Progressive Ideology

[jhu72]

Freedom of speech is the ideal. But freedom of speech can lead to very bad people very bad ideas gaining traction (especially with the invention of the internet), and they use just a little bit of power as a lever to springboard into leadership. It's up to society to stop those ideas from spreading without limiting free speech. The question is, how do we accomplish that?

i think that's the same as what the Economist is saying- sometimes speech needs to take a back seat to other causes- this one being equality. it's not absolute; we all know that.

question then is whose ideas/speech are really the bad ones?

im less concerned with ideas than with actual speech. after all, how to regulate what people are thinking?

I'll take a swipe to keep the covo going.

I think the starting point is - asking - where do these ideas (that turn into unpopular speech) have the potential most impact and/or harm to others?

At a government-run (or sponsored) workplace or school? Certainly. I think everyone has the right to work/learn safely and not be persecuted.

In government administration? Of course. IMO, no one should be denied a basic right or something guaranteed to the general public because they say something unpopular or hold an unpopular belief.

During protests? This is where it gets tricky. I think the level of tolerence for free speech should be much higher during protests, But the tolerence for inciting and violence much lower. How is that possible? If people are formally protesting, whatever it is, their right to free speech should be unencumbered. Many problems occur when people protest another formal protest. How can you not allow protesting a protest if there is truly "free speech?" No clue!

At private businesses? Another tricky one, IMO. I feel like store owners/business owners have the right to run their businesses however they want. That means creating a business and culture however they deem fit and/or performing/providing/denying the work however they deem fit. But just because they can employ, hire and run a company how they see fit, doesn't mean they shouldn't be free from societal backlash (i.e: boycott or market forces) if their actions are deemed unacceptable/undesirable by society. Additionally, if you take gov't money/loans/subsidies or work on government contracts etc. for said business, you are now subject to the government requirements for culture etc. that I hinted at above...

A private business if it is not beholding financially to anyone, they should be allowed to run that business as they see fit, within the law. They should not however be immune to societal backlash (boycotts). How would you do that without impinging on the free speech of those wishing to boycott.

If a business is taking dollars from some entity, grant, investment, etc., that business should be responsive to the "investing" entities positions. For instance, if a church takes dollars from the federal government, then it is not unreasonable for the federal government to impose "reasonable" rules on that church. Same for schools, charitable mission organizations, etc. Whether a church should be able to receive federal funds is a separate question. Definitely no if the funds are in support of the promulgation of that religion. If it is running a homeless shelter, it is not unreasonable for the federal government to require that the homeless shelter not be allowed to promulgate that religion or require that the homeless be church members, required to participate in church services, etc.

[DMac]

While I think Andy and his brother exaggerate a whole lot about the racism they experienced growing up, I sure don't see anything wrong with what he's saying here. Think this is another mountain being built from a mole hill.

“They used an expression that southern Italians were called, I believe they were saying southern Italians, Sicilians — I’m half Sicilian — were called, quote-unquote and pardon my language, but I’m just quoting the Times: ‘n----r wops.’ N-word wops, as a derogatory comment,” Cuomo told host Alan Chartock."
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/10/n ... rview.html

There was a heavy population of Italians where I grew up and they used wop, daygo, guinea constantly.
Was the norm and no one took offense. Of course that was before we built mountains from mole hills as
much as we do today and people weren't nearly as thin skinned as they are today. Seems to me as if people had a much better sense of humor and didn't make such a big deal out of everything. JMHO.

His use of the N-word was highly inappropriate. If you don’t understand that, then you’re still living in the 1950s (or modern day Alabama).

DocBarrister

well any use of the word should be inappropriate, no?

unless for example, you are a college professor reading a passage to your class? what if you're a witness testifying in court? a museum curator teaching of the words' evils? an actress on stage reading her lines???

if context and intention matters- then the word is not inherently hurtful.

good luck trying to figure out what someone is thinking when they uttered a word. excellent point d-mac makes above.

"if context and intention matters- then the word is not inherently hurtful."

