Official News topic

[Zarm]

I think there's two kinds of free speech at this point: the legal sense (1st amendment) and the cultural sense. I see the cultural free speech being violated where I live now in Sweden. Should someone be fired for being racist towards their coworkers? Absolutely. But the culture here is super weird in what qualifies for racism nowadays. Merely disagreeing with the mass immigration is now racist, and therefore I think it's wrong for a company to fire someone if they think that mass immigration or the pipedream of multiculturalism is wrong or a failed test.

I actually had an old supervisor ask me what I thought of Trump. I was able to answer very diplomatically though. That I think Trump is an idiot but America deserves him, with how both sides (particularly the far left) have been acting in recent politics.

I already don't like discussing politics with anyone I work with, but I don't dare go into my views on feminism unless I know who I'm talking to will at least understand my position.

Yeah, we are kind of in a dangerous place in which any thought that transgresses public consensus can have serious repercussions on your life. And it's worrisome, because some of those consensuses aren't even logical, or held by anything but a vocal half of the population, or are things that everyone believed without controversy a mere decade ago; ideas and the standard of acceptability are mutating so quickly, and the consequence for not agreeing is mounting rapidly. It feels unsafe to open your mouth at work- or apparently, on social media, or anywhere anyone from work could overhear you (because that counts, according to company policy), or to speak out when you feel society is in the wrong, because it might do active harm to your livelihood or future.

There is a definite cultural sense in which people need to be much freer to speak their mind without censure; not to engage in hostile behavior toward others, but to hold a different belief than others without that being seen as a form of hostility (which it is honestly treated as, these days; disagreement = hate in many quarters).

[eabaker]

I think there's two kinds of free speech at this point: the legal sense (1st amendment) and the cultural sense. I see the cultural free speech being violated where I live now in Sweden. Should someone be fired for being racist towards their coworkers? Absolutely. But the culture here is super weird in what qualifies for racism nowadays. Merely disagreeing with the mass immigration is now racist, and therefore I think it's wrong for a company to fire someone if they think that mass immigration or the pipedream of multiculturalism is wrong or a failed test.

I actually had an old supervisor ask me what I thought of Trump. I was able to answer very diplomatically though. That I think Trump is an idiot but America deserves him, with how both sides (particularly the far left) have been acting in recent politics.

I already don't like discussing politics with anyone I work with, but I don't dare go into my views on feminism unless I know who I'm talking to will at least understand my position.

Yeah, we are kind of in a dangerous place in which any thought that transgresses public consensus can have serious repercussions on your life. And it's worrisome, because some of those consensuses aren't even logical, or held by anything but a vocal half of the population, or are things that everyone believed without controversy a mere decade ago; ideas and the standard of acceptability are mutating so quickly, and the consequence for not agreeing is mounting rapidly. It feels unsafe to open your mouth at work- or apparently, on social media, or anywhere anyone from work could overhear you (because that counts, according to company policy), or to speak out when you feel society is in the wrong, because it might do active harm to your livelihood or future.

There is a definite cultural sense in which people need to be much freer to speak their mind without censure; not to engage in hostile behavior toward others, but to hold a different belief than others without that being seen as a form of hostility (which it is honestly treated as, these days; disagreement = hate in many quarters).

While I agree with much of what you say here, I would like to point out what reads to me as an element of unintended contradiction in your post. You write off a lot of contemporary perspectives as things that are only embraced by "a vocal half of the population," but then immediately refer to "things that everyone believed without controversy a mere decade ago;" but you're assuming that the vocal portion of the population a decade ago were representing universally held opinions then, rather that that a lot of people holding opposing perspectives did not feel free to speak out because of the cultural consequences that would befall them.

"It feels unsafe to open your mouth at work" has been true for huge swathes of the population throughout the last century; it's just true for (some) different people now (while still also true for some of the same people it always was; working in sinful liberal [hahaha, as if] Hollywood, it's easy for me to forget that - just for example - in much of the country, my gay coworkers would put their jobs [and their safety] at risk by living out of the closet).

I think the most widespread problem these days is a lack of nuance in people's perspectives and in how they express those perspectives. For instance, this notion that disagreement = hate? Probably most of the time it's better understood as "support of unmistakably hateful people, even if rooted in god intentions, is in practice no different than hate." But some people don't have the patience to express it that way, and even what it is expressed that way, some others aren't interested in hearing all the words or asking for further elucidation.

I don't think people on any side of most issues spend enough time really investigating the perspectives of the other sides (there are never just two).

[Darth Kiryu]

^Right, there is a lack of nuance these days. I think it's true that the polarization has always been pretty extreme, it's just the left (seems to be) more physical about it, and the right (seems to be) more psychological. So the left will actively demonize and even attack people they disagree with, whereas the right is a bit more subtle in their tactics.

People are also generally impatient these days and only want to pay attention to headlines, so the juicier the headline, the more people will accept it as fact without reading the article. And don't get me started on fact-checking. I've only recently started fact-checking myself in regards to stuff I agree with.

[Zarm]

While I agree with much of what you say here, I would like to point out what reads to me as an element of unintended contradiction in your post. You write off a lot of contemporary perspectives as things that are only embraced by "a vocal half of the population," but then immediately refer to "things that everyone believed without controversy a mere decade ago;" but you're assuming that the vocal portion of the population a decade ago were representing universally held opinions then, rather that that a lot of people holding opposing perspectives did not feel free to speak out because of the cultural consequences that would befall them.

That is entirely possible; I can restate. In the former case, censure seems to come even if an issue is more-or-less evenly divided ('Half the people believe A, half the people believe B, but because of vocal/media support for A, B support will earn you censure despite the fact that there is nothing objective that makes B more valid than A in the ongoing debate.')

In the latter case, it might be more accurate to say that society has turned on previous social consensus to the degree that noncontroversial beliefs (particularly about human sexuality) of even a few years ago are now hate speech, or worthy of derision. In a way, it is the same phenomenon; an issue that is split with advocates on both sides, but one suddenly gains the power of social censure, bypassing debate and going straight to 'disagreement is grounds for condemnation with widespread ramifications for livliehood.'

Not only do we not discuss issues anymore, preferring to shut down or even threaten opposing viewpoints into silence, but in most issues, one side has just sort of claimed moral high ground status, and a frightening number of business-owners and public policies go along with enforcing it, choking off debate and making any discussion nigh0impossible for fear of the stick that the prevailing side wields to silence dissent.

"It feels unsafe to open your mouth at work" has been true for huge swathes of the population throughout the last century; it's just true for (some) different people now (while still also true for some of the same people it always was; working in sinful liberal [hahaha, as if] Hollywood, it's easy for me to forget that - just for example - in much of the country, my gay coworkers would put their jobs [and their safety] at risk by living out of the closet).

Where...?

I think the most widespread problem these days is a lack of nuance in people's perspectives and in how they express those perspectives. For instance, this notion that disagreement = hate? Probably most of the time it's better understood as "support of unmistakably hateful people, even if rooted in god intentions, is in practice no different than hate." But some people don't have the patience to express it that way, and even what it is expressed that way, some others aren't interested in hearing all the words or asking for further elucidation.

I don't think that's entirely accurate, though; because 'hateful people' are defined, via circular logic, as those with differing opinions. 'You can't disagree about X without being hateful' is reframed as 'Supporting hateful people is functionally equivalent to being hateful,' but 'hateful people' are still 'those who disagree about X.' I think we're generally at a point where someone has decided 'There simply can't be any debate on this topic, dissent is hate' on a lot of different issues, and a frighteningly-large segment of the culture and populace simply go along with that. (And I don't want to sound like a classic conservative shill by naming that 'someone' as a biased news media, but... I do think news outlets on both sides are doing a little scarily too much to influence what the public 'should' think about an issue rather than just reporting the issue.) But I think that's a large part of the current political polarization; we've made it impossible to discuss any of the issues because our own position on the issue is so instrinsically-morally-right that disagreeing with it is automatically hate and bigotry and a desire to tear down all that is good.

I don't think people on any side of most issues spend enough time really investigating the perspectives of the other sides (there are never just two).

That is very, very true.

Added in 3 minutes 38 seconds:

And don't get me started on fact-checking. I've only recently started fact-checking myself in regards to stuff I agree with.

Yeah, i hear you. It can be surprisingly difficult to just... think of questioning the sources; to fall into the habit of just accepting claims as read. And it takes a force of effort to keep that mindset of 'check the facts before you let outrage carry you away on a tide of emotion.'

[eabaker]

Not only do we not discuss issues anymore, preferring to shut down or even threaten opposing viewpoints into silence, but in most issues, one side has just sort of claimed moral high ground status, and a frightening number of business-owners and public policies go along with enforcing it, choking off debate and making any discussion nigh0impossible for fear of the stick that the prevailing side wields to silence dissent.

And again, I'd say that this has always been true, not least of all the "one side has... claimed moral high ground status" aspect. I mean, Jerry Falwell literally named his organization "The Moral Majority."

Added in 5 minutes 57 seconds:

I don't think that's entirely accurate, though; because 'hateful people' are defined, via circular logic, as those with differing opinions. 'You can't disagree about X without being hateful' is reframed as 'Supporting hateful people is functionally equivalent to being hateful,' but 'hateful people' are still 'those who disagree about X.'

