|
Post by markesq on Jun 26, 2018 11:41:56 GMT -5
On this: How about the internment of the Japanese? Would you have been disgusted by a restaurant owner, opposed to the internment, who kicked out one of FDR's staff over it? Maybe because she had Japanese-Americans working for her? As I said, the owner here was within their rights. And I'm not disgusted by that decision at all, I just think it's a dangerous game to play, as it invites retribution. At the end of the day, however, it's the owner's choice, and their business may benefit or suffer (or neither). But it's not the same thing as going after government employees in public--when they're not on the clock--because one doesn't like an admin policy/action, imo. I think here's where I am having trouble reconciling my thoughts: generally, I agree with Rob that heckling a government employee (or otherwise publicly shaming/confronting them) invites retribution and probably isn't usually very productive. And can be downright divisive.
In this specific instance, though, I wouldn't classify Sanders as merely an employee. She has actively lied on this administration's behalf (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/sarah-huckabee-sanders/statements/byruling/false/) and, imo, it's not an excuse to say someone (her boss) told her to lie. So then what other recourse do you or I have with someone like that? We can't vote her out or get her fired. Should she be able to lie to us, to the press, and then expect to be treated with civility by the people she's lied to, or go get a nice meal like she's merely a file clerk or janitor? I have trouble with that.
I do think these are unusual times, that our government is allowing Trump and his minions to veer away from a functional democracy that is true to this nation's original principles. We're not in Hitlerian times yet, but then if the day comes that we say we are, then maybe it's too late.
I don't know. I come here because y'all are smarter then me, so figure this shit out, please.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 26, 2018 11:45:20 GMT -5
On this: How about the internment of the Japanese? Would you have been disgusted by a restaurant owner, opposed to the internment, who kicked out one of FDR's staff over it? Maybe because she had Japanese-Americans working for her? As I said, the owner here was within their rights. And I'm not disgusted by that decision at all, I just think it's a dangerous game to play, as it invites retribution. At the end of the day, however, it's the owner's choice, and their business may benefit or suffer (or neither). But it's not the same thing as going after government employees in public--when they're not on the clock--because one doesn't like an admin policy/action, imo. You keep using variations of "because one doesn't like a policy." I don't know if that's on purpose or not, but the reasons for the protests/heckling/refusal of service under debate are a bit beyond "I don't like it."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 26, 2018 11:52:21 GMT -5
Well, we're talking in generalities to some degree. But functionally yes, the reasons boil down to "I don't like it," imo.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 26, 2018 12:01:06 GMT -5
Nah, I just have an actual sense of history and am firmly grounded in reality. So am I. You're not grounded, you're just a waffler. You don't really address points substantively, on principle. As an employee of the federal government (and one of its more unpopular branches), I get the argument against blaming civil servants for your grievances against the administration, believe me. At the same time, it's a debate all of us have had - what would it take for me to feel obligated to resign? I may be far from that point, but it's not because I lack of a sense of history that I actually consider it a question worth pondering.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 26, 2018 12:17:32 GMT -5
Well, we're talking in generalities to some degree. But functionally yes, the reasons boil down to "I don't like it," imo. No, they really don't. I don't like it when it rains and I have errands to run. I don't like heavy traffic, or long lines. Politically, I don't like it when Trump is rude, brash, and childish. But when children are taken from their parents and put in cages, it's unconscionable. It's inhumane. It's not about "not liking" it.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Jun 26, 2018 12:44:21 GMT -5
Well, we're talking in generalities to some degree. But functionally yes, the reasons boil down to "I don't like it," imo. No, they really don't. I don't like it when it rains and I have errands to run. I don't like heavy traffic, or long lines. Politically, I don't like it when Trump is rude, brash, and childish. But when children are taken from their parents and put in cages, it's unconscionable. It's inhumane. It's not about "not liking" it. Well, as I think about it, I have to agree with Rob. What you're doing is stretching your dislike, using different words to express how much you don't like it. So then for me that's the wrong approach. Maybe we have to look at some other metric, like legality. Or some other objective measure, if we can come up with one. For me, the separation of children from their families is an important example, because I believe it to be tantamount to child abuse, and a violation of the children's and parents' civil rights. Patently illegal and unconstitutional. But then... Sanders didn't come up with the policy, she's "just" defending it, so does that get us into confrontation-in-public territory?!
Jeez, I thought I told you people to figure this out for me.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 26, 2018 12:59:21 GMT -5
No, they really don't. I don't like it when it rains and I have errands to run. I don't like heavy traffic, or long lines. Politically, I don't like it when Trump is rude, brash, and childish. But when children are taken from their parents and put in cages, it's unconscionable. It's inhumane. It's not about "not liking" it. Well, as I think about it, I have to agree with Rob. What you're doing is stretching your dislike, using different words to express how much you don't like it. No, quite the opposite. It has nothing to do with what I like or don't, and I think phrasing these sorts of issues in this way - what we like, or don't - is minimizing the actual, real, quantifiable harm, reducing what should be a moral imperative to... "well, you just really don't like it, sucks to be you." The point I'm trying to make is that it's not that I, personally, don't like inhumane practices. It's that those practices are inhumane. To put it a different way, if inhumane practices *didn't* bother some people, the fact that they didn't would be irrelevant. It's objectively inhumane. Likes/dislikes - "the feelz"- aren't a factor. Good luck. I come up with morality, compassion, empathy, and the Golden Rule, but all of those are subjective. And yet... it's not. It's legal, currently at least. The Trump admin backed off due to public outcry, as far as I can tell, not because they were breaking any laws. Yes. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 26, 2018 13:16:41 GMT -5
Well, as I think about it, I have to agree with Rob. What you're doing is stretching your dislike, using different words to express how much you don't like it. No, quite the opposite. It has nothing to do with what I like or don't, and I think phrasing these sorts of issues in this way - what we like, or don't - is minimizing the actual, real, quantifiable harm, reducing what should be a moral imperative to... "well, you just really don't like it, sucks to be you." The point I'm trying to make is that it's not that I, personally, don't like inhumane practices. It's that those practices are inhumane. To put it a different way, if inhumane practices *didn't* bother some people, the fact that they didn't would be irrelevant. It's objectively inhumane. Likes/dislikes - "the feelz"- aren't a factor. Now I have to swivel back the other way. Your argument is basically that what you're protesting is not just something you personally don't like, but that it is objectively terrible. And yet there are people who think it's a good thing. Obviously you would strongly disagree (so would I), but settling whether or not Trump policy is bad by Natural Law is a futile endeavor. Likewise, there are people who would argue that cutting benefits for social services is actual, real, quantifiable harm - an inhumane practice. That ending support for Israel should be a moral imperative. That supporting abortion is inhumane. I am pointing this out, not because I disagree with you that certain practices (like the policy of separating children from their parents) are too far down that slippery slope, but because you're basically arguing that there is no slope, that there are just two categorical boxes: "Things I don't like but oh well, them's the breaks" and "Objectively evil." I challenge you to devise an objective test that everyone (including non-Nazis) will agree on for putting things in one box or the other.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Jun 26, 2018 13:18:03 GMT -5
Dammit, I don't know how to do multiple quotes..!
I agree with you, it IS inhumane. Which is why you and I dislike it so intensely. But. "It's not inhumane, they get food, water, medical care, a bed, shelter... plus, it's the only way to deter those nasty criminals coming over the border. Letting murderers and rapists in is way more inhumane than temporarily separating family members who chose to come here illegally."
Horseshit, of course, but it's not as objective as you or I would like to believe. As strongly as we feel about this, people believe that abortion is murder. They don't just dislike it, they think it's objectively evil.
I guess I'm just fleshing out what seems to be an unsatisfactory conclusion: our perceptions and our responses are almost always subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 26, 2018 13:37:12 GMT -5
Dammit, I don't know how to do multiple quotes..! I agree with you, it IS inhumane. Which is why you and I dislike it so intensely. But. "It's not inhumane, they get food, water, medical care, a bed, shelter... plus, it's the only way to deter those nasty criminals coming over the border. Letting murderers and rapists in is way more inhumane than temporarily separating family members who chose to come here illegally." Horseshit, of course, but it's not as objective as you or I would like to believe. As strongly as we feel about this, people believe that abortion is murder. They don't just dislike it, they think it's objectively evil. I guess I'm just fleshing out what seems to be an unsatisfactory conclusion: our perceptions and our responses are almost always subjective. Okay, I see what you (and Amadan) are saying. Yes, our perceptions are subjective. Our morals are subjective. Really, the laws on the books are subjective, too, it's just that somewhere along the line, a group of folks decided they were objective, and codified them. My pushback against rob's language was because it seemed he was minimizing the separation of children by referring to policies "one doesn't like." It seemed to put a very weighty issue into a very whimsical category of opinion. I like it; I don't like it. Tomato, tomahto. I DO think it's more than liking or not liking something. It's about principles, subjective though they may be. And fwiw, I honestly have sympathy for those who oppose abortion. I would say the same to a critic of an anti-abortion stance if they used language like: abortion is just "a law they don't like." Because that would be, imo, misrepresenting the person's position.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 26, 2018 13:45:51 GMT -5
And, even though I get what you are saying, this I challenge you to devise an objective test that everyone (including non-Nazis) will agree on for putting things in one box or the other. is ridiculous, because you're never going to get everyone to agree on anything, even if it is objective. Not because there are not objective positions, but because people are not objective.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 26, 2018 13:49:23 GMT -5
Well, I agree rob is being dismissive because he apparently thinks being rude to anyone not working for literal Nazis is over the line, whereas I've been arguing that it's not crazy to have a personal line in the sand. That line is going to be personal and necessarily subjective, but the distinction I would make is not "Is this something you don't like or is it something that's actually bad?" but "Is this something you actually feel so strongly about that you're willing to put your reputation and body on the line, or are you just engaging in political theater?"
