Jump to content

Let's Take A Long Look at the First Amendment ASAP


Recommended Posts

first amendment  n.   an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right of free expression; includes freedom of assembly and freedom of the press and freedom of religion and freedom of speech

So Assembly has been stomped with tear gas a couple of times on live TV.

Press is an issue for me.

Religion too with a quite correct double o. This is second worse, bowing only to

The abortion we now call free speech.

I totally get nobody but nobody wants to arrest Trump but his stuff is incitement imo. Why is he still walking around?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

 

I totally get nobody but nobody wants to arrest Trump but his stuff is incitement imo. Why is he still walking around?

 

Why would you even need to ask?  The majority of republicans are brain dead sheep.  That's what church does to a person, you will literally believe whatever stupid sh*t the dude on the stage tells you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

Why would you even need to ask?  The majority of republicans are brain dead sheep.  That's what church does to a person, you will literally believe whatever stupid sh*t the dude on the stage tells you.

No argument there but wonder who has the standing to lock him up. And who makes the call on incitement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason that preachers are often called "Pastors" and their audience their "Flock".....

 Pastors are "shepherds"... And the flock, of course is sheep...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are my sheep, this is my flock; let’s fleece them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey crabby, glad you're waking up to what I've been saying here literally for years now..... That the 1st Am (as well as the 4th and 5th) are the biggest threats to public safety we have.  It makes the threat from the 2A almost laughable.  But nobody believes me when I say that if you want to rein in (or is it reign in, Rain in???) violence and make the streets safe...... doing away or severely truncating them like most of the left wants to do with the 2nd would make this country a safer place overnight.  If that is indeed what people actually want...... public safety and freedom from fear of being killed in senseless mayhem.  If there is a silver lining to trump..... it's that he's exposed the threat to public safety there is from all these Freedoms we have and that freedom of speech and freedom of the press can literally kill people in large numbers.  

Or are those negative and unforeseen outcomes merely the price of liberty that we pay to live in a free society???

Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

So Assembly has been stomped with tear gas a couple of times on live TV.

It has been stomped on since forever, if not before that. 

But note what Amend No. 1 actually says, that "Congress shall make no law . . respecting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 

For a long time the US oligarchic Reich has argued that states and localities (but not Congress) are perfectly free to stomp all over your Assembly. 

In fact, many of them still argue that 

It was not until the 1920's that the SCOTUS began seriously to apply the Bill or Rights to the states. 

Class dismissed. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Class dismissed. 

This is why you're an asshole, Ollie. Here was a perfectly good chance for you to be one of the adults in a conversation that you doubtless have some expertise in but ya kissed it away by showing the Inner Ollie, the rube who compares day sailing on Lake Erie to cruising the Tasman sea. Then there was the submarine comparison, marking you as a poseur plain and simple. 

 

To everyone else, is hollering FIRE! in a crowded theater the only way to get in trouble?

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bill of Rights is one of those things. It is one of those things that at times we have specific or fairly narrow issues with. However, given the alternative, the principles codified in The Bill of Rights shall not be infringed!

As for as Trump inciting or "righties" being the problem, I think you all are wearing partisan blinders that some how block out BLM or Antifa and people like Vice President Harris who support such causes.

Please stop, it makes you all look to be complete fools...... unless of course that is what you are aiming for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

As for as Trump inciting or "righties" being the problem, I think you all are wearing partisan blinders

That's one for the ages right there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quod umbra said:

The Bill of Rights is one of those things. It is one of those things that at times we have specific or fairly narrow issues with. However, given the alternative, the principles codified in The Bill of Rights shall not be infringed!

As for as Trump inciting or "righties" being the problem, I think you all are wearing partisan blinders that some how block out BLM or Antifa and people like Vice President Harris who support such causes.

Please stop, it makes you all look to be complete fools...... unless of course that is what you are aiming for.

Sure.

Next time BLM or AntiFa storms a gov't assembly, intent on murdering the Vice President, I'll make sure to never support them again. Those dadgum partisan blinders are a bitch, huh?

- DSK

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, quod umbra said:

The Bill of Rights is one of those things. It is one of those things that at times we have specific or fairly narrow issues with. However, given the alternative, the principles codified in The Bill of Rights shall not be infringed!