I disagree about the mechanism behind what we both agree is a problem. The starting point here is, "These specific officials support policies that hurt people." The unfortunate tendency is then to lump together an entire platform, to say, "Anyone who gets behind these people, and therefore any who gets behind anyone associated with these people, is hateful." But it doesn't begin with demonizing disagreement itself.

But I don't think we're gonna get on the same page on this one.

[Zarm]

Not only do we not discuss issues anymore, preferring to shut down or even threaten opposing viewpoints into silence, but in most issues, one side has just sort of claimed moral high ground status, and a frightening number of business-owners and public policies go along with enforcing it, choking off debate and making any discussion nigh0impossible for fear of the stick that the prevailing side wields to silence dissent.

And again, I'd say that this has always been true, not least of all the "one side has... claimed moral high ground status" aspect. I mean, Jerry Falwell literally named his organization "The Moral Majority."

True- but I don't think the majority of businesses and public-policy-makers just rolled with it because he did so. That's what I feel like has changed in this last decade or two; people made the claims all the time. But now, people make the claims and, without question, some invisible cultural force declares them the instant winner for simply making the claim, and begins to enforce that victory with censure and threat and accusations of bigotry/ignorance/malfeasance/unpatriotism that have become the new baseline.

Basically, the claimants used to have the burden of proof that their moral high ground was actually morally and logically correct. Nowadays, it feels like the claim is considered the proof, and the burden of proof suddenly shifts to any dissenters. (Heck, I think it's the feeling of that exact phenomenon during the majority of the last decade, and resentful backlash against it, that put Donald Trump in the White House).

Added in 5 minutes 55 seconds:

I don't think that's entirely accurate, though; because 'hateful people' are defined, via circular logic, as those with differing opinions. 'You can't disagree about X without being hateful' is reframed as 'Supporting hateful people is functionally equivalent to being hateful,' but 'hateful people' are still 'those who disagree about X.'

I disagree about the mechanism behind what we both agree is a problem. The starting point here is, "These specific officials support policies that hurt people." The unfortunate tendency is then to lump together an entire platform, to say, "Anyone who gets behind these people, and therefore any who gets behind anyone associated with these people, is hateful." But it doesn't begin with demonizing disagreement itself.

But I don't think we're gonna get on the same page on this one.

I think we're talking about two different things, in that case. (I think we're both trying to be vague enough to avoid a real-world political argument erupting, and in this case, that vagueness is working against us). I'm not talking about any particular officials, but more a general 'I treat anyone who has a different view as hateful because any differing view is hateful. If you argue with me or hold a different view, it can only be born of hatred.' A sort of assumption of bad faith combined with an automatic assumption that any differing viewpoint can only come from a place of hatred. (That, and its sibling-phenomenon seen heaviest on college campuses, where the very having of a differing opinion from the majority is treated as an act of hatred that must not get a chance to speak, much less make a case for its POV).

I think what you're talking about is more along the line of 'All Person-Y supporters are fanatics and bigots!' and 'Anyone takign person-Y's side in this debate could only be doing so because of their agenda'-style bad-faith politics in Washington?

[eabaker]

Not only do we not discuss issues anymore, preferring to shut down or even threaten opposing viewpoints into silence, but in most issues, one side has just sort of claimed moral high ground status, and a frightening number of business-owners and public policies go along with enforcing it, choking off debate and making any discussion nigh0impossible for fear of the stick that the prevailing side wields to silence dissent.

And again, I'd say that this has always been true, not least of all the "one side has... claimed moral high ground status" aspect. I mean, Jerry Falwell literally named his organization "The Moral Majority."

True- but I don't think the majority of businesses and public-policy-makers just rolled with it because he did so. That's what I feel like has changed in this last decade or two; people made the claims all the time. But now, people make the claims and, without question, some invisible cultural force declares them the instant winner for simply making the claim, and begins to enforce that victory with censure and threat and accusations of bigotry/ignorance/malfeasance/unpatriotism that have become the new baseline.

Basically, the claimants used to have the burden of proof that their moral high ground was actually morally and logically correct. Nowadays, it feels like the claim is considered the proof, and the burden of proof suddenly shifts to any dissenters. (Heck, I think it's the feeling of that exact phenomenon during the majority of the last decade, and resentful backlash against it, that put Donald Trump in the White House).

As an atheist and as someone who has spoken at length with many gay friends (ranging in age from their 20s to their 70s - or, actually, a couple [in both sense of the word] may be in their 80s by now) about their experiences in our society, my perception of the power and influence of the Moral Majority (both the organization and the broader social movement) doesn't line up with yours.

