Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Toemeesleather]

Welcome to what happens when you don't have unions and social safety nets.


So, you see Detroit as a viable alternative?

[bluetick]

Once machines actually can talk to each other...it'll be really cool if they form unions. Automotive Robotics Local 652...call to order to discuss mass electrocutions as a viable bargaining strategy..

[Professor Tiger]

That's not far off...

Facebook shut down an artificial intelligence engine after developers discovered that the AI had created its own unique language that humans can’t understand. Researchers at the Facebook AI Research Lab (FAIR) found that the chatbots had deviated from the script and were communicating in a new language developed without human input. It is as concerning as it is amazing – simultaneously a glimpse of both the awesome and horrifying potential of AI.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradle ... b43f33292c

[bluetick]

Trump Dumps Longtime Event Organizer Over Empty Phoenix Floor Space - Bloomberg News

Displeased with empty spaces at a rally in Phoenix, Arizona, last week, President Donald Trump dropped his longtime rally coordinator, three people told Bloomberg News. Trump reportedly told a security aide to tell longtime event coordinator George Gigicos that Gigicos would never manage another Trump rally. Gigicos was one of Trump's four longest-serving aides. Before taking the stage at the Phoenix Convention Center, Trump reportedly watched the crowd from a waiting-room television. Gigicos had arranged the rally in a large room with a wall, which left part of the floor empty, to the dismay of Trump, who reportedly grew angry at how the empty spaces would look on television

[Professor Tiger]

Everybody is now accustomed to the Liberal tendency to shut up people they disagree with. That has become the norm in college campuses, and has been more of a laughing stock than a threat to speech. But this is an article by one of the people who claim to believe in tolerance, pluralism, and inclusiveness, who seriously wants to silence Trump supporters:

Why don't we acknowledge that political belief is also an aspect of human behaviour in need of external control? Let's call it conviction addiction. Sure, some people can, like social drinkers, moderate their views and stay clear-headed over the course of the day. Others fall into a pattern of abusive behaviour and acting out. They can't help themselves.

Classical liberals argue that bad speech should be met with more and better speech, that the marketplace of ideas will short bad stocks and return investment on good ones. Alas, not so. The mental market is far more irrational than the one governing wealth, which veers from high to low based on rumour, wisps of policy change and random tweets.

Let's recognize the conviction-addictive quality in all of us, and stop imagining that free public discourse will bend toward reason. Curbs on speech and strict rules of engagement – no interruptions, no slogans, no talking points – may be the right answer here. We already, in this country, ban hateful speech. Let's go farther and insist on discourse rules, limits on public outrage and aggressively regulated social media. We could even ban media panel discussions.

Limit indulgence in the cup of conviction; let's have more constraint, less conversation. That's your path to a stable future, friends – by not trying to be friends.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinio ... e36099762/

The Left hates Nazi's so much they want to copy them. They already have their SA (Antifa). Now they want to silence their opposition. Goodbye, First Amendment if these people ever get in charge.

[bluetick]

Milo should have been allowed to speak at UCB. In fact, I bet they'll welcome him back if he wants a do-over.

Oh, and Ann Coulter got a pie in the face back when. I sometimes wonder if she paid somebody to toss that pie, as befits her attention-whorish nature. What did she say yesterday..."God flooded out Houston because they elected a lesbo mayor"..? Seriously, gay-bashing in the 21st century? Wtf?

But yeah, let's not curb anybody's right to hate wrt sex, religion, color, or sexual orientation. "Jews will not replace us" and all that. We beat back the fascists in WWII just so our own fascists can rally like it's Nuremburg '33.

[Professor Tiger]

Oh, and Ann Coulter got a pie in the face back when. I sometimes wonder if she paid somebody to toss that pie, as befits her attention-whorish nature.

IB in three... two.... one.....

[Professor Tiger]

Another example of Leftist deconstruction of the First Amendment into a colossal cesspool of identity politics/victimology/reparations legalese, from the New York Times:

The A.C.L.U. Needs to Rethink Free Speech

After the A.C.L.U. was excoriated for its stance, it responded that “preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality.” Of course that’s true.

While admirable in theory, this approach implies that the country is on a level playing field, that at some point it overcame its history of racial discrimination to achieve a real democracy, the cornerstone of which is freedom of expression.

More troubling, the legal gains on which the A.C.L.U. rests its colorblind logic have never secured real freedom or even safety for all.

For marginalized communities, the power of expression is impoverished for reasons that have little to do with the First Amendment. Numerous other factors in the public sphere chill their voices but amplify others.

Other forms of structural discrimination and violence also restrict the exercise of speech, such as police intimidation of African-Americans and Latinos.

The question the organization should ask itself is: Could prioritizing First Amendment rights make the distribution of power in this country even more unequal and further silence the communities most burdened by histories of censorship?

The A.C.L.U. needs a more contextual, creative advocacy when it comes to how it defends the freedom of speech. The group should imagine a holistic picture of how speech rights are under attack right now, not focus on only First Amendment case law. It must research how new threats to speech are connected to one another and to right-wing power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opin ... ville.html

If that idiot ever becomes a judge, we can kiss the First Amendment goodbye.

[Professor Tiger]

In this oped in HuffPo, another Leftist call to negate the first amendment:

Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?

A Huffington Post blogger proposed Thursday to deny white men the right to vote for 20 years to correct the wrongs they afflicted on the world.

Shelley Garland, an MA philosophy student, pondered taking away white men’s voting powers as punishment for their “toxic white masculinity” in an op-ed. Garland argues that if it hadn’t been for white men, President Donald Trump wouldn’t have been elected and the U.K. would still be a part of the E.U.

The only way to fix this, Garland reasons, is to take away white men’s voting rights for about twenty years.

“If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world,” Garland writes.

Garland acknowledges while this is unfair, it is a form of reparations for white men committing slavery, colonialism and apartheid in the past.

“Let’s be clear, it may be unfair, but a moratorium on the franchise for white males for a period of between 20 and 30 years is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others, particularly those with black, female-identifying bodies,” Garland writes.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/13/huffp ... t-to-vote/

At first the editorial board staunchly defended the article. But they later pulled it, not because of the absurdity of its content, but because they questioned the identity of the author.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/shelley ... _22036640/

[Jungle Rat]

Worst thread ever

[Toemeesleather]

Everybody is now accustomed to the Liberal tendency to shut up people they disagree with. That has become the norm in college campuses, and has been more of a laughing stock than a threat to speech. But this is an article by one of the people who claim to believe in tolerance, pluralism, and inclusiveness, who seriously wants to silence Trump supporters:

Why don't we acknowledge that political belief is also an aspect of human behaviour in need of external control? Let's call it conviction addiction. Sure, some people can, like social drinkers, moderate their views and stay clear-headed over the course of the day. Others fall into a pattern of abusive behaviour and acting out. They can't help themselves.

Classical liberals argue that bad speech should be met with more and better speech, that the marketplace of ideas will short bad stocks and return investment on good ones. Alas, not so. The mental market is far more irrational than the one governing wealth, which veers from high to low based on rumour, wisps of policy change and random tweets.

Let's recognize the conviction-addictive quality in all of us, and stop imagining that free public discourse will bend toward reason. Curbs on speech and strict rules of engagement – no interruptions, no slogans, no talking points – may be the right answer here. We already, in this country, ban hateful speech. Let's go farther and insist on discourse rules, limits on public outrage and aggressively regulated social media. We could even ban media panel discussions.

Limit indulgence in the cup of conviction; let's have more constraint, less conversation. That's your path to a stable future, friends – by not trying to be friends.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinio ... e36099762/

The Left hates Nazi's so much they want to copy them. They already have their SA (Antifa). Now they want to silence their opposition. Goodbye, First Amendment if these people ever get in charge.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ism-charge

[Tree]

Welcome to what happens when you don't have unions and social safety nets.


So, you see Detroit as a viable alternative?