As for as Trump inciting or "righties" being the problem, I think you all are wearing partisan blinders that some how block out BLM or Antifa and people like Vice President Harris who support such causes.

Please stop, it makes you all look to be complete fools...... unless of course that is what you are aiming for.

Ain't no Antifa with FA.  Ain't no BLM if the police stop shooting them for driving or walking while black.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Here was a perfectly good chance for you to be one of the adults in a conversation

And then I had to go and ruin it by interjecting some feeble humor !!  

How could I ??  

Awful beyond words !! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Ain't no Antifa with FA.  Ain't no BLM if the police stop shooting them for driving or walking while black.

And what does The Football Association have to do with unwashed anarchists? 

BLM is not about cops shooting anyone. Black Lives a Matter is about putting forward a Marxist ideology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Autonomous said:

When have the censors ever been the good guys?

Don't you know, There are no Good Guys in Politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, quod umbra said:
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Not since George Wallace died?

 

Wasn't he a Democrat?

I thought you didn't care about major political parties.

But, to answer your question, yes. He -was-. So -were- a lot of prominent segregationist politicians who are now Republicans.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

My big problem with the 1A is that the Establishment Clause has been interpreted to give churches tax breaks as charities; they don’t even have to file a 990-EZ.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Well except that I do not affiliate with any major political party.

ah, an 'independent'. you're too right-wing not be a virtual affiliate. righty shitheads thank you, progressive lefties think you're an idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

BLM is not about cops shooting anyone. Black Lives a Matter is about putting forward a Marxist ideology.

bullshit. like I said...

Link to post
Share on other sites

the 1st needs to be amended (and ball gags would occasionally be appropriate)... you know, 'cause the Reich-wing and all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

the 1st needs to be amended (and ball gags would occasionally be appropriate)... you know, 'cause the Reich-wing and all.

including some cyber-trolls on PA/SA

(humor, right crab?) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

ah, an 'independent'. you're too right-wing not be a virtual affiliate. righty shitheads thank you, progressive lefties think you're an idiot.

LIBERTARIAN

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Tom will be along shortly to correct you and say Fakebertarian.

Yep, the "No True Scotsman Libertarian" fallacy

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

including some cyber-trolls on PA/SA

(humor, right crab?) 

Dunno. I suspect you are humor-impaired. Nor do I think you realize that you are the cyber troll.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, quod umbra said:

BLM is not about cops shooting anyone. Black Lives a Matter is about putting forward a Marxist ideology.

A "marxist" ideology???  Ok this is the first I've heard of that angle.  Please elaborate, I'm genuinely interested.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

How can we tell when you're being humorous?

The next time it happens will be the first. He doesn't actually have a SOH. He's just a self-righteous prick.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

The next time it happens will be the first. He doesn't actually have a SOH. He's just a self-righteous prick.

FKT

I see him in my mind as flatulence.

 

 

Bless his heart but keep him downwind.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To me,  the overall solution is quite simple. 

Remove anonymity from public discourse,  including the internet. 

Force people back to being accountable for the tripe they spew. 

Newspapers didn't publish anonymous letters.  

Sure,  as always people would continue with talking shit directly with their friends,  but that is at best hearsay.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dfw_sailor said:

To me,  the overall solution is quite simple. 

Remove anonymity from public discourse,  including the internet. 

Force people back to being accountable for the tripe they spew. 

Newspapers didn't publish anonymous letters.  

Sure,  as always people would continue with talking shit directly with their friends,  but that is at best hearsay.  

If humanity is going to survive the coming age of technology, it needs to go much further than that.

We are fast approaching a time where someone could create a killer virus while sitting  on the toilet, so if we are going to survive them we will need to know what everyone is doing while they are sitting on the toilet.  Cameras and monitoring are going to have to be everywhere.  I mean, if every car and person in the world have a camera, then no child will ever be successfully snatched again, it will be easy to track such things.

The trick is to make all these records public.  If only special people have access then those people will have enormous power, so it will all have to be open to everyone.  Evil grows in darkness and secrecy, so shine the light everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

If humanity is going to survive the coming age of technology, it needs to go much further than that.

