Not going to weigh in on whether or not these protesters were paid, (or really if paid protesting is a thing at all), but I doubt the argument would be that paying protesters should be illegal, assuming it is done peacefully and lawfully, rather that it wouldn't necessarily constitute spontaneous grass roots support, even though it may appear that way from the outside.Originally Posted by Flixy
Except this is a way to delegitimize all anti-Trump protest. Which makes it a very dangerous claim if not supported by an abundance of evidence.
Hope is the denial of reality
Wasn't it claimed by the President Elect in one of the election debates? Is this site fake?
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...ng-they-hire-/
Not necessary. The permanently overly quick to protest nature of the young and the left delegitimised protest decades ago. That's why we have rule by secret ballot elections and not rule by vocal activists.
Which is not to say that protest is invalid or demean individuals reasons for protesting. Just that a protest has occurred means nothing in its own right.
The Washington Times refers to something completely different and prior to the election.It should be noted that the guy who released the videos has been caught editing videos to such an extent that they can't be taken seriously.
So do you have any actual evidence or do you just believe anything that makes you feel good about yourself?
Hope is the denial of reality
Moving goalposts much? The discussion thus far has been about the post-election protests, hence Veldan's quip about "Clinton's rioters", and October is definitely before November. And if you're going to take James O'Keefe at his word, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in Sydney. FFS, the man used to be on Breitbart's payroll and The Trump Foundation has directly donated to Project Veritas. Do you not think that's a vast conflict of interest, especially when he won't release the undoctored tapes?
If it happened in October then a priori it stands to reason it could have happened in November too. It's not proof but it's possible.
How does it make it a dangerous claim? In my mind even if they are getting paid it would be a "legitimate" protest. What makes a protest legitimate or illegitimate? What makes claims of legitimacy dangerous?
It's a claim typically made in authoritarian regimes. If protesters are being paid to protest, they're not real protesters and don't enjoy the relevant freedoms. It's also effective in discrediting the opposition.
Except it didn't happen in October. Assuming something did happen (which isn't at all clear), it was that Democratic organizations sent a few people to raise a ruckus in Trump rallies.
Hope is the denial of reality
Isn't this kinda similar to Pelosi calling GOP grassroots efforts a few years ago as astroturf?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
http://www.rawstory.com/2010/02/pelo...d-tea-parties/
I don't see what's objectionable about saying some Tea Party groups were closely connected to the GOP. I have no doubt that at least some of the current protesters are connected to the Democratic Party.
More on what "alt-right" speech leads to: https://www.yahoo.com/news/comet-piz...150753146.html
Hope is the denial of reality
Free Speech includes public protests. Should it really matter if they're 'being paid', or by whom? Some people take paid days off work to protest. Does that mean their employer is 'paying them to protest'?
Hey Lewk, if you're going to defend Citizens United (where Free Speech means unlimited and undisclosed amounts of money can be used for political speech) then you should be defending public protests, too.
Maybe this is why so little is done about the spam Lewk barfs up in the D&D section. Our most active mod is unapologetically part of the problem :\
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I couldn't remember who's a moderator, so I clicked on some forum links. Who the hell are Shadowrun players?
They're listed under Forum Leaders.....haha oops?
That said, I wouldn't be too hard on D & D mods/supermods or Admins. This is a pretty small (and free) forum, and we manage ourselves just fine for the most part. It's not like we have spam bots routinely taking over threads
I wouldn't worry about Lewk, either. In fact, I think we need more people like him (or Citizen Cain, or Tear) to keep the thing active and alive.
Last edited by GGT; 12-06-2016 at 03:22 AM.
Well, Tear and Citizen Cain at the same time was rough. Lewk is not as acidic.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
But they were smarter. Banning them may have felt good at the time, but look what we ended up with.
Honestly, I haven't seen anything in this forum requiring moderation in months (except for a spam bot).
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't think I've seen much that's needed dealing with in years other than spam bots.
Well that was before the election, and it's the same source as the planned parenthood videos which turned out to be either fake or entrapment IIRC. But I might be wrong there.
This is nice though
He insisted that the Democratic political consulting firm has “always operated according to the highest ethical and legal standards.”
Mr. Creamer, a four-decade Democratic strategist who pleaded guilty in 2005 to charges of bank fraud and tax violations
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Of course it was entrapment, doesn't mean it is fake though. And if people were willing to do it before the vote then its eminently possible for it to have happened afterwards too.
Aimless asked yesterday about odds. The way I see it there are four possibilities.
1: It happened in October, but not in November.
2: It happened in October and November
3: It didn't happen in either October or November
4: It didn't happen in October but did in November.
There has been no evidence I've seen to substantiate number 4, I ruled rule that out as of negligible likelihood. The premise on numbers 1 and 2 (the integrity of the edited video etc) is questionable and the weakest link but there is video evidence however questionable. If it did happen in October then why would it not happen again? Possibly because those with money to fund such action wouldn't waste it once the election is no longer an issue, but I can't see any other reason to change their MO having previously been willing to fund it.
I'd put the odds at probably something like:
1: 10%
2: 5%
3: 85%
4: * (<1%)
Possible is defined as anything greater than 0% possibility.
Something with 100% possibility is possible by definition but since it is known and guaranteed it is weird to use that word.
Similarly something with 50% or greater possibility is possible but again the right word to use their is probable rather than possible.
So that means a range of: 0% < "possible" < 50%
Active is great, but he runs around unchecked filling the debate forums with postings and threads that have no business being in there. Allowing a continuous stream of false news sources and hateful posting is not a healthy way to keep a community engaged.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
This is, in fact, a very very big reason. It's not illegal to compensate people for their time, travel costs, etc. when engaged in a protest. It IS illegal, however (fraud and misappropriation of funds) to use the money raised to campaign an election for non-electoral purposes after the election. Remaining funds are typically used to pay down debt incurred during the campaign and frequently require further fundraising dedicated to that purpose. And sure you can minimize the chances of getting caught by paying in cash (which you'd do anyway because while paying protestors is legal it is also unsavory) but the FEC knows what the patterns should be like with the accounts after an election. It's risky
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
More importantly, we know Britain committed genocide in the past. How do we know it's not doing so right now?
Hope is the denial of reality
That is a very good point (unlike the one that follows). I suppose an issue then is if paying protestors (if it happens) is done with FEC registered funds or some other form of fund. I imagine if it's with some other form of fund then that opens up even more legal questions and we're going further down the rabbit hole.
Since it's now December, on a like for like basis: Absolutely, if Britain was covertly committing genocide in November then how would we know Britain was not doing so right now?More importantly, we know Britain committed genocide in the past. How do we know it's not doing so right now?
One of the questions raised is "what's the point?" Protests now just don't matter. They won't make any sort of difference anywhere. And while that's often not relevant for genuine venting, it probably does make a difference for an organization that is spending money.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Which is what I said in my earlier post.The issue is that some people like agitation. It's not just about swaying votes - which is what I think the real motivation behind most protests is and not financial anyway. Some people will leap on an excuse to join a protest.
Though if people are prepared to pay fellow agitators then they may be willing to do so for a variety of reasons, not all of which end once the election is over.
Possibly the least cool gay guy in the world:
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/19/trol...nt-harassment/
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"Following his lecture, ThinkProgress reported that DePaul students discovered nooses strewn around campus."
Probably placed by liberals looking to 'start a conversation.'
"Although Twitter has not said why Milo was unverified, many have pointed to a tweet in which Yiannopoulos told one of his liberal critics that he “deserves to be harassed.” Months later, he put that wish into action, inciting his cadre of trolls to harass comedian Leslie Jones, one of the stars of Paul Feig’s “Ghostbusters” reboot. Jones was referred to as an “ape” on Twitter, while receiving photos of herself with semen all over her face. Trolls hacked her website, posting nude photos uploaded from her personal iCloud account to the page."
And more bait and switch. An unrelated tweet about someone else is being used to imply that Milo told his followers to harass Jones. Gotta love Fake News.
"That feedback loop won’t stop until colleges and other institutions that host Milo in the name of “free speech” follow Twitter’s lead and stop giving him a platform so that more students won’t find themselves in Adelaide Kramer’s shoes."
The liberals wet dream, censoring ideas they dislike while OK with the same stuff being done if its for their cause.
Just like images of offensive to Christianity are fair game but images offensive to Islam are needlessly provocative and dangerous in the minds of liberals.
Liberals only like free speech when it suits them. People who *truly* believe in freedom are OK with offensive speech. I don't think the government should try to fine or imprison people who insult white people. I don't think the government should fine or imprison people who insult black people. And yet - liberals have long been in favor of criminal sanction for what they deem as 'hate speech.'
Kind of like conservatives getting pissed off when people dare to say "Happy Holidays". Or when they burn a flag. Or when they accuse conservatives of racism.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote