Polarizing stories spotted in the news

[Bob Schroeck]

Remember how we said, a year or so ago, that vaccine denial was a self-solving problem?

Fox News (along with at least a few Republican politicians) has noticed that the newest surge of COVID-19 cases is disproportionately affecting conservative-leaning areas and their key audience demographics, and have decided this isn't a coincidence. They have started changing their tune on the vaccine and are encouraging viewers to get it. You have to wonder how many of their viewers are going to listen to them after being indoctrinated for more than a year, and how many are going to decide that FOX has finally been subverted by the damnliberalmainstreammedia.

[Black Aeronaut]

You know, I get First Ammendment Rights and all...

...But should Fox be held criminally liable for spreading misinformation WRT public health?

Forgive me if this has been hashed out before, but it just strikes me as strange that they've been able to get away with spreading so many lies that are an outright hazard to public health.

[hazard]

If Fox News were a news channel, that may be possible. But it's been established that Fox News is actually a channel with opinion shows, rather than news shows, so the standards are much, much laxer.

[GethN7]

Remember how we said, a year or so ago, that vaccine denial was a self-solving problem?

Fox News (along with at least a few Republican politicians) has noticed that the newest surge of COVID-19 cases is disproportionately affecting conservative-leaning areas and their key audience demographics, and have decided this isn't a coincidence.  They have started changing their tune on the vaccine and are encouraging viewers to get it.  You have to wonder how many of their viewers are going to listen to them after being indoctrinated for more than a year, and how many are going to decide that FOX has finally been subverted by the damnliberalmainstreammedia.

Now, I probably come off as the most conservative guy here (I admit sympathy for their positions in many regards, but I remain absolutely liberal on the right of anyone to do whatever these please so long as it's not inherently criminal and does not infringe on the rights of anyone else by its mere exercise), but I figured COVID was dire enough I even got vaccinated for it, even have a card in my wallet proving it.

That said, I look at anti-vaxxing dialogue this way. Denying them their opinion would be wrong, but in the interests of public health, if their opinions start harming others (because their refusal to vaccinate provably causes the disease to spread), then the action provably culpable based on giving the practical application of said speech to IRL should be punished, not the speech.

I see it the same way I do neo-Nazism. You can say "Hitler did nothing wrong and I agree with him", and while I think the party who says this is an idiot, they have committed no crime. They cross the line when they start committing crimes against Jews and anyone else said creed deems less than human. For the latter, throw the book at them, but mere opinion that does not entail criminal action by its utterance alone should not be punished.

[robkelk]

I used to think that way, too. But this pandemic has taught me that real life doesn't work that way. Repeat a lie often enough and people stop believing the truth.

Associated Press: Republican politicians ramp up pro-vaccination messaging as COVID-19 caseloads soar

Eric Ward, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center who studies extremism, blamed vaccine reluctance on "nearly a year-and-a-half of right-wing rage machine rhetoric."

"Even conservative leaders now are having a hard time figuring out how to rein in what had primarily been a propaganda campaign, and they are now realizing their constituencies are particularly vulnerable," he said.

[Black Aeronaut]

There's a reason why they come down so hard on Neonazi rhetoric in Germany.  They educate their children quite well on the events that led up to WWII.  And as such, they feel there's no excuse for falling into the same trap all over again.  It's like saying, "We have explained with excruciating detail why we do not like Nazis.  Nazis are bad.  Do not be or even pretend to be a Nazi."

Whereas here in the USA, we've allowed the rhetoric to flow, provided, "Fine, so long as you don't promote violence in public forums."

Trouble is, they take that kind of talk into private forums where no one is likely to report them for calling for violent acts.  You can see how this undermines the intent of the First Amendment - where people are not to be penalized for voicing their opinions, but should not be exempted from the consequences.

The Founding Fathers vastly underestimated the harm toxic ideas can do.  Sure, you can claim, "But I don't think we should hurt people."  But that's a load of bull if the core of your message is "Ethnicity X is better than Ethnicity Y."  The only logical outcome for that line of thinking is harm, and on a grand scale at that.

[Jinx999]

I see it the same way I do neo-Nazism. You can say "Hitler did nothing wrong and I agree with him", and while I think the party who says this is an idiot, they have committed no crime.

One of the reasons why Free Speach is useful is that it allows the rest of us to identify and avoid idiotic assholes. If the complain about being "cancelled" because other people freely decide that they don't want to associate with them, well I'm already ignoring them.