We are fast approaching a time where someone could create a killer virus while sitting  on the toilet, so if we are going to survive them we will need to know what everyone is doing while they are sitting on the toilet.  Cameras and monitoring are going to have to be everywhere.  I mean, if every car and person in the world have a camera, then no child will ever be successfully snatched again, it will be easy to track such things.

The trick is to make all these records public.  If only special people have access then those people will have enormous power, so it will all have to be open to everyone.  Evil grows in darkness and secrecy, so shine the light everywhere.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

If humanity is going to survive the coming age of technology, it needs to go much further than that.

We are fast approaching a time where someone could create a killer virus while sitting  on the toilet, so if we are going to survive them we will need to know what everyone is doing while they are sitting on the toilet.  Cameras and monitoring are going to have to be everywhere.  I mean, if every car and person in the world have a camera, then no child will ever be successfully snatched again, it will be easy to track such things.

The trick is to make all these records public.  If only special people have access then those people will have enormous power, so it will all have to be open to everyone.  Evil grows in darkness and secrecy, so shine the light everywhere.

That is literally the dumbest thing I have read here all year.  I don't think we need 330 Million big brothers much less one.  smh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dfw_sailor said:

Remove anonymity from public discourse,  including the internet. 

Force people back to being accountable for the tripe they spew. 

Raht on hombre !! 

Tell it !! 

The internet Reich thinks it's not just unfair to take personal responsibility for what they write  . . 

It's SOOOOOO unfair. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

A "marxist" ideology???  Ok this is the first I've heard of that angle.  Please elaborate, I'm genuinely interested.  

You will not get a coherent answer to that question; more likely none at all. 

It's Reich wing dog whistle gibberish. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

That is literally the dumbest thing I have read here all year.  I don't think we need 330 Million big brothers much less one.  smh.

Sure, then humanity will end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:

That is literally the dumbest thing I have read here all year.  I don't think we need 330 Million big brothers much less one.  smh.

Actually, it's already in progress. Just crowd-sourced with phone cams, car cams, things like Google Glasses, the list goes on.

And things like YouTube.

Read David Brin's 'Earth' sometime.

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Burning Man said:

A "marxist" ideology???  Ok this is the first I've heard of that angle.  Please elaborate, I'm genuinely interested.  

Only a red fuckin' communist son-of-a-bitch would deny white cops the right to shoot and kill Negroes without consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

Cameras and monitoring are going to have to be everywhere.  I mean, if every car and person in the world have a camera, then no child will ever be successfully snatched again, it will be easy to track such things.

Im really conflicted by this.

Part of me is happy to live a life where my every action is subject to scrutiny by my peers.

Another big part of me does not think that petty government officials are my peers. There are a lot of laws and regulations on the books which should really only be applied in certain circumstances. (Example: it is against the law to empty your holding tank in Port Phillip bay. But I am happy to confess on here that I have emptied my holding tank near the heads. On an outgoing tide, where the current rips out at 5 knots plus)

I do not trust government to apply common sense in applying law. There are many things I do that are illegal, which I am happy to confess to my peers, but which a black and white official could book me for.

Both my kids drive the dinghy without a licensed driver. Illegal. I exceed the speed limit. Illegal. Both my kids have driven on the beach. Illegal. Our little toy 4wd for the beach in Tas is very illegal. I replace power points myself. Illegal. I use firearms that I'm not licenced for. Illegal. I walk my dog off leash. Illegal. I have been over the blood alcohol limit while at anchor in Queensland. Illegal. I supported a homosexual polititian when homosexuality was illegal. I shoot jetskiers. Illegal. I ride a push bike without a helmet. Illegal. I have trespassed to dive caves. Illegal. I take more than my allowance of booze into many countries. Illegal. I let my kids taste wine in restaurants. May actually be OK, need to check.

Anyway, if I could trust in common sense, I'd be happy for 24/7 surveillance. (Actually, 23:57, no one needs to see my sex life). But I don't. So put me down as one of those people who leaves my phone at home when I drive my lotus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy 50th to Cohen v California
 

Quote

 

Today marks the 50th anniversary of Cohen v. California, which is more commonly known as the “F*** the Draft” case. This case, which seemed trivial at the time due to the immature and sophomoric nature of the language, has become one of the most significant First Amendment decisions of the last half century. Thankfully, Justice Harlan recognized that while the “case may seem at first blush . . .  inconsequential,” the issue presented was “of no small constitutional significance.”

