Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[Echo4]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/politics/trump-cdc-school-guidelines-funding/index.html

Trump complained that the CDC guidelines are tough and expensive.

Duh, Donald.

But don't worry - the residents of states that failed to follow their reopening guidelines suffered no consequences, right?!

[Echo4]

  My,my. Barton waxes dumbfoundedly (and with predictable snark) trying to calm his illiberal rage that Chomsky has a point those on the right can agree with.
There is no joke to laugh at. Only the truth which drives Barton nuts. 

Rage?   For a second there,  I thought you might be going to reply to my actual point.  Whew,  that was close.

Hilarious that my expressed support of RW free speech and public platforms,  and clear statement of support of Chomsky,  Brooks,  Atwood et al,  got so twisted.   I guess you didn't like that I pointed out that they also condemn cancel culture when the Right does it.   I was applauding their evenhanded application of a principle of tolerance.    Do you?   Or do you want to keep lying about what I wrote?

JOSH - it's up to you,  but my feel is your cardiovascular health would gain if you don't bother with every dumb troll-fart that Kid and Red splatter out.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Your use of the word KNOWLEDGE above is a bit sketchy.

A bit, I suppose, but I think most are finding Trump's niece credible, and she is certainly in the position to know what she is talking about.  It would be odd to make that particular bit up given everything else she has to disclose.

And that vs. say, using a totally unverified posting from a White Supremacist message board to argue that Obama had bad grades and attended Columbia and Harvard only because of affirmative action.

Nothing even a bit sketchy about that sourcing.

[NeedsAdjustments]

  My,my. Barton waxes dumbfoundedly (and with predictable snark) trying to calm his illiberal rage that Chomsky has a point those on the right can agree with.
There is no joke to laugh at. Only the truth which drives Barton nuts. 

Rage?   For a second there,  I thought you might be going to reply to my actual point.  Whew,  that was close.

Hilarious that my expressed support of RW free speech and public platforms,  and clear statement of support of Chomsky,  Brooks,  Atwood et al,  got so twisted.   I guess you didn't like that I pointed out that they also condemn cancel culture when the Right does it.   I was applauding their evenhanded application of a principle of tolerance.    Do you?   Or do you want to keep lying about what I wrote?

I'm of two minds.  I'm uncomfortable with anything that approaches censorship of writing and scholarship, but I also think its right for people to give their support and their consumer dollars to people they think are doing right by the world.  My 401K is pegged to stocks of companies that are environmentally conscious.   Its my right to do so, and I will continue to, thanks.

Take two recent examples, both appearing in the NYT.  Tom Cotton writes an op-ed that uses lies and falsehoods to argue that military opposition to BLM protests was justified and supported by the law.  Obviously, Tom Cotton is free to express his opinions and lie to people all he wants.  That doesn't mean that it is right for the NYT to publish those lies and distribute to a larger audience.  That isn't a "canceling" because they don't agree with the argument.  Its that the argument is baseless, and spreading lies does more harm than good. 

Then I also read a piece today about a cafe in Upper Manhattan where people have stopped getting coffee because the owner, despite supporting liberal causes, voted for Trump and said he might again:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/nyregion/indian-road-cafe-trump.html

This is a tough one for me.  Should a guy lose his business because of who he chooses to vote for in what should be a free democratic process?  No.

But then you can't deny that a vote for Trump means a vote for more families separated on the border, more people deported and children caged, the elimination of regulations that protect our environment, a national security policy that bows its head to dictators and murderers, the continued dilution and corruption of democratic institutions, and the deaths of more innocents should there be another COVID (or should this one continue past January.)  We aren't talking about tax cuts, here, or obscure arguments about the proper size of government.  This is life and death.  Of people and our democracy.

Maybe it comes down to the fact that buying your coffee there doesn't support or deny that vote one way or the other.  The guy will vote for Trump with or without the cafe.  So in the end, probably an example of "cancel culture" going to far.

