Random political thought thread.

[Red Memories]

For Conservative Christian Women, Amy Coney Barrett’s Success Is Personal - The New York Times

interesting point... It is a shame this comes at such a harsh time though.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

No, the Woke Won’t Debate You. Here's Why. - New Discourses

Can’t say I agree 100% but at least the author did some research. Though I think he does use a lot of words to over complicate what ultimately boils down to an insecurity or fear of being exposed as fraudulent or illegitimate (despite going to lengths to say this isn’t the reason they refuse to debate, he ultimately says just that)

 

[Jaguar]

When you said you'll be mindful of who came before you, then you better review all the deciding votes moderate Republican Sandra Day O'Connor made. To call her fair and impartial was an understatement. Hers was the deciding vote in the following cases:


1. Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctor's opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment.

2. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act.

3. Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor.

4. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) broke with Chief Justice Rehnquist and other opponents of a woman's right to choose as part of a 5-4 majority in affirming Roe v. Wade.

5. Lee v. Weisman (1992) continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events.

6. McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments displays in several courthouses. Some of the strongest language came from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's concurrence with the 5-4 majority, in which she said: "Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?"

"When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders," Justice O'Connor wrote, "it encroaches upon the individual's decision about whether and how to worship. Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs."

 

[Lark]

No, the Woke Won’t Debate You. Here's Why. - New Discourses

Can’t say I agree 100% but at least the author did some research. Though I think he does use a lot of words to over complicate what ultimately boils down to an insecurity or fear of being exposed as fraudulent or illegitimate (despite going to lengths to say this isn’t the reason they refuse to debate, he ultimately says just that)

That's interesting, I do think that there are a lot of people who unnecessarily complicate their communication for reasons of insecurity, not just because they could be making claims that are shaking or easily exposure as fraud or falsehood.

I see it a lot in people who've not had much or any higher education (or just spent their higher education doing sports, partying or lounging) who then read complex texts and try to adopt the styles or language they find there, the results are lousy, great you've read adam smith, the constitution, what not, dont assume you could or should write like them.

There's a lot of it and some of it also shows pretty conflicted attitudes too anti-intellectualism combined with the attempt to perform as an intellectual in that arena, the whole playing dumb thing that got mentioned a while ago, as a "debate tactic", I dont even get the whole "debate" idea even, discussing politics isnt like playing Call of Duty or Fortnite and a hell of a lot of people behave as though it is.

In the grand scheme of things this "debate" idea is about stopping people examining their own views or others.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

That's interesting, I do think that there are a lot of people who unnecessarily complicate their communication for reasons of insecurity, not just because they could be making claims that are shaking or easily exposure as fraud or falsehood.

I see it a lot in people who've not had much or any higher education (or just spent their higher education doing sports, partying or lounging) who then read complex texts and try to adopt the styles or language they find there, the results are lousy, great you've read adam smith, the constitution, what not, dont assume you could or should write like them.

There's a lot of it and some of it also shows pretty conflicted attitudes too anti-intellectualism combined with the attempt to perform as an intellectual in that arena, the whole playing dumb thing that got mentioned a while ago, as a "debate tactic", I dont even get the whole "debate" idea even, discussing politics isnt like playing Call of Duty or Fortnite and a hell of a lot of people behave as though it is.

In the grand scheme of things this "debate" idea is about stopping people examining their own views or others.

It's a shame too, I don't think Foucalt was some great evil person, just a philosopher with an interesting take on how to approach and evaluate history and ideas. I don't think that Critical Social Justice Theory is entirely useless, instead I wonder if it's just being applied in a poor manner, maybe by people who got a casual glance at it and deemed themselves experts, as you sort of describe above.

It's the simultaneous gift and curse of the internet--anyone who desires can become a scholar and read the classics with google and a few keystrokes.

 

[ceecee]

Naomi Klein: “We Have to Rebuild From the Wreckage of Neoliberalism”

This is a great interview and I urge anyone interested in ideas beyond the dumpster fire that we currently have, to read her books. I just finished "The Battle for Paradise" which is about the devastation in Puerto Rico post hurricane made incredibly worse by neoliberal policies and disaster capitalism.

 

[ceecee]

No, the Woke Won’t Debate You. Here's Why. - New Discourses

Can’t say I agree 100% but at least the author did some research. Though I think he does use a lot of words to over complicate what ultimately boils down to an insecurity or fear of being exposed as fraudulent or illegitimate (despite going to lengths to say this isn’t the reason they refuse to debate, he ultimately says just that)

I did a little research on this and apparently, it was a hoax study. Not that there is an issue with questioning research and opinions but once valid social and gender (male and female) issues themselves are mocked and dumbed down by being termed "grievance studies", that's something all together different. But I do think they had a point, too, even with their made up bullshit.

The controversy around hoax studies in critical theory, explained - Vox

It's very dumb. But until more Americans are able to decipher what is real and what isn't, this stuff has the potential to be dangerous too.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I did a little research on this and apparently, it was a hoax study. Not that there is an issue with questioning research and opinions but once valid social and gender (male and female) issues themselves are mocked and dumbed down by being termed "grievance studies", that's something all together different. But I do think they had a point, too, even with their made up bullshit.

The controversy around hoax studies in critical theory, explained - Vox

It's very dumb. But until more Americans are able to decipher what is real and what isn't, this stuff has the potential to be dangerous too.

It did have that vague feeling of something I might see published on Quillette. I enjoy some quillette pieces, but make no mistake there's definitely a slight right bias. Nothing nearly as blatant or obvious as breitbart, but it's still there.

 

[ceecee]

It did have that vague feeling of something I might see published on Quillette. I enjoy some quillette pieces, but make no mistake there's definitely a slight right bias. Nothing nearly as blatant or obvious as breitbart, but it's still there.

Well, Claire Lehmann and Andy Ngo are piles of lying garbage but I get what you are saying.

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Burning Paradigm]

So...

 

[Jaguar]

“This is a woman who’s led an extraordinary life. She’s got seven children — two of them adopted — one with special needs,” McConnell told Hewitt.

How does one logically follow the other? That actually reads as insulting to women, if you ask me. Does Mitch give the women bonus points if they clean toilets?

 

[The Cat]

 

[Jaguar]

Christ!

 

[Red Herring]

“This is a woman who’s led an extraordinary life. She’s got seven children — two of them adopted — one with special needs,” McConnell told Hewitt.

How does one logically follow the other? That actually reads as insulting to women, if you ask me. Does Mitch give the women bonus points if they clean toilets?

It is often pointed out that Ursula von der Leyen, the current president of the European Commission and a member of the Merkel cabinet for 14 years, is the mother of 7 children. As a mother of two I can only imagine what seven must be like, but it becomes less impressive when you consider both she and her husband are from wealthy influential families and certainly had a lot of paid help along the way.

It indicates nerves of steel, if you raise them yourself, but obviously is no qualification for political or judicial office.

 

[ceecee]

It is often pointed out that Ursula von der Leyen, the current president of the European Commission and a member of the Merkel cabinet for 14 years, is the mother of 7 children. As a mother of two I can only imagine what seven must be like, but it becomes less impressive when you consider both she and her husband are from wealthy influential families and certainly had a lot of paid help along the way.

It indicates nerves of steel, if you raise them yourself, but obviously is no qualification for political or judicial office.

This is how some Christians build little armies of indoctrinated children and then adults. The charismatic Catholic sect she belongs to - People of Praise - qualifies.

People of Praise - Wikipedia

 

[Totenkindly]

Gotta keep that quiver full...

Psalms 127:3-5
3 Children are a heritage from the Lord,
offspring a reward from him.
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are children born in one’s youth.
5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their opponents in court.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

A lot of the criticism of BLM over the name could have been easily avoided by adding a “Too” to the end of the motto.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

“It is what it is” -trump

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

A lot of the criticism of BLM over the name could have been easily avoided by adding a “Too” to the end of the motto.

On the surface, it would seem that way. However, I think lots of people would find something else to object to. Like people who claim to support peaceful protesting but always find something to object to whenever it happens, like blocking traffic or disrespecting the national anthem.