The case started when Paul Cohen wore a jacket with the words “F*** the Draft” to the Los Angeles Municipal Court to protest the draft and the Vietnam War. He was at the court to testify in a trial. He did not speak to anyone in the corridor on the way to the courtroom. He made no threats. He did not cause a loud disturbance. He simply wore a jacket with an expletive on the back. Nevertheless, he was arrested, tried, and convicted under a California law which prohibited “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct.”

The California Court of Appeal found that Cohen’s conduct fell within these provisions explaining that “it was certainly reasonably foreseeable that such conduct might cause others to rise up to commit a violent act against the person of the defendant or attempt to forceably remove his jacket.” The California Supreme Court refused to review the case. So it fell to the U.S. Supreme Court to remedy the wrong done to Mr. Cohen—and fortunately, the Court obliged.

First, Justice Harlan, writing for the majority, deftly dispensed with the main thrust of California’s argument: that this jacket and this word would likely cause disturbances. The Court pointed out that just two years ago the Court had rejected just this line of thinking in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. California presented no actual evidence that the wearing of a jacket with an expletive on it would actually cause some sort of violent response­—let alone responses in substantial enough numbers to allow for the restrictions on freedom of expression. The Court expounded on this, explaining: “[t]he ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.” To allow such a restriction without such a showing “amounts to little more than the self-defeating proposition that, to avoid physical censorship of one who has not sought to provoke such a response by a hypothetical coterie of the violent and lawless, the States may more appropriately effectuate that censorship themselves.”

...

 

Also, fuck the draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 3to1 said:

ah, an 'independent'. you're too right-wing not be a virtual affiliate. righty shitheads thank you, progressive lefties think you're an idiot.

Pffft. So you are the arbiter as to what I should think?

Are you really as much an a-hole as you come across as? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, dacapo said:

The Heritage Foundation?     HAAAAAAAAAA

 

The Marxist stuff, while true at the leadership level, will be news to the average gang-banging drive-by shooter, the black couple saving for a home purchase, and all the dudes in the NBA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Se7en said:

Anyway, if I could trust in common sense, I'd be happy for 24/7 surveillance. (Actually, 23:57, no one needs to see my sex life). But I don't. So put me down as one of those people who leaves my phone at home when I drive my lotus.

You aren't going to have a choice, sparrow fart surveillance coverage is coming and you will not be able to avoid it.  The only question will be who can access it.

At the same time, WMDs are only going to get easier to make.

If you only let special small groups access this coverage then they are going to have tremendous amounts of power.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

 

The Marxist stuff, while true at the leadership level, will be news to the average gang-banging drive-by shooter, the black couple saving for a home purchase, and all the dudes in the NBA. 

The whole "marxist" claim comes down to one sentence in this very biased and almost entirely tangential article: "... once described herself as a "trained Marxist" (which is true: she was recruited and trained by Eric Mann, a former member of the Weather Underground terrorist group who still seeks world revolution)." 

BTW the Weather Underground was another very disorganized group that was not Marxist; for those who don't remember the '60s

This article does not include any cites, and does not even say how long ago it was that the subject "described herself as ... Marxist" and it does not say she is teaching Marxism, following Marxism, any Marxist principles entrained by BLM as an organization, etc etc.

The entire claim that BLM is "Marxist" falls on it's face. Just a lot of RWNJ name-calling.

Aside from that, I thought Russia was our pal now, at least in the view of The Heritage Foundation and it's elk?

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:
4 hours ago, Se7en said:

Anyway, if I could trust in common sense, I'd be happy for 24/7 surveillance. (Actually, 23:57, no one needs to see my sex life). But I don't. So put me down as one of those people who leaves my phone at home when I drive my lotus.

You aren't going to have a choice, sparrow fart surveillance coverage is coming and you will not be able to avoid it.  The only question will be who can access it.

At the same time, WMDs are only going to get easier to make.

If you only let special small groups access this coverage then they are going to have tremendous amounts of power.  

