Political Violence

[James Clark]

Way to go on the political violence issue. You can definitely fix this by continuing to endlessly bicker over minutiae.

If you guys were face to face over a beer, and made an honest effort, it would take you 5 minutes to determine that you agree on 99% of stuff that actually matters (will I be OK? are my children going to be OK? do you like dogs? or are you a cat person?) and you'd be able to set aside the irrelevant 1% without much effort.

But, nope, it's bicker bicker bicker, with the occasional murderous explosion.

Way to go, guys. I'm proud.

The only one getting upset here is you. . I thought we were kind of having an interesting discussion about the various ideas of governance that lead to disputes, but in a friendly way.  I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't have this exact same conversation with Alan (and Phil and Rand) face to face, or why you think I'm even the slightest bit upset with anyone here?

[Alan Klein]

Correct, that's how most constitutions work. It protects the people from an 'all' mighty government that might want to overstep the limitations of its mandate.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, I think this is the first time we agree 100%. 
Cheers,
Alan.

[Farmer]

Unlike you, I am addressing the underlying problem head on, which is that we're polarizing ourselves over trivialities, and thus generating hate and anger when what we need is to grasp that we're a humans with roughly the same hopes, dreams, aspirations.

Who cares what some guys 200 years dead might or might not have thought privately?

Seriously. I know it's fun, but it's not what the world needs.

And how exactly does doing this (and enjoying the discussion and learning things) work against improving things in "real life"?  And how do you know I'm not dealing with issues head on in my own way?  Why are "dealing with the issues" and "having an interesting discussion" mutually exclusive?

The discussion is robust at times, but like James, I'd happily be sitting down with everyone here and having a drink and talking about it.  I think some of Alan's perspectives are absurd, for example - I really do - but I wouldn't hesitate to have a drink with him (assuming he was also happy to do so), and on any other subject our disagreements on these ones have no impact. I understand that he likely feels exactly the same way about many of my perspectives.  It's fine.  It's a grand idea that we should all just get along and celebrate our similarities and I agree, but ignoring the differences is, by definition, seeking to indulge in ignorance.  I can't abide that.

[Rand47]

The only one getting upset here is you. . I thought we were kind of having an interesting discussion about the various ideas of governance that lead to disputes, but in a friendly way.  I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't have this exact same conversation with Alan (and Phil and Rand) face to face, or why you think I'm even the slightest bit upset with anyone here?

+1  I've been enjoying and learning from the exchange. 

Rand

[Robert Roaldi]

Somehow this has ended up being a discussion about US constitutional issues. Foundational words are important, of course, but lots of countries have adopted pretty words from time to time. But conservative (small c) adherence to the precepts of 200 year old documents written by landed gentry who have nothing in common with present times can be a distraction. You should not overthrow things that have stood the test of time, but neither should you be in adoration of old ideas. For instance, the US constitution didn't do much to prevent slavery, the genocide of native indians, and the 14th amendment didn't prevent Jim Crow. (As a personal aside, referring to them as "Founding Fathers" sounds a little obsequious to me, they were a bunch of rich guys who got sick of paying British taxes. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but keep it in perspective. Setting aside one lame aristocracy for another serves little purpose.)

Harkening back to 18th century ideas of state rights may not necessarily be a good model today. In the "Loving" case, a Virginia law outlawing interracial marriage was upheld by the Virginia supreme court in the mid 1960s (yes 1960, not 1860), so if some of you believe that the US would be better off by letting states have their way and that the US Supreme Court shouldn't have a say in the matter, well, all I can say is that a lot of people won't agree with you.

Anyway, I just wanted to point this podcast, http://podbay.fm/show/1242537529 , which may turn out to be interesting as it develops further.

[Alan Klein]

Somehow this has ended up being a discussion about US constitutional issues. Foundational words are important, of course, but lots of countries have adopted pretty words from time to time. But conservative (small c) adherence to the precepts of 200 year old documents written by landed gentry who have nothing in common with present times can be a distraction. You should not overthrow things that have stood the test of time, but neither should you be in adoration of old ideas. For instance, the US constitution didn't do much to prevent slavery, the genocide of native indians, and the 14th amendment didn't prevent Jim Crow. (As a personal aside, referring to them as "Founding Fathers" sounds a little obsequious to me, they were a bunch of rich guys who got sick of paying British taxes. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but keep it in perspective. Setting aside one lame aristocracy for another serves little purpose.)