[GethN7]

There's a reason why they come down so hard on Neonazi rhetoric in Germany.  They educate their children quite well on the events that led up to WWII.  And as such, they feel there's no excuse for falling into the same trap all over again.  It's like saying, "We have explained with excruciating detail why we do not like Nazis.  Nazis are bad.  Do not be or even pretend to be a Nazi."

Whereas here in the USA, we've allowed the rhetoric to flow, provided, "Fine, so long as you don't promote violence in public forums."

Trouble is, they take that kind of talk into private forums where no one is likely to report them for calling for violent acts.  You can see how this undermines the intent of the First Amendment - where people are not to be penalized for voicing their opinions, but should not be exempted from the consequences.

The Founding Fathers vastly underestimated the harm toxic ideas can do.  Sure, you can claim, "But I don't think we should hurt people."  But that's a load of bull if the core of your message is "Ethnicity X is better than Ethnicity Y."  The only logical outcome for that line of thinking is harm, and on a grand scale at that.

I've always been an advocate for the concept the best cure for horrible ideas is sunlight, not locking it in a dark room and pretending it does not exist. If you try to drive all forms of potentially harmful speech underground, you just give it a victim complex and make it more likely more will be planned in private that crosses the line from "hideous opinion" to "horrific crime". Saying "I think group X is bad" (my favorite of late is how groups like BLM associate being white with being inherently evil and thus all white people deserve contempt) is noxious, but absent a criminal intent to cause harm to said group, it's a terrible opinion.

When it crosses the the line is when there is intent to harm with a time, place, target, and method of harm clearly identified. Without those key elements elevating terrible speech to criminal speech, it's just horrific opinion. Horrific opinion, while vile, should never be made illegal. Those who spew it should be allowed to hang themselves with their own rope if their rhetoric escalates to criminal speech, which is nigh always does, and I'd rather the bigots and potential terrorists be caught while peaceful and stupid enough to say too much than be driven underground and caught only after executing an intent to cause harm that could not be detected because they were forced to remain quiet in public about it.

So while allowing terrible opinions is allowing some real gutter trash to have a voice, at least so long as it goes no further, let them vent, only punish those who cross the line into speech of actual criminal import. All bad ideas wither and die in the face of apathy and wilt in the sunlight of public discourse naturally, but if they driven into the darkness, they are like mushroom colonies and adapt well, which is worse in the long run.

[Black Aeronaut]

But the thing is, I already said that they educate their kids about what happened. You go to Germany and ask, they'll recoil for sure... but only because they already know exactly how horrible the ideas were.

These ideas get plenty of sunlight.

Here's the difference. Your run-of-the-mill white supremacist is selling these ideas.

Think about what that means.

He's a salesman. He's selling the idea. He's making it look as attractive as possible. "All of your woes can be cured if we get rid of Ethnicity X." And in the absence of an educational program specifically designed to discredit such harmful ideas? Educational programs that have not only been woefully lacking in states that were originally party to the Confederates, but have even subtly glorifying these ideas in some cases? Yyeeeeeaaaahhhhh..... You're gonna have issues, just as he have been for the last hundred years or so.

Whereas in Germany? "NO! THIS IS BAD! AND THIS IS WHY IT'S BAD! DON'T BE BAD!" They don't just say it's "bad". They also teach why. And its worked pretty well for them so far. While they do have neonazis, they are a very, VERY small minority, and one with very few teeth because people recognize their rhetoric for what it is.

The same, unfortunately, can't be said for the USA. Oh, it's still a minority here, but it's a minority that has a far, FAR greater per capita than it does in all of Europe.

And that's not a good thing.

[GethN7]

But the thing is, I already said that they educate their kids about what happened.  You go to Germany and ask, they'll recoil for sure...  but only because they already know exactly how horrible the ideas were.

These ideas get plenty of sunlight.

Here's the difference.  Your run-of-the-mill white supremacist is selling these ideas.

Think about what that means.

He's a salesman.  He's selling the idea.  He's making it look as attractive as possible.  "All of your woes can be cured if we get rid of Ethnicity X."  And in the absence of an educational program specifically designed to discredit such harmful ideas?  Educational programs that have not only been woefully lacking in states that were originally party to the Confederates, but have even subtly glorifying these ideas in some cases?  Yyeeeeeaaaahhhhh.....  You're gonna have issues, just as he have been for the last hundred years or so.