Yep.

Get your personal body cam, add it to your dashcam, doorbell cam, etc etc. Learn about access and about spoofing technologies as they emerge.

Knowledge is power.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Burning Man said:

A "marxist" ideology???  Ok this is the first I've heard of that angle.  Please elaborate, I'm genuinely interested.  

It’s messy but yes, I believe BLM is traditionally a Marxist Ideology.

 

 

What does that mean?

  1. They’re moral objectivists.  That means BLM follows a generalized (non-religious) definition of human value.  In practical – that means ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.  This is in contrast to the utilitarian of ‘greatest good’ concept which dominates most democratic governmental systems or some sort of moral relativistic vision (which tend to be religiously based).
  2. They’re materialists.  The early moral objectivists – people like Hagel and Kant – were criticized as being too abstract.  People like Marx and Engel took their perspectives and say ‘yea, that’s not the real world, THIS is what really happens, and what you need to do about it.”  Philosophy becomes action.

It’s messy because Marxist has become a moral Rorschach blot.   People see all kinds of stuff in his writing and it's taken on a life of its own, far beyond his written word.  But, the primary goals of BLM are ‘stop shooting us because we’re black’, ‘stop arresting us because we’re black’, ‘stop making us pay extra for everything because we’re black’.   That's the bedrock ideas.

A good example might be stop and frisk.  From that 'greater good' argument, stop and frisk reduces crime by intercepting potential criminals before they can commit a crime.  Society benefits from lower crime rate and the penalty is that you lose 10 minutes of your personal freedom every so often.  Moral objectivists would say there's never a good reason to take away someone's freedom without cause.  Stop and frisk is just 'precrime' and is wrong prima face.

BLM are classical Marxists.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Court sides with Ted Cruz in campaign finance lawsuit
 

Quote

 

A federal court on Thursday sided with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in his lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), striking down rules limiting how much money candidates can raise after an election to pay off loans.

...

The ruling is another blow to campaign finance rules that have been picked apart by the courts over the last decade. The Supreme Court struck down a ban on corporate political spending in its 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision and removed aggregate donation limits in the 2014 McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. Cruz cited those cases in his lawsuit, as did Rao in her ruling.

...

 

More incumbent protection bites the dust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Pffft. So you are the arbiter as to what I should think?

Are you really as much an a-hole as you come across as? 

you can think and ponder on all types of senseless random shit all you want bullshitter, doesn't mean it's not wrong and I have to respect it.

fuck right-wing ideology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

It’s messy but yes, I believe BLM is traditionally a Marxist Ideology.

 

 

What does that mean?

  1. They’re moral objectivists.  That means BLM follows a generalized (non-religious) definition of human value.  In practical – that means ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.  This is in contrast to the utilitarian of ‘greatest good’ concept which dominates most democratic governmental systems or some sort of moral relativistic vision (which tend to be religiously based).
  2. They’re materialists.  The early moral objectivists – people like Hagel and Kant – were criticized as being too abstract.  People like Marx and Engel took their perspectives and say ‘yea, that’s not the real world, THIS is what really happens, and what you need to do about it.”  Philosophy becomes action.

It’s messy because Marxist has become a moral Rorschach blot.   People see all kinds of stuff in his writing and it's taken on a life of its own, far beyond his written word.  But, the primary goals of BLM are ‘stop shooting us because we’re black’, ‘stop arresting us because we’re black’, ‘stop making us pay extra for everything because we’re black’.   That's the bedrock ideas.

A good example might be stop and frisk.  From that 'greater good' argument, stop and frisk reduces crime by intercepting potential criminals before they can commit a crime.  Society benefits from lower crime rate and the penalty is that you lose 10 minutes of your personal freedom every so often.  Moral objectivists would say there's never a good reason to take away someone's freedom without cause.  Stop and frisk is just 'precrime' and is wrong prima face.

BLM are classical Marxists.

I never thought of Marxism as having a moral component.

Hence, for Marx, any appeal to morality was theoretically a backward step.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/

This is because Marx thought definitions of morality were necessarily related to class. He was on to something there.

As for BLM being classical or modern or any sort of Marxist, yeah, nah. I think BLM is like antifa.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, quod umbra said:

If you’re basing BLM = Marxism based on that article, then that’s a lame connection of dots.  Fail.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, BeSafe said:

It’s messy but yes, I believe BLM is traditionally a Marxist Ideology.

 

 

What does that mean?

  1. They’re moral objectivists.  That means BLM follows a generalized (non-religious) definition of human value.  In practical – that means ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.  This is in contrast to the utilitarian of ‘greatest good’ concept which dominates most democratic governmental systems or some sort of moral relativistic vision (which tend to be religiously based).
  2. They’re materialists.  The early moral objectivists – people like Hagel and Kant – were criticized as being too abstract.  People like Marx and Engel took their perspectives and say ‘yea, that’s not the real world, THIS is what really happens, and what you need to do about it.”  Philosophy becomes action.

It’s messy because Marxist has become a moral Rorschach blot.   People see all kinds of stuff in his writing and it's taken on a life of its own, far beyond his written word.  But, the primary goals of BLM are ‘stop shooting us because we’re black’, ‘stop arresting us because we’re black’, ‘stop making us pay extra for everything because we’re black’.   That's the bedrock ideas.

A good example might be stop and frisk.  From that 'greater good' argument, stop and frisk reduces crime by intercepting potential criminals before they can commit a crime.  Society benefits from lower crime rate and the penalty is that you lose 10 minutes of your personal freedom every so often.  Moral objectivists would say there's never a good reason to take away someone's freedom without cause.  Stop and frisk is just 'precrime' and is wrong prima face.

BLM are classical Marxists.

 

You do realize that “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” are in the bedrock principles of what this nation is founded on.  I think most Americans would be surprised to find that this country was founded on and is following Marxist ideologies.  Being anti-stop and frisk is also not Marxist.  It’s more of a libertarian principle that is followed by most of the courts here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burning Man said:

You do realize that “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” are in the bedrock principles of what this nation is founded on.  I think most Americans would be surprised to find that this country was founded on and is following Marxist ideologies.  Being anti-stop and frisk is also not Marxist.  It’s more of a libertarian principle that is followed by most of the courts here.  

Given the founding pre-dates Marx, why wouldn't Marx take learnings from the first secular state?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I have no doubt that is possible.  But the concept of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness is NOT a Marxist ideology.  Just because Karl retweeted it later on, doesn’t mean it’s his idea.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BeSafe said:

BLM are classical Marxists.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is mistaken. 

Today, the BLMer's and the Marxists are pretty sharply divided over whether to organize on the basis of ethnicity (BLM) or class (marxists). 

They have been divided along that fault line for a long time - since before BLM was a thing. 

Back in the 1930's and earlier the Communist Party USA was among the first to support black civil and social and economic rights, but they did so while arguing that in the end, class analysis was the better overall approach. They backed the integration of major league baseball before almost anyone else did. 

And why does the Reich get all hysterical about BLM when the FBI, DOJ and Intell all point out that the real threat to the Republic, such as it is, is from the radical right ?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

You do realize that “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” are in the bedrock principles of what this nation is founded on.  I think most Americans would be surprised to find that this country was founded on and is following Marxist ideologies.  Being anti-stop and frisk is also not Marxist.  It’s more of a libertarian principle that is followed by most of the courts here.  

 

Sure - it's a religious appeal.  Specifically:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The moral objectivitist come to a similar - but not the same - conclusion using secular logic.  That's why I keep saying things like "That means BLM follows a generalized (non-religious) definition of human value."  The categorical imperative and all it's variants.

Marx began as an objectivist but gave it up because they were too squishy.  He and Engels was much more into practical methods rather than fluffy ideals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yep.

Get your personal body cam, add it to your dashcam, doorbell cam, etc etc. Learn about access and about spoofing technologies as they emerge.

Knowledge is power.

- DSK

It isn't going to matter, this stuff will be everywhere.  For example, cars are about to loaded down with every type of sensor we have, including multiple cameras.  So it isn't going to matter if you don't drive, you are going to be tracked every time you go for a walk.

In time everyone is going to be wearing a HUD all the time, anywhere there are people there will be no escape.  Intel has already announced they want to blanket the world with tiny sensors.  Insect drones everywhere, etc.