Harkening back to 18th century ideas of state rights may not necessarily be a good model today. In the "Loving" case, a Virginia law outlawing interracial marriage was upheld by the Virginia supreme court in the mid 1960s (yes 1960, not 1860), so if some of you believe that the US would be better off by letting states have their way and that the US Supreme Court shouldn't have a say in the matter, well, all I can say is that a lot of people won't agree with you.

Anyway, I just wanted to point this podcast, http://podbay.fm/show/1242537529 , which may turn out to be interesting as it develops further.

Well, I wouldn't call the Constitution just "pretty words....precepts of 200 year old documents written by landed gentry who have nothing in common with present times can be a distraction."  It really dismisses the fundamental change it instituted in the way humans are governed. They have withstood the test of time and have been foundationally for nations around the world who created their own constitutions from America's.  Certainly America has it's faults.  But I wouldn't include our founding document as one of them.  It's not perfect because it was written by men who were not perfect.  But it was set up to be Amended in a legal way as the wisdom of time presents to us.  But, the method to do that was to be through a democrat process not by the whims of justices biases and personal beliefs.  Otherwise, you go back to the blood of the past where men dictate how we should live rather than allowing the governed to rule.

The Constitution is very much part of discussion about political violence.  Because it provides the right of free speech, especially free political speech, it gives everyone the opportunity to present their views and get support for implementing them through legislation.  So violence acted out to implement a viewpoint is anathema to the Constitution and our way of living.  We change how we live through law and not with a gun. 

[Robert Roaldi]

All I'm saying that I find it difficult to be reverential towards a political document. Constitutions are codified rules, not the infallible words of the creator. They can lead to good things, but sometimes they can be magically ignored when it's convenient to do so. It is probably a good idea to get the point of of those who were NOT protected by the codified rules to get a complete picture, is all I'm saying.

I understand that some people may not like activist supreme courts. But isn't it the supreme court's job to interpret the constitution? Would it have been better to let the Virginia ruling in favour of outlawing interracial marriages stand?

And anyway, one person's activism is another's rant du jour. Allowing corporations to achieve the level of "personhood" came about because of a series of court judgements (some lower court, some higher court, I believe). Wasn't that judicial activism?

[Rand47]

All I'm saying that I find it difficult to be reverential towards a political document. Constitutions are codified rules, not the infallible words of the creator. They can lead to good things, but sometimes they can be magically ignored when it's convenient to do so. It is probably a good idea to get the point of of those who were NOT protected by the codified rules to get a complete picture, is all I'm saying.

I understand that some people may not like activist supreme courts. But isn't it the supreme court's job to interpret the constitution? Would it have been better to let the Virginia ruling in favour of outlawing interracial marriages stand?

And anyway, one person's activism is another's rant du jour. Allowing corporations to achieve the level of "personhood" came about because of a series of court judgements (some lower court, some higher court, I believe). Wasn't that judicial activism?

Your points are well taken.  I think they argue "for" the appeal to the transcendent as expressed in the Declaration and how critically important the worldview consensus that the Declaration represents was (is/should be) to the Consitiution working as intended to limit governmental power so as to ensure to the greatest extent possible life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as rights, endowed by the creator, without governmental interference, suppression/oppression.  So, while it is true that the words are not "infallible words of the creator," they are derivative of those truths that are "self evident" as regards the creator having endowed mankind with unalienable rights.  Absent this, from what source do our rights derive?  51%?

I realize that this aspect of the discussion may seem far removed from the OP's original, "We need to tone down the rhetoric..."   But I believe it is foundational to "why we should" tone down the rhetoric.

Rand

[Otto Phocus]

I would imagine that if we could talk to the Founding Fathers, they would collectively tell us:

"What the hell are you doing still following a 200+ year old document?  Are you stupid to think that we could anticipate everything that happens today?  Crikey, times have changed, write a new one!"    

I think the reason we have not written a new one is the realization of the impossibility of getting a new constitution approved.  We have hard enough problems with amendments.

Could you imagine trying to get a new constitution passed these days. Yikes.  No wonder we stick with the old one.

[Alan Klein]

I would imagine that if we could talk to the Founding Fathers, they would collectively tell us:

"What the hell are you doing still following a 200+ year old document?  Are you stupid to think that we could anticipate everything that happens today?  Crikey, times have changed, write a new one!"    

I think the reason we have not written a new one is the realization of the impossibility of getting a new constitution approved.  We have hard enough problems with amendments.

Could you imagine trying to get a new constitution passed these days. Yikes.  No wonder we stick with the old one.

The Founding Fathers would be very pleased that their document has kept American free , secure and prosperous since they adopted it.  If certain aspects of it can be improved, there is an amendment process.  You don't burn your house down if you need to redecorate your den. 

[Schewe]

"What the hell are you doing still following a 200+ year old document?  Are you stupid to think that we could anticipate everything that happens today?  Crikey, times have changed, write a new one!"    

Well, you may be surprised...over the 4th, NPR tweeted the entire Declaration of Independence line by line–which is an annual tradition for NPR. However, some Trump supporters got "triggered" thinking that NPR was posting lines that were directed at Trump and they lit up twitter with their criticisms. Pretty fun actually...

Trump Supporters Cry Bias After NPR Tweets the Declaration of Independence

NPR tweeted the entire Declaration of Independence in 140-character chunks yesterday to celebrate Independence Day. But more than a few people thought that the tweets were a political stance against Donald Trump. Seriously.

––––––––––
NPR  ✔@NPR
241 years ago today, church bells rang out over Philadelphia as the Declaration of Independence was adopted http://n.pr/2smWbYR
2:00 PM - 4 Jul 2017
––––––––––

The Declaration of Independence is one of the most cherished documents in the United States. We even make movies about it like it’s the Ark of the Covenant. But some Trump supporters were a bit confused yesterday, and saw phrases like “unworthy the Head of a civilized nation” as biased. They assumed that NPR was blasting the current president rather than King George in 1776.

NPR has been reading the Declaration of Independence on air in a tradition that dates back 29 years. And in fairness, the Declaration of Independence is a pretty anti-authoritarian document. So it makes sense that people might believe that it’s a statement against all tyrants.

But you’d think that people who want to “make America great again” might recognize the words of the Declaration of Independence. I guess not.

––––––––––
Diesel 👌🇺🇸👍 @ScandalSheet
@NPR DEFUND #NPR let the Hollywood Elites pay for your biased propaganda
2:39 PM - 4 Jul 2017
––––––––––

The line about the right of the people to abolish the current government and form a new one struck a chord with some Trump enthusiasts.

––––––––––
NPR   ✔ @NPR
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,


D.G.Davies @JustEsrafel
@NPR So, NPR is calling for revolution.
Interesting way to condone the violence while trying to sound "patriotic".
Your implications are clear.
2:08 PM - 4 Jul 2017
––––––––––

And some people were particularly offended by the line about King George being an “unworthy” leader of a civilized nation, believing that perhaps NPR was talking about a different tyrant:

––––––––––
Yes. NPR Journalists, with a 'mission'.
— Elephino (@mriendea) July 4, 2017
––––––––––

Some Trump supporters even called the Declaration of Independence “trash”:

––––––––––
Darren Mills 🇺🇸 @darren_mills
@NPR this is why you're going to get defunded

Darren Mills 🇺🇸 @darren_mills
@NPR Seriously, this is the dumbest idea I have ever seen on twitter. Literally no one is going to read 5000 tweets about this trash.
3:15 PM - 4 Jul 2017
––––––––––

While others assumed that the word “obstructed” might be a little to close the charges of “obstruction” against President Trump:

––––––––––
NPR   ✔ @NPR
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

Terry @xebec78
@NPR Horsechit
2:10 PM - 4 Jul 2017
   6 6 Retweets    7 7 likes
––––––––––

And even after it was pointed out that NPR was simply tweeting the Declaration of Independence, some people still saw an anti-Trump political motivation in the whole process:

––––––––––
Someone's An Idiot @SomeonesAnIdiot
NPR tweeted out the Declaration of Independence and people had no clue what they were talking about
(pics via @ParkerMolloy) #July4th pic.twitter.com/wn4ThfApk6

Trey Bartle @treybartle1
@SomeonesAnIdiot @ParkerMolloy No bias here, right? Move along according to @NPR.
9:39 PM - 4 Jul 2017
––––––––––

Because apparently NPR needs more “balance,” maybe by reading out the arguments made by supporters of King George in 1776?

