[Silencer]

EmperorMagus, on 14 October 2016 - 05:46 AM, said:

http://www.nytimes.c...ump-letter.html

I believe that's what you would call a burn.

The level of snark in that response is physically hurting me. Also, I wonder how stupid someone has to be to become Trump's lawyer. Have they no self respect?

They're a lawyer. Probably getting paid millions to be on retainer. So, no, I imagine they'd shelve their self-respect for a few years in order to retire early and rich. XD

[Una]

Yeah. Doesn't matter to the lawyer. I bet it's like, "This is stupid, but you're paying for it..."

[worry]

The conspiracy isn't 'rich people' though, it's Jews. It's what the Breitbart/alt-right folks have brought to the table. Not everyone in the arena booing journalists is cognizant of that aspect, sure, but they don't need to be. The right people are receiving the message loud and clear.

[Silencer]

worry, on 14 October 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

The conspiracy isn't 'rich people' though, it's Jews. It's what the Breitbart/alt-right folks have brought to the table. Not everyone in the arena booing journalists is cognizant of that aspect, sure, but they don't need to be. The right people are receiving the message loud and clear.

Yes, but if you use the right language you get a lot of people unaware of the implication jumping on board too, which adds to the appearance of support for the actual implication. Say "banking cabal" and while some people might hear "Jews", plenty will hear "Wall St" and take it at face value - and find themselves unwittingly supporting the group that hates Jews. It's actually that group which is worse - because they give validation to the smaller group, make the idea seem widespread, and aren't straight up conspiracy theorists, but will still argue on that side, unintentionally and usually with slightly more quality than the usual nuts put forward. It's how the disease spreads.


*and yes, I'm pretty sure we're on the same page. Just wanted to elaborate on my point.

[worry]

Yeah definitely. I would just add that my most immediate fear here is an even slightly legitimized alt-right wrapped in the much bigger, easily manipulated Fox News-right ascending enough to affect the 2018 midterms. Which then affects the gerrymandering potential in 2020 w the census. That's how the right gets away with doing so much damage unscathed already, and a dedicated Trump voting bloc can do plenty.

[HoosierDaddy]

Silencer, on 14 October 2016 - 06:02 AM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 14 October 2016 - 05:46 AM, said:

http://www.nytimes.c...ump-letter.html

I believe that's what you would call a burn.

The level of snark in that response is physically hurting me. Also, I wonder how stupid someone has to be to become Trump's lawyer. Have they no self respect?

They're a lawyer. Probably getting paid millions to be on retainer. So, no, I imagine they'd shelve their self-respect for a few years in order to retire early and rich. XD

Una, on 14 October 2016 - 06:15 AM, said:

Yeah. Doesn't matter to the lawyer. I bet it's like, "This is stupid, but you're paying for it..."

A lawyer has a duty to zealously represent their client. Either guilty, innocent, or whoever.

If a client pays for what they get. A good lawyer will zealously defend. They'll do it well. And it will be ugly for others because of that.

What they shouldn't do is knowingly hide active crimes.

If the client wants to sue, despite objections, they sue.

Don't blame the lawyers: they are the legal hand of the actual person acting.

[EmperorMagus]

Fair enough. The lawyer is just doing his job.

I still think it's degrading to be Trump's lawyer, but that's simply a personal opinion and not worth much in the grand scheme of things.

[Nevyn]

HoosierDaddy, on 14 October 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

A lawyer has a duty to zealously represent their client. Either guilty, innocent, or whoever.

That is true, but except in specific extreme cases, a lawyer can use their own judgement in the selection of clients.

And the original comment was "how could he be his lawyer", not "how could his lawyer defend him".

But in a country where 2 of every 5 people may vote for him, someone opting to be his lawyer is not shocking.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 14 October 2016 - 07:00 PM

[Macros]

Lawyers are soleless monsters, just look at Morgoth

[amphibian]

EmperorMagus, on 14 October 2016 - 06:55 PM, said:

Fair enough. The lawyer is just doing his job.

I still think it's degrading to be Trump's lawyer, but that's simply a personal opinion and not worth much in the grand scheme of things.

I think you'd be quite surprised by how many lawyers are weirdo conservatives who make fetishes out of Scalia and Reagan. I went to school with several and I would say that probably half of my class was GOP or libertarian, not Democratic.

[amphibian]

That being said, the New York times lawyer is an alumni of my school and a badass.

[Tsundoku]

Macros, on 14 October 2016 - 07:45 PM, said:

Lawyers are soleless monsters, just look at Morgoth

There is no bottom on his shoes? Then again, it's not like Norway has anything that could hurt your feet. Hell, I bet even their sharp rocks feel more like walking on cotton wool.

amphibian, on 14 October 2016 - 08:10 PM, said:

I went to school with several and I would say that probably half of my class was GOP or libertarian, not Democratic.

That's what you get when you have a legal (not justice) system designed heavily in favour of the wealthy and pretty much to draw matters out in order to enrich those who work in it. You're not exactly going to attract many who give an actual shit about anyone but themselves. Not many 'Nelson and Murdock' types.

This post has been edited by Captain Needa: 15 October 2016 - 10:58 AM

[Mezla PigDog]

Random musing on the state of Western politics in this Trump and post-Brexit era.

The other half and I were just having a conversation about the uneducated bigoted masses as a family member had reacted to a ridiculous Facebook "news story" about Muslim men having multiple wives to get increased benefit payments. She reacted with the angry face so she clearly believes it despite the basic fact that polygamous marriage is illegal in the UK so it is a blatant lie. These are the people who are so disenfranchised, disillusioned and uneducated that they vote for things that are bad for them and their families and take the rest of us down with them. They are dumb but also really nice people so long as you don't engage them in political discussion. It used to be that our political education was limited to our own experience and the press. The press at least has some regulation (the worst of them work around it but it kind of does a job) and peoples own experience on the whole is never that bad - that Polish guy at work or the Singh's who run the local shop are nice people.

Social media seems to validate the worst opinions in stupid people and create a race to the bottom in hatred and blame despite the fact we live in a ridiculously privilaged era in the West. In the other direction you have the Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn types whose world is limited to educated middle class people who can't believe that anyone would vote for Trump/Brexit/Tories so are left wringing their hands when the crazy makes itself heard. The internet has made the world larger and access to information easier but we all seem to use it to validate our own opinions and engage with people who agree with us. I'm guilty of it in that I almost exclusively read The Guardian and only engage in political discussion here when I know most will probably agree with me. I can't be bothered engaging with dumb bigots.

It seems pretty typical of humanity that the invention of the World Wide Web and all information being available at the touch of a finger is used only to validate our belief in what we think already. I actually can't think of the last time that I changed my mind about anything. People who back the crazy at the ballot box are just the same. What we gonna do about it? I'm just going to call them all stupid and hope for the best.

*Edited to clarify that the Singh comment reads like stereotyping but the family member in question actually does have a local shop owner called Mr Singh. And the family in question honestly in this day and age refer to it as "the paki shop". I had thought that language died out in the UK in the 80s but there are still some bastions of stupidity that just won't roll over and die.

This post has been edited by Mezla PigDog: 15 October 2016 - 08:58 AM

[Terez]

Mezla PigDog, on 15 October 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

It seems pretty typical of humanity that the invention of the World Wide Web and all information being available at the touch of a finger is used only to validate our belief in what we think already. I actually can't think of the last time that I changed my mind about anything.

I can. But then, when I discovered the internet, I was something of an ignorant bigot—just in a vague way; I have been rejecting the blatant bigotry of my home state since I was a small child, but didn't realize how much of it was ingrained in my politics—but I didn't avoid engaging with people who disagreed with me on book forums, so eventually I was forced to come around. I was very much an apathetic voter during the Bush years. (Yes, I voted for W twice.) I've seen lots of friends in MS change their politics after a couple of years of internet exposure; I helped convert my mother to Obama in 2012, and that's just one example.

I almost never see anyone go the other way. One exception I can think of is this dude from Theoryland who I never thought was very smart and who used to make me cringe when he agreed with me about politics (this was after I had gone liberal). Then he went off the crazy conspiracy theory deep end and started a blog which he often used to rant about liberal Theorylanders (including me, though I could never bring myself to read this stuff; I just got quotes from other people on the forum).

[Andorion]

Regarding internet usage and its consequences, I think you can have a more balanced view though.

I mean I just finished watching a video about gravitational waves by a University of Colombia professor. And now I know something I did not know before.

That same internet and same video platform is used by conspiracy nuts to perpetuate ignorance.

