And this is why the Trump/Alabama story WAS in fact, important. Because now we can't even trust official weather forecasts to be immune from political influence, or even the President's own ego:
Imagine for ONE SECOND dedicating your life to studying and accurately predicting the weather, in this case because it can save lives during the lead-up to a major storm. Then imagine being told you were to issue an INACCURATE report or be fired because Donald Fucking Trump needed to cover his ass. This is North Korea/Banana Republic-level behavior. Just how long are we supposed to operate with the volume level of the batshit insanity amps turned up to 11??
Honestly, I don't know what else one needs to know about antifa.
The only thing I need to know about "antifa" is that they're a uncoordinated mish-mash of small groups and individuals that barely (if ever) talk to each other. So if anyone starts saying that "antifa did this" or "antifa said that", I'm immediately suspicious, even if it's antifa doing the talking. Add to that the source is the Daily Caller, a cog in the far right blogosphere, and I'm doubly suspicious. I think I'll wait 'til Snopes does a piece on it. They actually do their homework.
And this is why the Trump/Alabama story WAS in fact, important. Because now we can't even trust official weather forecasts to be immune from political influence, or even the President's own ego:
Imagine for ONE SECOND dedicating your life to studying and accurately predicting the weather, in this case because it can save lives during the lead-up to a major storm. Then imagine being told you were to issue an INACCURATE report or be fired because Donald Fucking Trump needed to cover his ass. This is North Korea/Banana Republic-level behavior. Just how long are we supposed to operate with the volume level of the batshit insanity amps turned up to 11??
The agency did it right.
They released the statement anonymously. No one’s name was on it so anyone who was paying attention to the full story knew it wasn’t really “them” saying it, but Trump.
They also made sure that it leaked that all their members were under a gag order so they reached outside the agency to both ex employees and their union to get their side of the story out.
This latest article is just another break crumb leading to the cronyism of the Trump administration.
I wouldn’t want to lose my job over it figuring NO ONE was believing the Alabama being hit BS since it was announced.
And this is why the Trump/Alabama story WAS in fact, important. Because now we can't even trust official weather forecasts to be immune from political influence, or even the President's own ego:
Imagine for ONE SECOND dedicating your life to studying and accurately predicting the weather, in this case because it can save lives during the lead-up to a major storm. Then imagine being told you were to issue an INACCURATE report or be fired because Donald Fucking Trump needed to cover his ass. This is North Korea/Banana Republic-level behavior. Just how long are we supposed to operate with the volume level of the batshit insanity amps turned up to 11??
The agency did it right.
They released the statement anonymously. No one’s name was on it so anyone who was paying attention to the full story knew it wasn’t really “them” saying it, but Trump.
They also made sure that it leaked that all their members were under a gag order so they reached outside the agency to both ex employees and their union to get their side of the story out.
This latest article is just another break crumb leading to the cronyism of the Trump administration.
I wouldn’t want to lose my job over it figuring NO ONE was believing the Alabama being hit BS since it was announced.
What they did is understandable, but I don't think it should be described as right. They have a legal responsibility to tell the truth about what the weather forecast really is. Their actions have effectively set up a position where there are competing 'truths' - one of which is political and one real. That's right in line with Trump's view on the way the world should run, but it's a country mile away from the way the world really runs - and personally I'm uncomfortable about ignoring reality to fit in with a political agenda.
And this is why the Trump/Alabama story WAS in fact, important. Because now we can't even trust official weather forecasts to be immune from political influence, or even the President's own ego:
Imagine for ONE SECOND dedicating your life to studying and accurately predicting the weather, in this case because it can save lives during the lead-up to a major storm. Then imagine being told you were to issue an INACCURATE report or be fired because Donald Fucking Trump needed to cover his ass. This is North Korea/Banana Republic-level behavior. Just how long are we supposed to operate with the volume level of the batshit insanity amps turned up to 11??
The agency did it right.
They released the statement anonymously. No one’s name was on it so anyone who was paying attention to the full story knew it wasn’t really “them” saying it, but Trump.
They also made sure that it leaked that all their members were under a gag order so they reached outside the agency to both ex employees and their union to get their side of the story out.
This latest article is just another break crumb leading to the cronyism of the Trump administration.
I wouldn’t want to lose my job over it figuring NO ONE was believing the Alabama being hit BS since it was announced.