––––––––––
NPR   ✔ @NPR
LISTEN: A July 4th Tradition: The Declaration Of Independence, Read Aloud https://n.pr/2tWz4EI  pic.twitter.com/owruPZ0wdX

Alma sanchez @Almasan93753248
@NPR Glad you are being defunded. You have never been balanced on your show.
10:36 AM - 4 Jul 2017
––––––––––

Yes, some Trump supporters believe that you gotta hear both sides. If you’re going to tweet out the Declaration of Independence, why not The Art of the Deal or other texts written by authoritarians? You don’t want to be seen as biased now, do you?

So yeah..if the DOI can trigger Trump supporters I think it's still relevant today!

[Farmer]

That's both hilarious and downright terrifying, Schewe.

[Robert Roaldi]

To be fair though, triggering a sh*tstorm on Twitter isn't a measure of anything much. The wider web participation is mostly noise, often needlessly impolite. There are youtube posts of beautiful songs by Van Morrison that degenerate into insult fests for no apparent reason.

There is this thing that's done in pick-up truck culture. Those with diesels can rig up their trucks to spew out a large volume of black sooty exhaust (I think they have a system that causes a mis-fire but I really don't know how it functions) onto cyclists at the side of the road. Then they get on the web and brag about it, sometimes with pictures. Hating cyclists is one of those political markers, I believe, that advertizes what you believe in. I believe it's one of those generic rebel-against-the-elites things that people do, like displaying a confederate flag. I saw a truck here in town a year or so ago (Ottawa, Canada) with a bumper sticker bragging about how much gasoline he was using. I forget the wording. There are LOTS of immature people running around.

The fact that dozens of people did not recognize the DOI should not be a surprise to anyone. I suspect that the fact that it appeared on NPR is enough to start a flame war. Which is an odd thing, given that the only news media that I usually stand to listen to are the "public" ones, although they are less and less publicly funded these days. The rest of them seem to be mostly about blondes with big teeth and 15 second insult sound bites.

[MattBurt]

As a cyclist and daily bike commuter, I know the "Coal Rollers" all too well. At least it's officially an infraction now in Colorado. I'd love to help someone help themselves get that ticket one day.

The sticker I have seen on (often needlessly) big trucks is "Prius Eater" or "Prius Repellent" near the exhaust.

I just try to avoid this willfully ignorant crowd. There's nothing I can say to them that would change anyone's mind but it might get my ass kicked.

[Rand47]

That's both hilarious and downright terrifying, Schewe.

+1  Never underestimate the heights to which the average dumb-ass chauvinist can soar.

Rand

[Alan Klein]

So there are dumbasses on both sides who don't know history.  Plenty of liberal lefties and democrats who think Communism is just another system and never heard of the Soviet Union.  What's worse are the people who do know but look the other way and support BS ideologies.   

[Damon Lynch]

So there are dumbasses on both sides who don't know history.  Plenty of liberal lefties and democrats who think Communism is just another system and never heard of the Soviet Union.  What's worse are the people who do know but look the other way and support BS ideologies.

There you go again Alan, projecting onto others your own deep admiration for political, cultural and economic authoritarianism.

[Farmer]

What's worse?  Not knowing your OWN COUNTRY'S Declaration of Independence.

[Farmer]

And for what it's worth - as a foreigner - I quite easily recognise your DOI.  Actual US citizens have no excuse.

[Alan Klein]

There you go again Alan, projecting onto others your own deep admiration for political, cultural and economic authoritarianism.

I don't know what you mean.