|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Nov 21, 2016 7:49:05 GMT -5
Question authority.
Before it questions you.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 21, 2016 8:10:20 GMT -5
Question authority. ... Before it questions you. You can count those who question authority on one metaphorical hand. Oh, there are people who question authorities, this or that politician who happens to wear the wrong color tie, when that politician or the bureaucrats they control commit a particularly egregious act against the free will of a "free" people. And you'll have those who are arguing just as vehemently that the act is justified, and people must be controlled for their own good. But almost nobody is willing to question authority. It's a given. Didn't you read the social contract? Why rob's even got a whole thread asking which reason you think is appropriate for surrendering your moral judgement to the ruling class. That you must surrender your moral judgement to the ruling class is essentially a given in today's society. "Question authority" is little more than the punchline to a joke these days.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 21, 2016 9:45:39 GMT -5
You can count those who question authority on one metaphorical hand. Oh, there are people who question authorities, this or that politician who happens to wear the wrong color tie, when that politician or the bureaucrats they control commit a particularly egregious act against the free will of a "free" people. And you'll have those who are arguing just as vehemently that the act is justified, and people must be controlled for their own good. But almost nobody is willing to question authority. It's a given. Didn't you read the social contract? Why rob's even got a whole thread asking which reason you think is appropriate for surrendering your moral judgement to the ruling class. That you must surrender your moral judgement to the ruling class is essentially a given in today's society. "Question authority" is little more than the punchline to a joke these days. Some of us do question authority, and while we have qualms about it, we have bigger qualms about living in an anarchy, or dreams of tiny libertarian utopian bubbles. I take your point, that most people who say "question authority" are not doing so on any deeper level, but the fact that someone has come to the conclusion that some level of authority is needed doesn't mean they are sheep or that they haven't thought about it.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Nov 21, 2016 12:12:21 GMT -5
You can count those who question authority on one metaphorical hand. Oh, there are people who question authorities, this or that politician who happens to wear the wrong color tie, when that politician or the bureaucrats they control commit a particularly egregious act against the free will of a "free" people. And you'll have those who are arguing just as vehemently that the act is justified, and people must be controlled for their own good. But almost nobody is willing to question authority. It's a given. Didn't you read the social contract? Why rob's even got a whole thread asking which reason you think is appropriate for surrendering your moral judgement to the ruling class. That you must surrender your moral judgement to the ruling class is essentially a given in today's society. "Question authority" is little more than the punchline to a joke these days. Some of us do question authority, and while we have qualms about it, we have bigger qualms about living in an anarchy, or dreams of tiny libertarian utopian bubbles. I take your point, that most people who say "question authority" are not doing so on any deeper level, but the fact that someone has come to the conclusion that some level of authority is needed doesn't mean they are sheep or that they haven't thought about it. Precisely. That's why I said "You can count those who question authority on one metaphorical hand" and "but almost nobody is willing to question authority." I stand by both statements, which is as far as I went. I said not one word about what the answer might be.
|
|
tanstaafl
Pundit
Retired 11/01/2016 and loving it!
Posts: 91
|
Post by tanstaafl on Nov 21, 2016 22:47:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 22, 2016 6:44:49 GMT -5
ETA: If Mike Pence wants to go back to being a private person, he can jolly well resign. As long as he literally has the power of life and death over those he rules, he's fair game. Anywhere. Today, I'd leave Hillary the hell alone. Two weeks ago, I'd have felt the same way about her. ETA2: As for "people should get to live their lives as people" I couldn't agree more. Which is precisely why those who believe otherwise, and who are willing to use guns and jails to back up their belief, get absolutely no respect from me. Mike Pence does not believe "people should get to live their lives as people." Hillary Clinton does not believe "people should get to live their lives as people." So why in the world would we extend to them a courtesy they're not willing to extend to us? Well, just to be clear here, Mike Pence currently has ZERO power, because he's not actually in office. Regardless, your attitude is a part of the problem, imo. Maybe not a big part, but it's certainly not a part of the solution. It's why we don't get a lot of good people in government anymore. Who wants to live their life like you expect them to, apart from megalomaniac-types who will eat shit 24/7 to get the power they crave? You're complaining about a situation that you are helping to insure will continue.
|
|
tanstaafl
Pundit
Retired 11/01/2016 and loving it!