What they did is understandable, but I don't think it should be described as right. They have a legal responsibility to tell the truth about what the weather forecast really is. Their actions have effectively set up a position where there are competing 'truths' - one of which is political and one real. That's right in line with Trump's view on the way the world should run, but it's a country mile away from the way the world really runs - and personally I'm uncomfortable about ignoring reality to fit in with a political agenda.
Would you rather they fire these competent people and replace them with yes men who would have backed up Trump's words from the beginning?
The correction was what, a week after and after no one believed Trump as he attempted to double down on his stupidity with more stupidity. I guarantee if Trump does the exact same thing with the next hurricane (and he will) everyone will act the same way they did this time around because public safety comes first.
I don't think we should make the assumption that no one believed Trump's statement. Just because we happen to know it wasn't true doesn't mean everyone else is hearing the same information. There are plenty of folks who would be perfectly willing to assume Trump is telling the truth about X, Y, or Z.
If I lied to cover for my boss' own incompetence, all that does is give my boss more freedom to make stupid mistakes. I could tell myself that I was just doing my job and was trying not to get fired, but that would be the coward's response.
If my boss threatened to fire me if I didn't lie to make him or her look good, the ethical and practical thing is to not reward dishonesty and abuse of power.
I don't think we should make the assumption that no one believed Trump's statement. Just because we happen to know it wasn't true doesn't mean everyone else is hearing the same information. There are plenty of folks who would be perfectly willing to assume Trump is telling the truth about X, Y, or Z.
Agreed. There are a lot of people who will believe Trump irrespective of what he says and there are probably even more who would never believe anything he says in the absence of corroborating information. However, I also think there are a significant number who don't know what to believe - and it's this group I had particularly in mind.
I can see the sense in picking your battles, but I think this was absolutely a battle that could and should have been fought:
- it was about a scientific issue and provided an opportunity to get across to the public why telling the truth matters in relation to science (people are much more likely to listen in the aftermath of a hurricane than just talking about abstract principles).
- clear evidence was available that could have demonstrated in a court that Trump was lying (if it got that far - I think Trump would have caved in as he so often does in relation to the threats he issues when he knows he has no case).
- I agree it's certainly possible that Trump or other politicians would subsequently have tried to take revenge on those taking a stand (which is why I said their actions were understandable). However, other politicians would have supported them. The scientific community would also have supported them and having an uncontroversial scientific issue to rally behind would have been valuable in itself for a community that's too often been the subject of irrational assaults.
Trump has fired John Bolton. He doesn't get credit for firing someone who should have never been NEAR power again after the Bush Administration. Together, they destroyed the Iran nuclear deal. Presumably, this is likely over Trump wanting to invite the Taliban to Camp David. It's utterly amazing to think what the reaction among every conservative voter in the country would have been if Barack Obama had made this suggestion rather than Trump.
Trump has fired John Bolton. He doesn't get credit for firing someone who should have never been NEAR power again after the Bush Administration. Together, they destroyed the Iran nuclear deal. Presumably, this is likely over Trump wanting to invite the Taliban to Camp David. It's utterly amazing to think what the reaction among every conservative voter in the country would have been if Barack Obama had made this suggestion rather than Trump.
Yes, Bolton wasn't fired for any of the horrible crap he's done. He was fired for the one piece of good advice he's ever given a president: "Don't negotiate with the Taliban."
If a guy spends his time hanging out with current and former Klansmen, I'm gonna be pretty damn suspicious of his racial politics.
My brief googling revealed he managed to reform a number of said klansmen. That's all that matters.
Also there is something seriously wrong with idea that a black dude must fight klansmen with a bat because some white self proclaimed liberals decided that's how things should be.
The only thing I need to know about "antifa" is that they're a uncoordinated mish-mash of small groups and individuals that barely (if ever) talk to each other. So if anyone starts saying that "antifa did this" or "antifa said that", I'm immediately suspicious, even if it's antifa doing the talking. Add to that the source is the Daily Caller, a cog in the far right blogosphere, and I'm doubly suspicious. I think I'll wait 'til Snopes does a piece on it. They actually do their homework.