[Hairy Lime]

  My,my. Barton waxes dumbfoundedly (and with predictable snark) trying to calm his illiberal rage that Chomsky has a point those on the right can agree with.
There is no joke to laugh at. Only the truth which drives Barton nuts. 

Rage?   For a second there,  I thought you might be going to reply to my actual point.  Whew,  that was close.

Hilarious that my expressed support of RW free speech and public platforms,  and clear statement of support of Chomsky,  Brooks,  Atwood et al,  got so twisted.   I guess you didn't like that I pointed out that they also condemn cancel culture when the Right does it.   I was applauding their evenhanded application of a principle of tolerance.    Do you?   Or do you want to keep lying about what I wrote?

My, my.
I didn’t lie about anything. Chomsky underscored the truth that cancel -culture
bigots aren’t all dressed alike.
Which was my point.
If it is also yours good for you.
As for Chomsky’s view on the matter the fact that he, as a constant critic of right wing philosophies, points the finger back at the left makes the story much more meaningful.
I guess you didn’t like that.

LOL. Try reading with an eye to understanding instead of trying to "troll the libs."

[NeedsAdjustments]

I also know that "both sides"-ism is a boon to conservatives as it normalizes POV that really should be shunned as fringe.  And I can't help but think that conservatives, people like REDSTATEWARD, harp on it because they know that as our legitimate sources of news and information dwindle, if they get to infect those sources with bullshit (see the Cotton Op-Ed) they are one step closer to controlling information and the arbitration over the truth.  And we know that is a goal.  Look at what is happening at Voice of America. 

So given the alternative, I'm ok with a conservative getting denied a platform to spread their views on occasion. They'll always have Facebook.

[Hairy Lime]

  My,my. Barton waxes dumbfoundedly (and with predictable snark) trying to calm his illiberal rage that Chomsky has a point those on the right can agree with.
There is no joke to laugh at. Only the truth which drives Barton nuts. 

Rage?   For a second there,  I thought you might be going to reply to my actual point.  Whew,  that was close.

Hilarious that my expressed support of RW free speech and public platforms,  and clear statement of support of Chomsky,  Brooks,  Atwood et al,  got so twisted.   I guess you didn't like that I pointed out that they also condemn cancel culture when the Right does it.   I was applauding their evenhanded application of a principle of tolerance.    Do you?   Or do you want to keep lying about what I wrote?

I'm of two minds.  I'm uncomfortable with anything that approaches censorship of writing and scholarship, but I also think its right for people to give their support and their consumer dollars to people they think are doing right by the world.  My 401K is pegged to stocks of companies that are environmentally conscious.   Its my right to do so, and I will continue to, thanks.

Take two recent examples, both appearing in the NYT.  Tom Cotton writes an op-ed that uses lies and falsehoods to argue that military opposition to BLM protests was justified and supported by the law.  Obviously, Tom Cotton is free to express his opinions and lie to people all he wants.  That doesn't mean that it is right for the NYT to publish those lies and distribute to a larger audience.  That isn't a "canceling" because they don't agree with the argument.  Its that the argument is baseless, and spreading lies does more harm than good. 

Then I also read a piece today about a cafe in Upper Manhattan where people have stopped getting coffee because the owner, despite supporting liberal causes, voted for Trump and said he might again:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/nyregion/indian-road-cafe-trump.html

This is a tough one for me.  Should a guy lose his business because of who he chooses to vote for in what should be a free democratic process?  No.

But then you can't deny that a vote for Trump means a vote for more families separated on the border, more people deported and children caged, the elimination of regulations that protect our environment, a national security policy that bows its head to dictators and murderers, the continued dilution and corruption of democratic institutions, and the deaths of more innocents should there be another COVID (or should this one continue past January.)  We aren't talking about tax cuts, here, or obscure arguments about the proper size of government.  This is life and death.  Of people and our democracy.

Maybe it comes down to the fact that buying your coffee there doesn't support or deny that vote one way or the other.  The guy will vote for Trump with or without the cafe.  So in the end, probably an example of "cancel culture" going to far.

My issue with the whole."cancel culture" thing is that it will be like "political correctness".- it will go from having a point to being a tool for the right to suppress liberal speech by reducing policy points and.arguments to a label and then simply applying the label to policies they do not like.

[barton]

  My,my. Barton waxes dumbfoundedly (and with predictable snark) trying to calm his illiberal rage that Chomsky has a point those on the right can agree with.
There is no joke to laugh at. Only the truth which drives Barton nuts. 

Rage?   For a second there,  I thought you might be going to reply to my actual point.  Whew,  that was close.

Hilarious that my expressed support of RW free speech and public platforms,  and clear statement of support of Chomsky,  Brooks,  Atwood et al,  got so twisted.   I guess you didn't like that I pointed out that they also condemn cancel culture when the Right does it.   I was applauding their evenhanded application of a principle of tolerance.    Do you?   Or do you want to keep lying about what I wrote?

JOSH - it's up to you,  but my feel is your cardiovascular health would gain if you don't bother with every dumb troll-fart that Kid and Red splatter out.

Touche.  A palpable hit, sir!

[barton]

Added thought:

Red,  I'm guessing that you don't agree or stand with everything people on the Far Right,  like say Tom Cotton or Steve King, put out there.   Is this correct?

So,  why would you think I agree with everything that comes from the Left?  Why would you assume I disagree with a legitimate and thoughtful criticism of some on the Left?   Chomsky,  like many Leftists (technically he's an anarcho-syndicalist), has no problem with movements or factions engaging in self critique.  Nor do I.

My, My. I seemed to have touched a nerve.
I don’t shy from criticizing any politician.
If you want to discuss Tom Cotton maybe then you need to forward a few of his positions you don’t like. I don’t have any love for Steve King and have never discussed anything about him.

Meanwhile.  Your cat still needs your attention.

You don't shy from criticizing Trump?  Now I remember why I engage with you.  It feels good to have a phlegm-clearing bout of hysterical laughter.  Thanks.  Also, some extra chuckles for "if you want to discuss...."  My amusement is that you passively observe the worst of the worst of RW hacks, but I have yet to see you come here and call them on their lies or bigotry or corrupt dealings.  It's what people don't say that's often quite telling. 

[bankshot1]

Rather than spend endless hours on "cancel culture", the distraction du jour de Donald, in his pathetic attempt to escape the responsibility of his disaster of a presidency which is destroying Americs, and which is mindlessly parroted by RW/Fox/Red, can we do cancer culture instead?

And get rid of the fucking cancer in the WH?


Distract, deny, deceive is the real 2020 Repulican message.


And the motherfuckers are killing America and Americans.

carry on

[barton]

  My,my. Barton waxes dumbfoundedly (and with predictable snark) trying to calm his illiberal rage that Chomsky has a point those on the right can agree with.
There is no joke to laugh at. Only the truth which drives Barton nuts. 

Rage?   For a second there,  I thought you might be going to reply to my actual point.  Whew,  that was close.

Hilarious that my expressed support of RW free speech and public platforms,  and clear statement of support of Chomsky,  Brooks,  Atwood et al,  got so twisted.   I guess you didn't like that I pointed out that they also condemn cancel culture when the Right does it.   I was applauding their evenhanded application of a principle of tolerance.    Do you?   Or do you want to keep lying about what I wrote?

I'm of two minds.  I'm uncomfortable with anything that approaches censorship of writing and scholarship, but I also think its right for people to give their support and their consumer dollars to people they think are doing right by the world.  My 401K is pegged to stocks of companies that are environmentally conscious.   Its my right to do so, and I will continue to, thanks.