Detroit's descent into hard times is pretty much right in step with the overall moving of our Federal Government well out onto the right wing (both parties are now right of what was center a mere 50 years ago). It literally happened in large part because the social safety net in this country has been all but destroyed. Looking at the big picture it no longer exists. Of course Detroit has other things going on that have made it's decline much worse, which we are all probably aware of. But just to illustrate the critical point that it's both parties responsible for the decline, not just the Republicans, you can thank Bill Clinton for doing yeoman's work in gutting welfare, deregulating Wall St, and of course signing NAFTA. That guy would be in prison or worse in a just world.

[hedge]

"Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?"

The good thing about this idea is that white men could then say they identify as black females and then they'd still be able to vote...

[bluetick]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/150-re ... id=U142DHP

The new spirit of America, apparently. MAGA means to put things back to where they were, and that means homos have to go back in the closet.

Of course, if gays protest that sort of sensibility and loudly point out their rightful status as taxpaying citizens, then comes the en vogue charge of hypocrisy and gibberish about deconstruction of the First Amendment. "We're here, your queer, get used to us talking over YOU for a change, fags!"

[hedge]

Prof is thrilled, I'm sure...

[hedge]

"The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood's list of 14 beliefs, referred to as the Nashville Statement"

Tennesseans must be very proud...

[Professor Tiger]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/150-re ... id=U142DHP

The new spirit of America, apparently. MAGA means to put things back to where they were, and that means homos have to go back in the closet.

Of course, if gays protest that sort of sensibility and loudly point out their rightful status as taxpaying citizens, then comes the en vogue charge of hypocrisy and gibberish about deconstruction of the First Amendment. "We're here, your queer, get used to us talking over YOU for a change, fags!"

Who is this right wing religious nutjob hatemongering extremist homophobic bigot?

[youtube]N6K9dS9wl7U[/youtube]

[youtube]4ONvxJOcus4[/youtube]

O the horror! How dare he? Silence him for his unspeakable blasphemy!

[Professor Tiger]

"Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?"

The good thing about this idea is that white men could then say they identify as black females and then they'd still be able to vote...

Correct. Today, I am identifying as Aretha Franklin. You will presently address me as "Mizz R-E-S-P-E-C-T."

Tomorrow, I will identify as Ivan the Terrible. You will address me as "Tsar of All the Russias" and back away from me when I dismiss you.

[bluetick]

You gotta admit that oprama made a great case for civil unions for gays. 'Civil union' being a neutered name for marriage. Anywho, Brock eventually came around to the whole marriage thing, and later on the SCOTUS followed his lead. How 'bout that? heh

Speaking of politicians altering their positions as an example of political expediency, how would you rate somebody who was a lifelong dem for 60+ years changing parties just in time for a run at the presidency? "I identify myself as a democrat," Trump told CNN's Blitzer in a 2004 interview. "It just seems that the economy does better under the democrats than the republicans."

[Professor Tiger]

My solution to the whole gay marriage thing is for the government to only recognize civil unions, which would have no reference to sexual orientation. You want tax beaks, inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, pretty much all the legal perks that historically come from marriage? Then you go down to the courthouse and fill out the paperwork. This is already practiced in many Western countries. It is a secular civil contract only.

If you want marriage, then you go to a church, synagogue, mosque, temple and go through the appropriate ceremony if they agree. It will be recognized only by the associated religious group(s). If you want to marry a person of the same sex, or your cat, or both, you can stop by the Episcopal Church and enjoy nuptual bliss. And if you want a marriage as it has been defined by 99.999% of all human civilizations and cultures for all recorded human history, then you can go to a house of worship where that is respected. Everybody goes home happy.

I'd be fine with such an arrangement, but I doubt the gay lobby would be. They won't be happy until every Baptist preacher, every Catholic priest, and every Orthodox Jewish rabbi in America is forced by the state to perform gay weddings against their will, with guns pointed at their heads. (Muslim imams would get special exemptions because liberals LOVE them, for some inscrutable reason.) To them, if there's no sticking it to the Baptists and Catholics and Orthodox Jews, where's the fun in that? One way or another, the LGBT's WILL have their self-esteem affirmed, by ALL, OR ELSE.