The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

We let them.
Facebook, snapchat, selfies.
We ALLOWED people to MONETIZE our lives for free.
The businessman inside me says, we were idiots.

I too have issues w/ social media as it exists, and think it should be regulated.
But probably for a different reason.
I have no problem with these companies operating as a business, with a goal of earning a profit.

But as they (unfortunately) are becoming the national discussion forums, I don't think they should have the right to censor anyone (aside from pr0n). We should regulate them so that they can't edit, block, remove or censor content in any way.

Free speech is a core value of the US, and if they want to be our national forum, they ought to respect that. Even if under force of law.

[Annoyed]

Interesting piece here. Just as a coincidence, KISS has always been one my all time favorite bands, going back to 1973 when they first started.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ns-loved-them/

In a sense, Kiss prefigured today’s age of populism. Just like a certain American president, they horrified the elites — but inspired a loyal, devoted following that reveled in their scorn and condescension. Being a Kiss fan was an act of rebellion against the establishment.

[SoulReaver]

If we get out of the orange country a little... This is the hot topic in Canadian politics right now:

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/queb...kable-bill-21/

Bill 21 would ban public employees, including teachers, judges and police officers, from wearing symbols of faith.

This link is from the English press, an opinion piece, which is roasting this bill pretty hard. The PM also strongly oppose this.

What do you guys think?

classic free speech/freedom of religion vs separation of religion & state

I'd say for those public servants in a position of real authority it's a good law in theory : they have privileges that citizens don't so it's only fair they have extra obligations too

but on the other hand what's to stop them from imposing their beliefs with or without outward display thereof? in a twisted way allowing them to show their beliefs could actually benefit the citizen
to pick up on your DUI example: muslim judge throws the book at a drunk driver
if the judge openly shows his beliefs (eg. wearing a turban etc.) then the defendant/victim can legitimately make a case that they were treated unfairly because the judge's religious convictions were obviously the deciding factor thus paving the way for an easy appeal
but what if the judge kept his religious convictions to himself? good luck proving that the judge's religion was at fault if you don't even know their religion in the first place

so if anything those with authority should be encouraged to show their religion not hide it

[Annoyed]

classic free speech/freedom of religion vs separation of religion & state

I'd say for those public servants in a position of real authority it's a good law in theory : they have privileges that citizens don't so it's only fair they have extra obligations too

but on the other hand what's to stop them from imposing their beliefs with or without outward display thereof? in a twisted way allowing them to show their beliefs could actually benefit the citizen
to pick up on your DUI example: muslim judge throws the book at a drunk driver
if the judge openly shows his beliefs (eg. wearing a turban etc.) then the defendant/victim can legitimately make a case that they were treated unfairly because the judge's religious convictions were obviously the deciding factor thus paving the way for an easy appeal
but what if the judge kept his religious convictions to himself? good luck proving that the judge's religion was at fault if you don't even know their religion in the first place

so if anything those with authority should be encouraged to show their religion not hide it

And if the judge IS wearing a turban or some such, good luck proving that that affected his decision. It is NOT obvious from his wearing a religious symbol that it was the deciding factor.

You're just an anarchist.

[SoulReaver]

And if the judge IS wearing a turban or some such, good luck proving that that affected his decision. It is NOT obvious from his wearing a religious symbol that it was the deciding factor.

You're just an anarchist.

you smoking or you kidding?

what if someone blows themselves up after shouting 'death to infidels' will you still say this ain't proof religion had something to do with it?

[Chaka-Z0]

I think the US is closer than you think to that situation. Most US folks do believe in God, but for the majority, it's a minor part of their lives. They don't go to church or make pilgrimages, etc. or otherwise make a big deal of it. They will vote according to their religious beliefs, but only a small percentage are vocal evangelists and such.

Sure but still much more present in the US than Eastern Canada. That bill would get killed before it hits the paper its written on in the States. Heck, even the Presidents always go full Bless America, even if its symbolic.

But as they (unfortunately) are becoming the national discussion forums, I don't think they should have the right to censor anyone (aside from pr0n). We should regulate them so that they can't edit, block, remove or censor content in any way.

You don't mind Daesh mongrels recruiting kiddos on FB? And you're okay with people streaming slaughters? What about Pedo uncle Jerry posting ads to lure young girls and boys? Just leave it there too? It's much more nuanced than what you'd like Annoyed.

but what if the judge kept his religious convictions to himself? good luck proving that the judge's religion was at fault if you don't even know their religion in the first place

''I found you not-guilty on all charges, but by Allah's wrath I condemn you to 1000 hours of community labor for being an infidel''. Just an example dude it's not about the specifics of a judge and its influence on the sentence.

What about a judge that would have a picture of his cat Timmy in a courtroom for all to see, you think that'd be appropriate? It's not about the effect on the sentence, it's about decorum and neutrality. I mean I'd love to get arrested by a cop that would have posters of Iron Maiden in his backseat, but I don't think that'd be appropriate as well. Why then could he display his turban on duty?

There is no difference. Give me a few years and a bunch of people and I can make an absurdity a religion, just like the Church of the Spaghetti Monster (pastafarians), it's an official religion now.

[SoulReaver]

the Church of the Spaghetti Monster (pastafarians), it's an official religion now.

that "god" can be eaten right? not much of a god :/

[Chaka-Z0]

that "god" can be eaten right? not much of a god :/

Until his Noodly Appendage rips out from your belly and demands you submit to his will. Only then you will realize the predicament you are in.

[SoulReaver]

Until his Noodly Appendage rips out from your belly and demands you submit to his will. Only then you will realize the predicament you are in.

not a chance if it's spaghetti then it gets digested (though I'll take some bicarb just in case)

your scenario could only happen onscreen
in Western Spaghettis more precisely

[Chaka-Z0]

not a chance if it's spaghetti then it gets digested (though I'll take some bicarb just in case)

your scenario could only happen onscreen
in Western Spaghettis more precisely

R'Amen.” His Noodliness, the Ancient of Noodles, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the ultimate truth in the universe.

One can't eat what is more powerful than any Gods ruling our planes of existence.

[Chaka-Z0]

https://www.quora.com/Are-Pastafaria...d-to-eat-Pasta

Can a pastafarians eat pasta?
It's very much encouraged. The FSP appears to be pasta, insofar as any invisible creature can appear. We cannot know the true matter of the matter.

[SoulReaver]

R'Amen.” His Noodliness, the Ancient of Noodles, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the ultimate truth in the universe.

One can't eat what is more powerful than any Gods ruling our planes of existence.

sure you can. it's spaghetti
if you got spaghetti you can't eat then sue the company, pronto

just remember add sauce cause spaghetti's nothing without sauce

in fact spaghetti depends on sauce

therefore the Sauce God is the number 1 god (call it SG1) and it should be worshipped

[Chaka-Z0]

sure you can. it's spaghetti
if you got spaghetti you can't eat then sue the company, pronto

just remember add sauce cause spaghetti's nothing without sauce

in fact spaghetti depends on sauce

therefore the Sauce God is the number 1 god (call it SG1) and it should be worshipped

But the sauce is nothing without spice, in fact sauce depends on spice. Therefore the Spice God is the number 1 god and sauce would be 1.5, call it SGA.

*FYI just consulted the holy texts and found this:

April 10th Alfredo Sauce Day.

Take that Atheists.

[SoulReaver]

Therefore the Spice God is the number 1 god

but you know what they say "he who controls the spice controls the universe"

therefore the spice god can be controlled, yo

[Chaka-Z0]

but you know what they say "he who controls the spice controls the universe"

therefore the spice god can be controlled, yo

I thought it was "he who controls the spice controls your wife"

Checkmate I guess.