Take two recent examples, both appearing in the NYT.  Tom Cotton writes an op-ed that uses lies and falsehoods to argue that military opposition to BLM protests was justified and supported by the law.  Obviously, Tom Cotton is free to express his opinions and lie to people all he wants.  That doesn't mean that it is right for the NYT to publish those lies and distribute to a larger audience.  That isn't a "canceling" because they don't agree with the argument.  Its that the argument is baseless, and spreading lies does more harm than good. 

Then I also read a piece today about a cafe in Upper Manhattan where people have stopped getting coffee because the owner, despite supporting liberal causes, voted for Trump and said he might again:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/nyregion/indian-road-cafe-trump.html

This is a tough one for me.  Should a guy lose his business because of who he chooses to vote for in what should be a free democratic process?  No.

But then you can't deny that a vote for Trump means a vote for more families separated on the border, more people deported and children caged, the elimination of regulations that protect our environment, a national security policy that bows its head to dictators and murderers, the continued dilution and corruption of democratic institutions, and the deaths of more innocents should there be another COVID (or should this one continue past January.)  We aren't talking about tax cuts, here, or obscure arguments about the proper size of government.  This is life and death.  Of people and our democracy.

Maybe it comes down to the fact that buying your coffee there doesn't support or deny that vote one way or the other.  The guy will vote for Trump with or without the cafe.  So in the end, probably an example of "cancel culture" going to far.

My issue with the whole."cancel culture" thing is that it will be like "political correctness".- it will go from having a point to being a tool for the right to suppress liberal speech by reducing policy points and.arguments to a label and then simply applying the label to policies they do not like.

Yes, both of you, I think that anything that starts out as an evenhanded expression of tolerance can be appropriated by zealots.  Or used as a bludgeon against reputable news organizations which are, in fact, simply applying journalistic standards to what goes on their Op-Ed pages (as in the Cotton blather case)(yes, that's a Cotton Mather wordplay).  I guess free speech does require an openness in which bad faith arguments and meaningless slurs will happen.  If you let everyone swim in the pool, then the filter clogs up faster.  People are free to make bad faith arguments and apply idiotic labels, and those hearing and seeing them can point out what's wrong with those arguments and labels.  The real bad actors are news organizations that do not allow that calling-out of flawed reasoning, false assertions, prejudicial labels, etc. and present sophistry as "news." 

I do personally object to cancel culture when it does something like (my daughter passed this along to me) insist that I not shop at Home Depot because its CEO donated a crap-ton of money to Trump's 2020 campaign.  That's just wrong.  The guy can donate his money wherever he wants to.  And he's not going to change his political views, no matter what customers buy or don't buy from him.  If anything, a boycott of Home Depot would only make him more rigid in his ideology and less open to engaging in any reasoned discussion. 

[bankshot1]

  My,my. Barton waxes dumbfoundedly (and with predictable snark) trying to calm his illiberal rage that Chomsky has a point those on the right can agree with.
There is no joke to laugh at. Only the truth which drives Barton nuts. 

Rage?   For a second there,  I thought you might be going to reply to my actual point.  Whew,  that was close.

Hilarious that my expressed support of RW free speech and public platforms,  and clear statement of support of Chomsky,  Brooks,  Atwood et al,  got so twisted.   I guess you didn't like that I pointed out that they also condemn cancel culture when the Right does it.   I was applauding their evenhanded application of a principle of tolerance.    Do you?   Or do you want to keep lying about what I wrote?

I'm of two minds.  I'm uncomfortable with anything that approaches censorship of writing and scholarship, but I also think its right for people to give their support and their consumer dollars to people they think are doing right by the world.  My 401K is pegged to stocks of companies that are environmentally conscious.   Its my right to do so, and I will continue to, thanks.

Take two recent examples, both appearing in the NYT.  Tom Cotton writes an op-ed that uses lies and falsehoods to argue that military opposition to BLM protests was justified and supported by the law.  Obviously, Tom Cotton is free to express his opinions and lie to people all he wants.  That doesn't mean that it is right for the NYT to publish those lies and distribute to a larger audience.  That isn't a "canceling" because they don't agree with the argument.  Its that the argument is baseless, and spreading lies does more harm than good. 

