I’m hesitant to take this position, not because I’m terribly fond of politeness to shitty people, but mostly because I far more commonly see this deployed as an excuse for being shitty people, for doing and saying bigoted things, while dodging any criticism for it and still claiming to be left wing. Basically, as an equivalent to the right-wing’s “Free speech” nonsense - a noble idea on the face, but just being used to justify shitty behavior, you just switch out “infringing free speech” for “Demanding bourgeois civility.” Unfortunately, there’s a large segment of the left that have already shown they can’t be trusted to not be garbage, if they don’t have people standing over them with a metaphorical bat to not do bigoted shit.
Would you say that’s more of a modern reaction to the rise of Trump or something that’s been a re-occuring flaw of the democratic party? The right has always whinged on the behalf of Free Speech but when centrists or libertarians get angry at the democrats it’s usually for a lack of ideas and convictions. That’s definitely going on as a problem ad naseum right now on politic social media where people can be convinced to not vote Democrat for not being Democrat enough.
On a personal level, I can agree with the people using that to mask left-wing bigotry. I do however believe demand for civility/neutrality has been very unsuccessful when it comes the American 24/7 News Cycle and we’ve had that Overton Window shift. The right wing clearly doesn’t care and knows how to game the system by using these manipulative tactics. I guess the dangerous question is that if American society is likely to fall into the same traps again if they were to engage in that type of dirty, unethical bloodsport.
I did not say the Democratic party, though they’re not excluded. I did mean the broader left wing.
That said, I’m not sure. I certainly think there is some problem with it in the democratic party, but I think that’s more down to being such a broad tent, rather than any problem of politeness - some shitty people get in, because they’re welcoming anyone who can fight for the same goals.
I think it might also be partially a response to the trumpian politics - it has undeniably emboldened bigots, but that doesn’t just mean right-wing bigots. It’s going to, for some people, feel a lot easier to say something that’s pulling a solid 4 on the racist scale, when there’s motherfuckers you hate roaming all about constantly pegging the dial at ten or eleven. When the extreme becomes the everyday, the less blatant awfulness becomes just as ordinary, even if you’re in theory against both.
I disagree, but not with the base premise. You can be perfectly polite, as a member of the press, while still pressing hard on issues, and really getting after the news. I think the problems with the US press are both different and deeper, but can primarily be summed up as the desperate need to appear balanced, and the way the press on capitol hill works.
As for the first, you already know where I’m going - the right is bad, so they feel the need to cover the left’s misdeeds with equal time. Which is what lead to, for example, the constant bleating about Clinton’s emails and scandals during the 2016 election, even in the nominally left-wing parts of the press - they were spending so much time reporting negatively on Trump, to maintain that balance, they tried to even it out with some negative reporting on Clinton. But that’s not balance, that’s just faking it to please people, it’s putting on a show.
Oddly, The Newsroom, for all it’s faults, showed this. Will McAvoy is portrayed as a dedicated, hard-line free-market republican, an unabashed right-winger, but there’s an entire story arc about how the republican party hates him and actively pulls their debate from the network, and thinks he’s just part of the Liberal media, because he just reports on the Facts, and doesn’t care to give the appearance of false balance.
The other part is DC journalism right now - Let’s be honest, it’s basically just access journalism, with members of the press getting closer to their subjects than the people they’re supposed to be advocates for. They’re afraid to push, to pin the politicians down, to nail the bastards to their own front doors, because they’re afraid they’ll lose access and be unable to do their jobs as they currently are. So you end up with feckless cowards who will equivocate, excuse, and ignore, when they should be getting out the knives and red-hot irons.
1 Like
Honestly, it didn’t read as hyperbole to me, but we live in Interesting Times so I’ve stopped assuming anyone is joking about anything.
2 Likes
I’m in the same boat on this.
Except in private situations involving people with whom I’m very close, I do not joke or hyperbolize about current politics. We’re in dangerous territory now, and I am only interested in earnest discourse.
When the nazis go away, I’ll resume my usual hyperbolic snark.
4 Likes
Read the whole thread.
It’s not all bad, a lot of these consolidations make sense. The government has hella overlap all over the place. But yeah, sell off the postal service? Why?
1 Like
People have been trying to drown the post office for fifty years or whatever. At the end of the day it all boils down to shilling for private interests. Gotta drown that baby somehow.
Except the sole reason for them is to then attack the budgets of the consolidated departments…
2 Likes
It also ignores that establishment of a postal service is explicitly called out in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, specifically. Now, it doesn’t require Congress to do so, but having one is 100% Constitutional.
Not only that but the post office was a big deal in terms of making this country in its early days… FEEL like a cohesive country. Privatizing it ignores what it was and what it stood for.
1 Like
Yeah, that is the obvious play. It’s a shame, something like the Department of Welfare could actually accomplish a lot of good.
So with all the stuff going on about immigration and the horrible stuff with families at the border, here are some of my thoughts on it, given that my parents and most of the rest of my family here in the US were immigrants (who happened to do all the appropriate legal paperwork to immigrate here, but that’s besides the point). First, I’m going to make these two assumptions:
- Proper border security is good and necessary for preventing the smuggling of contraband as well as keeping legitimate criminals (the aforementioned smugglers, known/confirmed gang/cartel members, war criminals, etc.) out of the country, or at least apprehending them so they can be subject to appropriate due process when they do try to enter the country.
- Reasonable, but fair, immigration limits are an unfortunate necessity as, lacking a post-scarcity economy, unlimited immigration is probably not economically viable. I’m not going to discuss what constitutes “reasonable” as there are all sorts of subtleties involved there, but fair at the very least means no restrictions or preferences based on religion, national origin, etc.
Now, my own family was only able to immigrate here due to changes in the law during the Kennedy administration that removed the per-nation immigration cap in favor of more of a “first come, first serve” yearly cap without preference for national origin. This, combined with so-called “chain migration” is why my family, and now me, is here in the US today. Of course, some of the paperwork and other processes were a pain for them (my mom, who came here before my dad, had to basically get married twice to sponsor my dad to come over – once by a justice of the peace in Portugal before having her “proper” church wedding here in the States) and definitely could use reform, but overall they seem to feel that the system as it was for them wasn’t too ridiculous.
That said, they are fully in favor of making the system easier, and I can’t disagree with them. Essentially, the only discriminatory restriction my mom (sadly my dad is no longer with us) thinks is reasonable is a criminal background check of some sort. As far as those already here illegally, my mom is fully in favor of legalizing their status provided that they’ve been here long enough to establish a life (i.e. if you were caught 24 hours after illegally crossing the border, you can be deported, but if you’ve been here for several years, started a family, etc., you should have a chance to stay), haven’t committed any felonies (illegal border jumping is merely a misdemeanor), and pay any back taxes plus perhaps some sort of not ridiculously huge penalty fine as you did break the law. All reasonable given my previous assumptions.
Going back to what’s going on at the border, both of us are dead-set against it. I haven’t talked to her about what should be done with the families, but I’m thinking something along the lines of halfway houses or something else humane to keep the families together in a non-prison environment and just long enough to either validate their asylum claims (which, if legitimate, should be accepted no matter the reason for them) or send them back over the border together if something doesn’t check out and assuming the families aren’t doing anything shady like smuggling. Again, ideally I’d like for even those not seeking asylum but who otherwise have clean histories to stay legally, but assumption #2 above states that they can’t, so we can at least send them back as humanely as possible.
Of course, if someone with more economic knowledge than me can give a reason why assumption #2 is invalid, I’d love to hear it. Also, while I feel a limit is a necessary evil, it’s also entirely possible that the current limit can be greatly increased without damaging the economy.
“Everyone/thing is the same level of bad” is the lazy way to shut down a political conversation. It’s effective because it’s complete nonsense but it’s also more than a little pathetic.
2 Likes
That is a lazy way to misinterpret the point of the post
That is a lazy way to explain how someone missed your point.
Am I supposed to bend over backwards when someone makes a racist bad faith post that misinterprets my original?
Not backwards, no. But I suppose if you do have a point, you are supposed to actually make it.
I think the original makes the point just fine, thank you very much. What are you having a hard time understanding?