The only thing I need to know about "gamergate/incels/4chan" is that they're a uncoordinated mish-mash of small groups and individuals that barely (if ever) talk to each other. So if anyone starts saying that "incels did this" or "gamergate said that", I'm immediately suspicious, even if it's them doing the talking. Add to that the source is always a cog in the far left blogosphere, and I'm doubly suspicious.
If you google for antifa images, you'll get pictures of far right nationalist ultras (in other words, neo nazis). It doesn't matter what they choose to call themselves. Even if at some point they were in fact an anti fascist group, those times are far, far in the past.
The folks at 4chan very much do talk to each other--that's the entire point of the website. They're well-known for coordinating large-scale cyber attacks together, so calling them "uncoordinated" is very much not accurate. If a large group of people not only shares the same views, but also regularly communicates together, in a centralized location, and even organizes campaigns (the coordinated harassment during Gamergate being a good example) and cyber attacks, then yes, they are very much an organized, coordinated group.
Yes, laws generally protect “the public.” Isn’t it a better idea to license sex workers just like any other legislated profession (architects, landscapers, etc.) so that they are eventually just considered workers licensed in their chosen field?
No, and the why this has been explained in links posted in this thread.
The public doesn't need to be protected from sex workers. Again, these aren't people who recklessly endanger their own health and they already do the health checks voluntarily. Regulation won't make things better for them, it'll primarily serve as a reason to crack down on them.
Laws often protect marginalized groups of people, and anyone who ends up in survival sex work is by definition marginalized. Violence against sex workers is always high and they face far more risks than any of their customers ever will. Protect the at risk population, not a vague and nebulous "public."
The only thing I need to know about "gamergate/incels/4chan" is that they're a uncoordinated mish-mash of small groups and individuals that barely (if ever) talk to each other. So if anyone starts saying that "incels did this" or "gamergate said that", I'm immediately suspicious, even if it's them doing the talking. Add to that the source is always a cog in the far left blogosphere, and I'm doubly suspicious.
If you google for antifa images, you'll get pictures of far right nationalist ultras (in other words, neo nazis). It doesn't matter what they choose to call themselves. Even if at some point they were in fact an anti fascist group, those times are far, far in the past.
Antifa largely do background work focused on identifying and outing white supremacists and other fascists. Most of what they do is not even visible to the public. Antifa are also community defense. They're not an organized group with a singular ideology. Their only stance is to defend their communities from fascists. In Portland multiple groups with different ideologies from anarchists to DSA to people wearing banana suits? banded together to protest the fascist gathering. Finding pictures of far right nationalists when you image search "antifa" is no more surprising or unusual than finding pictures of the Borg if you image search Star Trek. Since much of the writing and discussion about antifa includes the people they organize against, pictures of the people they organize against are going to be in the mix.
Your false analogy to incels, gamergate, and 4chan is nonsense. Gamergate was well documented to be highly organized, and Eron Gjoni even had people on 4chan help him doctor his accusations against his ex after he was banned from two other sites. 4channers themselves have raided numerous sites, chatrooms, fora, etc. over the years and while they didn't have strict organization, they're definitely organized enough to DDOS 4chan in the name of getting people to stop posting about Boxxy. There's no 4chan for antifa.
To sum it up, my point is that antifa are anti-fascist. That's what they do. If you don't like what they do, maybe instead of trying to claim they're the real fascists, try to learn something and see what they're really about, and not what people who are actually pro-fascism want you to believe.
Yes, laws generally protect “the public.” Isn’t it a better idea to license sex workers just like any other legislated profession (architects, landscapers, etc.) so that they are eventually just considered workers licensed in their chosen field?
No, and the why this has been explained in links posted in this thread.
The public doesn't need to be protected from sex workers. Again, these aren't people who recklessly endanger their own health and they already do the health checks voluntarily. Regulation won't make things better for them, it'll primarily serve as a reason to crack down on them.
Laws often protect marginalized groups of people, and anyone who ends up in survival sex work is by definition marginalized. Violence against sex workers is always high and they face far more risks than any of their customers ever will. Protect the at risk population, not a vague and nebulous "public."
If violence is high, why not allow then to carry guns? And hire armed guards?
Yes, laws generally protect “the public.” Isn’t it a better idea to license sex workers just like any other legislated profession (architects, landscapers, etc.) so that they are eventually just considered workers licensed in their chosen field?
No, and the why this has been explained in links posted in this thread.
The public doesn't need to be protected from sex workers. Again, these aren't people who recklessly endanger their own health and they already do the health checks voluntarily. Regulation won't make things better for them, it'll primarily serve as a reason to crack down on them.
Laws often protect marginalized groups of people, and anyone who ends up in survival sex work is by definition marginalized. Violence against sex workers is always high and they face far more risks than any of their customers ever will. Protect the at risk population, not a vague and nebulous "public."
If violence is high, why not allow then to carry guns? And hire armed guards?
Yes, laws generally protect “the public.” Isn’t it a better idea to license sex workers just like any other legislated profession (architects, landscapers, etc.) so that they are eventually just considered workers licensed in their chosen field?
No, and the why this has been explained in links posted in this thread.
The public doesn't need to be protected from sex workers. Again, these aren't people who recklessly endanger their own health and they already do the health checks voluntarily. Regulation won't make things better for them, it'll primarily serve as a reason to crack down on them.
Laws often protect marginalized groups of people, and anyone who ends up in survival sex work is by definition marginalized. Violence against sex workers is always high and they face far more risks than any of their customers ever will. Protect the at risk population, not a vague and nebulous "public."
If violence is high, why not allow then to carry guns? And hire armed guards?
Rather than have vigilantees, we have police.
Sorry, but police can't cast teleport and instant go to the bedroom of an sex worker who refused an violent drunk client. And the police is not an "fascist minority killing machine"?
Yes, laws generally protect “the public.” Isn’t it a better idea to license sex workers just like any other legislated profession (architects, landscapers, etc.) so that they are eventually just considered workers licensed in their chosen field?
No, and the why this has been explained in links posted in this thread.
The public doesn't need to be protected from sex workers. Again, these aren't people who recklessly endanger their own health and they already do the health checks voluntarily. Regulation won't make things better for them, it'll primarily serve as a reason to crack down on them.
Laws often protect marginalized groups of people, and anyone who ends up in survival sex work is by definition marginalized. Violence against sex workers is always high and they face far more risks than any of their customers ever will. Protect the at risk population, not a vague and nebulous "public."
I can understand that no one wants to be regulated but most people that provide a service for money must be licensed and even bonded and/or insured. If the goal is to normalize and legitimize sex work it should be treated like any other work with appropriate legislation to protect all involved.
I think the brothel model would cut down on violence against the workers.
Truthfully, the US is far too puritanical for widespread legalized prostitution. I totally agree with you that decrim, while still being highly unlikely, is probably a better solution and more feasible.
I've really tried not to chime in on this subject. I'm fucking sorry, but how is this not female exploitation? I really want to know how you folks on the left think this is OK. I call bullshit on how this isn't sexual exploitation by the very definition. Rich fucking males can buy sex with no consequences. Females do NOT want this shit. Period!..
@Balrog99: It's only exploitation if the prostitute is either forced into it (trafficking) or has few other options (poverty). If the prostitute chooses the profession voluntarily and not out of desperation, it is not exploitation.
This principle applies to any other job. If a guy on a farm picks grapes for 8 hours a day because he loves the outdoors and he finds it calming, it's not exploitation--it's just a job, and the fact that other people would hate that job is irrelevant. If a guy on a farm picks grapes for 8 hours a day because he needs the money or he'll starve, however, it's exploitation, because he's only doing it because he absolutely has to. It is not the work itself which is exploitative or not; it is the circumstances of the worker him or herself.
A few women actually do pick that career even when they have viable alternatives. I make no claims about how many there are, but such people exist.
I've really tried not to chime in on this subject. I'm fucking sorry, but how is this not female exploitation? I really want to know how you folks on the left think this is OK. I call bullshit on how this isn't sexual exploitation by the very definition. Rich fucking males can buy sex with no consequences. Females do NOT want this shit. Period!..
I agree with @semiticgod that the issue is not straightforward. I think though that the problem is more to do with emotional involvement than personal circumstances. Most people associate sex with emotional involvement, which is why a transaction involving sex is seen as so much more questionable than other jobs with high levels of intimacy (like providing services for a dementia patient for instance).
If we lived in a society in which sex was not tangled up with love, it would be straightforward for sex to be offered as a service in the same way as other jobs (and there would absolutely be men providing that service to women). Like anything else, there would be people who wanted to do the job and others that didn't - but those who wanted to do it would not be demonized by those who didn't. In that society the market would also function to push up the cost of the services if not enough people wanted to supply them - leading to an increase in the numbers of people willing to do that work until equilibrium was established.
The problem at the moment is that, while some individuals will exhibit that sort of disconnect between love and sex, society as a whole does not. I have mixed feelings about that, but I suspect that I wouldn't want to live in a society that did have that disconnect - I think not only is the connection between love and sex hard-wired into most people by evolution, but that it helps to provide the bonds between people that enable us to live and work together. If that's so, then sex work will never be 'just another job' and there will always be a balancing act between protecting the rights of those that want to do it and protecting the rights of those that don't want to do it ...
I've really tried not to chime in on this subject. I'm fucking sorry, but how is this not female exploitation? I really want to know how you folks on the left think this is OK. I call bullshit on how this isn't sexual exploitation by the very definition. Rich fucking males can buy sex with no consequences. Females do NOT want this shit. Period!..
I'm female. The sex workers who advocate for what I'm talking about in this thread are largely female. All women might not be up for sex work, but that's fine because no one should be forced to do it, but if you don't understand why anyone ends up in sex work, you're likely to come up with a blanket "all women are against this" argument without even acknowledging that a woman is in this thread argues in favor of decriminalizing sex work.
As far as exploitation goes, all labor under capitalism is exploitation.
Also, I'm probably the furthest left of anyone on here, and I'm definitely not the entire left. The entire left does not exist as a monolith nor agree on all things at least some identify as problems or all solutions to existing problems. Just like all women are not a monolith and many would disagree with the generalization you made. Many also disagree with anything but a blanket ban on all sex work.
If you look at this from an individualistic perspective, it may be difficult to see why I say sex work should be decriminalized. If you look at things in which systems impact entire groups of people in particular ways, and look at how law enforcement and sexual violence impact women in sex work, then removing barriers against them getting help (such as their entire occupation being considered illegal) is actually good for pretty much everyone.
@Balrog99: It's only exploitation if the prostitute is either forced into it (trafficking) or has few other options (poverty). If the prostitute chooses the profession voluntarily and not out of desperation, it is not exploitation.
"Sex worker" is way better.
Also, a lot of survival sex workers are doing the activism I'm talking about. They went into sex work because poverty and no jobs that would pay a living wage. The problem here isn't that someone chooses sex work to make more money, the problem here is that poverty is allowed to thrive in the first place. The problem is that choices are limited by opportunity, and the opportunities are all bad.
Trump fired John Bolton so he just released a picture of his new pick for National Security Advisor.
This new guy will cost less because he's willing to work remotely.
Trump apparently has an intense dislike of facial hair (one of the reasons he didn't get on with Bolton). I'm not sure he would put up with a fake mustache .
Last night the Democrats lost the special election that resulted from a GOP operative being caught red-handed cheating in the 2018 race. It's utterly amazing to me that the "punishment" for being caught literally seeking out and destroying Democratic absentee ballots is to get a "do-over" on a random Tuesday in September where lower turnout is guaranteed. Moreover, the law at the time this case came to light was that in the do-over, both candidates on the ballot had to be the same. But, of course, retroactively, the NC GOP changed the law to allow someone else to run in place of the tainted candidate.
I remember in 1997, the Minnesota Gophers made the Final Four. Years later, it was found some players on the team had a tutor take tests for them in an academic scandal. The '97 Gopher Men's Basketball Team did not get to replay the season with new players. They forfeited their appearance. It's a sad commentary when the frickin' NCAA has a higher standard than our elections.
What sad too is voters see the criminality and election fraud out of the GOP and they decide they want more criminals in the government. The guy they voter in is the main architect of the 'bathroom bill' that cost their state millions of dollars. Bunch of dumbasses voting in people who literally are evil and push discrimination.
There's an interesting take in the UK today about the relationship of the courts to the political process. I think that I've briefly mentioned before the court cases going on about the prorogation of Parliament. There was a decision of the High Court in England last week saying that was legal on the grounds that it was a matter for the political process and not the law and there was somewhat similar reasoning on essentially the same case being brought separately in Scotland.
However, the Scottish case was appealed to the Court of Session and the 3 appeal court judges there have unanimously ruled today that the prorogation was unlawful (technically it's just Johnson's advice to the Queen to endorse the prorogation that's unlawful, but let's skip over that for the moment). They took the line that Johnson was motivated by improper ends (the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament") and that this was such an egregious breach that the law should intervene.
The English case was itself being appealed and it's now expected that the Supreme Court will rule on both cases next week. The cases can certainly be argued both ways and I wouldn't be surprised by either outcome. However, I think it is a bit more probable that the Supreme Court will follow the Scottish appeal ruling. That would reinforce the constitutional principle that Parliament is sovereign (rather than the government of the day) and I suspect the judges will take the line that the constitution needs a bit of reinforcement just at the moment.
That wouldn't be an easy decision given that some Brexiteers have previously shown they are very willing to portray judges as the enemy of the people and attempting to subvert the result of the 2016 referendum. If the Supreme Court does do that, I'll be watching closely to see whether Johnson can bring himself to support the independence of the judiciary or whether he will join in the attacks and go further down the US road of trying to harden the support of a minority in the country rather than seek a broader majority coalition. If he does the former then we can expect a further round of resignations from the considerable number of 'one nation' moderate Conservative MPs.
Comments
Imagine for ONE SECOND dedicating your life to studying and accurately predicting the weather, in this case because it can save lives during the lead-up to a major storm. Then imagine being told you were to issue an INACCURATE report or be fired because Donald Fucking Trump needed to cover his ass. This is North Korea/Banana Republic-level behavior. Just how long are we supposed to operate with the volume level of the batshit insanity amps turned up to 11??
https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/07/antifa-black-man-white-supremacist/, as well as Daryl's post on Facebook https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10217755008719735&set=a.3384412321879&type=3&theater
Honestly, I don't know what else one needs to know about antifa.
The only thing I need to know about "antifa" is that they're a uncoordinated mish-mash of small groups and individuals that barely (if ever) talk to each other. So if anyone starts saying that "antifa did this" or "antifa said that", I'm immediately suspicious, even if it's antifa doing the talking. Add to that the source is the Daily Caller, a cog in the far right blogosphere, and I'm doubly suspicious. I think I'll wait 'til Snopes does a piece on it. They actually do their homework.
The agency did it right.
They released the statement anonymously. No one’s name was on it so anyone who was paying attention to the full story knew it wasn’t really “them” saying it, but Trump.
They also made sure that it leaked that all their members were under a gag order so they reached outside the agency to both ex employees and their union to get their side of the story out.
This latest article is just another break crumb leading to the cronyism of the Trump administration.
I wouldn’t want to lose my job over it figuring NO ONE was believing the Alabama being hit BS since it was announced.
What they did is understandable, but I don't think it should be described as right. They have a legal responsibility to tell the truth about what the weather forecast really is. Their actions have effectively set up a position where there are competing 'truths' - one of which is political and one real. That's right in line with Trump's view on the way the world should run, but it's a country mile away from the way the world really runs - and personally I'm uncomfortable about ignoring reality to fit in with a political agenda.
Would you rather they fire these competent people and replace them with yes men who would have backed up Trump's words from the beginning?
The correction was what, a week after and after no one believed Trump as he attempted to double down on his stupidity with more stupidity. I guarantee if Trump does the exact same thing with the next hurricane (and he will) everyone will act the same way they did this time around because public safety comes first.
Pick your battles.
If I lied to cover for my boss' own incompetence, all that does is give my boss more freedom to make stupid mistakes. I could tell myself that I was just doing my job and was trying not to get fired, but that would be the coward's response.
If my boss threatened to fire me if I didn't lie to make him or her look good, the ethical and practical thing is to not reward dishonesty and abuse of power.
Agreed. There are a lot of people who will believe Trump irrespective of what he says and there are probably even more who would never believe anything he says in the absence of corroborating information. However, I also think there are a significant number who don't know what to believe - and it's this group I had particularly in mind.
I can see the sense in picking your battles, but I think this was absolutely a battle that could and should have been fought:
- it was about a scientific issue and provided an opportunity to get across to the public why telling the truth matters in relation to science (people are much more likely to listen in the aftermath of a hurricane than just talking about abstract principles).
- clear evidence was available that could have demonstrated in a court that Trump was lying (if it got that far - I think Trump would have caved in as he so often does in relation to the threats he issues when he knows he has no case).
- I agree it's certainly possible that Trump or other politicians would subsequently have tried to take revenge on those taking a stand (which is why I said their actions were understandable). However, other politicians would have supported them. The scientific community would also have supported them and having an uncontroversial scientific issue to rally behind would have been valuable in itself for a community that's too often been the subject of irrational assaults.
Yes, Bolton wasn't fired for any of the horrible crap he's done. He was fired for the one piece of good advice he's ever given a president: "Don't negotiate with the Taliban."
Also there is something seriously wrong with idea that a black dude must fight klansmen with a bat because some white self proclaimed liberals decided that's how things should be.
The only thing I need to know about "gamergate/incels/4chan" is that they're a uncoordinated mish-mash of small groups and individuals that barely (if ever) talk to each other. So if anyone starts saying that "incels did this" or "gamergate said that", I'm immediately suspicious, even if it's them doing the talking. Add to that the source is always a cog in the far left blogosphere, and I'm doubly suspicious.
If you google for antifa images, you'll get pictures of far right nationalist ultras (in other words, neo nazis). It doesn't matter what they choose to call themselves. Even if at some point they were in fact an anti fascist group, those times are far, far in the past.
No, and the why this has been explained in links posted in this thread.
The public doesn't need to be protected from sex workers. Again, these aren't people who recklessly endanger their own health and they already do the health checks voluntarily. Regulation won't make things better for them, it'll primarily serve as a reason to crack down on them.
Laws often protect marginalized groups of people, and anyone who ends up in survival sex work is by definition marginalized. Violence against sex workers is always high and they face far more risks than any of their customers ever will. Protect the at risk population, not a vague and nebulous "public."
Everything I've seen of Daryl is that he's generally good. Unfortunately, I think he's also being taken for a ride.
Antifa largely do background work focused on identifying and outing white supremacists and other fascists. Most of what they do is not even visible to the public. Antifa are also community defense. They're not an organized group with a singular ideology. Their only stance is to defend their communities from fascists. In Portland multiple groups with different ideologies from anarchists to DSA to people wearing banana suits? banded together to protest the fascist gathering. Finding pictures of far right nationalists when you image search "antifa" is no more surprising or unusual than finding pictures of the Borg if you image search Star Trek. Since much of the writing and discussion about antifa includes the people they organize against, pictures of the people they organize against are going to be in the mix.
Your false analogy to incels, gamergate, and 4chan is nonsense. Gamergate was well documented to be highly organized, and Eron Gjoni even had people on 4chan help him doctor his accusations against his ex after he was banned from two other sites. 4channers themselves have raided numerous sites, chatrooms, fora, etc. over the years and while they didn't have strict organization, they're definitely organized enough to DDOS 4chan in the name of getting people to stop posting about Boxxy. There's no 4chan for antifa.
To sum it up, my point is that antifa are anti-fascist. That's what they do. If you don't like what they do, maybe instead of trying to claim they're the real fascists, try to learn something and see what they're really about, and not what people who are actually pro-fascism want you to believe.
If violence is high, why not allow then to carry guns? And hire armed guards?
Rather than have vigilantees, we have police.
Sorry, but police can't cast teleport and instant go to the bedroom of an sex worker who refused an violent drunk client. And the police is not an "fascist minority killing machine"?
I can understand that no one wants to be regulated but most people that provide a service for money must be licensed and even bonded and/or insured. If the goal is to normalize and legitimize sex work it should be treated like any other work with appropriate legislation to protect all involved.
I think the brothel model would cut down on violence against the workers.
Truthfully, the US is far too puritanical for widespread legalized prostitution. I totally agree with you that decrim, while still being highly unlikely, is probably a better solution and more feasible.
This principle applies to any other job. If a guy on a farm picks grapes for 8 hours a day because he loves the outdoors and he finds it calming, it's not exploitation--it's just a job, and the fact that other people would hate that job is irrelevant. If a guy on a farm picks grapes for 8 hours a day because he needs the money or he'll starve, however, it's exploitation, because he's only doing it because he absolutely has to. It is not the work itself which is exploitative or not; it is the circumstances of the worker him or herself.
A few women actually do pick that career even when they have viable alternatives. I make no claims about how many there are, but such people exist.
I agree with @semiticgod that the issue is not straightforward. I think though that the problem is more to do with emotional involvement than personal circumstances. Most people associate sex with emotional involvement, which is why a transaction involving sex is seen as so much more questionable than other jobs with high levels of intimacy (like providing services for a dementia patient for instance).
If we lived in a society in which sex was not tangled up with love, it would be straightforward for sex to be offered as a service in the same way as other jobs (and there would absolutely be men providing that service to women). Like anything else, there would be people who wanted to do the job and others that didn't - but those who wanted to do it would not be demonized by those who didn't. In that society the market would also function to push up the cost of the services if not enough people wanted to supply them - leading to an increase in the numbers of people willing to do that work until equilibrium was established.
The problem at the moment is that, while some individuals will exhibit that sort of disconnect between love and sex, society as a whole does not. I have mixed feelings about that, but I suspect that I wouldn't want to live in a society that did have that disconnect - I think not only is the connection between love and sex hard-wired into most people by evolution, but that it helps to provide the bonds between people that enable us to live and work together. If that's so, then sex work will never be 'just another job' and there will always be a balancing act between protecting the rights of those that want to do it and protecting the rights of those that don't want to do it ...
I'm female. The sex workers who advocate for what I'm talking about in this thread are largely female. All women might not be up for sex work, but that's fine because no one should be forced to do it, but if you don't understand why anyone ends up in sex work, you're likely to come up with a blanket "all women are against this" argument without even acknowledging that a woman is in this thread argues in favor of decriminalizing sex work.
As far as exploitation goes, all labor under capitalism is exploitation.
Also, I'm probably the furthest left of anyone on here, and I'm definitely not the entire left. The entire left does not exist as a monolith nor agree on all things at least some identify as problems or all solutions to existing problems. Just like all women are not a monolith and many would disagree with the generalization you made. Many also disagree with anything but a blanket ban on all sex work.
If you look at this from an individualistic perspective, it may be difficult to see why I say sex work should be decriminalized. If you look at things in which systems impact entire groups of people in particular ways, and look at how law enforcement and sexual violence impact women in sex work, then removing barriers against them getting help (such as their entire occupation being considered illegal) is actually good for pretty much everyone.
"Sex worker" is way better.
Also, a lot of survival sex workers are doing the activism I'm talking about. They went into sex work because poverty and no jobs that would pay a living wage. The problem here isn't that someone chooses sex work to make more money, the problem here is that poverty is allowed to thrive in the first place. The problem is that choices are limited by opportunity, and the opportunities are all bad.
This new guy will cost less because he's willing to work remotely.
Trump apparently has an intense dislike of facial hair (one of the reasons he didn't get on with Bolton). I'm not sure he would put up with a fake mustache
I remember in 1997, the Minnesota Gophers made the Final Four. Years later, it was found some players on the team had a tutor take tests for them in an academic scandal. The '97 Gopher Men's Basketball Team did not get to replay the season with new players. They forfeited their appearance. It's a sad commentary when the frickin' NCAA has a higher standard than our elections.
However, the Scottish case was appealed to the Court of Session and the 3 appeal court judges there have unanimously ruled today that the prorogation was unlawful (technically it's just Johnson's advice to the Queen to endorse the prorogation that's unlawful, but let's skip over that for the moment). They took the line that Johnson was motivated by improper ends (the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament") and that this was such an egregious breach that the law should intervene.
The English case was itself being appealed and it's now expected that the Supreme Court will rule on both cases next week. The cases can certainly be argued both ways and I wouldn't be surprised by either outcome. However, I think it is a bit more probable that the Supreme Court will follow the Scottish appeal ruling. That would reinforce the constitutional principle that Parliament is sovereign (rather than the government of the day) and I suspect the judges will take the line that the constitution needs a bit of reinforcement just at the moment.
That wouldn't be an easy decision given that some Brexiteers have previously shown they are very willing to portray judges as the enemy of the people and attempting to subvert the result of the 2016 referendum. If the Supreme Court does do that, I'll be watching closely to see whether Johnson can bring himself to support the independence of the judiciary or whether he will join in the attacks and go further down the US road of trying to harden the support of a minority in the country rather than seek a broader majority coalition. If he does the former then we can expect a further round of resignations from the considerable number of 'one nation' moderate Conservative MPs.