There are people I believe actually feel strongly enough about the Trump immigration policy that their actions are sincere. The owner of the Red Hen is one of them. Maxine Waters is not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2018 13:49:28 GMT -5
And yet... it's not. It's legal, currently at least. The Trump admin backed off due to public outcry, as far as I can tell, not because they were breaking any laws. FFS. Both lawyers on the forum have opined that the policy is unconstitutional. At least ten states and counting are suing the Trump administration, saying it is unconstitutional, as are any number of legal commentators. That's taking aside Trump's pronouncement since his EO discussing how he wants to boot the migrants without those pesky courts and hearings (posted in migrant thread). I've posted a number of things throughout the migrant thread that discuss various legal and constitutional issues with the policy. Yet still there's the blithe assertion here of "but it's perfectly legal and it's not unconstitutional", right in the face of a lawyer saying otherwise. I've been sitting here this morning deciding whether I should again take aside a couple of hours to post still more cites discussing the constitutionality of the policy, and basically write a legal brief explaining how it is that migrants (both the adults and children) have constitutional rights, and why, FFS, throwing the adults into horrible prisons for indefinitely periods (prisons never intended for long term stays), the children into cages where they are often drugged, not giving their asylum claims a hearing, then deporting them (still with no hearing), even when they have legally entered the country at a port of entry (see my cites) --- plus separating parent from their children, again indefinitely and sometimes forever -- and in deporting them, not only without a hearing, but in many cases also without their children or any of the few meager possessions and their precious identification papers, not to mention all for a freaking misdemeanor, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its goddamn face! Come ON! -- and it's not just an academic question because this situation continues, because thousands of children remain separated from their parents (some of whom have been deported and have no idea where their children are) with no active moves being made by the Trump government to reunite them (again, I provided cites in that thread and you can always just open a newspaper), and Trump is more than threatening to start up the policy again and separate still more families, and he's still deporting people without hearings and holding them without hearing their claims... But, see, (1) I think I made that case already, and I can harp on it all I like, and get no further here, so why? I'm not even sure anyone is reading my cites anyway. I was trying to stop posting because I honestly felt no one was actually reading. And honestly, at the moment I'm not having fun discussing it. I find it depressing as hell, because (2) (as to the topic of this thread) I genuinely, with all my heart and mind, believe we are at Category 1 -- that we have, as a nation arrived at a serious crossroads that requires us as citizens to not sit and grumble and hope someone fixes it, but to act. I don't mean riots, but I do mean protesting and making it clear to our representatives elected and otherwise that we feel this way (and of course, obviously, voting and encouraging others to do so). You don't have to agree with me, but (3) given that I do believe (2), I am now wondering if I should stop banging my head and spending hours posting on it here, and instead devote that time and energy to actively fighting the policy (and others I hate), and helping those being devastated by it, and spend my time here discussing stuff that doesn't drain and depress me. Right now, I'm thinking (3) is making a lot of sense. I'm going to take a break from discussing this issue while I do some self-examination. So, yanno, carry on. But for pity's sake, if you're going to blithely contradict Mark (and me and the attorney generals from ten states and counting) and say "but it's not unconstitutional!" do explain why you think that.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 26, 2018 13:54:55 GMT -5
So, yanno, carry on. But for pity's sake, if you're going to blithely contradict Mark (and me and the attorney generals from ten states and counting) and say "but it's not unconstitutional!" do explain why you think that. I think you need to calm the fuck down, because I'm not saying it should be legal, nor that it was not unconstitutional. My point is that it was, for as long as it went on, treated as legal, since the Trump admin was doing it with impunity.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 26, 2018 14:08:22 GMT -5
In fairness, Cass, I understand you are convinced it's unconstitutional, but it's not clear that this is a unanimous consensus in the legal community. I mean, if lawyers all agreed on what's Constitutional, we wouldn't need lawyers, right? And it's not like these things are always clearly and objectively defined with metrics any idiot can measure (or you wouldn't have needed to go to law school, right?).
Now FWIW, I did read all your messages, but didn't answer all of them because (a) I didn't disagree with most of what you said; (b) when I do disagree with a little bit of it, you start lecturing me like I just threw out every damn thing you've posted.
If you feel that actually using your legal training to help people in the real world is a better use of your time than debating people on the Internet, I certainly can't argue with that.
|
|