Tuesday, December 29, 2020
Kelly Loeffler
Kelly Loeffler is 50 years old, running for the most august legislative body in the United States1. Why does she choose to look like a college student? I'm wondering what she thinks that gets her? Is it as simple as conservative women, especially from the South, thinking, as seems to be the case, they have to be babes? Or am I way off base and being a chauvinist?
Picture via The Nation, taken Dec. 20, 2020 in Cumming, Georgia.
1 At one time a writer would have reflexively written "the most august legislative body in the world." Not sure, after Trump's impeachment trial, that is obviously true anymore, though it may have failed long before that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
How she dresses isn't relevant. Her corruption is.
Good point. I probably shouldn't have written this post, and probably should delete it.
David - I just came across a terrific video explaining key aspects of race from a conservative black POV. It's only 7 minutes long. I would be interested in your reaction as well as the reactions of other commenters here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Neg4bYJ9_8&feature=emb_logo
Happy New Year to all!
Cheers
David in Cal
Thanks David, I'll have a look, since I'm just messing around tonight, drinking a bottle of red wine to ward off loneliness. (Also for the resveratrol.)
Hi David.
I watch your YouTube video.
I found the ideas about black identity expressed in it to be insulting and ridiculous. IMO no one of any race, color, culture, nationality, etc., should be told they must think a certain way because of their membership in that group. It's just absurd and so anti-freedom.
Every individual should think what they want, and resist all pressure as best they can, from parents, relatives, communities, churches, organizations, schools, colleges and universities, the media, and everyone else. To think that you must support this or that simply because you are black is just so far beyond my way of thinking and reckoning. It's not how physicists are taught to think.
Obviously some people believe this. This video highlights some of it. But I wonder how much cherry-picking it does. I don't know for sure. I think probably a lot, collecting some obvious incidents over many years. I'm not out in the world nearly enough to know what's really going on.
Honestly, I don't pay much attention to stuff like this. Any attention, really. I think it's made to stir up and fight culture wars. Same with Thomas Sowell and many other pundits. That stuff is popular and sells. I have opinions, and I express them, but I never think I'm fighting a battle in a culture war. I'm just expressing my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Certainly correct me if you think I am wrong. I'm don't think I'm trying much to change the world. Maybe just trying to change my world, little piece by little piece, trying to find just a little peace somewhere.
Anyway, what do you think? I'm interested.
But then, I'm white, in America, in an era where whites dominate, and I'm also male, in an era where males dominate, and I can't relate to being not white or not male, so really, what do I know about the pressures of being in a nonwhite group?
Nothing.
David - the part about "acting white' struck a chord with me because my relatives experienced it. My cousin E and his amazing black wife B, who passed away recently, raised 3 children in Englewood NJ, a bi-racial community. The parents are highly educated. Father has a PH.D. in Engineering. B was a tenured Professor with Ph.D. in English, then switched career and become a medical doctor.
D, the oldest child, was a excellent student, who went on to graduate from Princeton. His black friends gave him some trouble for acting white. Fortunately, D is a big, tough (albeit very sweet) guy. Nobody would mess with him. L is so brilliant and talented and charming that she had no trouble. The youngest child M had major problems coping with accusations of acting white. It affected her psychologically.
With universities and businesses striving to enroll competent blacks, the opportunities are terrific. A culture that discouraging blacks from preparing themselves to take advantage of these opportunities is just sad.
Cheers
Thanks for the link, Layzej. Very interesting.
Off topic, rather.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55510151
Could someone please explain what Section 230 has to do with the National Defence Authorisation Act?
Fair enough, David, thanks for your perspective. I have to admit I've lived a sheltered life. I've never had a close black friend, and while my best friends for a long time now are Jews, that's about as far as my experience goes. Everyone else has been white. I grew up among a lot of poor people, but whites, and we ourselves weren't very well off (coal furnace, no real bathroom, two bedrooms for 5, ate in the kitchen), we were never hungry or struggled for clothing AFAIK and had vacations, though we never went out to eat. Point is, I lived a very sheltered life, and didn't meet anyone different until I went to college, and then diversity expanded greatly in graduate school, then at Bell Labs of course, where I know people from of many races from many different backgrounds. Nowadays I don't meet anybody.
So I try to avoid the entire subject because I'd have no idea what I'd be talking about.
But thanks for posting that video. And happy new year to you and yours. Thanks for being here and staying here.
EM wrote
Could someone please explain what Section 230 has to do with the National Defence Authorisation Act?
Trump doesn't like it because he thinks the big Internet platforms are unfair to him (i.e. do not operate in ways he would prefer so as to favor him). Section 230 would make Facebook, Google, Twitter etc "publishers" so they'd be responsible for all content that runs over their networks. An equivalent situation would if AT&T, Sprint, etc were held responsible every time someone faxed a picture of child pornography over their network. Trump and conservatives in general think Facebook etc suppress conservative viewpoints, though there is no evidence of that, and they offer none. They just like to play the victim. (Again.)
David - AT&T and Sprint transmit everything that communicated. AT&T and Sprint have no knowledge of what's being transmitted. They make no effort to restrict what is being transmitted.
OTOH Facebook and Twitter review what is posted. They restrict certain types of messages. Facebook also presents news, giving stories more or less prominence at their discretion.
I see a lot of liberal organs claiming that Facebook and Twitter are not biased against conservatives. I think the anti-conservative bias is glaringly obvious. However, I don't want to get into a pissing match over this issue.
Cheers
I can understand the desire of Donald Trump to censor Facebook and Twitter.
I do not understand why he regards repealing Section 230 as a suitable provision of the NDAA. Is it normal practice to add irrelevant and perhaps controversial clauses into routine bills in the hope of getting them through Congress?
EM - Facebook and Twitter are already censoring conservative messages. Trump wants to end that censorship.
I have no idea why Trump asked that section 230 be addressed in a defense bill. First of all, it has nothing to do with defense. Also, there's no chance that Congress will repeal section 230. Facebook, Twitter and Google have too much money. In Congress, money talks.
Cheers
A lot of what is considered conservative messages are also considered hate speech. There is no doubt that there is a conflict between conservative messages and the community guidelines for most of these social message boards.
Light dawns.I'm beginning to understand how American politics operates.
Repeal Section 230. Facebook and Twitter will be inundated with Republican lawsuits, in the hope that the internet companies will compromise their standards for a quiet life
Putting a Section 230 repeal clause as a flea on the back of the NDAA bill is a way of sneaking it past Congress, who would be unwilling to reject a major finance bill for one supplementary clause.
David in Cal wrote:
Facebook and Twitter are already censoring conservative messages.
What's the evidence of this?
(Excluding hate speech.)
David - I could find innumerable examples. Here's one from BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101 Please read the article.
BTW Twitter's excuse, that they limited sharing because the story contained hacked materials, was not even accurate. The material was not hacked. Aside from the fact that this standard had not been applied before to distribution of newspaper articles.
You can find lots of other articles about Twitter and Facebook censoring conservatives at https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+censored+buden+china&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=facebook+censored+buden+china&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.18511j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Cheers
All you have shown is that there are cases where conservatives have been censored.
There are plenty of cases where liberals have been censored. That is not evidence that twitter and Facebook have a conservative bias.
What confuses me is why Republicans think that forcing social media companies to police content on their platforms will result in less censorship.
The BBC have House Rules for their comment threads.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/terms/what-are-the-rules-for-commenting.
The Left complain that the BBC is biased to the Right and the Right complain that the BBC is biased to the Left. In fact the BBC get the balance about correct.
My own impression is that more comments from the Right are removed. This is not because of political bias, but because the Left are less offensive. For some reason Right is more likely to mean rude.
DiC: You are ignoring the fact that at present most misinformation that's a danger to the public comes from conservatives. That's misinformation about the pandemic, misinformation that spreads conspiracy theories and misinformation regarding the election which sadly is still ongoing. IMO social media has a responsibility to reduce this as much they can.
As for the ongoing effort to overturn the result of a democratic election, this is a quote from Mitt Romney talking about his fellow conservatives,
“The egregious ploy to reject electors may enhance the political ambition of some, but dangerously threatens our Democratic Republic. The congressional power to reject electors is reserved for the most extreme and unusual circumstances. These are far from it. More Americans participated in this election than ever before, and they made their choice. President Trump’s lawyers made their case before scores of courts; in every instance, they failed. The Justice Department found no evidence of irregularity sufficient to overturn the election. The Presidential Voter Fraud Commission disbanded without finding such evidence.
“My fellow Senator Ted Cruz and the co-signers of his statement argue that rejection of electors or an election audit directed by Congress would restore trust in the election. Nonsense. This argument ignores the widely perceived reality that Congress is an overwhelmingly partisan body; the American people wisely place greater trust in the federal courts where judges serve for life. Members of Congress who would substitute their own partisan judgement for that of the courts do not enhance public trust, they imperil it.
It's good to see there's still one Republican Senator with some moral fiber.
EM - As I'm sure you know, I was not addressing BBC's bias. I was using a BBC report to illustrate Twitter's bias.
Layzej - Can you provide links to liberal POVs being censored by Twitter and Facebook?
J.D. - Mitt Romney's comment is intentionally misleading. Cruz and the other Republican Senators know that there is no chance of overturning the election. They are using that threat to get a full investigation of the alleged fraud in the 2020 election. IMO a full investigation is very desirable. If there was significant fraud, steps need to be taken to prevent a recurrence. Even if there was no major fraud, a reliable investigation would help clear the air.
Cheers
J.D. I do not agree that "most misinformation that's a danger to the public comes from conservatives." The entire Trump Russia investigation was based on misinformation. Its source, the Steele Dossier, was total crap. Not even its source vouched for it. The Russia business did significant damage to the public.
Another area of damaging misinformation is stories involving race. Liberal bias in how they report has spurred riots all over the country.
Cheers
David, I think everyone agrees by now that that NY Post article about Hunter Biden was junk.
Then you gave this link:
You can find lots of other articles about Twitter and Facebook censoring conservatives at https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+censored+buden+china&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=facebook+censored+buden+china&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.18511j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
This isn't evidence and I'm not going to read it. It's just a Google search. Evidence is information that is investigated and vouched for. A list of Google links do not fall into that category.
I could easily "prove" that ghost are real with such a Google link, or that lizards disguised as people roam the Earth.
David: From the BBC article you linked to:
"The article focused on an email from April 2015, in which an adviser from a Ukrainian energy company apparently thanked Hunter Biden for inviting him to meet Joe Biden in Washington.
"It did not provide evidence that the meeting ever took place, and the Biden election campaign says it did not."
Doesn't the very fact that Twitter *hasn't* banned Trump, though it has every reason to, as he has violated their terms of service numerous times, show they don't have a conservative bias towards him?
They are using that threat to get a full investigation of the alleged fraud
David there was no fraud. Cruz and company are not even making any specific allegations of fraud. Everything Romney said was correct. They've had two months to come up with some credible evidence and they've just made themselves look more and more ridiculous. That Trump has managed to convince his more gullible supporters, which seems to be most of them, that somewhere somehow there was fraud does not constitute evidence.
If you want evidence that Trump is the fraud, go and read D.A's latest post and the article he's linked to. The Washington Post has obtained a recording of Trump badgering the Georgia secretary of state to manufacture evidence of fraud so that the election can be handed to him. When are you Trump followers going to learn that
it's him who is a complete fraud?
In fact, a twitter account that was created on May 29, 2020, @SuspendThePres, that merely reposted everything Trump posted, was temporarily suspended within 3 days, for "glorifying violence." It's back up now, though I don't know how many times it's been suspended in the interim.
About three weeks ago, I was suspended for posting for 2 months at Facebook for posting this picture:
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/himmler-prisoner-staring-defiance-1941/
I thought the picture showed courageous and admirable defiance in the face of a Nazi (Himmler). Facebook and/or its algorithm disagreed. I had no real opportunity to appeal -- I could only click a radio button saying I did, but Facebook replied they were swamped due to the holidays.
JD, I agree, there was no fraud. I think Republicans are going to try to use their *claims* of fraud to get rid of, for example, mail-in voting, which they think is not in their favor. With it they can't control minority voting, for example. They want to control vote counting on days after election day. They want to sharply reduce absentee voting before election day. They want to reduce or eliminate easy voting -- you *must* go to your local voting booths on election day. I think they think, with justification, that the fewer people who get to vote the more it favors Republicans.
This is my theory, anyway.
I do not agree that "most misinformation that's a danger to the public comes from conservatives." The entire Trump Russia investigation was based on misinformation. Its source, the Steele Dossier, was total crap.
I was talking about the last year which is mainly when Twitter has started to take action against dangerous misinformation seriously. The continual misinformation during the pandemic from Trump and right wing media is shocking and has undoubtedly cost lives. Now there's the insane "election fraud" nonsense where those who contradict Trump's narrative get threatened with violence.
As for the Russia investigation, it didn't originate with the Steele dossier. It started with CIA intelligence and even William Barr admits now that attempts to discredit their information were wrong. Furthermore, and we've been through all this before, a bipartisan committee found that Trump's campaign did have cooperation with Russia and just recently Trump has pardoned all his cronies wh
that didn't cooperate with the subsequent investigations. So the full extent of that collusion might never be known.
DiC: "Layzej - Can you provide links to liberal POVs being censored by Twitter and Facebook?"
Of course! Do you really think there are no examples? You were willing to believe that republicans are persecuted based on banned posts that ran afoul of the Twitter terms of service - without even looking to see whether the same was happening on the other side?
Layzej - I didn't mean "can you?". I meant "would you please?" Would you please provide links to the liberal POV's that were censored by Twitter and Facebook?
That New York Post article described in my link did NOT violate the Twitter terms of service. Twitter falsely asserted that it was based on hacked material.
Cheers
David in Cal
"EM - As I'm sure you know, I was not addressing BBC's bias. I was using a BBC report to illustrate Twitter's bias. "
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My suggestion was that Right have less respect for the House Rules of Facebook, Twitter, the BBC or any other internet host. That makes them more likely to submit posts which break the House Rules and more likely to be moderated.
Not a political bias, but a bias against rudeness, fake news and other rule-breaking posts.
Reporting from Wired in 2018:
"Twitter has purged left-wing accounts with no explanation:
Dozens of activists linked to the Occupy movement are up in arms after their accounts were suspended by Twitter," Wired 10/18/18.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections
DiC: "That New York Post article described in my link did NOT violate the Twitter terms of service..."
WRONG. According to the article that you linked: "it had imposed restrictions on the article because it exposed private information such as email addresses"
It is not at all difficult to find similar examples on the other side.
Post a Comment