Witch hunts are nothing new. At least we no longer live in society where people can be tortured to death in response to "spectral evidence."

I'm also starting to think that we're getting a little too abstract for the "News" thread, so I'm out of this one.

[KManX89]

FBI is allowed to criminally prosecute Brett Kavanaugh for lying under oath to Senate.

The guy who claims he doesn't know Ford despite her dating one of his closest friends at the time, conveniently points to a calendar with all the names she named on it and lied about Keyser refuting her account on top of all his uncovered yearbook lies under oath can now be prosecuted or perjury ON TOP of the rape investigation (remember, there are no statue of limitations for rape/sexual assault in Maryland, so he can be criminally-prosecuted for that as well as being investigated).

Uh oh. Not looking too good for Cosbynaugh.

[Zarm]

Edit: You know what? I don't want to throw my hat into this ring. I have regrained from posting about this news story several dozen times in the past few days. Suffice it to say, I have been getting a very different perspective, and suspect that the investigation may conclude rather differently. But I hope that it brings some clarity and finality to what has become a horrible circus and, I personally believe, has horribly used two quite-possibly-innocent victims (and one, either way, that most certainly is) in the cause of dirty politics.

[Greyshot151]

In regards to Ford/Kav deal,

Honestly, I tend to lead more so with Ford than Kavanaugh. I think for everyone, there is a piece of evidence that screams to innocence or guilt for this. Again, this is just for me, but here is the thing that makes me lean one way over the other:

The Therapist and dates - THIS is my biggest support of the claim. Again, people can come forth and lie, but the support of dates from previous sessions and what was said tend to give Ford a bit of credit here. Yes, his name wasn't said, but his profession was. As someone who is a friend with someone that experienced something akin to Ford, the name was never said just the general description of who they were. So again, its not hard evidence and totally biased on my past, but its what I homed in on the most.

I will say over the next week, it will be interesting to see what the FBI turns up.

[eabaker]

As someone who is a friend with someone that experienced something akin to Ford, the name was never said just the general description of who they were.

Yeah, it is not at all unusual for a victim of assault (sexual or otherwise) to be not just unwilling, but functionally unable to say the name of their assaulter for years afterward; sometimes it's a big breakthrough moment when they can say it and move on from that stage.

[Spirit Ghidorah 2010]

FBI is allowed to criminally prosecute Brett Kavanaugh for lying under oath to Senate.

The guy who claims he doesn't know Ford despite her dating one of his closest friends at the time, conveniently points to a calendar with all the names she named on it and lied about Keyser refuting her account on top of all his uncovered yearbook lies under oath can now be prosecuted or perjury ON TOP of the rape investigation (remember, there are no statue of limitations for rape/sexual assault in Maryland, so he can be criminally-prosecuted for that as well as being investigated).

Uh oh. Not looking too good for Cosbynaugh.

And it seems Trump gave them "free reign" on Twitter. First of all, I hope Rosenstein or Wrey can actually confirm this, because I'm taking that claim with a truckload of salt. And secondly, considering how his Twitter is considered official government communications...does this mean the FBI will be allowed to defend themselves when he rebukes them for "stepping out of bounds"?

"Well Mr. President, you said we could interview whoever we deemed appropriate..."

[Gawdziller1954]

Brett Kavanaugh confirmed for supreme court: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics ... index.html

[MechaGoji Bro7503]

NASA just gave Godzilla his own constellation!!!!!!!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Kh&ampcf=1

SpaceGodzilla confirmed for everything!!!!!

[Dv-218]

NASA just gave Godzilla his own constellation!!!!!!!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Kh&ampcf=1

SpaceGodzilla confirmed for everything!!!!!

Whoa, this is fucking awesome. I honestly thought it was a joke at first untill I read the article. Looks like Godzilla achieved a literal star level of popularity

Now where's that Ghidorah black hole at tho.

[kingkevzilla88]

NASA just gave Godzilla his own constellation!!!!!!!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Kh&ampcf=1

SpaceGodzilla confirmed for everything!!!!!

Cool!

[Maritonic]

Potentially explosive "devices" found at the homes of the Clintons, Obamas, Time-Warner Building, CNN Building and The White House.

[Spirit Ghidorah 2010]

Secret Service intercepted potential explosive devices that were sent to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, 2 days after similar devices were sent to George Soros

[Maritonic]

Think I misspoke; White House is incorrect, but one was sent to CNN.

[Zarm]

Oh, no. The last thing we need is someone reviving the unabomber shtick; it's way too immitatable.

And politically-targeted, no less. How much more violence is it going to take before both sides realize something drastic is needed to reconcile this polarization before we tear ourselves apart?