Sponsored Links

[Eeyore]

Jennifer Rubin, a journalist for the WaPo, references a list here.
It's a different list, but the same principle.
"Any R now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into "polite" society. We have a list."

This was November 6th.
In my world, there is a great deal of difference questioning election results while they are still counting ballots on November 6th, than say December 6th.
Think Hillary conceded on the 8th. Al Gore on the 13th of December.

Edited to add: I'm not going to tell anyone what they should think, but I do not believe that when this forum started most folks would think keeping lists of "wrongthinkers" to "hold them accountable" would be taken cavalierly.

This is taken from another thread and I think it is a good point of conversation or debate.

Is holding election challengers accountable for their actions acceptable?
Why is it attacking "wrongthinking"?
Under what conditions is it acceptable?
In this case does that date of action matter more than the type of action?

[Mrs. Pigpen]

Is holding election challengers accountable for their actions acceptable?
Holding public officials accountable for their policies is warranted (aka "acceptable")
Blacklisting neighbors, business people, and so forth for "wrong think" something else entirely.
Blacklisting individuals and making them unable to feed their families for voting "wrong"...that isn't a world I want to live in.

Under what conditions is it acceptable?
When people actually incite violence/commit crimes.
Criminal behavior should not be tolerated. This includes death threats.
Which ties into the whole problem. "I will make you unable to feed your family because you support a different candidate" isn't far from "I will hurt you because you supported a different candidate". There's actually the same concept.

I posted this on the other thread:

For some perspective (since GLAAD was mentioned), when this forum started there was much debate about homosexual marriage (which Obama was against, at first).
Now even the likes of Martina Navratilova (a homosexual, whose coach incidentally was transgender) are accused of wrong think.
When you study the history, things like loyalty oaths never happen all at once. They happen gradually with things like blacklists.

And by the way, I have donated to organizations like the San Francisco Aids Foundation. Imagine if Conservative legislators said they had a list to hold people accountable for donating to organizations like that. I would have donated triple. And been horrified at the precedent they were setting. I am very disturbed by blacklists supported by journalists who now obviously have dispensed with all pretense of objectivity, and legislators who make statements like this one.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Dec 15 2020, 04:40 PM

[Eeyore]

This quote is from Mrs. Pigpen

Now even the likes of Martina Navratilova (a homosexual, whose coach incidentally was transgender) are accused of wrong think.
When you study the history, things like loyalty oaths never happen all at once. They happen gradually with things like blacklists.

And by the way, I have donated to organizations like the San Francisco Aids Foundation. Imagine if Conservative legislators said they had a list to hold people accountable for donating to organizations like that. I would have donated triple. And been horrified at the precedent they were setting. I am very disturbed by blacklists supported by journalists who now obviously make have dispensed with all pretense of objectivity, and legislators who make statements like this one.

I worry about this too, but as you point out Obama is to be held accountable for his record. He benefited by either not having a voting record in regards to the Iraq War when Hillary did if I remember right.

When people move into public life their positions are closely scrutinized. To me this is the way it has always been. Your record in donating to the San Francisco Aids foundation would be a fair point of conversation if you ran for public office or were being vetted for a public appointment.

What I dislike most is when the context is not taken into account.
There is a distinct difference between communicating with or supporting communists in 1938, 1943, and 1950.
In 1938 the communist party actively supported cooperation with democracies in popular fronts. People who attended meetings likely would have heard messages about partnering with democratic governments instead of infiltrating and undermining them.
In 1943 the United States government was 100% actively aiding and abetting the government of the USSR with a billions of dollars of aid.
In 1950 the Communist Party was about undermining and destroying American democracy. People attending meetings and joining the Communist Party at this time were actively dangerous, people who went to a meeting in 1938 or served in the US government in 1943 should be treated differently because of the context.

Does cancel culture get out of control and stifle debate and oversimplify context? Yes it does. Should some people be held accountable for their misdeed after a fair evaluation? I believe so. In the other thread you feel the Michigan legislator crossed a clear and obvious line, I think her punishment and criticism does not fairly take into account the context.

[Mrs. Pigpen]

What I dislike most is when the context is not taken into account.

Fair point. Agreed.

There is a distinct difference between communicating with or supporting communists in 1938, 1943, and 1950.
In 1938 the communist party actively supported cooperation with democracies in popular fronts. People who attended meetings likely would have heard messages about partnering with democratic governments instead of infiltrating and undermining them.
In 1943 the United States government was 100% actively aiding and abetting the government of the USSR with a billions of dollars of aid.
In 1950 the Communist Party was about undermining and destroying American democracy. People attending meetings and joining the Communist Party at this time were actively dangerous, people who went to a meeting in 1938 or served in the US government in 1943 should be treated differently because of the context.

Does cancel culture get out of control and stifle debate and oversimplify context? Yes it does. Should some people be held accountable for their misdeed after a fair evaluation? I believe so. In the other thread you feel the Michigan legislator crossed a clear and obvious line, I think her punishment and criticism does not fairly take into account the context.

Full context for the Michigan legislator would include current events that we are all a part of, as well as her statement.
She did not reference death threats, she made a broad sweeping statement about "Trumpers" warning them to "walk lightly" and she had her "soldiers" and so forth.
Now, if she had misspoken she could have said, "I'm not talking about all people who support Trump", just people who threaten. She didn't. Her explanation about "soldiers in Christ" sure didn't make me feel better. I'm pretty sure if a Conservative politician had said same it would have gone over as well as a polished turd so let's not kid ourselves.
And we have...riots and violence and actual blacklists.
That is the context of her statement.
I know we will not agree, that's pretty much all I have to say on the matter.