You betchya.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydJP4m_rI30

[Kismet]

Well for Sicilians and others from Southern Italy it wasn't always so easy - not to take issue with Dmac's assertions in many cases and places but elsewhere (like New Orleans) it may have been quite different and certainly more than just name-calling.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... acism.html

Fact is, that the things we are seeing today, are merely a sad refrain from our historical past. I'd urge those who want some additional information and perspective to read The Guarded Gate by Daniel Okrent. It's tagline is thus:
Bigotry, Eugenics and the Law that kept two generations of Jew, Italians and other European immigrants out of America.

[MDlaxfan76]

Freedom of speech is the ideal. But freedom of speech can lead to very bad people very bad ideas gaining traction (especially with the invention of the internet), and they use just a little bit of power as a lever to springboard into leadership. It's up to society to stop those ideas from spreading without limiting free speech. The question is, how do we accomplish that?

i think that's the same as what the Economist is saying- sometimes speech needs to take a back seat to other causes- this one being equality. it's not absolute; we all know that.

question then is whose ideas/speech are really the bad ones?

im less concerned with ideas than with actual speech. after all, how to regulate what people are thinking?

I'll take a swipe to keep the covo going.

I think the starting point is - asking - where do these ideas (that turn into unpopular speech) have the potential most impact and/or harm to others?

At a government-run (or sponsored) workplace or school? Certainly. I think everyone has the right to work/learn safely and not be persecuted.

In government administration? Of course. IMO, no one should be denied a basic right or something guaranteed to the general public because they say something unpopular or hold an unpopular belief.

During protests? This is where it gets tricky. I think the level of tolerence for free speech should be much higher during protests, But the tolerence for inciting and violence much lower. How is that possible? If people are formally protesting, whatever it is, their right to free speech should be unencumbered. Many problems occur when people protest another formal protest. How can you not allow protesting a protest if there is truly "free speech?" No clue!

At private businesses? Another tricky one, IMO. I feel like store owners/business owners have the right to run their businesses however they want. That means creating a business and culture however they deem fit and/or performing/providing/denying the work however they deem fit. But just because they can employ, hire and run a company how they see fit, doesn't mean they shouldn't be free from societal backlash (i.e: boycott or market forces) if their actions are deemed unacceptable/undesirable by society. Additionally, if you take gov't money/loans/subsidies or work on government contracts etc. for said business, you are now subject to the government requirements for culture etc. that I hinted at above...

A private business if it is not beholding financially to anyone, they should be allowed to run that business as they see fit, within the law. They should not however be immune to societal backlash (boycotts). How would you do that without impinging on the free speech of those wishing to boycott.

If a business is taking dollars from some entity, grant, investment, etc., that business should be responsive to the "investing" entities positions. For instance, if a church takes dollars from the federal government, then it is not unreasonable for the federal government to impose "reasonable" rules on that church. Same for schools, charitable mission organizations, etc. Whether a church should be able to receive federal funds is a separate question. Definitely no if the funds are in support of the promulgation of that religion. If it is running a homeless shelter, it is not unreasonable for the federal government to require that the homeless shelter not be allowed to promulgate that religion or require that the homeless be church members, required to participate in church services, etc.

Gee, on this one I find myself well skewed to the 'liberal' side. I don't agree with: "That means creating a business and culture however they deem fit and/or performing/providing/denying the work however they deem fit."

Nope, discrimination in the workplace is and should be against the law. When acts harm people, it is in society's interests to create guard rails against such through the democratic process. Even just using the logic that "business should be responsive to the "investing" entities positions" ie government, no business does not depend in some substantial way upon the activities of government. All do.

But discrimination is not the same as the exercise of free speech by a company, its management, or employees. And by its prospective customers.

Where I think this gets complex is whether a company can make a political or religious conformity of speech a requirement of employment. In most companies, the policy is to refrain from speech (as representing the company) that is unrelated to the actual business of the company. Good policy. However, not required by law.

If management/owner engages in specific political speech, representing such speech as the company's speech, then it seems to me that diversity of such views need to be tolerated within that company, else we're back to employment discrimination.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

Nope, discrimination in the workplace is and should be against the law. When acts harm people, it is in society's interests to create guard rails against such through the democratic process. Even just using the logic that "business should be responsive to the "investing" entities positions" ie government, no business does not depend in some substantial way upon the activities of government. All do.

generally, yes.

but if i own a trucking company, and i dont want to hire a blind person for a driver, i've just discriminated based on ability/handicap.

or, an inkeeper who doesnt want to hire a 5'2'' bouncer, etc. (ability again)

a bathroom attendant of the wrong sex. (gender)

what if i want to hire an asian model to market a line of beauty products designed for their complexion? (color)

which brings us to a "legitimate reason" to discriminate. that's where i think it gets tricky. hard questions here.

Where I think this gets complex is whether a company can make a political or religious conformity of speech a requirement of employment. In most companies, the policy is to refrain from speech (as representing the company) that is unrelated to the actual business of the company. Good policy. However, not required by law.

this one is tricky too- the "actual business". what if you operate a lobby group and won't hire someone because they don't agree with your politics? a house of worship discriminating against a non-believer? hard questions again.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Nope, discrimination in the workplace is and should be against the law. When acts harm people, it is in society's interests to create guard rails against such through the democratic process. Even just using the logic that "business should be responsive to the "investing" entities positions" ie government, no business does not depend in some substantial way upon the activities of government. All do.

generally, yes.

but if i own a trucking company, and i dont want to hire a blind person for a driver, i've just discriminated based on ability/handicap.

or, an inkeeper who doesnt want to hire a 5'2'' bouncer, etc. (ability again)

a bathroom attendant of the wrong sex. (gender)

what if i want to hire an asian model to market a line of beauty products designed for their complexion? (color)

which brings us to a "legitimate reason" to discriminate. that's where i think it gets tricky. hard questions here.

There is no such thing as a "legitimate reason to discriminate". I don't believe that is a legal concept. Companies can list qualifications and requirements so long as it does not vioklate the law. There is no law that forces a company to hire a blind driver. Religious entities are allowed certain exceptions and provided protections within the law.

Where I think this gets complex is whether a company can make a political or religious conformity of speech a requirement of employment. In most companies, the policy is to refrain from speech (as representing the company) that is unrelated to the actual business of the company. Good policy. However, not required by law.

this one is tricky too- the "actual business". what if you operate a lobby group and won't hire someone because they don't agree with your politics? a house of worship discriminating against a non-believer? hard questions again.

What about an apartment property manager that tells a minority couple there are no apartments available and then when they leave the manager tells the next couple there is availability but doesn’t want to rent to that kind that just left? I believe your prior position was that that is not discrimination.

[cradleandshoot]

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/12 ... alifornia/

Hard to believe nobody ever thought of this before. What a freaking outstanding and brilliant idea. What could possibly go wrong with this concept? You can open up a Mickey Ds where all the food is free. For that matter everything can be free. Three hots and a cot and even a place to poop that does not resemble a sidewalk. I wonder where you find the 3 billion and how do you pay to maintain "bumtown" ? Maybe they can pay property taxes like everybody else has to do? You folks in Cally better get ready to fork over big bucks for this one. i wonder if there is 300 acres available near Beverly Hills?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/12 ... alifornia/

Hard to believe nobody ever thought of this before. What a freaking outstanding and brilliant idea. What could possibly go wrong with this concept? You can open up a Mickey Ds where all the food is free. For that matter everything can be free. Three hots and a cot and even a place to poop that does not resemble a sidewalk. I wonder where you find the 3 billion and how do you pay to maintain "bumtown" ? Maybe they can pay property taxes like everybody else has to do? You folks in Cally better get ready to fork over big bucks for this one. i wonder if there is 300 acres available near Beverly Hills?

Privately funded is a conservative tenet.

[cradleandshoot]

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/12 ... alifornia/

Hard to believe nobody ever thought of this before. What a freaking outstanding and brilliant idea. What could possibly go wrong with this concept? You can open up a Mickey Ds where all the food is free. For that matter everything can be free. Three hots and a cot and even a place to poop that does not resemble a sidewalk. I wonder where you find the 3 billion and how do you pay to maintain "bumtown" ? Maybe they can pay property taxes like everybody else has to do? You folks in Cally better get ready to fork over big bucks for this one. i wonder if there is 300 acres available near Beverly Hills?

Privately funded is a conservative tenet.

You would be correct, but it will never happen being solely privately funded. Tom Steyer could break out his checkbook and ask Bloomberg to match him dollar for dollar. As long as they build it as close as possible to Beverly Hills, hell I might even donate a couple of bucks. If you want to wait for this to happen via private funds, you will be waiting for a very long time. I wonder why so many of those uber mega wealthy FLP Cally folks won't pony up their money to help save those poor folks they advocate so strongly for? The difference is spending their money or getting politicians to spend our money to ease their guilty minds. Hell Doc B is a Cally guy i believe. Why does he not break out his checkbook and blow the dust off and wipe off the cobwebs and help his fellow poor and downtrodden Cally citizens?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/12 ... alifornia/

Hard to believe nobody ever thought of this before. What a freaking outstanding and brilliant idea. What could possibly go wrong with this concept? You can open up a Mickey Ds where all the food is free. For that matter everything can be free. Three hots and a cot and even a place to poop that does not resemble a sidewalk. I wonder where you find the 3 billion and how do you pay to maintain "bumtown" ? Maybe they can pay property taxes like everybody else has to do? You folks in Cally better get ready to fork over big bucks for this one. i wonder if there is 300 acres available near Beverly Hills?

Privately funded is a conservative tenet.

You would be correct, but it will never happen being solely privately funded. Tom Steyer could break out his checkbook and ask Bloomberg to match him dollar for dollar. As long as they build it as close as possible to Beverly Hills, hell I might even donate a couple of bucks. If you want to wait for this to happen via private funds, you will be waiting for a very long time. I wonder why so many of those uber mega wealthy FLP Cally folks won't pony up their money to help save those poor folks they advocate so strongly for? The difference is spending their money or getting politicians to spend our money to ease their guilty minds. Hell Doc B is a Cally guy i believe. Why does he not break out his checkbook and blow the dust off and wipe off the cobwebs and help his fellow poor and downtrodden Cally citizens?

The project is more likely to be privately funded than happening at all.

[cradleandshoot]

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/12 ... alifornia/

Hard to believe nobody ever thought of this before. What a freaking outstanding and brilliant idea. What could possibly go wrong with this concept? You can open up a Mickey Ds where all the food is free. For that matter everything can be free. Three hots and a cot and even a place to poop that does not resemble a sidewalk. I wonder where you find the 3 billion and how do you pay to maintain "bumtown" ? Maybe they can pay property taxes like everybody else has to do? You folks in Cally better get ready to fork over big bucks for this one. i wonder if there is 300 acres available near Beverly Hills?

Privately funded is a conservative tenet.

You would be correct, but it will never happen being solely privately funded. Tom Steyer could break out his checkbook and ask Bloomberg to match him dollar for dollar. As long as they build it as close as possible to Beverly Hills, hell I might even donate a couple of bucks. If you want to wait for this to happen via private funds, you will be waiting for a very long time. I wonder why so many of those uber mega wealthy FLP Cally folks won't pony up their money to help save those poor folks they advocate so strongly for? The difference is spending their money or getting politicians to spend our money to ease their guilty minds. Hell Doc B is a Cally guy i believe. Why does he not break out his checkbook and blow the dust off and wipe off the cobwebs and help his fellow poor and downtrodden Cally citizens?

The project is more likely to be privately funded than happening at all.

Not for a 3 billion dollar tab it is. Unless Tom Steyer steps up to the plate and breaks out his check book it ain't gonna happen. Maybe the Hollywood elite can have a bake sale in Beverly Hills and allow the common folk in to buy some goodies. You want a cupcake? 250 thousand will get you one. Face it TLD, this pie in the sky FLP dreaming. These folks would be better served to come back down to the real world and come up with a plan that is based in reality. i will admit that the closer you can locate any solution to Beverly Hills, the more I like it. I would really like to see Rodeo Drive sidewalks covered in human feces.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/12 ... alifornia/

Hard to believe nobody ever thought of this before. What a freaking outstanding and brilliant idea. What could possibly go wrong with this concept? You can open up a Mickey Ds where all the food is free. For that matter everything can be free. Three hots and a cot and even a place to poop that does not resemble a sidewalk. I wonder where you find the 3 billion and how do you pay to maintain "bumtown" ? Maybe they can pay property taxes like everybody else has to do? You folks in Cally better get ready to fork over big bucks for this one. i wonder if there is 300 acres available near Beverly Hills?

Privately funded is a conservative tenet.

You would be correct, but it will never happen being solely privately funded. Tom Steyer could break out his checkbook and ask Bloomberg to match him dollar for dollar. As long as they build it as close as possible to Beverly Hills, hell I might even donate a couple of bucks. If you want to wait for this to happen via private funds, you will be waiting for a very long time. I wonder why so many of those uber mega wealthy FLP Cally folks won't pony up their money to help save those poor folks they advocate so strongly for? The difference is spending their money or getting politicians to spend our money to ease their guilty minds. Hell Doc B is a Cally guy i believe. Why does he not break out his checkbook and blow the dust off and wipe off the cobwebs and help his fellow poor and downtrodden Cally citizens?

The project is more likely to be privately funded than happening at all.

Not for a 3 billion dollar tab it is. Unless Tom Steyer steps up to the plate and breaks out his check book it ain't gonna happen. Maybe the Hollywood elite can have a bake sale in Beverly Hills and allow the common folk in to buy some goodies. You want a cupcake? 250 thousand will get you one. Face it TLD, this pie in the sky FLP dreaming. These folks would be better served to come back down to the real world and come up with a plan that is based in reality. i will admit that the closer you can locate any solution to Beverly Hills, the more I like it. I would really like to see Rodeo Drive sidewalks covered in human feces.

?

[cradleandshoot]

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/12 ... alifornia/

Hard to believe nobody ever thought of this before. What a freaking outstanding and brilliant idea. What could possibly go wrong with this concept? You can open up a Mickey Ds where all the food is free. For that matter everything can be free. Three hots and a cot and even a place to poop that does not resemble a sidewalk. I wonder where you find the 3 billion and how do you pay to maintain "bumtown" ? Maybe they can pay property taxes like everybody else has to do? You folks in Cally better get ready to fork over big bucks for this one. i wonder if there is 300 acres available near Beverly Hills?

Privately funded is a conservative tenet.

You would be correct, but it will never happen being solely privately funded. Tom Steyer could break out his checkbook and ask Bloomberg to match him dollar for dollar. As long as they build it as close as possible to Beverly Hills, hell I might even donate a couple of bucks. If you want to wait for this to happen via private funds, you will be waiting for a very long time. I wonder why so many of those uber mega wealthy FLP Cally folks won't pony up their money to help save those poor folks they advocate so strongly for? The difference is spending their money or getting politicians to spend our money to ease their guilty minds. Hell Doc B is a Cally guy i believe. Why does he not break out his checkbook and blow the dust off and wipe off the cobwebs and help his fellow poor and downtrodden Cally citizens?

The project is more likely to be privately funded than happening at all.

Not for a 3 billion dollar tab it is. Unless Tom Steyer steps up to the plate and breaks out his check book it ain't gonna happen. Maybe the Hollywood elite can have a bake sale in Beverly Hills and allow the common folk in to buy some goodies. You want a cupcake? 250 thousand will get you one. Face it TLD, this pie in the sky FLP dreaming. These folks would be better served to come back down to the real world and come up with a plan that is based in reality. i will admit that the closer you can locate any solution to Beverly Hills, the more I like it. I would really like to see Rodeo Drive sidewalks covered in human feces.

?

Sorry for the vague description. Rodeo Drive is the exclusive and elite playground of the California uber wealthy folks. That is where Doc B shops for his wardrobe. They would not take kindly to poop on their sidewalks.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/12 ... alifornia/

Hard to believe nobody ever thought of this before. What a freaking outstanding and brilliant idea. What could possibly go wrong with this concept? You can open up a Mickey Ds where all the food is free. For that matter everything can be free. Three hots and a cot and even a place to poop that does not resemble a sidewalk. I wonder where you find the 3 billion and how do you pay to maintain "bumtown" ? Maybe they can pay property taxes like everybody else has to do? You folks in Cally better get ready to fork over big bucks for this one. i wonder if there is 300 acres available near Beverly Hills?

Privately funded is a conservative tenet.

You would be correct, but it will never happen being solely privately funded. Tom Steyer could break out his checkbook and ask Bloomberg to match him dollar for dollar. As long as they build it as close as possible to Beverly Hills, hell I might even donate a couple of bucks. If you want to wait for this to happen via private funds, you will be waiting for a very long time. I wonder why so many of those uber mega wealthy FLP Cally folks won't pony up their money to help save those poor folks they advocate so strongly for? The difference is spending their money or getting politicians to spend our money to ease their guilty minds. Hell Doc B is a Cally guy i believe. Why does he not break out his checkbook and blow the dust off and wipe off the cobwebs and help his fellow poor and downtrodden Cally citizens?

The project is more likely to be privately funded than happening at all.

Not for a 3 billion dollar tab it is. Unless Tom Steyer steps up to the plate and breaks out his check book it ain't gonna happen. Maybe the Hollywood elite can have a bake sale in Beverly Hills and allow the common folk in to buy some goodies. You want a cupcake? 250 thousand will get you one. Face it TLD, this pie in the sky FLP dreaming. These folks would be better served to come back down to the real world and come up with a plan that is based in reality. i will admit that the closer you can locate any solution to Beverly Hills, the more I like it. I would really like to see Rodeo Drive sidewalks covered in human feces.

?

Sorry for the vague description. Rodeo Drive is the exclusive and elite playground of the California uber wealthy folks. That is where Doc B shops for his wardrobe. They would not take kindly to poop on their sidewalks.

Been there many times. Heavy Saudi & Persian hangout.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/cr ... -medicated. Is this not the American FLP blueprint for America as they understand it? Keep the American population depressed and medicated.

[holmes435]

Sounds like the American youth of today with the fewer opportunities than their parents had.

Not sure where you're getting the FLP blueprint thing - they usually point to Scandinavia.

[Peter Brown]

https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/cr ... -medicated. Is this not the American FLP blueprint for America as they understand it? Keep the American population depressed and medicated.

This link is a good example why I am so adamant that we find a way to eradicate the policies advocated by left-wing Democrats in this country (that wing becoming the predominant wing now).

Being in Florida (primarily), Venezuelans who had the means to get out, got out, and are encamped here for the time being and they are my friends. The results there of socialism would imo be the same results here in America. We have too many competing constituencies which until now have been tenuously bound by the freedom and opportunities this country offers. But, there's a subset of Americans as evidenced imo by Bernie's fans which are foursquare against those freedoms and opportunities, much like Maduro's supporters in VZ.

The story of uncontrolled socialism always ends tragically. Trump may be an amoral dunce, but he has delivered on judges and the economy (some of those judges are not easy bedfellows with a guy like Trump, yet he nominates them anyway). Bernie would present a stark choice to Americans, and one I hope we reject resoundingly.

[seacoaster]

https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/cr ... -medicated. Is this not the American FLP blueprint for America as they understand it? Keep the American population depressed and medicated.

Another content-free post.

[holmes435]

The story of uncontrolled socialism always ends tragically.

Well this is a flat-out lie.

1. There are no countries with "uncontrolled socialism"
2. There are lots of countries with socialist policies doing very well, and better than us in many categories.

[Peter Brown]

The story of uncontrolled socialism always ends tragically.

Well this is a flat-out lie.

1. There are no countries with "uncontrolled socialism"
2. There are lots of countries with socialist policies doing very well, and better than us in many categories.

I'd say there are many examples where socialist economies went belly up, but not before crushing the civil liberties of their citizens first.

That all said, if your example of 'good socialism' is found in Scandinavia, look how small and homogeneous the countries are; Sweden is barely more populated than the Chicago metropolitan area, and 83.2% of the population of Norway is ethnically Norwegian while 71.5% of them are members of the Church of Norway. The community-minded culture of Scandinavians helps community minded initiatives.

But that doesn't account for the major difference between what you think is socialism and the reason it is not: in Scandinavian countries, the lion's share of the economy is still controlled by private investors. AOC is completely against a market economy (her words). Which is also why Bernie needed to be corrected: https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish ... -socialist