Whereas in Germany?  "NO!  THIS IS BAD!  AND THIS IS WHY IT'S BAD!  DON'T BE BAD!"  They don't just say it's "bad".  They also teach why.  And its worked pretty well for them so far.  While they do have neonazis, they are a very, VERY small minority, and one with very few teeth because people recognize their rhetoric for what it is.

The same, unfortunately, can't be said for the USA.  Oh, it's still a minority here, but it's a minority that has a far, FAR greater per capita than it does in all of Europe.

And that's not a good thing.

Alright, that's a pretty compelling argument, better education as to the folly of certain inherently noxious ideas would be a good thing to encourage.

[Bob Schroeck]

...which is one reason I suspect that education has in general been effectively sabotaged in the United States since the 1960s.

[Jinx999]

https://theweek.com/politics/1003035/the...can-caesar

Well . . . .

[robkelk]

https://theweek.com/politics/1003035/the...can-caesar

Well . . . .

Hmmmmm...

Once the conversation really gets going (around minute 45), Yarvin makes clear that he has a highly idiosyncratic take on American history. In his view, roughly every 75 years, a "Caesar" seizes dictatorial powers and institutes "substantive regime changes." George Washington did this in 1789. Abraham Lincoln did it again in 1861. And FDR did it last in 1933, speaking in the closing passages of his First Inaugural Address about the national emergency of the Great Depression and the need to wield unprecedented government power to combat it, which he did with the New Deal.

And all three ended up in creating conditions where the USA had no choice but to engage in armed conflict - the War of 1812, the Civil war, and WWII, respectively.

So, if you want all-out war with somebody, this appears to me to be one way to go about getting it.

[Jinx999]

https://www.vox.com/22600500/olympics-co...i-american

Right Wing Anti-Americanism.

Also
https://reason.com/2021/08/03/nassau-cou...-immunity/

[Jinx999]

https://www.mediamatters.org/voter-fraud...rd-fascism

I'm in favour of strong national defence, financial prudence, looking out for the little guy who's been ignored by the elites, rule of law and limited government. That's why I despise Trump.

[robkelk]

Polarizing stories aren't limited to politics - here's one that looks at one of the sacred cows of its own fandom and offers it up as hamburger.

Anime News Network: Do We Still Need Shōnen/Shōjo Labels?

In summary, labels such as “shōnen” and “shōjo," while informative to anime and manga fans who are already in the “in-crowd,” can come off as prohibitively confusing to newcomers. As someone who is passionate about sharing anime culture and seeing it grow, I propose that we start utilizing more common genre identifiers such as romantic drama, action, sci-fi, and high school comedy when classifying anime or manga.

[GethN7]

https://www.mediamatters.org/voter-fraud...rd-fascism

I'm in favour of strong national defence, financial prudence, looking out for the little guy who's been ignored by the elites, rule of law and limited government. That's why I despise Trump.

Gotta be honest, disenchanted with Trump myself. Having had time with him out of office, sure, I'm not wild and crazy about Biden, and frankly would vote for a Republican or even another Democrat who I felt could do better ASAP, but Trump was a massive drama llama and really needed a filter, as some of his actions just threw more bloody meat in the shark-infested waters as opposed to calming them, and would prefer someone is in favor of all the items you mentioned but is NOT Trump.

Trump just needed to know when to concede defeat and be graceful about it, needed to know when carrot was more effective than abuse of the stick to get his way and needed to learn not every brainfart needs to be on social media, sometimes the wisest words are none at all.

[robkelk]

Thousands more officers needed to fill employment equity gaps, RCMP says

After years of headlines about toxic behaviour and sexual harassment in the ranks, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is reporting it's falling far behind on hiring women and visible minorities.

<sarcasm> Really? I wonder why? </sarcasm>

(reads the rest of the article)

That was a rhetorical question...

[robkelk]

CBC Analysis: How N.Y. Gov. Cuomo's fall from grace throws Democrats off message

[Black Aeronaut]

https://theweek.com/politics/1003035/the...can-caesar

Well . . . .

Hmmmmm...

Once the conversation really gets going (around minute 45), Yarvin makes clear that he has a highly idiosyncratic take on American history. In his view, roughly every 75 years, a "Caesar" seizes dictatorial powers and institutes "substantive regime changes." George Washington did this in 1789. Abraham Lincoln did it again in 1861. And FDR did it last in 1933, speaking in the closing passages of his First Inaugural Address about the national emergency of the Great Depression and the need to wield unprecedented government power to combat it, which he did with the New Deal.

And all three ended up in creating conditions where the USA had no choice but to engage in armed conflict - the War of 1812, the Civil war, and WWII, respectively.

So, if you want all-out war with somebody, this appears to me to be one way to go about getting it.

I don't think you're giving the political tensions that led to the Civil War and WWII enough credit.  Reason being?  Both of these were going to happen no matter who the PoTUS was.

The Civil War was bound to happen sooner or later, simply because the Southern politicians wanted it.  That is, they wanted to be the Confederate States of America before it was a thing.  This isn't a checken-or-egg dilemma.  They only considered all-out war only because they so direly desired to have their own nation built on the institution of slavery.

The fact that it was Abraham Lincoln who was at the helm at the time is nearly inconsequential.  The Southerners were beating their drums long before he came into the Oval Office.  Really, this had been brewing ever since the Constitution of the United States of America had been penned!  And even if Lincoln wasn't the President, then it would have happened anyhow because by that time the Southerners had their hearts set on it.  It was only a matter of time.

Besides, if Abraham Lincoln is Cesar, then so was Obama, because he incited the Republican Party just as Lincoln incited the Democrats.  If anything, Trump was Nero, not Cesar.

As for WWII...  Uhm.  Sorry.  No.  That was bound to happen regardless.  Taking on America was in the long game for both Hitler and Hirohito because they knew the moment America got involved, it was all over for them.  They knew that America was an industrial powerhouse with such vast resources that the Americans had only barely just begun to tap into them.  They knew that even if American strategists weren't the greatest, they could still bury both Germany and Japan in one go just by spamming their factories and ship yards.

In fact, the entire Japanese strategy was absolutely dependent on giving the Americans in the Pacific a coup de grace in the opening salvos.  Which they nearly succeeded in, except that as luck would have it, the Carrier fleet wasn't in port at the time of the Pearl Harbor Attack.

This wasn't some spur-of-the-moment knee-jerk-reaction on the part of the Japanese.  The idea was in the works since the 1920's.  Before FDR was even President.  And before FDR was President, WWII was a done deal the moment Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931.  Because with that, no matter who the next President was gonna be, the next logical step after all other diplomatic entreaties had been rejected would be to embargo Japan.  Thing is, no one had thought that the Japanese would be so suicidally insane as to provoke America into an all-out war.

Except that "suicidal insanity", as it turned out, is a specialty of theirs.  We just never realized it because things were going so well for them at first.

So, FDR or not, it would have happened anyhow.  Because the only natural reaction would be to curb the ability of the Japanese to wage war.  It was a moral imperative, even, since they were using the goods we traded to them to wage that war.  And once we cut off that supply line, their only option was to take it back by force.

Thus, the Pearl Harbor Attack and their effort to decapitate the US Armed Forces in the Pacific in one fell swoop.

Up until that moment, though?  American diplomatic policy was basically "Don't start nuthin, there won't be nuthin."  They were trying so very hard not to get drawn into yet another war, because people still remembered how horrible WWI was.  And FDR was behind that idea.

Up until the Japanese pissed off just about every single living American, and even a fair number of their own expats living in America.  And with good reason because the message we were sending was clear.  We were doing everything in our power to remain uninvolved.  Please do not involve us.  We are only supporting our allies because that's how the treaties from the last war are set up.  We do not want to fight anyone.

WWII was going to happen.  Because Japan wanted it.  They wanted their Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, but the only way they would get it was over America's Dead Body.  And they knew it long, long before it came to actual blows.

[GethN7]

https://theweek.com/politics/1003035/the...can-caesar

Well . . . .

Hmmmmm...

Once the conversation really gets going (around minute 45), Yarvin makes clear that he has a highly idiosyncratic take on American history. In his view, roughly every 75 years, a "Caesar" seizes dictatorial powers and institutes "substantive regime changes." George Washington did this in 1789. Abraham Lincoln did it again in 1861. And FDR did it last in 1933, speaking in the closing passages of his First Inaugural Address about the national emergency of the Great Depression and the need to wield unprecedented government power to combat it, which he did with the New Deal.

And all three ended up in creating conditions where the USA had no choice but to engage in armed conflict - the War of 1812, the Civil war, and WWII, respectively.

So, if you want all-out war with somebody, this appears to me to be one way to go about getting it.

I don't think you're giving the political tensions that led to the Civil War and WWII enough credit.  Reason being?  Both of these were going to happen no matter who the PoTUS was.