Then I also read a piece today about a cafe in Upper Manhattan where people have stopped getting coffee because the owner, despite supporting liberal causes, voted for Trump and said he might again:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/nyregion/indian-road-cafe-trump.html

This is a tough one for me.  Should a guy lose his business because of who he chooses to vote for in what should be a free democratic process?  No.

But then you can't deny that a vote for Trump means a vote for more families separated on the border, more people deported and children caged, the elimination of regulations that protect our environment, a national security policy that bows its head to dictators and murderers, the continued dilution and corruption of democratic institutions, and the deaths of more innocents should there be another COVID (or should this one continue past January.)  We aren't talking about tax cuts, here, or obscure arguments about the proper size of government.  This is life and death.  Of people and our democracy.

Maybe it comes down to the fact that buying your coffee there doesn't support or deny that vote one way or the other.  The guy will vote for Trump with or without the cafe.  So in the end, probably an example of "cancel culture" going to far.

My issue with the whole."cancel culture" thing is that it will be like "political correctness".- it will go from having a point to being a tool for the right to suppress liberal speech by reducing policy points and.arguments to a label and then simply applying the label to policies they do not like.

Bingo.

It has already become distracting dodge.

I'm mostly in the anything goes free-speech camp and was pissed by the leftist movenment of the past few years to ban certain speech (generally Nazi-alt right-racist speakers) from some campuses. I hate "hate speech"  but I'm not sure if we should try to legislate it away, but I really I don't know.

That free speech has mutated into the defense of maintaining statues of traitors to this country is a not about free speech but rather a desperate white natiionalist appeal for votes.

If Trump wants to use an openly racist appeal to the deplorables thats fine with me, I don't agree with him think its hateful and harmful, but he's exercising his free-speech, but tear down the fucking statues of the traitors to THIS country.   

[Kam]

Chomsky underscored the truth that cancel -culture
bigots aren’t all dressed alike.

Celebrities and others profiting off their fame have the right to hold any views they like.  Individuals can choose to stop following the cult of a celebrity whose views differ from their own.   Bill Cosby thought it was cool to roofie girls and have sex with them.  I can choose to stop glorifying him and his works.  He cannot separate his deeds from his art.   I feel the same way about Loius CK.  If you use your position as a celebrity and abuse your power and hurt people you deserve any form of censure that any individual by themselves has the power to weild.  If enough individuals choose to weild that power then you are effectively cancelled.  Cancel culture is the check and balance to whoever chooses to use one's personal fame to take advantage of others.  If Roseanne Baar wants to spout her hate she can.  ABC is under no obligation to fuel her celebrity after that.  Cancel culture is bigotry against bigots. . Bigotry on bigorty cancels out.  Cancelling out the original bigot.  I'm all for it.

[Kam]

What are the Sweden numbers by age - cases/deaths?

Please point to which States met the guidelines for reopening and are now seeing case increases.



You can probably dig and find that.

You can probably dig and find that.

[barton]

My views don't always neatly slot into Left/Right or Liberal/Conservative holes, so I see the value of more openness to heterodox positions.  Some people who want keep Robert E. Lee up there (and on the name of a university), are actually making an argument that yes, he IS a traitor, yes he kept slaves, but that they are okay with morally compromised mixed-bag historical figures on the theory that we can learn from them.  That may be a crappy argument when it's the town square, or a university with a diverse student population, but it is an argument and I would defend anyone's right to put it out there for discussion. 

And, really, what are they going to call that university?  "And University"?  If you erase both Lee and Washington from its name, you are left with "And."  I'm kidding, but it's another way to say that I don't want to squelch the whole "historicity" debate.  Even if it's not of burning importance right now.  Even if white nationalists use it as a smokescreen.  How many people are they fooling, really?  Maybe that's a real question.