law, others through precedent - than the normal person... what do you think ?
FlyingToaster, Mar 20 2019

       Is it a racist remark to say "Black people get sickle cell anemia more than white people" ? Some online dictionaries still have non negative definitions of racism alongside the definition most people use the word for these days.   

       Another gem is that 'semitic' refers to language. Arabic speakers (a central semitic language) outnumber Jews by 60 to 1 (hebrew is a northwest semitic language). So antisemitism is probably not what you though it was, strictly speaking.
bigsleep, Mar 20 2019

       // Is it a racist remark to say "Black people get sickle cell anemia more than white people" ? //   

       In theory no, because it's a biological fact, like "Haemophillia is transmitted through the female line" or "Cats are evil". But sadly, many biologists and medics would probably now say "The gene that codes fo increased melanin in the skin also confers some immunity to malaria but also predisposes tge carrier to sickle cell anaemia".
8th of 7, Mar 20 2019

       //Black people// What does this even mean?
xenzag, Mar 20 2019

       It means "Humans that aren't a weird and repulsive yellowish-pink colour".   

       Your species has some seriously strange hangups. If you say "That parrot is blue" or "This cow is brown" or "That gorilla is a silverback" then it's clearly non-pejorative. So why is is skin pigmentation such a big thing in humans ?   

       And what is the whole "Ginger" hair thing about? We are baffled ...
8th of 7, Mar 20 2019

       People don't go on social media to learn. Especially Twitter. They go on it to mindlessly snark at their opponents. At least that's what I do.   

       People should only be allowed as much influence as some formulaic combination of their IQ, ethic, and EQ.   

       Maybe a new type of Twitter could be formed where you take a test, and are allotted a maximum amount of followers or friends based on your results. It could even be broken up by topic. No fake accounts could upvote or downvote unpopular truth or popular fallacy.   

       Damn I want to peddle this to Bezos or some other bazillionnaire now.
RayfordSteele, Mar 20 2019

       There's also the argument that social media provides people an outlet for frustration. Banning people because they naively say racist things just removes their means of expression. So what happens next ? The action gets taken to the real world.   

       Yet again it shows the importance of 1st amendment rights.
bigsleep, Mar 23 2019

       Had to look at the definition of "racist" and "racism". There is an emphasis on the belief that one race, generally one's own, is superior to others. Also mentioned is discrimination and prejudice, which tie into that belief.

What this means though, is that saying a "racist", mean, thing to a person is not racism, if there is no belief. And that racism can exist also, without expression. So racism as a belief is not easily controllable. Saying mean things... easily controllable, but belief... no.

To manipulate belief, it is necessary to dissolve the psychological foundations upon which that belief is built. And racism is built on judgments of inferiority/superiority. To dissolve beliefs of racism, do not force individuals to form judgments about inferiority/superiority and race. It's that simple. The reason why racism is still an issue, and probably getting worse, is because we keep talking about it. This is compounded by the persistence in forcing judgments about whether so and so is racist, be it a person, behavior, or institution. Morgan Freeman said something about this.

This doesn't mean the issue can't be addressed obliquely though. Instead of division, show unity. Videos of multiple races working and playing together in harmony does not force a judgment, but does erode the foundation of racism.
LimpNotes, Mar 23 2019

       //There is an emphasis on the belief that one race, generally one's own, is superior to others.//   

       I found that "racism" just originally meant "pertaining to race" whereas "racialism" conferred superiority, but the word "racism" in the last century took the latter connotation also.   

       I'm with Richard Dawkins on this - people naturally fear the other group with a solid Darwinian basis for doing so. It's an extra step entirely to start exploiting 'the other'. All forms of racism are 2nd generation or institutionalised versions of those.   

       The set of people who think they are naturally superior to others regardless of race is a completely different issue - the sociopathic rich vs the deplorables, and its this latter point where I disagree with many on the right.   

       //The reason why racism is still an issue, and probably getting worse, is because we keep talking about it.//   

       Not a good idea. It's only a problem with identity politics advocates because they cannot discuss an issue, they just close down other viewpoints and voices. They are never going to get some groups to get along, such as LGBT and feminists with Islam as the two sets hold opposing viewpoints that can never be reconciled.   

       Rational people can discuss things. The set of people who can't are called 'children' so maybe those people need supervised permission to use the internet. Sadly this set of people now includes the UK police force.
bigsleep, Mar 23 2019

       And if you entertain the idea that there is no right or left binary? Only people making decisions they think are best? Some who are certainly mentally ill at the extremes, and should be avoided, but most who are not? Does this encourage solidarity? Is it not the same with race? If there is no race label to assign, or perhaps more critically, if it is not important, doesn't this encourage solidarity?
LimpNotes, Mar 23 2019

       Not sure what you are getting at, but no I don't believe many things are black and white.   

       Obviously solidarity is somewhat devisive, and one of the worst aspects of identity politics is that the spokespeople for any group tend to be the most vocal and radical. To lump all Muslims together, for example, is a recipe for disaster.   

       //Some who are certainly mentally ill at the extremes//   

       Most people are probably redeemable. Only a few like Breivik need taking out back and shooting, but its very difficult to prove guilt with 100% certainty.   

       Groups like Hope no Hate think otherwise about guilt, and have given up Hope on many people, you could say that they ... hate .. them and persecute them when possible. Even people who have never been charged with a hate crime like Tommy Robinson - its all internet gossip mongering.   

       Tommy Robinson has been convicted for other crimes, such as in 2011 when he head-butted a Nazi who was trying to muscle into the EDL. [link]
bigsleep, Mar 23 2019

       /Not sure what you are getting at, but no I don't believe many things are black and white./

Not so much talking about black and white thinking as I am talking about labels. Although there is some overlap. Once a label is assigned, and if that label doesn't apply to me, then I am no longer part of that group. Even though 99% of my interests may be shared by people who have that label. My suggestion is to stop using labels that cause these divisions.
LimpNotes, Mar 23 2019

       // racism is built on judgments of inferiority/superiority. //   

       // people who think they are naturally superior to others regardless of race is a completely different issue //   

       But what if you know - and can prove objectively - that you genuinely *are* superior to all others ?   