The Civil War was bound to happen sooner or later, simply because the Southern politicians wanted it.  That is, they wanted to be the Confederate States of America before it was a thing.  This isn't a checken-or-egg dilemma.  They only considered all-out war only because they so direly desired to have their own nation built on the institution of slavery.

The fact that it was Abraham Lincoln who was at the helm at the time is nearly inconsequential.  The Southerners were beating their drums long before he came into the Oval Office.  Really, this had been brewing ever since the Constitution of the United States of America had been penned!  And even if Lincoln wasn't the President, then it would have happened anyhow because by that time the Southerners had their hearts set on it.  It was only a matter of time.

Besides, if Abraham Lincoln is Cesar, then so was Obama, because he incited the Republican Party just as Lincoln incited the Democrats.  If anything, Trump was Nero, not Cesar.

As for WWII...  Uhm.  Sorry.  No.  That was bound to happen regardless.  Taking on America was in the long game for both Hitler and Hirohito because they knew the moment America got involved, it was all over for them.  They knew that America was an industrial powerhouse with such vast resources that the Americans had only barely just begun to tap into them.  They knew that even if American strategists weren't the greatest, they could still bury both Germany and Japan in one go just by spamming their factories and ship yards.

In fact, the entire Japanese strategy was absolutely dependent on giving the Americans in the Pacific a coup de grace in the opening salvos.  Which they nearly succeeded in, except that as luck would have it, the Carrier fleet wasn't in port at the time of the Pearl Harbor Attack.

This wasn't some spur-of-the-moment knee-jerk-reaction on the part of the Japanese.  The idea was in the works since the 1920's.  Before FDR was even President.  And before FDR was President, WWII was a done deal the moment Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931.  Because with that, no matter who the next President was gonna be, the next logical step after all other diplomatic entreaties had been rejected would be to embargo Japan.  Thing is, no one had thought that the Japanese would be so suicidally insane as to provoke America into an all-out war.

Except that "suicidal insanity", as it turned out, is a specialty of theirs.  We just never realized it because things were going so well for them at first.

So, FDR or not, it would have happened anyhow.  Because the only natural reaction would be to curb the ability of the Japanese to wage war.  It was a moral imperative, even, since they were using the goods we traded to them to wage that war.  And once we cut off that supply line, their only option was to take it back by force.

Thus, the Pearl Harbor Attack and their effort to decapitate the US Armed Forces in the Pacific in one fell swoop.

Up until that moment, though?  American diplomatic policy was basically "Don't start nuthin, there won't be nuthin."  They were trying so very hard not to get drawn into yet another war, because people still remembered how horrible WWI was.  And FDR was behind that idea.

Up until the Japanese pissed off just about every single living American, and even a fair number of their own expats living in America.  And with good reason because the message we were sending was clear.  We were doing everything in our power to remain uninvolved.  Please do not involve us.  We are only supporting our allies because that's how the treaties from the last war are set up.  We do not want to fight anyone.

WWII was going to happen.  Because Japan wanted it.  They wanted their Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, but the only way they would get it was over America's Dead Body.  And they knew it long, long before it came to actual blows.

As someone who studies history, this is essentially correct.

American Civil War was a pot that had been formally boiling since 1828 when the tariff was the issue getting the South worked up. As Andrew Jackson predicted, that was just a warmup, the negro question would be their next cause celebre and they'd try to find a reason to secede over that, they just finally got it in 1860, but has been trying for real since 1832, and came very close in 1850 save for some last-minute compromise that bought another decade before the war happened.

World War II is again true. Japan's reason for their strike at Pearl Harbor was they knew to keep what they wanted they'd have to start a war with the US, but they knew they'd need to obliterate our naval capacity long enough that we'd need more time to rebuild than they'd need to take, hold, and secure all their Pacific possessions. They almost succeeded, but they needed to totally succeed. Hitler was CONVINCED the U.S was bankrolling his enemies cause "da Jooz", and what prompted him to declare war with Japan was something he intended to do anyway. The most passive act on the U.S. part would have been seen as a causus belli through Hitler's eyes, whoever was in office, as the Civil War, was nigh irrelevant.

[robkelk]

Ah, but those are facts. You aren't going to be able to convince somebody who could come up with an "American Caesar" theory that he's wrong by using facts...

[Jinx999]

https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/202...647432001/

[Norgarth]

https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/202...647432001/

*facepalms* and if the guy dies, his family will try to blame the hospital for it, no doubt

[Dartz]

I often wondered what it took to become a judge. Collect ten crisp packets and send away for a wig?