Reading minds again, right ssu? You know what Trump desperately wants, even if he has exclaimed the exact opposite. It’s a shame that such loose prognostications aren’t thrown into the conspiracy theory bin, but it’s probably because so many believe the same and diet on the same media. Meanwhile violent mobs move throughout the streets, trying to light fire to a federal courthouse, looting and assaulting others along the way.

Deploying federal agents and detaining rioters, looters and terrorists in Portland is perfectly legal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315

And I have to say it’s satisfying watching the feds kick around these privileged twerps.

I don’t see how any of that is the case. The rising tide is raising all boats, for instance with the decline in global extreme poverty and the rise in life expectancy. One of the richest men of all time, Nathan Rothschild, died of septicaemia even after buying the best healthcare in the world. Nowadays anyone can be cured of it.

No I don’t think everyone is getting wealthy together, just that wealth expands, and it becomes more and more accessible to everyone.

If the idea you’re talking about is just non-coercive
trade, that already has a name: a free market. Which isn’t the same thing as capitalism. If you’re not in favor of wealth concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer people, then you’re against capitalism (even if you’re still in favor of a free market), and shouldn’t mind that word being snarled at that bad thing you’re against.

With those concepts separate then maybe you can brainstorm some ideas on how to keep wealth from concentrating like that without sacrificing the free market. And libertarian socialists around the world
will join you in that.

I don’t think wealth can necessarily concentrate in the hands of a few because wealth is not a zero sum game. For instance when I make a dollar you do not lose a dollar, my gain is not your loss. So I cannot agree with that assessment of capitalism.

It seems to me that the threat of “Russian interference” is largely overblown. If we can avoid this threat by not watching RT or not going on twitter, then the problem appears minuscule.

$15 minimum wage and increasing taxation for some multi-millionaires and billionaires is exactly what Orwell was talking about, absolutely.

It’s more along the lines of De Tocqueville’s “soft despotism”. You can look to the state to demand of others what you yourself refuse to do, but in so doing you grow state power at the expense of your own.

It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/ch4_06.htm

I’m not opposed to wearing a mask. It’s just that I prefer when it’s a matter of choice rather than mandatory, and for the same reason I oppose any mandatory article of clothing. You could easily get the same effect by standing a meter away, covering your mouth when coughing, sneezing, talking etc.i find that the mask finger-wagging is largely done at the expense of other preventative measures, which rarely enters the discourse around the topic.

The problem is there are downsides to wearing masks, for instance a false sense of security, more face touching. So public health officials need to weigh the pros and cons.

You can get the same effect by wearing a bag over your head. Or maybe one can simply refrain from spitting on others.

We should note that “Capitalism” was initially a snarl word used by socialists to disparage a sort of bogeyman. So I think a name change would be appropriate.

It was a direct quote from the WHO. What it says is “ there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

You don’t think that means anything?

Isn't 'state power' the only thing that protects people from corporations? Power has to be somewhere. Where do you want it to be?

Corporations do not possess the monopoly on violence because they are comprised of private individuals like ourselves. Because the state has the monopoly on violence it also has the monopoly on power. So what protects us from the state?

According to Hanauer, successful economies are like gardens: to be tended by some gardener. He says this before reminding us that “the economy is people”, human beings, and not so much like the rows of plants he evoked with his earlier simile. Perhaps he should have evoked a corral or zoo or prison instead of a garden.

It is no surprise then that his “gardening” is to be delivered through the formal means of social control, enforced by the monopoly of violence, and not through voluntary cooperation. Thus he uses his vast wealth “to build narratives and to pass laws that will require all the other rich people to pay taxes and pay their workers better”, thereby increasing state power at the expense of private property and wealth.

At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.

It’s a shame the issue has become so political because the science isn’t exactly there at the moment.

According to the WHO’s most recent mask guidelines, “At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

Of course there are “potential benefits”:

reduced potential exposure risk from infected persons before they develop symptoms;

• reduced potential stigmatization of individuals wearing masks to prevent infecting others (source control) or of people caring for COVID-19 patients in non-clinical settings;(70)

• making people feel they can play a role in contributing to stopping spread of the virus;

• reminding people to be compliant with other measures (e.g., hand hygiene, not touching nose and mouth). However, this can also have the reverse effect (see below);

• potential social and economic benefits. Amidst the global shortage of surgical masks and PPE, encouraging the public to create their own fabric masks may promote individual enterprise and community integration. Moreover, the production of non-medical masks may offer a source of income for those able to manufacture masks within their communities. Fabric masks can also be a form of cultural expression, encouraging public acceptance of protection measures in general. The safe re-use of fabric masks will also reduce costs and waste and contribute to sustainability.

But these need to be weighed against the potential harms:

• potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands;(48, 49)

• potential self-contamination that can occur if non- medical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This can create favourable conditions for microorganism to amplify;

• potential headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used;

• potential development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours;(50)

• difficulty with communicating clearly;
• potential discomfort;(41, 51)

• a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene;

• poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by young children;

• waste management issues; improper mask disposal leading to increased litter in public places, risk of contamination to street cleaners and environment hazard;

• difficulty communicating for deaf persons who rely on lip reading;

• disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them, especially for children, developmentally challenged persons, those with mental illness, elderly persons with cognitive impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or recent oral maxillofacial surgery, and those living in hot and humid environments.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak

To be fair, the term “political correctness” is awful, perhaps ironic in the sense that it is itself a euphemism for routine bigotry. In that case I think criticism of the term is warranted.

Well before the use of the term, this vernacular of deference was rightly criticized by George Orwell, who described it as “intellectual cowardice”, a phrase which I think exemplifies this phenomenon better than “political correctness”.

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/

It’s largely euphemistic language.

I don't think your circumlocution is society's fault. What do you want to say that you cannot?

It’s not so much what I want to say as it is my aversion to a prefabricated and emaciated terminology which makes differences on matters of principle almost unsayable. It leads to a conformity that does not welcome dissent.

Exactly. People who dislike political correctness will say it's not about that. But when you ask them what it's actually about, it's just vague progressive blah they dislike. Absolutely devoid of content, except expressing a general distaste for socially progressive ideas. It's about as good as "SJW".

People who like political correctness routinely say it is about being respectful. But it comes in the form of intolerance and censorship rather than polite behavior. The euphemism and jargon creates an atmosphere where no one can speak plainly, directly affecting the groups they believe should be protected from certain language.

An aboriginal, who is referred to as a "redskin.

I wouldn’t refer to the warrior as such. A “Redskin” to me is someone who plays for the Redskins.

An aboriginal.

Let's assume that's true. Do you think the name should not be changed? If so, why do you want the name to remain "Redskins"? If you think it should be changed, what is your complaint? If you don't care, why make an issue of it?

I don’t think it should be changed because I like the name and the logo. To me it evokes a brave warrior.

You can huff and puff all you want but that's ultimately just your opinion.

An opinion that I can defend. Your opinion, however, lacks any such argument.

Lies. This is just how the PC police see themselves.

For you. Not everyone has categorically drawn lines between speech that is considered hateful or offensive or just unpleasant and rude, and where political correctness intersects between this and other types insults and expressions, which is why it would have been prudent for the study to have provided a definition, otherwise it allows people like yourself to interpret it in whatever way you want to interpret it, and, in your case specifically, a self-serving way.

It’s just untrue that political correctness has anything to do with hate speech, and it appears that the only one who needs a definition is yourself.

If people are discussing a term over the course of a decade and approaching it from varying angles and perspectives then yeah it would be valuable for the study to provide a working definition to respondents for clarification, especially given that 82% of respondents in this study said that hate speech was a problem.

Hate speech is a problem. But political correctness was never about hate speech.

I would argue it’s one of the worst tactic against hate and violence, for a few reasons. One, we need to know who the haters are, and hate speech is one of the few ways besides violence that they let themselves be known. Two, underground is where hate festers. Without any challenge in the public sphere there is little way to see their ideas combated and made thread-bare by reason and mockery. And third, their persecution gives them the opportunity to champion free speech, which they always take away if ever they achieve power.

As I've pointed out to you before, the study in that article doesn't define political correctness, leaving the term completely open to interpretation per respondent, making the analysis useless.

People have been speaking about, writing about, and have been warning us about political correctness for decades. Quibble all you need, but I wager most people understand the general sense of the term by now.

It wasn't a refusal to tell lies that got Stone in trouble, it was a failure to admit truths that would make the President look bad, and conceivably could result in a case of perjury against Trump. Further, it appears Trump was dangling a pardon to encourage Stone to stay mum. This seems like pure corruption to me, but surely you must at least recognize how bad this looks.

Right, bad optics. I don’t care what people think when justice is on the line. That sort of politics is for the birds.

According to Stone they tried to force him to say things about the president, offering him deals if he had done so. He refused. He was gagged. The jury was stacked. The judge was biased. The perjury was not material. People, including congress itself, lie to congress all the time with no threat of punishment. I think we have different views of corruption.

9 out of 10 Native Americans are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, and in fact many express admiration for it,

88% of Native Americans oppose political correctness.

Once again a few triggered politicos and grievance-mongers ignore the will and voices of their community.

And it's the wrong judgement. The investigations were opened for legitimate reasons, the search warrants and prosecution of Stone were lawful, and no innocent lives were ruined; only guilty lives. But that's the price you pay for being a criminal.

It’s the right judgement. As we now know, government investigators failed to include key sections of the Papadopoulos transcripts in the Page FISA warrants, including denials the campaign "was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks”. We know Papadopoulos was spied on. We know that zero evidence shows Papadopoulos was guilty of any such thing related to Russia. So what was legitimate about it? Not a damn thing.

Your criminals are innocent of everything you once accused them of, so all you can do is be gleeful they got busted for specious process crimes.

We were talking about Roger Stone, remember? You were claiming that his prosecution was unjust because the Mueller investigation and Crossfire Hurricane were illegitimate, and then claimed that the Steele dossier was what lead to these investigations. I'm explaining to you that you're mistaken. Trump firing Comey is what lead to the Mueller investigation and Papadopoulos having advance knowledge of the stolen emails is what lead to Crossfire Hurricane. Both investigations were opened with good reason. And the search warrant for Stone had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.

So all in all, the claim that the investigation into Stone and his subsequent prosecution were unjust is bullshit.

I said his treatment was unjust because he was treated unfairly. As for crossfire and Mueller, both were opened with bad reason. Both were expensive farces. Both ruined the lives of innocent people, and I stand by that judgement.

What's the shame of the highest echelons of American security and intelligence (services) doing their job?

They did their job poorly, as we now know. Not only that but the animus of the lead investigators are well documented.

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,”

So how dare the do what they say their priorities are. It's a conspiracy! :grimace:

It’s a shame they let reach and influence the highest echelons of American security, intelligence and media.

And as I pointed out, it wasn't the Steele dossier that lead to the investigation, as the investigation started before the FBI knew about it.

It may be that the Steele dossier was the deciding factor in Page's FISA application, but there's far more to the investigation that just that.

The steele dossier was certainly a part of the investigation, directly leading to spying on American citizens, and Steele gave info to the FBI well into 2017. Not only that, but the Steele dossier was probably Russian disinfo and they knew it. In other words, it all worked out for the Russians thanks to the useful idiots doing their bidding.

What evidence do you have that he intentionally misled Congress? Perhaps I missed it and wouldn’t mind hearing it.

I wasn't talking about Page's FISA order, as that's not what you were talking about. We were talking about the Mueller investigation, and so I assume by extension Crossfire Hurricane, which opened on July 31, 2016.

I stated, “The Steele dossier was payed for by the Clinton campaign and sourced from Russian intelligence, leading to unwarranted spying, investigations and a misinformed western populace, all for the purpose of winning an election—Russian collusion.”

It wasn't flimsy. One of Trump's foreign policy advisors had advance knowledge of the stolen emails. They were also informed by British and other European intelligence agencies about contacts between Trump's campaign and Russian intelligence.

As for Stone, nothing in this search warrant has anything to do with the Steele dossier.

The man who has been investigating the matter for the last year begs to differ. “Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened”.

We’ll see exactly what that means in due course, I’m sure.

I see nothing wrong with the article save for the implication that speaking to Assange and Wikileaks and having interest in the emails (knowledge of which was already public) was somehow a bad thing. It’s not.

Stone maintains that he wasn’t prosecuted because he was covering for the president, but because he refused to lie about the president.

Come on...not ”100% correct“? He lied under oath, which is a crime. Relativists point stands, his conviction for his crime was just and your position that it wasn't just is incorrect.
Is it just hard to admit it sometimes because of the constant mud and dishonesty you have to wade through on here?

I said his treatment was unjust, not his conviction. His conviction has not changed.

Horowitz report was quite explicit:

“We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order.”

The start of Crossfire Hurricane was equally as flimsy, and had they not had the Steele report, they would not have spied on Americans.

The Mueller investigation, which started after the election by Trump's appointed Deputy Attorney General had the purpose of winning an election? The FBI investigation, which wasn't made public until after the election, had the purpose of winning an election?

No. If Russians wanted to use active measures in order to destabilize American institutions or democracy, to disparage a political candidate, to meddle in elections, they have done so through the Steele dossier.

You frame these things as if it's the entire government machinery out to get Trump, as if Trump isn't the one ultimately in charge of everything. I can't be bothered to read back on previous posts, but have you at any point held Obama responsible for the FBI under his administration? Would be hypocritical not to do the same for Trump.

Not that I recall. I am unaware of any evidence that Obama is involved in any of this.