5 minutes ago, MSC said:

Dim this is one of those times where you're gonna have to make your point directly and stop beating around the bush. You're not that good at developing sensical puzzles and you're running the risk of being completely misconstrued. 

There's a big clue in the ().

I'm not responsible for your understanding...

3 hours ago, KJW said:

However, I should point out that as an Australian, I am more distant from what is happening than are many other people.

I appreciate your honesty of your beliefs, it may be that we can't see completely eye to eye on this due to the differences in circumstances. Maybe I'm too close to the issue or maybe you're too far from it.

Philosophical differences in rhetoric also contribute to our different points of view to some extent. You're quite intelligent and the risk I often see intelligent people taking lies in the area of epistemic responsibility. 

You've clarified that in the important ways we are definitely on the same side, neither of us wants Trump to have a third term and neither of us wants there to be a legal loophole giving him that ability. We disagree on whether or not that loophole exists, but the reason I bring up epistemic responsibility is to illustrate that if I believed there was a good argument to be made as to why it would be legally feasible for such a thing to happen... I'd keep it to myself, since the potential moral consequences for such an argument winning out, would be devastating. Dim was the one to bring up Socrates and while I don't think he's bringing him up for the same reasons, he is right to do so since epistemic responsibility is something that heavily impacted the way Socrates chose to live his life. 

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There's a big clue in the ().

I'm not responsible for your understanding...

The words (big clue) aren't as good of a clue as you think. 

Unfortunately, There doesn't seem to be any prohibition against Trump having someone else elected President with him as VP and running things anyway.

During a recent House foreign relations subcommittee on 1st April  2025, Republican Texas Congressman Keith Self had this to say from the podium:

Quote

"It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion,’ and I think that may be what we’re discussing here,” he said.”

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/keith-self-congress-quoted-joseph-goebbels/

The full significance of this quotation might be better appreciated by citing the language and context in which it was originally spoken (see below):

The words first came from Jospeh Goebbels on October 16th 1933 when he was announcing a new National Press Law making it a crime to practice journalism in Germany except as a licensed member of a nationwide closed shop called  Der Reichsverband der Deutschen Presse -  headed by one Dr. Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment in Adolf  Hitler’s Third Reich.

https://time.com/archive/6751737/foreign-news-consecrated-press/

“Houston - You have a problem ! ”

Edited April 6Apr 6 by toucana
Corrected spacing

On 4/6/2025 at 9:05 PM, npts2020 said:

Unfortunately, There doesn't seem to be any prohibition against Trump having someone else elected President with him as VP and running things anyway.

There's a clause that prohibits this, if it's obvious to the electorate; but that's open to the interpretation of the electorate... 😉

On 4/6/2025 at 10:26 PM, toucana said:

During a recent House foreign relations subcommittee on 1st April  2025, Republican Texas Congressman Keith Self had this to say from the podium:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/keith-self-congress-quoted-joseph-goebbels/

The full significance of this quotation might be better appreciated by citing the language and context in which it was originally spoken (see below):

The words first came from Jospeh Goebbels on October 16th 1933 when he was announcing a new National Press Law making it a crime to practice journalism in Germany except as a licensed member of a nationwide closed shop called  Der Reichsverband der Deutschen Presse -  headed by one Dr. Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment in Adolf  Hitler’s Third Reich.

https://time.com/archive/6751737/foreign-news-consecrated-press/

“Houston - You have a problem ! ”

Do you not see the problem here?

You quote something that's almost a century old, and demand that it's still relavent without providing a coherent argument as to why it's the same...

It's only similar by the coincidence of convergent evolution... 😉

On 4/6/2025 at 1:35 PM, MSC said:

The words (big clue) aren't as good of a clue as you think. 

That depends on the level of detail, Wittgenstein is both right and wrong: when communicating with a lion, it's important to understand when it's hungry before we mutually attempt to solve the meaning of life...

On 4/6/2025 at 3:26 PM, toucana said:

The full significance of this quotation might be better appreciated by citing the language and context in which it was originally spoken (see below):

The words first came from Jospeh Goebbels on October 16th 1933

So here is where I try out our new emoji library.

🫣☹️🤮

I will be interested to see how his Houston district responds, if any there are paying attention. Since the massive national demonstrations on April 5, I'm at least feeling a little hope that people are starting to wake up here.

ETA

So further research shows that, in context, Rep. Self was in fact quoting Goebbels in order to attack someone, to imply that someone leading a free speech project was actually emulating a repressive Nazi policy. His imputation appears to be quite false, but at least I see now that he was not advocating for Goebbels ideological views on censorship and propaganda. His attack on Biden's DGB was vile nonetheless, but was just BAU in the GOP.

The latest crackdown from the administration on free speech and the speed with which media are pre-emptively caving in across the board sure shows that there is little institutional resilience left.

I also feel that folks still do not quite appreciate what is being lost right now. Even if the GOP lost power now, it would take a long time to rebuild what has been torn down. And it is not even clear that they will be.

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The latest crackdown from the administration on free speech and the speed with which media are pre-emptively caving in across the board sure shows that there is little institutional resilience left.

I also feel that folks still do not quite appreciate what is being lost right now. Even if the GOP lost power now, it would take a long time to rebuild what has been torn down. And it is not even clear that they will be.

This seems to be due to the media being almost entirely owned by business corporations, who at the end of the day have no guiding star other than making money.

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

The latest crackdown from the administration on free speech and the speed with which media are pre-emptively caving in across the board sure shows that there is little institutional resilience left.

I also feel that folks still do not quite appreciate what is being lost right now. Even if the GOP lost power now, it would take a long time to rebuild what has been torn down. And it is not even clear that they will be.

It's disturbing the extent to which people like Jimmy Kimmel (just now cancelled by his corporate overlords) are being attacked by Turnip's attack dogs for things they did not say. A classic tactic of fascists everywhere. Kimmel said nothing unkind about Charlie Kirk or the grief some are feeling - his comment was critcizing the Turnip administration and MAGAs for their shameful attempts to blame it on the Left and generally using Kirk's murder to leverage their political grudges.

Edited September 18Sep 18 by TheVat
Pyto

Pretty much, and

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

It's disturbing the extent to which people like Jimmy Kimmel (just now cancelled by his corporate overlords) are being attacked by Turnip's attack dogs for things they did not say. A classic tactic of fascists everywhere. Kimmel said nothing unkind about Charlie Kirk or the grief some are feeling - his comment was critcizing the Turnip administration and MAGAs for their shameful attempts to blame it on the Left and generally using Kirk's murder to leverage their political grudges.

This is what is going through press right now, but in addition to entertainers, columnists (Washington Post) and analysts (MSNBC) also have been fired and in these cases even without a direct prompt from the White House, I believe. We have entered the state of pre-emptive obedience. Not to mention Universities and law firms.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Considering how cunningly clever this administration is, they would probably call themselves Ministry of Lies, then rename themselves to Ministry of Amazing Balls, and then compromise on the manly Ministry of totally not propaganda.

It is an extremely dire situation if American politics has descended to a state where discourse is done with a gun.
The death of C Kirk is an indicator of this trend, and I am saddened for it.
But I will not forget what C Kirk stood for; his morals and ideals were disturbing, to say the least.

And it is interesting, and hypocritical, of the MAGA Republicans to respond to his assassination by challenging the 1st Amendment and free speech laws.

When dozens of school children get shot almost every year ( lately ), not a single Republican even considers challenging the 2nd Amendment; the best they can do is offer 'thoughts and prayers' while waiting for the next mass shooting.
How is that working out ?
Is C Kirk that much more important than children ?
Maybe J Kimmel should have offered 'thoughts and prayers' before making fun of an ignorant C Kirk, and the idiots who worship him.

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

it is interesting, and hypocritical, of the MAGA Republicans to respond to his assassination by challenging the 1st Amendment and free speech laws.

Next-Gen McCarthyism, on steroids. They’re not just challenging the 1st amendment but actively pushing every lever of power they have to bully the system into total compliance. If you’re not 100% with them you’re the enemy.

48 minutes ago, MigL said:

When dozens of school children get shot almost every year

You misspelled every day

48 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe J Kimmel should have offered 'thoughts and prayers' before making fun of an ignorant C Kirk, and the idiots who worship him.

He wasn’t even making fun of Kirk. He repeatedly said this is horrible and should never have happened and how horrible it is for his family.

What he did was highlight how hard Trump and MAGA were working to suggest the shooter wasn’t one of them and how they were using it as a Reichstag event… many on the right actively acknowledging it as such an event directly themselves in their posts trying to whip up a rage against “the left.”

Even Ted Cruz chastised Turnip's FCC lapdog for the attack on Kimmel. In other news, the moon was blue and hell experienced a hard frost.

I hope all these institutions that put profits ahead of principles are boycotted by the ( mostly ) affluent/non-MAGA population.
I guess ABC and Disney will have to start showing NASCAR races and reruns of Duck Dynasty.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

And it is interesting, and hypocritical, of the MAGA Republicans to respond to his assassination by challenging the 1st Amendment and free speech laws.

When dozens of school children get shot almost every year ( lately ), not a single Republican even considers challenging the 2nd Amendment; the best they can do is offer 'thoughts and prayers' while waiting for the next mass shooting.
How is that working out ?

There was a school shooting the same day with 2 students in critical condition (thankfully surviving) and the shooter killing himslf but that was barely mentioned in the news and seemingly not at all elsewhere. The shooter was a fellow student supposedly inspired by white nationalists. Nobody seems to know how he got the pistol used, which he reloaded at least a couple of times.

3 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Nobody seems to know how he got the pistol used, which he reloaded at least a couple of times.

You mean nobody wants to know...

9 hours ago, MigL said:

The death of C Kirk is an indicator of this trend, and I am saddened for it.

I wonder about that a bit. There have been quite a few politically motivated assassinations and attempts in the US in the past. The recent times look especially bad due to the high-profile cases including the recent murders in Minnesota, or the attempt on Trump. But even before that, there were many cases, including e.g. the shooting spree where Gifford was severely injured, or the attack on Paul Pelosi.

What seems to be different, though is that in the past these attacks would be soundly condemned from all sides. Now, political violence for one side at least is being endorsed on the highest levels. It creates a normalization of violence which excuses all forms of violence from the right (Jan 6, the vanishing of reports on far-right extremists, Fox News joking about attacks on Dems, etc.).

We have 'hate' laws in Canada, but I've never been very comfortable with them.
If someone assaults you to either take your money, or because he doesn't like you, the crime is the assault, not the motivation.
Speech that incites violence, is of course different, and as far as I know, is illegal ( Trump Jan 6 !!! ) even in the US.

This push against the 1st Amendment, and free speech, in the US is the metric for freedom, and you guys better take it seriously.

How do you know when you've lost your freedom ?
When a comedian who makes fun of the President is taken off the air, or the President will send one of his MAGA-mob goons ( head of the FCC ) to make life, and your profits, difficult for you. And if that fails, the DoJ, run by a vapid, but attractive, goon will prosecute you on Trumped-up ( pun intended ) charges.

Nice racket Trump's got going; Vito Corleone would be envious.

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

you guys better take it seriously

I do. Done. What next?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

We have 'hate' laws in Canada, but I've never been very comfortable with them.
If someone assaults you to either take your money, or because he doesn't like you, the crime is the assault, not the motivation.

With this perspective, I can see why you're uncomfortable. Your example seems like simple assault. But when the robbery or the dislike is aimed at your ethnic group, or your societal preferences, then the motivation is an extra crime on top of the assault. If you're robbed and beaten because the robber is targeting Italian men who display their heritage in any way, does that seem equivalent to robbing and beating at random? The victims are chosen using the perpetrator's hatred. It's no longer a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or not paying enough attention, you've been pre-targeted based on a bigoted dislike of your whole "group".

That's part of what makes TFG's latest proclamation so frustrating. He claims when people talk badly about him, it's hate speech, but he's an individual. Nobody is calling him a filthy German, or even claiming he's just like all white men. The hate he's feeling is deserved due to his own actions. It's not aimed at all golfers, or all presidents, or all reality TV stars. Just him and his poor leadership.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

I do. Done. What next?

Revolution ?
Not like you haven't revolted against tyrants before.
Dump some tea in Boston harbor maybe ?
( but seriously, I don't know how things could have gotten so bad, so fast )

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If you're robbed and beaten because the robber is targeting Italian men who display their heritage in any way, does that seem equivalent to robbing and beating at random?

I would think so; either way, I'm still getting a beating.
As far as I know, you are allowed to hate anyone you want, for whatever reason.
If I beat you up because I hate the way you part your hair, does that also compound the beating ?
( I apologize for the insensitive analogy if you should happen to be bald )

Lets not go down the road of punishing people for the way they think.

Edited September 21Sep 21 by MigL

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would think so; either way, I'm still getting a beating.
As far as I know, you are allowed to hate anyone you want, for whatever reason.
If I beat you up because I hate the way you part your hair, does that also compound the beating ?

I don't think the distinction is in any way subtle. Hating any single person is quite different from hating everyone in a group.

Beating someone up because you hate them personally for the way they part their hair is extreme and ridiculous, but it's not classified as a hate crime. You have a specific reason why that person set you off, although I'd argue that if you extend that hate to everyone who parts their hair the same way, you've just created a new category of hate crime.

Beating someone up because you hate the ethnic group or the religion or the sexual preferences or gender identity or the disability they have DOES compound the beating. Your hate isn't satisfied by beating up one person. You represent a danger nobody should have to be watching out for by just being themselves.

Do you really think there's no difference for the person who gets beat up? Sure, you're beat up either way, but most beatings happen for some kind of reason, like theft, retaliation, misunderstanding, or the heat of the moment. If you think it's all the same, then do you think prejudice is just another form of anger or greed?

As a white man, I'm learning not to dismiss the plight of others based on my privilege. Hate crime designations encourage equity in the law.

On 9/20/2025 at 8:34 AM, MigL said:

When dozens of school children get shot almost every year ( lately ), not a single Republican even considers challenging the 2nd Amendment; the best they can do is offer 'thoughts and prayers' while waiting for the next mass shooting.
How is that working out ?

One might conclude that they don’t care, and that all of their posturing was a performance to feed the outrage machine and keep the funding coming in. Especially considering the medical/health side of things.

But too many people seem to believe the words and not the (in)actions.

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

That's part of what makes TFG's latest proclamation so frustrating. He claims when people talk badly about him, it's hate speech, but he's an individual.

Doesn’t matter, though. While there are hate crime laws (as pointed out, and for reasons similar to why we have terrorism laws), there are no hate speech laws. Simple criticism wouldn’t qualify even if there were, except in Trump’s mind. And public figures are treated differently; for defamation the bar is higher.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

We have 'hate' laws in Canada, but I've never been very comfortable with them.
If someone assaults you to either take your money, or because he doesn't like you, the crime is the assault, not the motivation.

Could you clarify why you are not comfortable with Canadian hate laws? The reason I am asking is because it seems that they are much more in line what you think they should be, especially compared to the US.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Speech that incites violence, is of course different, and as far as I know, is illegal ( Trump Jan 6 !!! ) even in the US.

In Canada federal criminal law has three provisions in the Canadian criminal code section 318-320. 319 addresses advocating for genocide (which amounts to promoting violence under the federal definition of genocide); 319 covers public incitement of hatred (i.e. incitement outside of private conversations). This sections has specific defences listed, including good faith expression and 320 covers warrants of seizures of certain types of hate propaganda.

As far as I can tell there is no provision where a hate crime would modify assault charges in Canada https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-45.html#docCont.

This is different to the US, however, where hate crimes can create a enhanced charge under laws enacted during the Clinton administration (as part of the expansion of violent crime control laws where they wanted to be tough on crime).

I might be wrong, but I couldn't find anything equivalent in Canadian federal statutes.

50 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Do you really think there's no difference for the person who gets beat up? Sure, you're beat up either way, but most beatings happen for some kind of reason, like theft, retaliation, misunderstanding, or the heat of the moment. If you think it's all the same, then do you think prejudice is just another form of anger or greed?

As I hinted above, I think it’s like terrorism laws. Your aim is not just to physically harm the target, but to threaten others in the same group. And legitimate threats (not just “tough talk”) are not protected speech.