So again, the only real question here is, who is going to have access.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is mistaken. 

Today, the BLMer's and the Marxists are pretty sharply divided over whether to organize on the basis of ethnicity (BLM) or class (marxists). 

They have been divided along that fault line for a long time - since before BLM was a thing. 

Back in the 1930's and earlier the Communist Party USA was among the first to support black civil and social and economic rights, but they did so while arguing that in the end, class analysis was the better overall approach. They backed the integration of major league baseball before almost anyone else did. 

And why does the Reich get all hysterical about BLM when the FBI, DOJ and Intell all point out that the real threat to the Republic, such as it is, is from the radical right ?? 

 I actually think the class analysis is what is sorely missing in this country.  I think the issues we face, even what BLM is pushing for is more class than race based.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

It isn't going to matter, this stuff will be everywhere.  For example, cars are about to loaded down with every type of sensor we have, including multiple cameras.  So it isn't going to matter if you don't drive, you are going to be tracked every time you go for a walk.

In time everyone is going to be wearing a HUD all the time, anywhere there are people there will be no escape.  Intel has already announced they want to blanket the world with tiny sensors.  Insect drones everywhere, etc.

So again, the only real question here is, who is going to have access.

You can take my drone from my cold dead hands......

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
23 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

It isn't going to matter, this stuff will be everywhere.  For example, cars are about to loaded down with every type of sensor we have, including multiple cameras.  So it isn't going to matter if you don't drive, you are going to be tracked every time you go for a walk.

In time everyone is going to be wearing a HUD all the time, anywhere there are people there will be no escape.  Intel has already announced they want to blanket the world with tiny sensors.  Insect drones everywhere, etc.

So again, the only real question here is, who is going to have access.

You can take my drone from my cold dead hands......

There is more truth there than you may realize

But I think it's important for individuals to have their own equipment and their own recordings. Different viewpoint can support different facts, also when it's on your own dashcam/whatever YOU own it and control access.

Still a lot of dirty tricks to be expected.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

 I actually think the class analysis is what is sorely missing in this country.  I think the issues we face, even what BLM is pushing for is more class than race based.  

Boy, I hate it when we agree. 

Bernie makes this point sometimes, but in a sorta veiled fashion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

also when it's on your own dashcam/whatever YOU own it and control access.

- DSK

I don't think so, private car ownership is going to go away with automatic cars.  Owning your own automatic car would be like owning your own uber car and driver, it defeats the whole purpose.

And they can 'terms of service' away your control of just about everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

 I actually think the class analysis is what is sorely missing in this country.  I think the issues we face, even what BLM is pushing for is more class than race based.  

I would love to be able to agree, but I don't think class is completely the case. 

Take for instance a study that showed that forensic pathologists were more likely to determine cause of death for a black child was homicide over a white child:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.14697

image

This was all identical data given to a bunch of pathologists (they did not see the actual child) and they changed the race for half of the cases. Otherwise identical data. 

So unless race == class in this case (which still makes it race) - there's a tiny slice of data that points that race is still a thing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

 I actually think the class analysis is what is sorely missing in this country.  I think the issues we face, even what iBLM is pushing for is more class than race based.  

Sort of agree.  My opinion is that TFG successfully weaponized race to not only solidify his base, but to take the target off of the widening "class" gap.  I still see Trump signs outside of run down single wides.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

I don't think so, private car ownership is going to go away with automatic cars.  Owning your own automatic car would be like owning your own uber car and driver, it defeats the whole purpose.

And they can 'terms of service' away your control of just about everything.

Not if they don't have custody of the data.

Don't put your shit in the cloud, is all I have to say. And I just bought a new car, so it will be a few years before I have to worry about dashcams going away.

But you make a good point that we use a lot of stuff under unfavorable service agreements that we don't even know/care about.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Not if they don't have custody of the data.

Don't put your shit in the cloud, is all I have to say. And I just bought a new car, so it will be a few years before I have to worry about dashcams going away.

But you make a good point that we use a lot of stuff under unfavorable service agreements that we don't even know/care about.

- DSK

None of this is going to happen in the short term, even rapid changes to the techno-economic system are measured in decades, though the time frames involved will keep shrinking.

I imagine it won't be very long before you can't even buy a phone that doesn't store everything in the cloud, the cloud is going to rule the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Real_XYZ said:

None of this is going to happen in the short term, even rapid changes to the techno-economic system are measured in decades, though the time frames involved will keep shrinking.

I imagine it won't be very long before you can't even buy a phone that doesn't store everything in the cloud, the cloud is going to rule the world.

Well, I'm still using a flip phone, and I am not such a great techie wiz myself but make pretty sure to keep on top of a number of details and keep friends that can actually make it do shit they want... the definition of an engineer.

The cloud will rule the world but that will make having custody of your own data even more important.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, I'm still using a flip phone, and I am not such a great techie wiz myself but make pretty sure to keep on top of a number of details and keep friends that can actually make it do shit they want... the definition of an engineer.

The cloud will rule the world but that will make having custody of your own data even more important.

- DSK

Yeah, that phone isn't going to keep working forever, 'they' hold all the cards there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

But you make a good point that we use a lot of stuff under unfavorable service agreements that we don't even know/care about.

- DSK

There's some interesting cases around big industrial machinery and the TOS for the software that runs them. I understand there's a bunch of court cases over this going on ATM.

Personally I drive old shit-boxes until they die and then get another one. Got 20 years out of the last one, time to shop for a replacement now as it's developed too many annoying little problems and I'm less than interested in working on old cars nowadays. The engine & running gear is still fine though.

Anyway pervasive surveillance in all public places is growing. Time to work on counter measures. I'm resisting a transmitting AIS for example though the safety benefit argument is pretty compelling. OTOH I think each & every commercial vessel should have them. Especially fishing boats.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

You do realize that “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” are in the bedrock principles of what this nation is founded on.  I think most Americans would be surprised to find that this country was founded on and is following Marxist ideologies.  Being anti-stop and frisk is also not Marxist.  It’s more of a libertarian principle that is followed by most of the courts here.  

 Getting plugged by a Red-Bull addled cop with a hair trigger makes that stuff rather difficult to achieve. 

 That was DOI stuff, signed by a small band of British traitors who cleared it with no one but themselves. Where the real Marxism is at is this: 

  We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare,

 

 The Constitution is a commie plot. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:
5 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I actually think the class analysis is what is sorely missing in this country.  I think the issues we face, even what BLM is pushing for is more class than race based.  

Boy, I hate it when we agree. 

 

I've been saying this for years here.  IMHO, Almost ALL of what blacks face these days is likely 80% class based discrimination and at most 20% is actual real bonafide racism.  Broot caut rather than address the socio-economic class issues, it's far easier to play the race card and sweep the really hard stuff of addressing the class issues under the rug.  It just happens that blacks on the whole are far more poor per capita than whites are and they in turn are experiencing that socio-economic discrimination demographically more often as a % of population more than poor whites are.  Now of course the root causes of that poverty are certainly race based starting from Jim Crow through to the Civil Rights era of the 60s and 70s and the real systemic racism that occured through that period.  And they've just lagged behind as a group because they've started well behind from the beginning.  But I strongly believe that examples of true racism and race based discrimination today are rare compared to the socio-economic discrimination that is rampant and color blind.  Compounding that issue is that blacks typically are more concentrated in dense urban environments where the problems and outcomes of that density of poverty are magnified.  I guaran-f'ing-tee you that if there was a densely packed city of poor white trash, with drugs and gangs and such..... they would be policed just as hard, end up in the system just as much, and be shot by cops just as much.  You rarely ever hear of a police shooting incident of an unarmed black man in rural areas like Alabama, MIss, and such compared to their equivalent incidents in big urban inner cities despite the deep south being supposedly more racist than in the Northern cities.

 

Quote

Bernie makes this point sometimes, but in a sorta veiled fashion. 

The reason that Bernie can't come out and say it in plain language is that he would lose any chance of getting the black vote.  The problem is - IME - that blacks (and the white politicians who pander to them) do not want to be treated as just a normal poor person and be included in with the poor white and brown folk.  THEY WANT the racial aspect included as part of their "fight" or they lose their political leverage as a voting bloc.  PLM just doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites