3 ms·

>The major difference is money being used to lead people, set policy, do advocacy, etc... Spending money on advocacy doesn't do anything except try to convince

>The major difference is money being used to lead people, set policy, do advocacy, etc... Spending money on advocacy doesn't do anything except try to convince people. People don't need to be protected from bad opinions. They're perfectly capable of sorting it out for themselves. There are people spending billions of dollars to advance all sorts of political ideas. Most of them will fail. At the end of the day, the ballot box is where the final power lies. There are many donors on the left that are engaging in the same kind of advocacy as the Koch brothers and other donors are on the right. If you think that your views are underrepresented, get involved. You don't even need to donate a single cent to make an impact. All of these organizations are hungry for volunteers. >We can't, for example, make a reasonable, "don't be an asshole" type of law. But we can hold assholes accountable through speech in the hopes that they will reconsider being assholes, though they don't really have to do that. Anonymity is not just the for the rich and powerful, you can see it in force on the internet everyday. Have you seen the politics section of Reddit? A lot of vitriolic and inaccurate things about conservatives and the right (and the left too, in many cases) are said behind the veil of anonymity. Things that people would not dare say on-the-record. There's equally hateful things coming out of some conservative web forums. Should we ban anonymous comments online? >Many of us are not impressed with the outcome. How do we hold these anonymous forces acting through multiple corporate proxies to account for their negative influence on how we live, work, play, love? This is the crux of it. Some people don't like the outcomes of American politics, and so they want to get the upper hand by neutering the freedom of those that they disagree with. You should change your focus to winning in the realm of ideas, not censorship or intimidation. If your ideas can't win on their merits alone, then maybe they don't deserve to.