       That's not a rhetorical question by the way; speaking from experience, though, it's a nice problem to have.
8th of 7, Mar 23 2019

       //But what if you know - and can prove objectively - that you genuinely *are* superior to all others ?//

If kung fu movies have taught me anything, you must quest for a better opponent.
LimpNotes, Mar 24 2019

       //Once a label is assigned, and if that label doesn't apply to me, then I am no longer part of that group.//   

       You mean attributes ?   

       I can see the problem with intersectionals now - they are not thinking in sufficient dimensions. Answers on a postcard for the minimum number of dimensions to accommodate all humans on a multidimensional Venn diagram assuming 200 hundred attributes (we would have used 100, but the LGBT crowd added one hundred just for themselves).
bigsleep, Mar 24 2019

       "First they came..."   

       "... for the pedants ... and I rejoiced, because I was not a pedant ... "
8th of 7, Mar 24 2019

       //You mean attributes ?//

Bravo! An important distinction must be made. Calling a group "African Americans" is assigning a label. Referring to a group as "People of African American decent" is describing an attribute. It goes back to the identity politics you've mentioned. With the label, the identity is African American, which is exclusive. With the attribute, the identity is People, which is inclusive. Of course my desire is to stop using those attributes even.

African American is beaten by police while walking dog.

Person of African American decent is beaten by police while walking dog.

Person is beaten by police while walking dog.

The third phrasing encourages the greatest level of empathetic response because it doesn't limit the audience to a group defined by a label or attribute, and addresses an issue that everyone can get behind. That there may have been a racist motive is irrelevant because a person should be able to walk their dog without getting beaten by the police.
LimpNotes, Mar 24 2019

       //the third phrasing encourages the greatest level of empathetic response because it doesn't limit the audience to a group defined by a label or attribute//   

       It's a tough one. To remove profiling of the victim would disable any conversation of e.g. why Catholic choir boys are abused more than the wider population. I also see people who have been radicalised by others as victims e.g. I imagine many Catholic priests were in turn abused as children.   

       I'd say that its just better fully documenting incidents and let people interpret the facts as they see it. It is then up to the moral responsibility of media organisations to roll out that information with fair editorial comment - as headlines, short format and long format discussion.   

       We live in an era where CNN and MSNBC have been selling a collusion theory for years and they both now sound like the worst conspiracy channels on the internet. Facebook have banned conspiracy channels for much less.   

       If the elites really want to exploit the economy and the media, there is only grass roots reaction left. I'm going to invest in yellow vest manufacture.
bigsleep, Mar 24 2019

       Too late, the elites are already churning out the yellow-vests at an alarming rate - especially where they can be guided into supporting their agenda by cementing in this identity politics idea with EDL, White Supremacy, Nationalist groups etc all calling for "common sense". The truth is, the so-called "identity politics" has been mired by one or two overly vocal, authoritarian voices - amplified by the alt-right, because it suits their agenda to whip up a bit more polarisation. In normal, day-to-day life, people just get along - they are kind to their neighbours, and they are supportive of the people in their communities - pick a grab-bag full of labels, as you like.   

       It's only through the commercialised, commoditised media channels that anyone gets to hear about anything really extreme, and sadly, because these channels select for extreme "interesting" ideas, it's only ever the non-day-to-day, wild and out there notions that are most effectively disseminated. That's why it's people like Tommy Robinson, the creator of a group who's only mission is to suppress the Muslim minority, can find themselves talked about by rational and otherwise sensible people. In that respect, by polarizing and weakening our combined confidence in an open society, and sowing the seeds of discontent, the terrorists really did win in 2001. (They were gladly encouraged by the Financiers of 2008 who helped speed things along)   

       And now, the elites, with their media empires and the ability to guide the news and thereby conversations of people's day-to-day lives - means that we're all talking about stuff we have absolutely zero actual experience of - Immigration, Radical Islam, sharing toilets with people of alternative gender expression, Mexicans, Europeans, Russians, lefties, fascists. None of it has any effect on anyone here, and yet we devote all this time complaining about it, ruining the chance we have of experiencing the real world, as it really is. All that fear is weaponised news - it's done it to split your vote, and eventually, the lobby that pays the most - be it NRA, Offshore Money, Oil, Coal, Gas, Vested Medical businesses, and other power structures - will come out on top. If it makes you feel angry, then it's done its job - yes, of course it's likely to be bollocks, but the point is to make you feel emotional, because you're easier to lead when you're agog at whatever latest scandal can be amplified into a story.   

       Curiously, with all this competing infrastructure at play, the figureheads that attract the most support are those who are best able to support multiple contradictory positions at the same time. This is how we've arrived at where we are today.
zen_tom, Mar 25 2019

       // eventually, the lobby that pays the most - be it NRA, Offshore Money, Oil, Coal, Gas, Vested Medical businesses, and other power structures - will come out on top. //   

       ... just like thr rest of human history.
8th of 7, Mar 25 2019

       everyone loves the lines that you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. Turns out that with a sufficient level of tribalism, this is not exactly how it works.   

       Our glass houses are now so intricate that logically irreconcilable notions occupy our brains with no difficulty (Russia is our biggest strategic foe, so what if he likes Putin, how can we tolerate foreign interference with our election, and why can't non-citizens vote if they live here), and every citizen participating in the debate is as schooled in the talking points as a paid operative, and for the most part, completely ceded the ability to analyze the situation independently -- incidentally, I STILL don't believe there was no WMD, likely the Russians helped Saddam get it out - - but I digress.   

       Using social media to solve racism is like using a high fever to kill the germs -- the exposure might ultimately save you, but there's certainly a chance you'll drop dead
theircompetitor, Mar 25 2019

       //In normal, day-to-day life, people just get along - they are kind to their neighbours, and they are supportive of the people in their communities - pick a grab-bag full of labels, as you like.//   

       In general yes, and there is certainly a lot of nonsense that will burn itself out with identity politics.   

       There are however, some worrying lasting effects such as the section 127 of the Communication Act which many sane celebrities such as Rowan Atkinson fought to stop [link]. The worst possible effects of this act have already manifested themselves -   

       1) Police time is being wasted by following up on complaints such as "He said something nasty to me on the internet"
2) Many such incidents are chalked up as hate crimes, which means further budgets are garnered for further unrequired draconian measures.
3) Police are turning up at peoples doors saying things like - "I'm sure you are aware of what you wrote on Twitter. We are here to check on your motivations. What you wrote is not a crime, but we are concerned about what you are thinking."

       As far as Tommy Robinson goes, you still need to look further into it.   

       Also, Lancashire University suspended a student for daring to discuss Halal meat and NHS rights of immigrants. If students can't figure out values by discussing them, then what are universities for ? [link]   

       Sure there is a lot of noise and many things that will not have a lasting effect, but personally I just can't believe how freedom of speech rights just keep getting further eroded. Don't people know how to walk away or press the back button if they come across something that offends them ?
bigsleep, Mar 25 2019

       the First Amendment in the US will hold. But it held through the McCarthy years -- it didn't prevent real damage from being done to people -- and real damage being done as we speak.
theircompetitor, Mar 25 2019

       And a major win for Trump for recently signing legislation requiring universities to uphold the 1st amendment at pain of losing grants.   

       The UK seriously needs a 1st amendment that applies everywhere including the internet.
bigsleep, Mar 25 2019

       Unfortunately I think that ship has sailed. "All citizens should have the right to speak their mind." can't get by the popular concept of "Yea, unless I decide I don't like what they say.".   

       Civilization is built on abstract concepts like "You can't bash somebody over the head and take stuff from them because you want that stuff." that doesn't apply in the animal world for instance. We're getting back to a much simpler way of doing things. "We're in charge so we can speak but you're not so you can't." is the future I'm afraid.   

       But hopefully I'm wrong. Hope springs eternal.
doctorremulac3, Mar 25 2019

       "The future" ?   

       Just out of academic interest, when exactly was this "Golden Age" when humans weren't nast, greedy, venal, self-centred and small-minded ?   

       Maybe your ninteenth century, the era of rampant colonialism ? The 1950's perhaps, playground of Senator McCarthy and the military industrial complex ? The renaissance, when life was "nasty, bruitish and short" (but had great art) ? The Roman world, run on corruption and slavery?   

       Humans are vicious horrible creatures, and without massive genetic editing are never going to be any different. It's called natural selection.
8th of 7, Mar 25 2019

       I wouldn't call it a golden age, but two years ago at least you could post stuff on Facebook and Twitter without being shadow banned.   

       I'll fight imperialism, militarism, corruption and slavery tomorrow, today I just want to be able to call Hillary Clinton names without getting put on a watch list.
doctorremulac3, Mar 26 2019

       Ironically, the groups that are the real threats have far too much sense than to post their ideas on public forums.   

       Why don't you write about Winston Smith's life in 1982, when obviously things were so much better than in 1984 ... ?
8th of 7, Mar 26 2019

       The 80's perhaps, when Beruit was waaaay over there and music was still before Nickelback and autotone dregs.
RayfordSteele, Mar 26 2019

       //when exactly was this "Golden Age" when humans weren't nasty, greedy, venal, self-centered and small-minded ?//   

       The dark ages.
Before that the Atlantian empire.

       I just know we the people, not the governments, not the elites, not the debt-slave-trading global financial institutions, are supposed to be manning the ramparts of civilization and defending our freedoms. I don't want to do it but it's gotta be done.   

       It's appropriate that it's called the First Amendment. It's the first target on their list.
doctorremulac3, Mar 26 2019

       Well, presumably that means "first target after the original constitution was drafted"?
MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 26 2019

       Now gotta add, that thing is just a law about the government being prohibited from abridging free speech, it doesn't say anything about Facebook or Twitter, and I understand a private organization can do anything it wants... but,   

       I'm hoping these guys to get their asses kicked in the free market by platforms that let people speak their mind. That's why I get a little nervous when we get these de facto monopolies like Google deciding they want to control what people have access to both in terms of communicating and accessing ideas.   

       And I never got the whole point of controlling speech. I WANT to hear what my enemies are up to. You should WANT to know who the crazy people are out there. Makes me wonder if the left, the guys who are behind this thought control nonsense, think people are so susceptible to indoctrination because THEY were so susceptible to indoctrination. Hmmm.
doctorremulac3, Mar 26 2019

       From where I'm standing, free speech is more rigorous and possible than at any time in our history. Did I miss something? Who's rights to free speech are being threatened exactly? Has anyone gone to prison for saying something in public that a government didn't like? Apart, that is from people promoting violence, which I think we've largely agreed is a general no- no.
zen_tom, Mar 26 2019

       //today I just want to be able to call Hillary Clinton names without getting put on a watch list.//   

       Reminds of that old Communist joke about being able to stand in the middle of Red Square and call the American President an idiot.   

       The real threat is NOT really any kind of shadow banning. The real threat is in the leverage of modern media to help self-organizing mobs to go after first world problem irritants, like preventing intrusions of anyone who thinks differently than you from your life.
theircompetitor, Mar 26 2019

       //Did I miss something?//   


       2018: A Merseyside woman was convicted under the Communications Act for posting rap lyrics on Instagram which were deemed 'racist', due to them including racially-charged language. Chelsea Russell had used lyrics from a Snap Dogg song as a tribute to a boy who died in a road accident. She was sentenced to an eight week community order, along with an eight-week curfew. She was also ordered to pay costs of £500 and an £85 victim surcharge.   

       We have this group, the ACLU that at one time fought for the KKKs right to march and gather. They were a mostly left wing organization but they stuck to their principals. They also were smart enough to see that the worst thing that could happen for the KKK was for people to see them, to have news cameras there and to have their speeches broadcast for everybody to hear. Free speech isn't about protecting nice speech, it's about protecting ugly speech. Nice speech doesn't need protecting.   

       See link.
doctorremulac3, Mar 26 2019

       If you agree that falsely shouting fire in a crowded auditorium is not protected by your right to free speech, then it arguably follows that posting "nigger" on a memorial page of a boy who's uncle was murdered by whites in a racially motivated attack falls under the same spirit, or is that unreasonable? It seems reasonable (or at the very least, arguable) to me.   

       I'm confident in asserting that words have consequences. And while I might set the bar of the law differently to someone else, I'm happy for the accepted protocol of leaving case-by-case interpretation of the law down to individual magistrates, judges and the like. And it's already common practice to disagree, challenge and progress through the legal system wherever a particular judgement falls on some edge-case. That's literally what the judiciary does.   

       You have to first decide on whether the "falsely calling fire in an auditorium" exception to free speech is acceptable or not. Once you've agreed on that principle (and generally, our legal systems would accept that example) then you can logically progress what that means in terms of other behaviour likely to have consequences. There will always be gray areas - and I'd prefer to leave common decency to sort the majority of those out - but as we see these days, people are openly flouting common decency in order to achieve political and commercial gain.   

       As things stand, this seems relatively balanced, but as with all questions of law, there will be arguments against it.
zen_tom, Mar 26 2019

       //You have to first decide on whether the "falsely calling fire in an auditorium" exception to free speech is acceptable or not.//   

       Then you can decide if using an offensive word is the same as conspiring to harm people such as is the case with the false fire alarm.   

       The next step is to weight the benefit to risk ratio of having a government that tells you what you can say.
doctorremulac3, Mar 26 2019

       I'm not sure it's helpful to base law directly on intent. We should assume people have some degree of knowledge and common sense, and, where they take actions that are very likely to be harmful to others, hold them responsible.   

       Freedom to act doesn't necessarily mean absolving you of any responsibility of your actions. You can't have the one without the other. Rights come hand in hand with responsibilities.   

       Yes, you have the right to insult people, but that doesn't absolve you from your responsibilities to the people who could be harmed by your behavior.   

       It's tricky - and I'm sure an entirely binary solution will ever be found. This is a classic case of two conflicting sets of directives - practically speaking, resolving them has to involve some kind of compromise.
zen_tom, Mar 26 2019

       It is tricky and just requires some adulting to come to the right conclusions.   

       I would propose that when new laws are imposed there's discussion about how people speaking their mind have caused harm to the general population. "Offensive" doesn't rise to the level of harm in my eyes. Libel, slander, that's different.   

       Again, requires a bit of common sense and yes, that can be tricky and should, as you said, be discussed on a case by case basis. I'm going to argue on the side of the greater good. I believe allowing people to speak their mind is very important to a civilized society and if the downside is some people getting their feelings hurt, it's worth it. But again, give me the specific case in any given situation, that's the way to handle this in my opinion.
doctorremulac3, Mar 26 2019

       Time for Godwin's law in order to explore. At what point during Hitler's rise to power would it have been a. appropriate, b. pragmatically justifiable, c. centered within the "optimal" American legal standard (if he were theoretically an American held subject to our system) to start to deprive him of his freedom of speech, and why?   

       How much gap is there amongst those points? How much should there be?
RayfordSteele, Mar 26 2019

       Well, we can certainly discuss where the line is, which is legit, but I'd first find a point of agreement.   

       How about when he says "Let's invade Poland." for starters?   

       Then we can work backwards from there.
doctorremulac3, Mar 26 2019

       Except Adolf was democratically elected by popular vote, and after that he was the Man With Big Stick choosing what others could say ...   

       By the time they were fuelling the Panzers on the Polish border it was six years too late.   

       Bear in mind that he'd already published Mein Kampf, and had been spewing his nationalistic anti-semitic rhetoric in public for a decade AND WAS STILL ELECTED.   

       Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin were a elected by a supposedly legitimate "democratic" process.   

       Mr. Trump was also elected by a supposedly legitimate "democratic" process.   

       Do you have:

       1. The wrong sort of democracy

       2. The wrong sort of candidates

       3. The wrong sort of mass media

       4. The wrong sort of voters

       5. All of the above

       6. None of the above

       Answers on a postcard, please ...   

       N.B. this is not a trick question.   

       (It is also possible that you have the Wrong Sort Of Evil Secret Conspiracy running things, but there's no proof of that either way).
8th of 7, Mar 26 2019

       there should be no laws prohibiting political views or parties, only specific violent actions.
theircompetitor, Mar 26 2019

       //At what point during Hitler's rise to power //   

       Watch Netflix - Love, Death & Robots: Alternate Histories, for alternate Hitler stories.   

       But I've heard the viewpoint from a couple of sources that the society was fostering the same direction as the leadership, so Goebbels if not Hitler. China's weird social credit system is another example - its reflected by a large degree with how Chinese people behave anyway applying social pressure to citizens not pulling their weight.   

       //You have to first decide on whether the "falsely calling fire in an auditorium" exception to free speech is acceptable or not//   

       It's only acceptable if there is fire, otherwise its a "call to action" that could put people in harms way and a criminal offence. Prior to crazy hate speech laws, it was already offence to publish a statement calling for action against someone. Thus there is a big distinction between spouting hate and going that extra step and asking someone to harass / injure / kill someone. Crowder did a great segment on this [link].   

       //I'm hoping these guys to get their asses kicked in the free market by platforms that let people speak their mind.//   

       Sadly, Articles 11 & 13 passed today meaning all copyright content will be deleted by upload filters on the bigger platforms. Smaller platforms who cannot afford to implement the technology (like the HB) will have to shut up shop in the EU. So there will be no future alternate platforms in the EU - it will be way too expensive to gain a foothold.
bigsleep, Mar 26 2019

       Great post 8. That guy's awesome.   

       Re: Article 13, you beat me to the point Big, I was just going to refer to that.   

       (See link)
doctorremulac3, Mar 26 2019

       I see a natural tension between wanting to hear what my crazy enemies are saying and thinking and not wanting them to give them a larger bullhorn by which to spread their hate and create more ISIS members/racists/people who listen to Nickelback. There's a virus to contain, and some better societal immunology would go a long way.   

       I'm too cheap for Netflix.   

       The invasion of Poland seems a bit late. I'm thinking the run up to the Beer Hall Putsch where the violent coup attempt seems like a natural point to put on the brakes. Why they let him out of prison after that I'm not sure.
RayfordSteele, Mar 26 2019

       Part of me is OK with just erasing the small percentage of bad people like ISIS and Panzer blitzing Nazis after they've metastasized. I think killing bad guys is the best way to cure the bad guy problem. And what better way to know who the bad guys are than to monitor their plans by allowing them to speak?   

       Additionally, if the power to restrict speech is enacted, who's providing oversight to insure that the people who are the self declared arbiters of acceptable speech are the good guys? And if the bad guys get in power, which they often do, it's the good guys whose speech will be restricted.   

       I think that the people today who are trying to restrict free speech are the bad guys, and not just for their views on free speech. They're typically globalists like Hitler, the Imperial Japanese and Stalin were. They just say that they have a new, improved, kinder, gentler plan for a totalitarian world government. 1- Take away people's rights... 2- Run up massive debt to create "utopia" and 3- use that massive indebtedness to enslave the people and further enrich the moneyed class, Wall Street and global banker cabals.   

       Unless I'm totally wrong and those guys are awesome and should totally tell everybody what to do, think or say.   

       In which case never mind.
doctorremulac3, Mar 26 2019

       // I'm thinking the run up to the Beer Hall Putsch where the violent coup attempt seems like a natural point to put on the brakes. //   

       Perhaps; but at that point he was mostly percieved as a noisy idiot and in many ways no worse than the equally noisy, aggressive and frightening communists. King Log or King Stork ?   

       He was a war veteran, had the support of Ludendorff, and wasn't big about workers owning the means of production and the redistribution of wealth. The NSDAP promoted itself as a workers and peoples party, but importantly emphasised enrichment of the masses through growth within the existing capitalist system. This was of course much more acceptable to the property -owning bourgeoisie and the industrialists than Marxist dialectic.   

       // Why they let him out of prison after that I'm not sure.//   

       Because there were Rules, and the Rules said "If you steal a loaf, the punishment is X". When you have experienced X that's it -all done.   

       All such systems are intrinsically and critcally vulnerable to a particular set of common mode failures against which, by their very nature, they have no (nor can be provided with) protection.   

       That these failures inevitably result in absolutist government often by common consent, should not be a surprise. Systems fail in predictable ways; political systems have no special exemption ...
8th of 7, Mar 27 2019

       Globalism is about living in a free and open society, where you can transcend the accidental circumstances of your birth and make your way in the world based on your ability and appetite for the global opportunities open to all. It needs to be tempered with transparency and a principled, rules-based framework in which people feel free to trust the proper operation of governments and systems to uphold the rule of law.   

       Nationalism is about normalising mediocrity by artificially restricting the size of the pond. This makes the sphere of available talent small, thus allowing people of mediocre talent to feel like big fishes - and in that respect, it's very popular.   

       Since it tends to select for mediocrity, this tends to cause the system to fail through incompetence in the mid to long term, and as such, tends not to be a sustainable system.
zen_tom, Mar 27 2019

       //Since (nationalism) tends to select for mediocrity, this tends to cause the system to fail through incompetence in the mid to long term, and as such, tends not to be a sustainable system.//   

       Highly nationalistic Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and historically the United States represent among the most well off countries in the world. The last entry, the United States invented... oh, just about everything so it's hard to say the U.S. system fosters mediocrity.   

       What have the globalists created? If you're talking about free trade, that has nothing to do with globalism. That's countries trading with each other.   

       A little unclear though on what you're saying globalism is. Is it one massive powerful government running the entire planet? No borders? No countries? Is it simply cooperation between countries regarding policy and planning? If that's the case I'm fine with it but that's certainly nothing new. Is it allowing people to move between countries? That's hardly a new idea either.   

       And you're saying nations all fail while the massive global... whatever your talking about, always succeeds? What nations have failed and how does that compare to this... globalist mega thing? If you're talking about attempts to form one world government, (by force, because the world doesn't hand you power to control it voluntarily) those attempts that come about every once in a while are the most spectacular disasters imaginable usually resulting in miles smoldering wreckage that used to be the capital cities of the countries who embarked on these attempts at world conquest.   

       I'm all for the entire world holding hands and singing kum- ba-ya but I'm not crazy about people in Washington telling me what to do much less some goofball in Brussels wearing a robe and an authority denoting cap weighing in on how I should run my life.
doctorremulac3, Mar 27 2019

       //Nationalism is about normalising mediocrity by artificially restricting the size of the pond.//   

       Some countries are a bit crap, but I don't see the harm in local people making a way for themselves. It makes more sense to help underdeveloped countries rather than just open all borders and let people migrate to the country offering the highest benefits or salaries, especially when that might deprive a country of its best doctors.   

       Sorry [zt] but globalism is actually more right wing than nationalism as its just grinding people down more. There are plenty of ways to rise out of mediocrity beyond money. Why feed corporations and smugly call that progress ?
bigsleep, Mar 27 2019

       It's not raising standards using money, but raising standards through freedom and codifying that in law. When countries have to compete with one another for the best people, it's incumbent upon them to provide good services, healthcare, competency in administration, stability and a pleasant culture.   

       Contrast nationalism where you close the doors, close the borders and apply an authoritarian approach, blocking people from exercising their freedoms, and giving a place to hide to irresponsible global organisations who can get away with unhelpful behaviour overseas and hide behind their national governments when their foreign irresponsibility is exposed.   

       Globalism (or Internationalism, if you prefer that term) is about setting rules through treaty, consensus and agreement. Nationalist countries like Iran, Russia, North Korea (and the formative "Islamic State") who dislike following those rules have much to be gained from our descent from participating in internationalist rule setting bodies - because they will always be propped up by criminal money seeking to find a home away from the glare of global transparency.   

       Nationalist leaders have much to gain from these criminal sources of money, and in deconstructing international treaties and the network of cooperation give themselves the ability to use the levers of corruption and criminality that would otherwise have been put (somewhat) beyond use.   

       Nationalism increases corruption.   

       Meanwhile, international meritocracy gives nations who participate enough soft power to exert influence over criminal states without resorting to war and violence. Sanctions only work (and they do work) when there is a large global consensus. As this fractures, and Nations are able to flout international agreements without censure, the fabric of international ties begins to fray at the edges. Like it or not, there are some problems that are too big for nations to cope with on their own - depletion of fishing stocks in international waters through over- fishing, polluting industry creating acid rain, are probably at the gentle end of the scale, but without a method for solving international problems, the size, scale and impact of one nation's irresponsibility on its neighbours grows until the only resolution is through conflict.   

       For Nationalists, armed conflict is a chance to subscript the nation's youth, indoctrinate them and send them out to die for the good of the nation - but we already have methods of solving these inter- national conflict points through, as you say "holding hands and singing kum- ba-ya" - though a firm application of consensual international law resulting in hard sanctions being imposed on criminals and tyrants is far from kum-ba-ya in my book - it's power, that's based on agreed principles, and it favours our Western Democratic ideals. Globalism is the positive face of Western Democracy, moving past its Colonial Origins and establishing the rule of consensus and law. Nationalism takes us back a few steps to tribalism and whilst we do need to deal with issues like tax harmonisation and economic transparency - those are international problems, best dealt with through international means - not by closing the borders and handing power to shadowy back-room populists backed by thugs and criminals.   

       // Is it simply cooperation between countries regarding policy and planning? If that's the case I'm fine with it but that's certainly nothing new. Is it allowing people to move between countries? That's hardly a new idea either.// Who said this was a new idea? It's called progress and has been going that way for the last 500 years, with fits and starts, and terrible back-slides into Totalitarianism, Populism and the like. Usually, the benefits go along with some economic boom, and then after a crash of some kind, gets rolled back by populists - that's what happened in the 1930s for example, when the League of Nations was disbanded after the boom of a great internationalist era, and its ultimate crash. The competing dynamics were very similar then, to what they're like now.
zen_tom, Mar 27 2019

       [doc] you cannot mix the US in with countries like Japan and Germany. To [zt]'s point, the nationalism he appears to be referring to is ethnically driven nationalism -- which the US certainly has overtones of, but is actually, and demonstrably, not. The US has succeeded in large part because it has been a meritocracy magnet. It's also the main reason that China will never beat the US -- as Chinese people have no problem living in the US, but Americans would never live in China in large numbers, and would certainly never dream of having political power there.   

       I'm not actually sure what globalism is anymore. The UN never quite worked other than as a pressure valve against all out super power war. The EU/Euro combo cannot work unless the member states agree to cede power to that central government.   

       If globalism is about having a central government that can supercede super powers -- how is that ever going to happen? And what problems does it solve?
theircompetitor, Mar 27 2019

       I'm not sure the future of the world should go through a point in time where we have one central government and everything in every country is identical. Would regional flavours be allowed ?   

       I'd quite like to live in a region that votes to outlaw the manufacture and import of cheap crap. Quality goods only that can be repaired and have a good second hand market.   

       I see nationalism more as keeping the flavour of a country rather than just turn everything a bland grey with its inherent multicultural problems. Do we outlaw bacon and beef out of respect to some religions ? There were lynchings in Pakistan over a guy rumoured to have beef in his fridge.   

       If we are going to end up a bland grey, then I certainly wouldn't sprint towards that end - we are going way too fast as it is.
bigsleep, Mar 27 2019

       I'm still unclear on what's meant by nationalism but..   

       //terrible back-slides into Totalitarianism, Populism and the like//   

       populism is bad? You mean democracy and the people having the right to self determination?   

       So you don't mean nationalism, you mean elitism and a ruling class.   

       OK, that's very bad. Populism is code for "We need totalitarian fascism.".
doctorremulac3, Mar 27 2019

       National flavours are of course to be nurtured - we want to be able to enjoy the positive differences around the world (assuming we can still travel there) without all the worst historical perversions that have accumulated in different places (like the lynchings in Pakistan, that you allude to - one person's "flavour" is another person's sectarian violence).   

       The European Union's Protected Designation of Origin (for example) codifies and protects in law specific regional specialities from being blandly copied and produced by others and passed off as knock-off copies. Is this Globalist protectionism, or an attempt to legislate for exactly what you, and many others would say is clearly a "good thing"?   

       Nobody is ever going to outlaw beef in the UK, for any reason - nobody has ever requested it, nobody ever will. Only the far-right scaremongers who benefit from whipping up pretend examples of outrage and horror - this is the perfect example of such a silly example. Who, exactly is recommending we outlaw beef in the UK? To paraphrase the Daily Mail, "You couldn't make it up" - sadly, in nearly all these cases, you very obviously can.   

       And no world government is ever going to come to being - instead, we can look to organisations like the EU, Nato, the UN and commonly accepted international treaty protocols where international laws are defined, by consensus. Those treaties are important, they glue our global world together. As our individual power increases, and our collective responsibility grows in tandem, strengthening those cooperative ties, agreed practices and mutual responsibility seems like a generally good thing, on the whole.   

       Populism - means leaders promising things they know they cannot deliver. Or, creating false stories and narratives, because they know, as creators of the story, they will be best placed to solve the "problems" described by that story. Populism is about making promises without any credible means of satisfying those promises.   

       International Law often means holding people to account, and tends to make it hard to get away with this. It encourages people to act credibly, and to keep to their word. The corruption of Nationalist populism allows unscrupulous politicians to sell all manner of snake oil, and get away with it - because there is no higher power to hold them to account.   

       People may vote for populists because they wish to be richer, or more powerful. But this is the real world, and there are no handouts. Populists promise handouts in exchange for votes. Often the handouts aren't in their gift to give - and many times in the past, they've been wrenched away from some victimised group, be they Jews, Muslims, Foreigners or Capitalists. Yes, these were all "democratic" expressions against a perceived "elite", but longer term, they've tended not to end well.
zen_tom, Mar 27 2019

       since the days of Pericles, and probably before, politicians promise handouts.
theircompetitor, Mar 27 2019

       Yes, and in all that time, as today, the difference between good politicians and populist ones, is their ability to make good on those promises without resorting to theft. If that means making realistic promises, because a politician feels bound by some degree of dignity and integrity, then in my book, that's preferable. If the politician cynically promises the moon on a stick, only to later renege on those promises, or worse, delivers them through thuggery, breaking the law, or by victimising a minority (i.e. taking advantage of a low-power) group, then that's the hallmark of a populist. None of this is new.
zen_tom, Mar 27 2019

       Please name one, one, single politician that hasn't promised handouts.   

       His name could be "Globalist McGlobal Globaly Globe the third" and his platform would be that he can give out more handouts than his competitors.   

       Again, the term "populist". You are aware that only the most popular politicians get elected in a democracy right?   

       I think "populist" is simply a term for "The unwashed lower classes that need to be controlled and ruled over without their having a say as to their destiny because they're stupid.".
doctorremulac3, Mar 27 2019

       Now you're just being silly.
zen_tom, Mar 27 2019

       Well, good. At least we're getting some humor out of this.
doctorremulac3, Mar 27 2019

       "Popular" is not the same thing as "Populist".   

       The latter is a cynical strategy for gaming a system that attempts to measure the former.
zen_tom, Mar 27 2019

       pop quiz -- FDR -- populist?
theircompetitor, Mar 27 2019

       //Only the far-right scaremongers who benefit from whipping up pretend examples of outrage and horror//   

       What about global warming hysteria, or "Ban all insulting speech!" or giving the internet to large corporates through articles 11 and 13.   

       Anyone thinking the EU is such a brilliant idea as it stands i.e. an example of bigger governance, should get to understand just how few people are inventing laws - and nobody voted for them. MEPs are purely there to rubber-stamp legislation invented by the few. It is not a democratic institution.
bigsleep, Mar 27 2019

       OK, I really have no idea what a globalist / populist is, but we're talking about a governing body presumably so I'll ask this: what does the globalist want from me? Do I have to pay them anything? Do I have to give up any rights that they deem counterproductive to the... global... omnipresent... whatever it is we're talking about? Do they just want to wear colorful robes and hats that denote authority? If so, great, I'm all for it. If it costs me anything, if they get to control my life, I'll say "Thanks, appreciate your considering me for your superguys planetary control group but not interested today." and close the door.
doctorremulac3, Mar 27 2019

       Global warming "hysteria" is just simple science, I see no hysterics there. The same science discovered and enabled change on CFCs and sulphur and nitrogen oxide-based pollution (aka the acid rain "hysteria")   

       Article 11 or 13 are democratically tabled motions, upon which we, as members of the EU have the opportunity to vote against (even veto I believe, though to be 100% transparent, I'm not entirely sure on the specific veto rights we might have in this instance - certainly more than we would post exit)   

       Nobody is banning insulting speech - and on this I'd suggest a degree of hysteria.   

       MEPs, such as Nigel Farage are clearly and democratically voted in by members of each nation state. Their job is to represent their constituents, certainly not to rubber stamp anything. That is very clearly how it works, despite the far-right assertions to the contrary - and a little non-partisan research would confirm that to be the truth.   

       [drrem] This pretend Globalist of yours (who can wear whatever you choose to imagine them to wear) just wants nations to keep their promises, and to try and work together to build a free world where large companies, nation- states and individuals are held to account where they break their own laws. They want to encourage freedom of all peoples in the world to move, subject to their paying taxes, working hard and following the local laws and cultural niceties of their adopted home. It's not evil, it's not elitist, it's just what any rational citizen of the world would want.
zen_tom, Mar 27 2019

       //This pretend Globalist of yours,//   

       Hu? Of mine? You're the guy extolling the virtue of globalists, I still have no idea what a globalist is. You just say they're great, rainbows and puppy dogs and happy joy joy for all. OK, great, but when a salesman won't stop telling me how great the product is and tell me how much it costs when I ask, I lose interest. I also grow suspicious when they won't tell me what they want from me, and most especially, when they get testy at my asking.   

       So since I've asked several times what I personally will have to pay to assist the globalists plan for paradise on Earth and the answer is obviously not forthcoming, at least tell me what they're going to wear. It it robes? It's robes isn't it. Super hero uniforms featuring spandex capes and a professionally drawn Earth themed logo on the chest? That might be interesting. If you're gonna save the planet, dress the part no?
doctorremulac3, Mar 27 2019

       global warming is science in the sense of collecting data and making predictions based on it -- it is not science in the sense of experimentally verified outcomes. Peak oil predictions were based on better (more verifiable) science.   

       That the world will end in 12 years, or that the planet is doomed, is hysteria.   

       You'll know it's real science when developers stop building and insurers stop insuring in Miami.
theircompetitor, Mar 27 2019

       And when Al Gore stops buying beach front property.
doctorremulac3, Mar 27 2019

       [dr3] you don't have to pay anything - all you're required to do is consider the integrity of the candidates you endorse with your vote. In fact, pound for pound, you'll see a significant saving in voting for competent, practical and long-sighted candidates who support sensible foreign and domestic policy. You can still imagine a cabal of robe wearing secretive conspirators if that is something you're into, nobody is threatening your freedom to think, feel, imagine or speak your mind. Of course, when you talk bollocks, expect that to be pointed out too - Nationalism, despite its many gains in our two countries, has yet to crush our freedom to point out nonsense where we see it.   

       //That the world will end in 12 years, or that the planet is doomed, is hysteria.// Yes, I'd tend to agree with that straw-man argument. I'm yet to see anyone make that case in the media, or otherwise.
zen_tom, Mar 27 2019

       then you're not paying enough attention to #AOC which is the defacto leader of the socialist wing of the US Democrat party (if not yet the whole party). And you're not paying attention to the kids striking across the world with signs that "the world is on fire" -- I'd like to see them abstain from charging their phones for, like, a week to help save the planet
theircompetitor, Mar 27 2019

       Well, too vague for me to comment on, sounds great. "Vote for good people." OK, will do.   

       Like the sexual implication twist about the robe fetish you put in there though. Debates should have a little humor seasoning like that to take the edge off. (respect) Personally I find beautiful women who are nicely dressed attractive. Fat, power mad European globalist overlords and oligarchs are most definitely not my type. And I find robes incredibly creepy. I mean, who knows what's under them eh? Maybe we don't want to know.   

       By the way, if that WASN'T a sexual implication about the robe thing, I'm disappointed. Debates need a little lowbrow humor or I lose interest.
doctorremulac3, Mar 27 2019

       //And you're not paying attention to the kids striking across the world with signs that "the world is on fire"// You're confusing science with politics there.   

       Young people are want to demonstrate on ecological matters - good for them - as far as I'm aware, that's been happening since the 1960s. And, it seems you're not paying any attention to them at all. So again, a bit of hysteria perhaps? I'd gladly swap a bit of their youthful enthusiasm for my increasingly jaded outlook. Whether they'd be able to charge their phones or not without indulging in an act of hypocrisy isn't at the top of my list of priorities - there's a great deal of hypocrisy out there for me to care about specific instances of youthful inconsistency.
zen_tom, Mar 27 2019

       only in sense that the professors getting worried about the Cultural Revolution prior to its occurrence could be accused of a bit of hysteria.
theircompetitor, Mar 27 2019

       //only in sense that the professors getting worried about the Cultural Revolution prior to its occurrence could be accused of a bit of hysteria.//   

       If you're saying that university students engaging in a little democratic ecological expression is equivalent to the murder of between 400,000 and 1.5 million people in the furthering of the Nationalist policy of the Chinese totalitarian government of the 1960s, then yes, I'd suggest that is indulging in a a bit of hysteria.
zen_tom, Mar 27 2019

       and I'd suggest you have not seen the fervor with which correct opinions are supported and wrong opinions are opposed. And I'd suggest reading the linked article by Peggy Noonan
theircompetitor, Mar 27 2019

       //a little democratic ecological expression//   

       As I've said before the new green deal is a money scam. Only electrical production that allows the necessary carbon based fuel backups are being considered: wind and solar. When the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, you'll still need to burn carbon credit generating fossil fuels.   

       Ever wonder why you don't see nuclear and hydro being proposed? That's why. They don't generate carbon credit tax.   

       I'd like to think we could just buy these power mad folks off once and for all but when you ask them what they want the answer is just "MORE!!!".   

       Should be called "The New GREED Deal".
doctorremulac3, Mar 27 2019

       AOC doesn't strike me as "power-mad."   

       She's not been in power long enough. She's a bit naive economically, but power-mad is just you trying to justify painting your enemies with a brush you happened to find by the side of the road.   

       The Green New Deal details don't strike me as coming from powerful people, as powerful people are by necessity almost always pragmatic, and there is little pragmatic about it.   

       As far as Hitler goes, he got out early on good behavior. I don't know that I would do that with people whose crime is mostly linked to their ideology and mouth.
RayfordSteele, Mar 27 2019

       I don't think she's behind the new green deal despite supporting it. Does she say that's her concept? I'd like to know where the plan came from.   

       There's a conspiratorial rumor that some political action group held auditions for a person to carry their platform in Congress and they were behind getting her elected. Shouldn't spread crazy rumors but when I tried to rebut that one I couldn't think of a good reason that couldn't happen.   

       That being said, exceptional claims like that require exceptional proof. I have no idea if that's true but gotta admit, for a, let's be kind and say, average intelligence person to go from bartender to Congressman from out of nowhere... well, pretty unusual. But again, that could be a very crazy and very incorrect rumor.   

       But hey, this is the internet, we can say any dumb thing we want.
doctorremulac3, Mar 27 2019

       nah, I think it's mostly learnings from Trump, say outrageous things media covers you non-stop.   

       And [Ray] I agree naive for sure, but then many would argue Trump is naive.
theircompetitor, Mar 27 2019

       They can make a good case with the fools and trolls that he surrounds himself with and gives voice to. It was strange enough for the Simpsons to predict his Presidency without also including the rest of their cast as his administration.   

       I think for the GND its a classic case of aiming for the stars in order to hit the moon.   

       As far as AOC is concerned, if you listen to her, she is pretty bright. I don't buy the puppet conspiracy. If anyone is a puppet, it is the Yertle the Turtle sock that sits in the Senate Majority Leader's seat.
RayfordSteele, Mar 27 2019

       Well we're in rare agreement about the Turtle. I have no idea how he got that job, must have compromising pictures of somebody in charge having relations with a sheep or something.   

       As far as AOC being bright, well, let's just enjoy the rare moment of agreement about Yurtle.   

       Probably right about the conspiracy thing being nonsense though.
doctorremulac3, Mar 27 2019


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle