3 ms·

a political party whose platform is explicitly anti-empiricist, anti-civil-liberties, pro-internet-content-restricting, etc. I think you're mistaken when you a

a political party whose platform is explicitly anti-empiricist, anti-civil-liberties, pro-internet-content-restricting, etc. I think you're mistaken when you assert that Beck is a Democrat. I mean, isn't that the party that * backs the environmentalist approach of corrupting peer-reviewed science? * seeks to remove our 2nd Amendment right to self-defense? * supports the SCOTUS justices that allow State governments to take our property (viz Kelo)? * promotes restrictions on speech critical of protected groups? * etc. Note: I'm not a Republican by any means. My point here is that the two major parties are much closer than most rhetoric would suggest, to the point of being two sides of the same coin. Choose which evil you hate the least. It should be clear that both DEM and GOP pick-and-choose which values are most important, and discard the others. What they really share is a common disregard for the individual, and a propensity for an increase in the power of the State at the expense of the liberty of the individuals. Edit: I'm constantly shocked at how easily people blind themselves to the abuses of their own team, while condemning their opponent. Back in the cultural revolution in China, there was a painting made for which the artist was imprisoned. It showed an owl (which in Mandarin is almost a homophone for "Mao") with its left eye closed and its right eye open, signifying that Mao was blind to the abuses of the Left, while alert for any slight from the Right.

jacobolus 17y ago
Oy. It’s really not worth arguing about politics on YC news, but here goes: > backs the environmentalist approach of corrupting peer-reviewed science? Which Democratic Party leader said that? Come on, name him. Is it Obama? Steven Chu, our energy secretary? Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA? Pelosi? Barbara Boxer? Come on, let’s hear it. > seeks to remove our 2nd Amendment right to self-defense? You’re confusing “self defense” with “carry a semiautomatic weapon”. That’s okay though, it seems to be a common confusion. In any case, current social consensus about reasonable ways and places to carry guns has almost nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, as was copiously documented by Stevens’s and Breyer’s dissents in Heller. > Supports Kelo. You’re right that Democrats mostly support the Kelo decision, if only because the opposite decision would set a precedent they view as dangerous. I’m not going to get into the merits of the case because it is complicated. What does it have to do with Apple? No one has any kind of eminent domain claim for One Infinite Loop. > Supports restrictions on [hate speech] That’s true. Personally, I’m conflicted about government responses to hate speech, because while it is reprehensible and can be harmful, I generally am happy to let bigots and fools say whatever damn thing they want to each-other. The Democratic party is hardly unified on this, and has a complex and nuanced history with free speech issues. > Choose which evil you hate the least. If current policy is “evil”, what are you personally doing about it? Shouting from the sidelines is utterly useless. If our current politicians can be called “evil” as a group, then the word has lost all currency. > people blind themselves to the abuses of their own team Are you talking about me? You know nothing about me. Keep your vague implied insults to yourself, thanks.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Environment: Let's see. James Holdren says that "what went on in the way of manipulation of data, that remains to be seen", yet opposes any actual probe. Barbara Boxer is only interested in criminal charges against the climategate whistleblower. From the WSJ: "In the House, the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing on what Chairman Ed Markey said was 'the urgent consensus view . . . that global warming is real, and the science indicates it is getting worse.' But the only witnesses were officials from the Obama administration, who support dramatic action on climate change. Republicans asked to have a global-warming skeptic appear but were denied." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574576021674770950.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870434240457457... ) In the larger picture beyond climategate, Gore once said "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience" (see http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/ http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/ ). This is a little out of context, but in the context of what we now know about the distortions taking place, it's quite ominous. Self-defense: Umm. You don't know what you're talking about. Carrying a semi-auto weapon is certainly self-defense. But the question is much broader than that. Here in New Jersey, as a matter of policy, it's impossible to get a carry permit for anything, including mace. The fact is that there's a concerted attack on any form of defense, at least in parts of the country, and it extends far past even what some people feel are evil weapons, even to weapons that are clearly of only defensive use. What does "current social consensus" have to do with it? This seems to be circular reasoning, the argument reduces to saying that "those holding the power say so, and that's sufficient justification". Takings: This has nothing to do with Apple. What did your preceding comment have to do with Apple? My point was that ones right to ones own property is certainly a civil right, and one which the Democrats trample with great abandon. Hate speech: It seems to me that this isn't complex at all. "Slippery slope" might be a lame argument in general, but it turns out in practice that these laws are used more often to silence unpopular speech than to protect anyone from any real harm. Choose your evil: My personal actions have no bearing on whether politicians singly, in parties, or across the board, are evil. If our current politicians can be called "evil" as a group, then the word has lost all currency. You sound like a victim of BDS syndrome, the very kind of person who says that GWB is so evil that anyone else ought to be elected, just to get that evil administration out. (And, of course, there is a mirroring group ODS-sufferers now). But such actions are precisely what give politicians to be evil. They can be as evil as they want, right up to 1 unit less than whatever they can convince others is the evil of their opponent. Blind to ones own side: Huh? What an amazingly self-centered response. Why in the world would you think I was talking to you specifically? If it matters, the answer is no. I'm talking much more broadly. That should have been obvious from my example of the phenomenon way over in China.

jacobolus 17y ago

Oy. It’s really not worth arguing about politics on YC news, but here goes: > backs the environmentalist approach of corrupting peer-reviewed science? Which Democratic Party leader said that? Come on, name him. Is it Obama? Steven Chu, our energy secretary? Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA? Pelosi? Barbara Boxer? Come on, let’s hear it. > seeks to remove our 2nd Amendment right to self-defense? You’re confusing “self defense” with “carry a semiautomatic weapon”. That’s okay though, it seems to be a common confusion. In any case, current social consensus about reasonable ways and places to carry guns has almost nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, as was copiously documented by Stevens’s and Breyer’s dissents in Heller. > Supports Kelo. You’re right that Democrats mostly support the Kelo decision, if only because the opposite decision would set a precedent they view as dangerous. I’m not going to get into the merits of the case because it is complicated. What does it have to do with Apple? No one has any kind of eminent domain claim for One Infinite Loop. > Supports restrictions on [hate speech] That’s true. Personally, I’m conflicted about government responses to hate speech, because while it is reprehensible and can be harmful, I generally am happy to let bigots and fools say whatever damn thing they want to each-other. The Democratic party is hardly unified on this, and has a complex and nuanced history with free speech issues. > Choose which evil you hate the least. If current policy is “evil”, what are you personally doing about it? Shouting from the sidelines is utterly useless. If our current politicians can be called “evil” as a group, then the word has lost all currency. > people blind themselves to the abuses of their own team Are you talking about me? You know nothing about me. Keep your vague implied insults to yourself, thanks.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Environment: Let's see. James Holdren says that "what went on in the way of manipulation of data, that remains to be seen", yet opposes any actual probe. Barbara Boxer is only interested in criminal charges against the climategate whistleblower. From the WSJ: "In the House, the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing on what Chairman Ed Markey said was 'the urgent consensus view . . . that global warming is real, and the science indicates it is getting worse.' But the only witnesses were officials from the Obama administration, who support dramatic action on climate change. Republicans asked to have a global-warming skeptic appear but were denied." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574576021674770950.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870434240457457... ) In the larger picture beyond climategate, Gore once said "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience" (see http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/ http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/ ). This is a little out of context, but in the context of what we now know about the distortions taking place, it's quite ominous. Self-defense: Umm. You don't know what you're talking about. Carrying a semi-auto weapon is certainly self-defense. But the question is much broader than that. Here in New Jersey, as a matter of policy, it's impossible to get a carry permit for anything, including mace. The fact is that there's a concerted attack on any form of defense, at least in parts of the country, and it extends far past even what some people feel are evil weapons, even to weapons that are clearly of only defensive use. What does "current social consensus" have to do with it? This seems to be circular reasoning, the argument reduces to saying that "those holding the power say so, and that's sufficient justification". Takings: This has nothing to do with Apple. What did your preceding comment have to do with Apple? My point was that ones right to ones own property is certainly a civil right, and one which the Democrats trample with great abandon. Hate speech: It seems to me that this isn't complex at all. "Slippery slope" might be a lame argument in general, but it turns out in practice that these laws are used more often to silence unpopular speech than to protect anyone from any real harm. Choose your evil: My personal actions have no bearing on whether politicians singly, in parties, or across the board, are evil. If our current politicians can be called "evil" as a group, then the word has lost all currency. You sound like a victim of BDS syndrome, the very kind of person who says that GWB is so evil that anyone else ought to be elected, just to get that evil administration out. (And, of course, there is a mirroring group ODS-sufferers now). But such actions are precisely what give politicians to be evil. They can be as evil as they want, right up to 1 unit less than whatever they can convince others is the evil of their opponent. Blind to ones own side: Huh? What an amazingly self-centered response. Why in the world would you think I was talking to you specifically? If it matters, the answer is no. I'm talking much more broadly. That should have been obvious from my example of the phenomenon way over in China.