3 ms·

>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 advoc

>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
Oh, and people are so opposed to anon money because they will have to suffer the results of its influence on their lives and politics, while those who brought it about do not. That cuts both ways. Again, I am making an equality and a process argument. All of us need to be subject to meaningful checks and balances in our politics as well as how we conduct ourselves. This is for all of our mutual good. There is absolutely nothing about a person of means that qualifies them for immunity to their basic obligations as fellow citizens in this nation. The sum of your argument here is might makes right. That is not the intent of, nor a desirable body politic. In all your points here, you have not yet addressed how to check abuses. There are abuses going on right now, and there will be more abuses going forward too. Where is the check on that? What remedy do people really have? Why should they tolerate it? And how exactly do we weigh the merits of ideas, or even qualify them, when those who want to see then actualized will not be living with the outcomes related to them? I did find your freedom argument compelling. I find your complete rejection of the notion of having personal responsibility deeply offensive and more than a little disturbing. Otherwise, great discussion! You have given me both some food for thought on where the real conflict lies, as well as a more keen understanding on the dynamics inherent in all of this. That will go to great use and improved advocacy, potentially activism elsewhere. Appreciated. Enjoy your new year. I know I will.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Happy New Year too. Thanks for the good discussion!

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

Oh, and people are so opposed to anon money because they will have to suffer the results of its influence on their lives and politics, while those who brought it about do not. That cuts both ways. Again, I am making an equality and a process argument. All of us need to be subject to meaningful checks and balances in our politics as well as how we conduct ourselves. This is for all of our mutual good. There is absolutely nothing about a person of means that qualifies them for immunity to their basic obligations as fellow citizens in this nation. The sum of your argument here is might makes right. That is not the intent of, nor a desirable body politic. In all your points here, you have not yet addressed how to check abuses. There are abuses going on right now, and there will be more abuses going forward too. Where is the check on that? What remedy do people really have? Why should they tolerate it? And how exactly do we weigh the merits of ideas, or even qualify them, when those who want to see then actualized will not be living with the outcomes related to them? I did find your freedom argument compelling. I find your complete rejection of the notion of having personal responsibility deeply offensive and more than a little disturbing. Otherwise, great discussion! You have given me both some food for thought on where the real conflict lies, as well as a more keen understanding on the dynamics inherent in all of this. That will go to great use and improved advocacy, potentially activism elsewhere. Appreciated. Enjoy your new year. I know I will.

marcoperaza 11y ago
Happy New Year too. Thanks for the good discussion!