Posts: 91
|
Post by tanstaafl on Nov 22, 2016 14:31:12 GMT -5
Not speaking for Don, but I don't really think that is an "attitude." (another of those emotion-heavy words) It is his personal philosophy and I personally have never seen it change. Given most situations, you have an idea of what his position is on the subject. I disagree with some, but i am firmly of the belief that the less government, the better (I worked for a state government for 26 years, so I am fully aware of what I am saying). Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 22, 2016 15:46:44 GMT -5
Let's call it his "proposition," then. And that being (in general): it's okay to go after some people in public because of their jobs and how they do them, even when they're not "on the clock," as it were. And I think that a terrible standard.
As an example, I think Chris Mathews is something of a jackwagon. And he's certainly a public figure. But if I happen upon him while he's having a quiet dinner or maybe doing some shopping, my low opinion of him doesn't give me carte blanche to tell him what I think of him, even if I do it respectfully. I mean, I CAN do it. But that would make me something of a jackwagon, as well.
So Leader A is out in public, not at work, with family at this place or that. People are free to stand up and lecture Leader A in front of everyone else, I guess. But I think that's rude. And it only leads to more of the same.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 22, 2016 15:53:02 GMT -5
The thing is, though, they didn't "go after" him. (The cast, I mean - they aren't responsible for the audience's spontaneous reaction.) They directly addressed him, respectfully, but it was hardly an attack.
And yeah, I do think being a political leader, especially on the level of a VP, is not like a suit you can just take off at the end of the day when you want to go outside. He's entitled to leisure time, and private time with his family, but I don't think he's entitled to go out in public and expect no one to address him in his role as the Vice President (elect), whether or not he feels like being the VP at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 22, 2016 15:55:06 GMT -5
I don't care if it was "respectful," or not. Wrong time, wrong place. Going up to him afterwards and asking for a moment of his time is completely appropriate. But see, it wasn't about the message, as much as it was about the public display of it.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 22, 2016 16:04:45 GMT -5
Well, of course it was.
Sorry, I don't see it as a breach of etiquette. Public figures don't get to be private figures at their convenience. He went to a public place - he risks being addressed publicly. He could always walk away - they didn't intrude on his personal space or obstruct his movements. But people get to speak to or even yell at politicians who are out in public. As public addresses go, this one was very civil.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 22, 2016 16:37:24 GMT -5
Again, imo such a view is problematic, insofar as it's an incentive for intelligent, decent people to NOT pursue public office.
Being an office-holder is--supposedly, at least--just a job that citizens take on from time to time. Making it into something more has been and continues to be bad news, imo.
And FYI, Pence still handled the whole thing with class and dignity, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 22, 2016 16:41:22 GMT -5
So the job's tough. Yeah, that means only those with thick skins are going to seek public office. I wouldn't want a prospective VP who is daunted by the prospect of getting booed by a Broadway audience or called out from the stage.
I have no problem with how Pence handled it.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Nov 22, 2016 16:47:06 GMT -5
I think a president or vice president of the U.S. is a far different job than a TV pundit or celebrity. I don't think someone in public service has a reasonable expectation of not being addressed by the public they serve when they're out in public. IMO, that's part of the job they sign up for.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 22, 2016 16:50:59 GMT -5
Well, it's a risk/reward thing. And I think there a pretty easy calculus here, with regard to the type of person who will find it worth it or not worth it. In general, dishonest megalomaniacs are going to be the first sort. I'd like to have fewer of them in office, myself. And that means attracting more of the latter sort. Cinncinatus is the ideal, not Nero.
|
|