Remaining pockets of sanity in America
Steve_B
Veteran
A political thread -- sorry -- but one of hope and inspiration.
This is a follow-on from Mountains' thread about the last day of sanity. But I am pleased to notice that sanity hasn't been driven extinct (despite mighty efforts) but is spontaneously manifesting in hopeful ways in a variety of places.
Here are two:
Airport officials facilitate protests
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/us-immigration-protests/
This is actually a story about many different protests of the Muslim ban, but I noticed partway down the snippets about various officials going out of their way to make sure protests were facilitated. I work in facilities management, and I can tell you that this is quite astonishing. The LAST thing you want is a disruption boisterously clogging your facility. But a variety of folks at different airports shifted things on the fly to allow protesters to have their voices heard. Really remarkable. And heroically sane.
Starbucks pledges to hire refugees
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/29/news/companies/starbucks-hiring-refugees/
Our new and cheerful government may want to slam the door on desperate war-ravaged homeless refugees, but Starbucks will take them in. Maybe the cultural leaders we'd like to see emerge to triumph over the new scourge aren't musicians after all; maybe they're wealthy business executives this time. Who'd've thought?
As you notice other little hidden pockets with manifestations of sanity, post them here.
Comments
The other day I saw a clip about what the "mayor of Boston" had to say ...
Apparently UBER is loosing drivers and customers since their support of Trumps Muslim immigration ban. Lyft app downloads have surpassed UBER for the first time on Sunday. There is a #deleteUBER movement.
The sane have risen and will be heard!
If I understand right, some of the Uber movement is also due to their refusal to participant in the taxi "strike" that happened at many airports over the weekend. Instead of supporting, Uber raised prices and took advantage of it. It's pretty risky of companies to take a vocal stance, as either way they are alienating half of the population. It's nice, because it makes visible the companies I want to continue to support.
Sally Yates decision to stand up and say "no, the DOJ will not enforce your probably unlawful ban" was pretty gutsy. She lost her job and changed her vast career over standing up to him. Awesome lady.
If she'd post to this thread we could give her some Awesomes.
Do you get it now?
Trump the person.
We the (good) people. Much needed as always.
The video is from Denmark, but a lovely sentiment, and I was heartened to see that on FB, it has 15 million views. Gives me hope for us yet
That's it. Brexit, Trump, Tesco's...
I am moving to Denmark....
^^. Denmark is a state of mind.
Oh I am so New Age Zenny ... 
Dharma, remember her, is a new empty box. In a sense we replace junk thinking with right thoughts. Yep brainwashing for those who have nothing but gibbering monkeys and opinions in their box ... Then we start to use the calm and tool set to clear out/empty the box, rather than accumulating junk/karma.
Eventually we flatten the box. Now we are in the biggest empty box of all.
Welcome to the real world.
Morpheus
Violent riot in UC Berkeley last night.
Not so sane.
Speaking out and protesting is one thing, but beating people in the street with poles and smashing up local banks and stores is another.
That was so sad to see because I liked where that protest was going while it was peaceful - trying to stop an alt-right speaker but once you start trashing the place you lose your point
Let's all just go to Canada. Justin Trudeau will take care of us.
Party at my house
It wasn't that the protest went awry. These were not the protesters that caused this destruction and violence. This was a group of 150 masked thugs who the Oakland cops have had issues with for a while now.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/
The same happened in MN when what start as peaceful protests are joined by street thugs who use such scenes as a reason to practice their anarchic beliefs in a somewhat anonymous way. They are not part of the protest movement at-large.
Now, I am not a fan of using violence for anything. But, I do think often about the other side of these things. Milo Y. is violent in his speech at every turn. He is a hateful, spiteful turd who incites people and then points and says "see, look what you did!" Today, 8 DAPL protesters were charged huge fines for their part in protests. But is what the companies are doing not even more violent than throwing things? And the absurd violence the US govt has perpetrated against the Natives in the past, and during these protests? Where is the justice on the other side? When do the cops pay fines for exploding a grenade on a woman's arm and using violent means to dissolve a mostly peaceful protest? Like I said, fighting violence with violence isn't the answer. But I don't think it's right to only look at one reaction without looking what brought it about. In many cases, the violence that preceded it is much worse and affected many more people.
I like to hear both sides. But I don't want to catch a fist.
I think both sides are imperfectly human. Though I lean toward Libertarian ideals.
Meaning... You can live however you want as long as you don't harm anyone else.
To threaten with violence a speaker with a different point of view is a definite no no.
To me though, a different point of view, and a violent, harmful, hate-spewing rhetoric are not the same thing. Viewing topics differently is one thing. Treating people poorly, even with words, is another. To me anyhow. I think Milo IS causing harm with the kind of speeches he is giving, especially to malleable and impressionable young minds. He is basically a bully on a national stage, and there is a reason we don't tolerate bullying as an acceptable means of expressing your "different view." Because it hurts people to the tune that dozens of people every year kill themselves over it.
The first amendment entitles everyone to free speech.
Yet there is no amendment that entitles anyone to freedom of violence against those who disagree with you.
(Of course some countries believe in censorship)
Freedom of speech does not give one freedom from the consequences of that speech. That is why we have laws against things like harassment etc. When your speech crosses a line it interferes with someone else's right to enjoy their lives and that's where the problem begins. Like I said, I wasn't advocating for the violence that has happened as a result of Milo's visits. But I think looking at the reasons for those reactions is important. Freedom of Speech comes with responsibilities and consequences. It has also be ruled in court that it is not a free card to say whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want. Regardless of legalities, my point was your statement that you can do whatever you want as long as you aren't hurting someone doesn't hold water with me because there is a lot that goes into hurting someone beyond punching them in the face. And sometimes people with awful, rude, harmful speech deserve to be punched in the face.
-My God, I just realized with that tunnel, you could drive to Denmark...
Personally, I think that ignoring and/or giving a platform to fascists and their brand of bigotry is dangerous because it just allows it to fester and spread and potentially gain popular support, as it did in Germany and Italy during the early-mid 20th century and is currently happening in places like Greece with groups like Golden Dawn, France with Le Pen and the National Front, and the US with the rise of the alt-right. Rather than simply ignoring them, I think it's better to show up, confront them, and scare them back under whatever rock they crawled out from.
I agree, in essence. That said, I don't hold the Constitution or the First Amendment sacrosanct. In addition, it's interesting to note that, despite the First Amendment, free speech is already limited under our current bourgeois political form by things like the fighting words doctrine, which, established by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, holds that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
Even though subsequent Supreme Court rulings have since narrowed what's considered 'fighting words' (e.g., Street v. New York, Cohen v. California, etc.), and concluded that "the mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio), it can't be ignored that a constitutional line has been drawn between free speech and non-protected speech, e.g., speech that's intended to, and will likely cause, immediate breach of the peace (acts of violence). And I think that advocates of censorship, at least in certain instances, have more ground to stand on, intellectually as well as legally, than many free-speech advocate are willing to admit.
The real question, in my opinion, is whether this is due to the vagueness of the line drawn by the Supreme Court or some kind of inherent weakness in the institution of constitutionally protected free speech itself. In other words, is there an inherently repressive aspect to liberal ideas of, and basis for, free speech rights (as some coming from a Marxist perspective might argue, for example), or is this repressiveness (i.e., grounds for censorship) simply due to conflicts in the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment? Or even more provocatively, does America's institution of free speech allow dominant ideas and forms of expression (i.e., those sanctioned by the state and/or ruling class) to create a background in which progressive (or one could even say radical) ideas are limited "even before the courts create whatever explicit limitations they devise," as the authors of "Codes of Silence" suggest Herbert Marcuse argues in "Repressive Tolerance"?
To phrase it yet another way and add another dimension to the discussion, does censorship = (or lead to) freedom in certain contexts, or is this simply Orwellian doublespeak for a possibly well-meaning but ultimately repressive attitude towards tolerance? Should tolerance extend to all things equally (as some die-hard free-speech advocates would argue), or should a distinction be made between what Marcuse called "liberating tolerance," which enlarges "the range and content of freedom" and is "intolerant toward the protagonists of the repressive status quo," and "indiscriminate [or repressive] tolerance," which, under the current societal structure, allows "the expression of 'false words and wrong deeds' to work against the attainment of 'liberation' and of true 'freedom and happiness'" and becomes "an instrument for the continuation of servitude" by those in power?
To use an extreme example, take the Nazi's racist ideology, which made being Jewish dangerous and ultimately a death sentence in Germany: Should their expression of anti-Semitism be defended on free speech grounds, or would it better (and more moral) to oppose and actively attempt to suppress such ideas? Should Mein Kampf and Hitler's hate speech against the Jews et al. be defended, or should it, too, be opposed and suppressed? Same with present-day fascists. Aren't fascist rallies and actions forms of intimidation for gays, minorities, etc., whom they verbal and sometime physically threaten?
In essence, does being unequivocally pro-free speech mean sometimes being placed in a seemingly contradictory position, such as defending the Nazi's right to promote their racist ideology and rhetoric of violence against the Jews, which helped turn German society against Jews and make the Holocaust possible, while at the same time supporting military violence against them for the consequences that arose out of supporting a situation where such ideas became dominant in the first place? A legitimate question emerges, I think: Is it ever justifiable (at least in certain situations) to suppress free speech, or should we always be tolerant of everything? And these days, I'm leaning more towards the position that certain kinds of speech should be censored/suppressed.
For interest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom
These links are also interesting...
Hate Speech Laws by country
Freedom of Speech by country
In the US, the Declaration came before the Constitution, and it is what guarantees us the " certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." If interpretations of Constitutional rights cause someone else to be unable to reasonably have life, liberty and happiness, then they've crossed a line. Ie: you don't get to bully someone because you are removing their right happiness. You don't get to use your beliefs to cause someone else to lack access to their life, liberty or happiness.
Edited to remove off-topic blather of mine
I did just see this, a good example of why your free speech doesn't get you a free pass. Bullied teen killed himself and his boss at work is charged with manslaughter for contributing to his suicide via her bullying and treatment of him, none of which caused him physical harm but clearly harmed him to a severe enough degree.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/us/suicide-dairy-queen-charge-trnd/index.html
Freedom of speech is a right that comes with responsibility and accountability
Indeed. I liken it to Right Speech. While I wouldn't make a law on the basis of it, I think it's a wonderful guideline to determine if something is harmful or not. And if you can't answer that it's not, then you have some thinking to do about the things you are saying, especially when you are addressing large groups of people. Regardless of what the legalities may or may not be.
^--- Avatar......
The Berkeley incident was a case of outside anarchist agitators invading a peaceful protest to create chaos. It's not the first time it's happened in Berkeley, and it's something that's been going on in the US since the WTO conference protest in Seattle in the 90's. The university administration stated to the media (a simple search for CNN, USA Today, etc. articles would reveal this) that the students' demonstration was peaceful, and that they recognized the black-dressed figures as being from a violent anarchist organization in Oakland.
IMO, it's crucial that peaceful protesters prepare for these outsiders, by planning to sit down en masse when violence breaks out. That would expose the perpetrators, sending a clear message to them and to the public that peaceful demonstrators are not part of the violence nor do they support it, and it would make the perpetrators easily accessible to police. This is a simple strategy that students and other organizers haven't realized is necessary; it seems no one has figured out that the problem of violent outsiders infiltrating peaceful actions has become a chronic problem and must be planned for and dealt with.
The same thing happened in Toronto during the G20 summit in 2010. The majority if Torontonians protested peacfully or were just there to watch the chaos but it was the outsiders that went around smashing windows and burning police vehicles. It felt like Martial Law which was strange to see in Toronto. Police started arresting everyone on the street. Later some police officers had court cases due to unlawful arrests.
Apparently, they (the college) knew this group was planning to come. They had a huge police presence as a result, including copters and the whole deal. The admin requested to cancel the event, but the college higher ups refused. This is per one of the professors that was involved with planning it. The first tried to cancel it because Milo held up a photo of and named a student in WI and mocked him for being transgender in front of his audience. They refused to cancel. The day of, they found out about the extremists. Here is part of what she said. Her name is Linda Haverty Rugg.
"On the day of the event we received word that right-wing extremists would be on campus, and we knew that in all likelihood there would be a left-wing radicals and anarchists as well. A fully ramped-up police presence was in place by the afternoon, with helicopters overhead, extra officers, barricades, fire trucks, and ambulances. Berkeley PD was in evidence, and we I would find out later that Oakland PD was at the ready as well. A peaceful gathering of about 1000 or more students and faculty were protesting when a group of masked demonstrators in black broke into the scene and began to shoot off fireworks, set things on fire, throw things at the police, overturn barricades, and break windows at the venue. At that point the event was canceled, in part to protect Milo and his audience. The agitators moved on to vandalize our campus, but the students and faculty dispersed peacefully, and many began to pick up trash and clean Telegraph Ave." She mentions later that some of the protesters were attacked and injured by the masked people.
As Tigger mentioned, it has happened at a lot of protests, including the Native DAPL protests, and the Castille shooting protests last summer in MN.
A friend posted this today, I thought it was a good read.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/ctbw.htm
At University of CO at Boulder, the protests were peaceful when Milo came to town. But the next day I heard a conservative radio announcer, who attended the event, say he really, really wanted one of the "lefties" to hit him, but it didn't happen. Really. This leads to a larger idea that's floating around out there: this Milo is basically an agitator, the most recent visible edge of a group of conservatives that want to see colleges and universities lose Federal funding due to their freethinking (i.e. intrinsically liberal) nature. And hey presto, the Donald is already threatening such. There really seems to be no limit to the widening cesspool of American politics.
Did you ever think you'd see the day when half of the American voting population have disdain for a college education?
I think a lot of the people who voted for Trump ignored his worst qualities and policies and went for something they saw as the biggest issue and liked his answer best, and he won their votes based on that alone (largely the promise to restore jobs to a very large segment of the population that did not see job recovery while professional industries did). I doubt hardly any of them voted for him thinking he'd harm higher education. They either didn't know, or just didn't care enough over the issues that were more important to them.
I hadn't really thought of it until now @Nele, but I have no doubt that a vocal segment of the far right want to destroy and eliminate liberal institutions. It's scary to imagine a world where they succeed. My hope is that, like @karasti said much of his support came from those who wouldn't support that kind of thing and were only hoping for better job prospects.
It is a nice fantasy(CAL sessions)
We are a doner state. We get 65% back of what we pay in on a good year. Alaska, Alabama and Georgia, to name a few, would be loath to see us take our money and leave the table - they are taker states. Less $ for them. Red States are so ungrateful, calling us bad names while taking our money. Tsk, tsk!
Well, back to my hot cocoa.
Peace to all
Good plan.
Surely the police can only break up peace-niks when they allegedly turn violent ... Not that the gestapo police would ever do anything underhand [allegedly] ... As for the anarchic outsiders, citizen arrest them, escort them by stewards to the police etc. Police plus protestors can work together ... in fact it is a plan ...
>
Howzabout the new Kommandant-in-Chief and his brainless lackeys condemning the violence when they were encouraging their supporters to get violent with protesters at his campaign rallies last year?
So do I, sometimes, when I see college students acting or talking as rigid and dogmatic as the conservatives they so self-righteously condemn.
Milos Y may be on the extreme fringe but some other speakers who've created liberal tizzies on college campuses include the feminist Christina Hoff-Summers who speaks out against 'safe spaces' and 'trigger warnings' which more and more have come to mean 'insulating one's self from opinions we simply don't like', and here in Toronto, a Univ of Toronto professor for whom some students were calling for his firing just because he said he wasn't going to use a third set of pronouns from people who are 'gender binary'.
Now, however you feel about safe spaces, trigger warnings or 'gender binary' identification, college students are making it quite clear that they want to hear the liberal and liberal side only and can't even fathom anyone who dares challenge the liberal party line. When you try to get a man fired because he won't use the "correct" terminology for something you can't even agree on (he's confused by the whole 'gender binary' thing as am I), and you TRY TO GET HIM FIRED, well, not only have you got major big-time First World Problems, but you're no better than the Post Turtle screaming for the head of a federal judge because he doesn't like the way the judge ruled on his immigration ban.
I consider myself largely leftist but even I'm appalled by what rigid little left-wing Nazis college students have become - no better than the right-wing nuts they condemn.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/03/college-campus-free-speech-thought-police-463536.html
Unfortunately, these are the very people and actions that fuel Trump, Milos Y, the alt-right, etc...No one listens to anyone else and insulates themselves in their own little echo chambers. Thich Nhat Hanh wrote of the "war on terror" more than ten years ago in The Art of Power where he points out that 'deep listening' fixes problems better than guns and bombs.
There are grievances on the Trump side that the left didn't want to listen to and it was driven underground and now spews out in its nastiest, ugliest form. I wonder if we could have avoided this if people on both sides would STFU and listen more.
With all due respect, you don't seem to be doing that yourself. Blaming the left for what the right is doing, that's just wrong. Unless you're Muslim or a minority that feels they need a safe place, I wouldn't comment. Unless you're transgender, I wouldn't comment. I have a feeling that you're neither. The only reason some people feel sensitive to these issues is because of what they have been through in the past. I also think calling them left-wing Nazi's is a little disrespectful. Do you know what a Nazi is and what they have done #rhetorical
I do agree with you though that both sides need to listen but they are too concerned with pushing their own agenda.
As with most things the media pushes extremes. Yes, there are some crazy things that have happened or almost happened (like a yoga instructor being forced off campus for stealing India's culture after a small group pushed for it despite the numerous people she helped). But those aren't the norm. If you think they are I suggest you spend some time on college campuses and hang out with young people. I have a college son, and he would not agree either that these things are normal. Colleges, from the very liberal to the conservative, are still among the biggest institutions to insist on free speech that there are. They are still places where young people learn how to open their minds to other people and ideas, and this happens much more often than the other stuff you mention. Perhaps it is more common in your area, as several of the stories I've seen suggesting such things have all been from Toronto. That doesn't mean it's common place though.
It seems to me that you yourself @ZenCanuck have issues with some of these things simply because you don't understand them. Your lack of understanding doesn't mean those things aren't sometimes needed. Why do you insist on invalidating those who don't feel they fit in a gender box by using quotations? There is no reason to do such things. Why call a whole group of young people "rigid little left wing Nazis"?
I'd recommend Jonathan Haidt for a respectful take on the over reaches of the left, particularly the rising issue of the thought police on campuses.
Thank you!!!! Can we PLEASE desist from this?????
Why on earth do you need to be a member of a group to comment? Do you really think outsiders have no right to their opinion? Do you think insiders can look at their situation any way other than subjectively? Assuming we don't have the right to comment because we don't belong to X or Y group is just another way of insulating them (or insulating themselves) from opinions or criticisms they don't like.
Bet no one has a problem with positive comments, if offered by an outsider...
Sorry if I upset people with my language. How do y'all feel about the efforts to squash free speech by some members of the left?
I already commented about it. Free speech is not really free. It does have limits from a moral standpoint even if the government can't legally prosecute you for it. Opposing views are one thing. I am open to hearing all sorts of other views. Harmful speech that actually impacts people on a very real basis is abuse and shouldn't be tolerated any more than we tolerate mental or emotional abuse of kids, spouses or anyone else. I let the laws take care of the legalities. For my part, I'm not going to support abuse or hate because I believe it is harmful. Are there problems going on that shouldn't be? Yes. But I don't in any way believe they represent an entire generation of young people.
No, you're really not, or you wouldn't have made this post.
Being upset about "efforts to squash free speech" and passionately saying so does not equal consistently referring to Hitler.
No I think they're entitled to their opinion. As a member of such a "group" myself, I appreciate all the support I'm shown, but if you're an "outsider" whilst you can empathise and defend all you want, you can't understand as you don't go through what we do. It's not being elitist, snobby or insulting - it's a fact.
Yes. The hatred I encounter on an almost daily basis by "outsiders" proves it.
Answered above.
Why on earth? Because unless you have been there, unless you are part of a group that feels uncomfortable with how people view you and the things they say, you shouldn't comment. You are free to say what you want, it's a free country but VERY irresponsible. I would NEVER comment on how a black person feels because I'm not black so I cannot even begging to understand. I would NEVER comment on how a Muslim feels because I am not Muslim so I have no idea. You can have your views and comments but let's be honest, your post was anything but compassionate and understanding. Everyone can comment but it's what your comment is that matters.
If you feel safe spaces are a bad idea then a better comment would be discussing how we can make EVERYONE feel safe so we don't need them instead of what you wrote. Again, this is my opinion and you're entitled to yours but I cannot stand by and just read a post like that without saying something.
I started a thread about this not that long ago
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/24089/has-pc-culture-gone-too-far-with-micro-aggression#latest
I'm assuming (PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong) that the squashing of free speech by the left that you are referring to here is the left wanting to be politically correct, am I right?. In my opionion this is not squashing free speech, it's being responsible with your speech since we now live in a more multi-cultural environment. Being a little more sensative to other cultures or religions does NOT affect me in any way, if it affects you then maybe you need to look at why it makes you so angry to not be able to say things like "curry for brians".
By the way, someone in the Trump administration said yesterday that Trump will stop saying that the media is fake news when they stop attacking him in the news...what do you call that. I call it squashing free speech, and it was the right that said it.