ddingus 11y ago
First, please discontinue implications that I'm seeking to remedy outcomes I don't like by censoring or somehow attempting to seek advantages over those who are responsible for those outcomes. That's not the argument I've made, nor will I make it. The argument is one of trust. Massive amounts of dollars in the process simply isn't trustworthy. There is no way it can be trustworthy. Secondly, if we are to keep the dollars involved, and we need to trust the process, and I submit we do need to trust the process, then disclosure is the minimum needed for that trust to be meaningful. Your comparison of anon dollars to comments made by people online is quite frankly, laughable. I won't address it further. "Winning in the realm of ideas" and "If your ideas can't win on their merits alone, then maybe they don't deserve to." Some how you have attempted to make this about me. Please reconsider that as well. It's not good form. Censorship and intimidation? LOL Really, these are the framing used by people who want to speak loudly and frequently, while not being spoken to themselves. Linking that to a "merit" and "market of ideas" argument is also, frankly, laughable! A debate goes both ways, and it's a contact sport for a reason. If I were to say, like Trump has, "All the fat girls just gotta go." that's deplorable! Right? Or, it's laughable too, depending on how it's all taken and presented. But it's not an idea with any real merit. If I can say that, loud, over a sustained amount of time, with complete impunity, what else can I say and get away with? Anything? What that is is a shouting match, not politics. And it's not healthy, nor meaningful discourse. On the other hand, if "ddingus" says we need to get rid of all the fat girls now, and that's linked to me, and I spend a lot of money on it? Now, I'm the asshole, bat shit crazy nut. People can see that for what it is, ignore it, and they can take my reputation and rub my face in how shitty my advocacy really is. Good, that's how it should work, and that's one of the primary reasons the First Amendment does not have a shield in it too. Prevents really bad ideas from even taking root, as it should. Linking anon comments to the need to "balance" that with large amounts of money because someone got butt hurt over some stuff they found on Reddit makes no sense at all. And I'll leave it there.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  >Now, I'm the asshole, bat shit crazy nut. People can see that for what it is, ignore it, and they can take my reputation and rub my face in how shitty my advocacy really is. If I can say that, loud, over a sustained amount of time, with complete impunity, what else can I say and get away with? Anything? What that is is a shouting match, not politics. And it's not healthy, nor meaningful discourse. Whether or not there's a name behind that stupid idea, it will still be dismissed as stupid. The source of an idea doesn't determine whether it's a good idea or not. And I don't think we need laws determining what is or is not "meaningful" or "healthy" discourse. Democracy is not supposed to be orderly. >On the other hand, if "ddingus" says we need to get rid of all the fat girls now, and that's linked to me, and I spend a lot of money on it?Now, I'm the asshole, bat shit crazy nut. People can see that for what it is, ignore it, and they can take my reputation and rub my face in how shitty my advocacy really is. I'd like to point out that right here you're advocating for going after people's personal reputations over their donations. This is why people are so opposed to disclosure. >First, please discontinue implications that I'm seeking to remedy outcomes I don't like by censoring or somehow attempting to seek advantages over those who are responsible for those outcomes. Isn't that exactly what you're arguing for? You want to require disclosure of donations because you want to be able to go after people's personal reputations. That's intimidation in my book.
  - ddingus 11y ago
    As it should be. Nobody should speak with impunity. Act like an ass, get called out an an ass. This keeps the number of asses and how much of an ass they are in check. Like I said, there is no shield in the First Amendment, not should there be. People who are considering advocacy that will impact a lot of people really do need to think about that and the implications they may experience in the future. Real lives, families and people are at stake. It is not a game. And it's a mutual skin in the game dynamic too. Our personal reputation includes the stuff we say, and the things we do. If we do and say vile things, then it is going to impact us. It makes no sense to allow some of is to speak with impunity nor accountability. I could just as easily say people with money want to impose their ideas on others without any consequences. That's nuts! Might as well just return to old world ideas of rulers and kings. That's not what the US is about. Our leaders need to fear us. If people with a lot of money want to get political, they too need to fear the people. They need that fear in place so they have good reason to treat the people well. If it all goes bad, those people are going to want a remedy. That's only fair. Without that, ordinary people are just lab rats, subject to all sorts of things, and experiencing costs and risks too, while the bright idea guy, just doing advocacy says, oops? No thanks. That is corrupt as fuck, and not OK.
ddingus 11y ago
Second, it's about those bad outcomes. If I trust the process, and the process renders a bad outcome, then I can live with that, do the work to compensate, and understand that maybe I'm in the wrong, or a minority, or have options I just don't want to take. Whatever. On the other hand, if I'm experiencing bad outcomes due to corruption, and make no mistake, the US politics are ripe with corruption that disclosure would do a lot of good on, then it's just not the same. Maybe I'm having to make choices and suffer costs and risks I don't need to just so somebody somewhere can have "just a little more", or "hates those other people" or some other lame thing. That's cause for rebellion, as it should be, and historically has been since the dawn of time. Do we want rebellion? That is the most likely outcome of a process we don't trust. Disclosure might be the cheaper, more just and true alternative. No joke.

ddingus 11y ago

First, please discontinue implications that I'm seeking to remedy outcomes I don't like by censoring or somehow attempting to seek advantages over those who are responsible for those outcomes. That's not the argument I've made, nor will I make it. The argument is one of trust. Massive amounts of dollars in the process simply isn't trustworthy. There is no way it can be trustworthy. Secondly, if we are to keep the dollars involved, and we need to trust the process, and I submit we do need to trust the process, then disclosure is the minimum needed for that trust to be meaningful. Your comparison of anon dollars to comments made by people online is quite frankly, laughable. I won't address it further. "Winning in the realm of ideas" and "If your ideas can't win on their merits alone, then maybe they don't deserve to." Some how you have attempted to make this about me. Please reconsider that as well. It's not good form. Censorship and intimidation? LOL Really, these are the framing used by people who want to speak loudly and frequently, while not being spoken to themselves. Linking that to a "merit" and "market of ideas" argument is also, frankly, laughable! A debate goes both ways, and it's a contact sport for a reason. If I were to say, like Trump has, "All the fat girls just gotta go." that's deplorable! Right? Or, it's laughable too, depending on how it's all taken and presented. But it's not an idea with any real merit. If I can say that, loud, over a sustained amount of time, with complete impunity, what else can I say and get away with? Anything? What that is is a shouting match, not politics. And it's not healthy, nor meaningful discourse. On the other hand, if "ddingus" says we need to get rid of all the fat girls now, and that's linked to me, and I spend a lot of money on it? Now, I'm the asshole, bat shit crazy nut. People can see that for what it is, ignore it, and they can take my reputation and rub my face in how shitty my advocacy really is. Good, that's how it should work, and that's one of the primary reasons the First Amendment does not have a shield in it too. Prevents really bad ideas from even taking root, as it should. Linking anon comments to the need to "balance" that with large amounts of money because someone got butt hurt over some stuff they found on Reddit makes no sense at all. And I'll leave it there.

marcoperaza 11y ago
>Now, I'm the asshole, bat shit crazy nut. People can see that for what it is, ignore it, and they can take my reputation and rub my face in how shitty my advocacy really is. If I can say that, loud, over a sustained amount of time, with complete impunity, what else can I say and get away with? Anything? What that is is a shouting match, not politics. And it's not healthy, nor meaningful discourse. Whether or not there's a name behind that stupid idea, it will still be dismissed as stupid. The source of an idea doesn't determine whether it's a good idea or not. And I don't think we need laws determining what is or is not "meaningful" or "healthy" discourse. Democracy is not supposed to be orderly. >On the other hand, if "ddingus" says we need to get rid of all the fat girls now, and that's linked to me, and I spend a lot of money on it?Now, I'm the asshole, bat shit crazy nut. People can see that for what it is, ignore it, and they can take my reputation and rub my face in how shitty my advocacy really is. I'd like to point out that right here you're advocating for going after people's personal reputations over their donations. This is why people are so opposed to disclosure. >First, please discontinue implications that I'm seeking to remedy outcomes I don't like by censoring or somehow attempting to seek advantages over those who are responsible for those outcomes. Isn't that exactly what you're arguing for? You want to require disclosure of donations because you want to be able to go after people's personal reputations. That's intimidation in my book.
- ddingus 11y ago
  As it should be. Nobody should speak with impunity. Act like an ass, get called out an an ass. This keeps the number of asses and how much of an ass they are in check. Like I said, there is no shield in the First Amendment, not should there be. People who are considering advocacy that will impact a lot of people really do need to think about that and the implications they may experience in the future. Real lives, families and people are at stake. It is not a game. And it's a mutual skin in the game dynamic too. Our personal reputation includes the stuff we say, and the things we do. If we do and say vile things, then it is going to impact us. It makes no sense to allow some of is to speak with impunity nor accountability. I could just as easily say people with money want to impose their ideas on others without any consequences. That's nuts! Might as well just return to old world ideas of rulers and kings. That's not what the US is about. Our leaders need to fear us. If people with a lot of money want to get political, they too need to fear the people. They need that fear in place so they have good reason to treat the people well. If it all goes bad, those people are going to want a remedy. That's only fair. Without that, ordinary people are just lab rats, subject to all sorts of things, and experiencing costs and risks too, while the bright idea guy, just doing advocacy says, oops? No thanks. That is corrupt as fuck, and not OK.

ddingus 11y ago

Second, it's about those bad outcomes. If I trust the process, and the process renders a bad outcome, then I can live with that, do the work to compensate, and understand that maybe I'm in the wrong, or a minority, or have options I just don't want to take. Whatever. On the other hand, if I'm experiencing bad outcomes due to corruption, and make no mistake, the US politics are ripe with corruption that disclosure would do a lot of good on, then it's just not the same. Maybe I'm having to make choices and suffer costs and risks I don't need to just so somebody somewhere can have "just a little more", or "hates those other people" or some other lame thing. That's cause for rebellion, as it should be, and historically has been since the dawn of time. Do we want rebellion? That is the most likely outcome of a process we don't trust. Disclosure might be the cheaper, more just and true alternative. No joke.