/townhall/ - Townhall

Roughly speaking, the U.S. can be divided into three groups. First, there's those most at risk of political violence in general and especially at risk if the U.S. ever had a fully tyrannical government. Second, there's the broad mass of the general populace. Third, there's those least at risk of political violence whom would have it the most cozy if a tyrannical government took power.

One might think that gun ownership among civilians would be most concentrated among those with the most to lose. That is: Jews, Muslims, transgender people, Native Americans, disabled people, and the like. The types most likely to suffer the worse under a future tyranny.

That's absolutely not the case, though. In fact, the vast majority of civilian firearms are owned with the people having the least to lose and to which a tyrannical government would be the most kind to. The happier you'd be in a fascist America, the more likely you are to have an arsenal for such an occasion and the larger said arsenal would be.

This is most telling when comparing militant factions such as neo-Nazi clubs, Klansman associations, the Proud Boys, and such. Not only are they armed to the teeth, but they actively encourage individuals to brandish their weapons in public. It's a way of showing off at best and outright intimidation at worse.

When one looks at, say, the elderly Jewish protesters brought out by the Anti-Defamation League or other, ideological rivals on the opposite side... it's like imagining a battle between rabbits and foxes. Sheep and wolves. Cats and mice. Pretty clear imbalances.

To try to solve this, I've got a proposal. In short:

>'In a world full of wolves and lambs, bring in the sheepdogs.'

I propose a unified network of state by state and then county by county paramilitaries made up of well-trained gun owners who're straight white cisgender Christians who've made a sacred blood oath (I mean this quite literally, as in publicly swearing in the eyes of God and their peers as they use some kind of a cutting device to draw some blood from themselves ritualistically) that they will quite literally die, if necessary, to defend their neighbors who're non-cisgender, non-Christian, non-straight, non-white, and so on.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Recent talk of expanding U.S. infrastructure in general has also meant talk specifically about Native Americans' access to clean drinking water getting improved.

Details: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/15/1054418311/tribes-hope-infrastructure-law-means-theyll-finally-get-clean-drinking-water

In the broader sense, do you think that access to clean water is a fundamental human right the same as freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Or perhaps not? It's not in the U.S. Constitution, of course, but should it be? How much of a complicating factor is it that multiple areas, specifically native tribal locations, are subject to different practical pressures making clean water difficult to get?

In US criminal trials, the jury has only two options for each charge: acquittal or finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Should juries have a third option, to chastise the prosecutor and award damages to the defendant when the evidence is strongly on the defendant's side?

Even the mere presence of this option may help avoid juries convicting innocent people.  In the current jury system, a jury may compromise by convicting the defendant on some lesser charges.  But if there is another option to chastise the prosecutor, then the compromise might be instead be fully acquitting the defendant but not chastising the prosecutor.

So I'm starting to think that all home-owners  are entitled to receive a free firearm. A gun, like a handgun or an assault rifle.

Now, I'm vegan, so therefore I believe deep down in my heart of hearts: "guns are for self-defence, not hunting."

And I carry that sentiment with this statement: that all home-owners in the United States of America be given a free firearm for self defence.

Is there a resurgence of union power specifically, and laborers' power in general, in the U.S. right now?

Details: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/02/1051112806/strikes-labor-great-resignation-covid

Could this mean a stronger movement for better civil rights in this country? Or may this just be a blip? I'm inclined to be skeptical in terms of the God-like abilities of corporations in the U.S., but maybe things can change, with the likes of a thirty-hour work week and paid family leave for parents no longer being mere dreams?

President Joe Biden, although still broadly popular in most of the nation, is having a particularly hard time selling his expansive welfare programs and other government expanding measures to the public.

Related Story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/05/president-biden-howell-michigan-visit-build-back-better/5997459001/

In contrast to his slogan of "Build Back Better", opponents express concern about multi-trillion dollar price tags when the country is already drowning in debt. "Build Back Broke" gets said. It's interesting.

What are your thoughts?

The United Nations recently warned that AI research represents a fundamental threat to human liberties given that deploying such technology to control both government and non-state actions can curtain "rights to privacy, to a fair trial, to freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and the right to life" ( https://www.npr.org/2021/09/16/1037902314/the-u-n-warns-that-ai-can-pose-a-threat-to-human-rights ).

Can we as fragile, weak humans teach these new Gods and Goddesses our sense of person-based ethics? Is it even possible at all? Maybe?

Another, more recent news story has reported that the Allen Institute for AI (created the late Microsoft figure Paul Allen) have made some major breakthroughs in devising an AI service that can seemingly answer ethical challenges that have been put to it. A lot of snags understandably exist ( https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2021/10/27/22747333/artificial-intelligence-ethics-delphi-ai ).

What do you think? Can our machine Gods and Goddesses learn to feel and make ethical decisions? Is the future something like Data from Star Trek? Or will things turn much darker?

The costs of gasoline in the United States is going up. The simple, Econ 101 take on the situation is that supply normally would increase to take advantage of the situation. However, the oil industry isn't like your standard competitive market, and it looks as if the response from oil producing agencies as to whether or not more will be coming is a flat "no".

Details: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/14/1055068583/gasoline-prices-gas-energy-inflation-biden

In such circumstances, what should be done? Can anything really be done? Maybe not?

Bob believes, politically speaking, in "equality of opportunity". He knows that in practical terms an individual's status can seem to convey certain inherent advantages or disadvantages, such as someone in a wheelchair having difficult in reaching to pick up things past a certain height as well as someone without hearing having trouble driving cars in certain traffic. However, Bob inherently thinks that people are all fundamentally both "equal" and "good" at an ethical level and thus wants a system of government in which every single person realistically has a chance to advance in social terms from birth onward. He knows that hard work pays off and so thus what happens in terms of actual outcomes can vary, but that's fine as long as everyone has decent respect for each other.

Is this "left wing"? Is this "centrist"? Is this "right wing"?

Steve believes, politically speaking, in "equality of outcomes". It's not enough that everybody is in something like a footrace with every participant at the same starting line. Everybody needs to finish at about the same place. Thus, the system of government should ensure a level field of success in which all people basically have the same amenities, same enjoyments, same perks, and more.

Is this "left wing"? Is this "centrist"? Is this "right wing"?

Donald believes, politically speaking, that "equality is a hoax". He firmly asserts that some people inherently choose to debase themselves due to poor moral worth to the point of which they don't deserve empathy from others. He strongly insists that certain ethnic groups, religions, sexual orientations, and so on deserve a higher status in society compared to others due to their innate superiority. He wants government to recognize this natural aristocracy in how people live.

Is this "left wing"? Is this "centrist"? Is this "right wing"?

Those following legal related news in the U.S. have probably seen various updates on the Georgia case of black jogger Ahmaud Arbery and the three white men on trial for killing him (them having regarded him as a robbery suspect when they spotted him running and thus chasing him while armed until they were able to corner him, execute him, and call him a "f*ck*ng n*gg*r" as he died). It's a controversial case to say the least. Sadly, the same old divisions have occurred again in terms of Americans of the political center, left, and right taking different sides on what the judge and jury should do.

One complication is that the defense team for the murderers have pushed for an all white jury, and they've nearly succeeded in doing so. In the end, the case will go through with one black person on the jury and everybody else being white. The judge in the case publicly stated that the results were ethically wrong, labeling the situation "intentional discrimination", but decided that on technical legal grounds he's unable to change things. The legal process will go on.

For me, personally, I find it basically impossible to view the killers as anything but guilty and deserving of the book being thrown at them. This appears to be an open-and-shut case. However, of course, this is America and those on trial must be given a fair defense such that they're innocent until proven guilty.

Details: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052435205/ahmaud-arbery-jury

I do wonder though about the biggest points, the particulars of the Arbery case aside: do all white juries represent a serious problem in America? Is something fundamentally ethically wrong with having racially segregated juries in a normally racially integrated country? Or is this not really that big of a deal? Might this be a case of social justice warriors complaining about a non-issue, as conservatives often charge, since a racial segregated jury can still come to reasonable conclusions?

It should also be mentioned that, as the case of the murder of George Floyd has demonstrated, America is most certainly not an fundamentally racist country (at least, well, not in my opinion): violence against minorities can and does result in fair justice.

(Image from the excellent film To Kill a Mockingbird.)

I've been thinking for awhile about creating a pony social site.

There are a lot of reasons not to, mostly that it's going to be a ghost town.  Although as an introvert, I could not moderate a group of any substantial size anyway.

Sites like ponyville.us intrigued me.  I like that they don't collect personal information and I like the image board style.

I gather we effectively have user accounts and identities serverside.  But we just have very little capacity to view or control them.  (I mostly want to earn control over my name, but this can be a general opportunity to change anything.)

Some of it is that I want to play around and see what I can do, and learn a bit more about development.

Maybe I want reaction images to be stored in the server, so they can follow me across devices.

Maybe we should create our own art on the site so we don't have the pesky copyright issue.  I don't know how that would go down.  It's much easier to steal -- like I did for this post.

This thread can be for general ideas about social sites, what you like and don't like.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Well, it happened again just a bit ago. Twitter suspended the account of a senior conservative Republican member of Congress, named Jim Banks, and triggered another episode of a long-running culture war. This is just one in an extremely long line of instances of prominent right-wing voices facing censorship on social media. Public displays of prejudice made due to their conservative values keep getting push-back.

Story: https://time.com/6110023/twitter-jim-banks-rachel-levine/

In Banks' case, he attacked a transgender member of the Biden administration, not just condemning her personally but also misgendering her. Banks remains defiant. No apologies seem in coming.

Broadly speaking, Twitter, like other forms of social media, prohibit users from making statements of incitement to hatred when it comes to race, religion, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability status, and so on. This is a pretty common moral stance. It's also, I think, fairly popular among social media users generally, many of whom either are minorities themselves or otherwise strongly against prejudice.

However, conservative politics in the U.S. frequently involves not just making statements about the inferiority of certain groups and individuals compared to others but also taking policy actions based on said inferiority. A conservative attacking somebody for being gay, Muslim, Jewish, transgender, disabled, et cetera is just doing what their political ideology tells them to do, really. It makes sense given that conservative actions in lawmaking put certain groups on pedestals over others. Given that, say, everything from prohibiting anybody but Christians from public prayer statements to kicking transgender people out of certain restrooms to forcing certain non-Christians to have official registry status as suspicious persons subject to special restrictions are both central conservative policy goals... and... well... it goes on.

Is such social media censorship really a good thing? Should minorities really be protected against conservatives attacking them due to their minority status, or does such restriction on speech essentially make social media a no-go place for conservatives? What about the conservatives' claims that they're being bullied and treated unfairly? Worth considering? Or is social media no place for bigotry?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/peter-navarro-calls-fauci-evil-says-he-urged-trump-to-fire-him

Is gain-of-function research evil? Should public bureaucrats who encouraged it be removed from office now that we have the benefit of hindsight? Should we also remove officials who continue to defend it or is a general ban sufficient?

If a devoutly religious medical professional as an individual, or a group of such people, or a corporate organization under a spiritual mission refuse to give the same health care that would be given to somebody else to some victim because said victim is an atheist, a bisexual person, a Jew, a lesbian, a Muslim, a Satanist, a transgender person, or whatever else... should that be legal in the United States? Or should the federal government force the religious to defy their faiths by assisting those whom the divine have commanded them to be separate from? Is that justified?

What if the victims are to be provided substandard care, perhaps by paying more than a type of person viewed as more spiritually acceptable. Is that a reasonable compromise? Or is it insulting?

On the whole, is having so much of the U.S. health care system based around religious lines through spiritual organizations a problem as long as prejudice and sectarianism exists?

Is the FDA deliberately trying to injure and kill Americans by restricting booster shots?  The first two doses of the mRNA vaccines are apparently so safe that President Biden feels that it is ethical to *mandate* that people take them, but the FDA somehow worries that a third dose is so dangerous that it shouldn't be allowed except for the elderly and people who have certain pre-conditions or higher risk of exposure?  I have seen strong evidence that the third dose is just as safe as the first two doses. And I have also seen strong evidence that it greatly improves immunity to infection (which is especially important to people who are worried about being vectors who might infect more vulnerable loved ones).  IMHO, everyone at the FDA who voted against allowing boosters for the general population should be fired for gross incompetence.