What this reflects, I think is a fundamental truth about humanity. Given something with a variety of functions, we can and will find the best and the worst possible things we can do with it.

So you have the internet with which you you can interact with people across the world, learn new things, spread knowledge, OR you can watch cat videos all day, OR you can spread and imbibe stupid shit like conspiracy stuff OR you can do irredeemable harm like child porn and ISIS recruitment.

So what I am trying to say is that the internet basically reflects the full spectrum of humanity. And social media, which Mezla was referring to falls firmly within that template.

[Silencer]

Terez, on 15 October 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

Mezla PigDog, on 15 October 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

It seems pretty typical of humanity that the invention of the World Wide Web and all information being available at the touch of a finger is used only to validate our belief in what we think already. I actually can't think of the last time that I changed my mind about anything.

I can. But then, when I discovered the internet, I was something of an ignorant bigot—just in a vague way; I have been rejecting the blatant bigotry of my home state since I was a small child, but didn't realize how much of it was ingrained in my politics—but I didn't avoid engaging with people who disagreed with me on book forums, so eventually I was forced to come around. I was very much an apathetic voter during the Bush years. (Yes, I voted for W twice.) I've seen lots of friends in MS change their politics after a couple of years of internet exposure; I helped convert my mother to Obama in 2012, and that's just one example.

I almost never see anyone go the other way. One exception I can think of is this dude from Theoryland who I never thought was very smart and who used to make me cringe when he agreed with me about politics (this was after I had gone liberal). Then he went off the crazy conspiracy theory deep end and started a blog which he often used to rant about liberal Theorylanders (including me, though I could never bring myself to read this stuff; I just got quotes from other people on the forum).

I will second this experience - aside from one friend who has jumped off the deep end into conspiracy theories and likes some questionable pages on Facebook (still hates Trump though), most people who I know have slowly gone the other way once exposed to the internet.

While the worst cases get validation, most people "on the fence" or not absolutely entrenched in their views *appear* to become more progressive and liberal, at least from an anecdotal perspective. This would be at least somewhat consistent with the general tendency of conservatives to want to "regulate" the internet. And it also perhaps helps to explain why older demographics are more conservative in general as they tend to use the internet less and with more self-restricted exposure to other opinions than younger generations (though obviously there's a bunch of factors there).

But it does at times seem like the opposite is true - most comments sections are utterly depressing to peruse, or at least infuriating. And Facebook is no exception. But I think this is the double edged sword at work - where before this kind of stuff was not widely publicly viewable or observable, it is now disseminated globally. And that's the price that is paid for freedom of communication - more people get exposed to conflicting views, and it works both ways. As long as the net effect is positive, it's worth it.

[HoosierDaddy]

Comment sections are for people who don't have anywhere else to comment because they don't know how else to do so.

Thus, you get the worst of the worst: stupid and ignorant.

[Abyss]

HoosierDaddy, on 15 October 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

Comment sections are for people who don't have anywhere else to comment because they don't know how else to do so.

Thus, you get the worst of the worst: stupid and ignorant.

My $0.02CDN:
That may have been true a decade ago, maybe five years, but now it's more valid than most of the pre-net typical forums - letters to the editor, radio call in, contacting your elected rep, etc - and far wider in reach, easier to access, and more likely to draw a response.
Most social media however, is frivolous crap, aside from where it may link to more involved internet discourse.

[worry]

I dunno, maybe I'm lucky, but I've found social media (I'm including the forums I go to, but also including FB, Twitter, etc.) to be strong net positives in terms of developing or expanding my world view. I tend to agree with HD that comment sections are the pits, especially those that are under- or fully unmoderated, and for essentially the same reason. Conversations pop up here and there, of course, but so much of it is detached mini-essays...the kind of thing that would be a letter to the editor, but would never be published by a self-respecting paper of any political stripe.

[EmperorMagus]

My personal belief is that social media and the internet are a net positive for human society. I say this because of my own change of beliefs as well as the changes I've observed in my immediate family. Yes, there are going to be some people who find validation for their nutty beliefs online, but those beliefs already existed. On the other hand, among the non-crazy slightly bigoted of us (which I absolutely was a part of and probably still am in some respects) it is a net positive.

More on topic, Trump's crashing is glorious to watch. In the future, political scientists will use his campaign as an example of what not to do when scandals break out.