Cancel culture strikes again

[Arwon]

but are you confident that the UK is worse than the rest of Europe?

At least the rest of Europe has the decency to be bad in other languages I don't understand, if they are. As far as the anglosphere goes, the discourse and especially its brazenness real bad. And some of those UK rules and policies sound absurd.

 

[Modder_Mode]

this meme is taking a tiny subset of a massive group of peoples and extrapolating it across an entire population.

But that's what you and others here are doing, your claiming all this apparent oppression is occurring and making comparisons to high status white men whilst completely ignoring the low status white men in society, who you obviously loathe. Again the lack of self awareness is astounding.

Furthermore, any african american female who believes they are not discriminated against systemically ls literally just ignorant or unaware of the current structures and how we got here historically. Of course, this is the point really, isn't it?

Well yes this is actually the point, you're talking down to black females in a condescending manner. We also witnessed this first hand when black people voted for Trump and were chastised by white liberals, you know how dare black people think and vote for themselves.

Your mindset is fascinating to me, you seem so guilt ridden, so culpable, so down trodden that it pushes you to be so determined to find racism in any occurrence of a disparity between black and white people, and that's just it, that meme isn't talking about a tiny subset of people like you claim, these aren't fringe elements of the far left, this is mainstream leftist thinking and talking points, this is where we are at in society right now, its why we get the bizarre claims that Will Smiths violent outburst at the Oscars was a result of white supremacy and how Logan Paul should deliberately lose to Floyd Mayweather to not be racist, that obesity amongst black Americans is a sign of institutional racism and that black people who do not want to be vaccinated and thus cannot get a vaccine passport is racial discrimination, the list goes on and on. And yet according to aelf, its Conservatism that "degenerates minds".

Finally, and take this to heart if you listen to nothing else. You should read some Marx, and maybe actually think about what he actually says, instead of jsut disregarding his points out of hand out of some silly sense of American patriotism. You might come to realize that not only did he have a lot of good points about economics and why capitalism will inevitably fail to its own incoherencies, but that historically the arc necessarily bends away from this mode of economics. That seen through this lens, lots of the oppression from our past and that, yes even now continues, is best understood from this materialist and capitalist dominating mode. That the only way to grow past that is to drop the capitalism. Capitalism requires exploitation. Its why you and other white males fear letting go of the power. Its why the business owner's greatest fear is to become a regular worker again, they know how much they are stealing. Our collective nation owes a lot, we've stolen a lot. Our ancestors and yes even us now are still stealing a lot. We need to come to terms with that and try to work on better ways forward. Preferably ways that do not just hand the power over to even worse actors around the globe. Do not be duped into think China is actually a communist nation or that you are not surrounded by other would be capitalist empires. How we stave those off and develop a better path forward will be the work of generations...

But the problems you identify above and in other threads on here are not a result of capitalism, but rather bad governments. In what possible way could a change in an economic system (e.g. capitalism) remove greed, corruption and power from the human psyche? By removing the ability to access surplus? Removing surplus altogether? Electing representatives that YOU think aren't corrupt? Electing representatives that tell you that they know what they are doing and tell you nice things?

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Samson As expected, when boomers and those even older die off, the future will better conform to the ideas of Millennials and Gen Zs. The future, whatever it holds, will be yours.

 

[Farm Boy]

****.

 

[Estebonrober]

But that's what you and others here are doing, your claiming all this apparent oppression is occurring and making comparisons to high status white men whilst completely ignoring the low status white men in society, who you obviously loathe. Again the lack of self awareness is astounding.



Well yes this is actually the point, you're talking down to black females in a condescending manner. We also witnessed this first hand when black people voted for Trump and were chastised by white liberals, you know how dare black people think and vote for themselves.

Your mindset is fascinating to me, you seem so guilt ridden, so culpable, so down trodden that it pushes you to be so determined to find racism in any occurrence of a disparity between black and white people, and that's just it, that meme isn't talking about a tiny subset of people like you claim, these aren't fringe elements of the far left, this is mainstream leftist thinking and talking points, this is where we are at in society right now, its why we get the bizarre claims that Will Smiths violent outburst at the Oscars was a result of white supremacy and how Logan Paul should deliberately lose to Floyd Mayweather to not be racist, that obesity amongst black Americans is a sign of institutional racism and that black people who do not want to be vaccinated and thus cannot get a vaccine passport is racial discrimination, the list goes on and on. And yet according to aelf, its Conservatism that "degenerates minds".




But the problems you identify above and in other threads on here are not a result of capitalism, but rather bad governments. In what possible way could a change in an economic system (e.g. capitalism) remove greed, corruption and power from the human psyche? By removing the ability to access surplus? Removing surplus altogether? Electing representatives that YOU think aren't corrupt? Electing representatives that tell you that they know what they are doing and tell you nice things?

No, I loathe white men's penchant for racism both small r and big R. I loathe the defense of the indefensible, especially in my name when my government is the offending party.

No, I'm focused on economic realities of the current state of the nation and how the past relates to that reality. Any real leftist (imo) only has the one war to fight and that is the class war. Defense of marginalized groups is an obvious extension of that, but guilt in the way you perceive is not the guilt I feel, I'm not guilty for the sins of my forefathers. I feel guilty that my children will almost certainly a far bleaker outcome overall then my parent's generation did and that we seem to be actively regressing on progress made from the 30s - 80s.

I think this form of capitalism (crony capitalism) is not only economically inefficient to the extreme it is also completely morally bankrupt. Incentivizing all behavior on one human emotion like greed is not okay. You seem to think that greed on the level we see these days is okay and normal, I think its grossly psychologically, and spiritually if you will, damaging. Humans are more than their possessions and if you look around it would be hard to tell from the media that people are more than their newest car, cell phones, or boats. In the end capitalism is destroying both our societies and our planet, it is far more ruinous than any other system ever tried.

Idc about Will Smith, Logan Paul, or any other celeb of the moment. I only care about marginalized groups in so far as I believe they should be left alone and not actively marginalized because of their natural existence.

The meme is racist. People pushing the meme are small r racist.

 

[Samson]

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is not free speech but commercial activity

A US court of appeals upheld an Arkansas law that restricts state contractors from boycotting Israel, raising concerns about governmental infringement on free speech when it comes to criticism of Israeli abuses.

The Eighth Circuit Court ruled on Wednesday that boycotts fall under commercial activity, which the state has a right to regulate, not “expressive conduct” protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

But advocates say laws that prohibit boycotting Israel, which have been adopted by dozens of states with the backing of pro-Israel groups, are designed to unconstitutionally chill speech that supports Palestinian human rights.

Such laws aim to counter the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which pushes to exert non-violent pressure on Israel to end abuses against Palestinians that have been described by leading human rights groups, including Amnesty International, as “apartheid”.

The Arkansas case started in 2018 when The Arkansas Times, a Little Rock-based publication, sued the state over its anti-BDS law after refusing to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel in order to win an advertising contract from a public university.

The law requires contractors that do not sign the pledge to reduce their fees by 20 percent.

The Arkansas Times cited its publisher Alan Leveritt as saying on Wednesday that he will discuss “future steps” with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a civil rights group that helped the newspaper sue the state.

For its part, the ACLU called the ruling “wrong” and a departure “from this nation’s longstanding traditions”.​

“It ignores the fact that this country was founded on a boycott of British goods and that boycotts have been a fundamental part of American political discourse ever since. We are considering next steps and will continue to fight for robust protections for political boycotts,” Brian Hauss, staff lawyer with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said in a statement.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Jane Kelly dismissed the notion that the law is rooted in economic concerns.

“By the express[ed] terms of the Act, Arkansas seeks not only to avoid contracting with companies that refuse to do business with Israel,” Kelly wrote. “It also seeks to avoid contracting with anyone who supports or promotes such activity.”

She said the law allows the state – in violation of the First Amendment – to “consider a company’s speech and association with others to determine whether that company is participating in a ‘boycott of Israel'”.

Such speech, which would be prohibited under the law, Kelly argued, may include “posting anti-Israel signs, donating to causes that promote a boycott of Israel, encouraging others to boycott Israel, or even publicly criticizing the Act”. It is not clear how many of Kelly’s colleagues from the 11-judge court joined her in dissent.

The appeals court’s ruling comes at a time when Americans across the country are encouraging economic and cultural boycotts of Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.

Republican- and Democratic-leaning US states have passed and enforced anti-BDS laws, discouraging businesses from boycotting not only Israel, but also illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, occupied East Jerusalem and Syria’s occupied Golan Heights.

Most recently, many states have pushed to divest from Ben & Jerry’s parent company after the ice-cream maker pulled out of the occupied West Bank over human rights and international law considerations.

Free speech advocates say antiboycott laws carry potential effects beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For example, several states have introduced bills modelled after anti-BDS laws to penalise companies that boycott the fossil fuel industry.

Ayoub of ADC stressed the interpretation that freedom of expression can be suppressed for the benefit of the state’s economic interests enables significant infringements on the First Amendment.

Abed said the Supreme Court should settle the debate, but he noted the top court’s conservative majority has recently been moving to strip away – not protect – individual rights.​

 

[Akka]

No, I loathe white men's penchant for racism both small r and big R.

I understand, these evil white men with their hatred based skin colour, you are right to loathe them, you would never do that

@Samson As expected, when boomers and those even older die off, the future will better conform to the ideas of Millennials and Gen Zs. The future, whatever it holds, will be yours.

And then the next generations will have different ideas and Millenials and Gen Z will lament at the degeneracy

 

[Estebonrober]

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is not free speech but commercial activity

A US court of appeals upheld an Arkansas law that restricts state contractors from boycotting Israel, raising concerns about governmental infringement on free speech when it comes to criticism of Israeli abuses.

The Eighth Circuit Court ruled on Wednesday that boycotts fall under commercial activity, which the state has a right to regulate, not “expressive conduct” protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

But advocates say laws that prohibit boycotting Israel, which have been adopted by dozens of states with the backing of pro-Israel groups, are designed to unconstitutionally chill speech that supports Palestinian human rights.

Such laws aim to counter the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which pushes to exert non-violent pressure on Israel to end abuses against Palestinians that have been described by leading human rights groups, including Amnesty International, as “apartheid”.

The Arkansas case started in 2018 when The Arkansas Times, a Little Rock-based publication, sued the state over its anti-BDS law after refusing to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel in order to win an advertising contract from a public university.

The law requires contractors that do not sign the pledge to reduce their fees by 20 percent.

The Arkansas Times cited its publisher Alan Leveritt as saying on Wednesday that he will discuss “future steps” with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a civil rights group that helped the newspaper sue the state.

For its part, the ACLU called the ruling “wrong” and a departure “from this nation’s longstanding traditions”.​

“It ignores the fact that this country was founded on a boycott of British goods and that boycotts have been a fundamental part of American political discourse ever since. We are considering next steps and will continue to fight for robust protections for political boycotts,” Brian Hauss, staff lawyer with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said in a statement.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Jane Kelly dismissed the notion that the law is rooted in economic concerns.

“By the express[ed] terms of the Act, Arkansas seeks not only to avoid contracting with companies that refuse to do business with Israel,” Kelly wrote. “It also seeks to avoid contracting with anyone who supports or promotes such activity.”

She said the law allows the state – in violation of the First Amendment – to “consider a company’s speech and association with others to determine whether that company is participating in a ‘boycott of Israel'”.

Such speech, which would be prohibited under the law, Kelly argued, may include “posting anti-Israel signs, donating to causes that promote a boycott of Israel, encouraging others to boycott Israel, or even publicly criticizing the Act”. It is not clear how many of Kelly’s colleagues from the 11-judge court joined her in dissent.

The appeals court’s ruling comes at a time when Americans across the country are encouraging economic and cultural boycotts of Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.

Republican- and Democratic-leaning US states have passed and enforced anti-BDS laws, discouraging businesses from boycotting not only Israel, but also illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, occupied East Jerusalem and Syria’s occupied Golan Heights.

Most recently, many states have pushed to divest from Ben & Jerry’s parent company after the ice-cream maker pulled out of the occupied West Bank over human rights and international law considerations.

Free speech advocates say antiboycott laws carry potential effects beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For example, several states have introduced bills modelled after anti-BDS laws to penalise companies that boycott the fossil fuel industry.

Ayoub of ADC stressed the interpretation that freedom of expression can be suppressed for the benefit of the state’s economic interests enables significant infringements on the First Amendment.

Abed said the Supreme Court should settle the debate, but he noted the top court’s conservative majority has recently been moving to strip away – not protect – individual rights.​

it is pretty crazy the obvious duplicity these types of rulings involve. It is almost like they are using the courts to punish dissidents instead of upholding the rule of law. color me shocked.