HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » rhett o rick » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1

rhett o rick

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Apr 22, 2005, 01:05 PM
Number of posts: 37,389

Journal Archives

I also dont have patience for bigotry but realize that when these issues

that are very emotional come along, some times in the fervor to rid ourselves of bigots, innocent people get swept away by the mob. These issues are some times used by righteous bullies to attack others that they declare as bigots. I have seen cases where decent posters were falsely bullied out of DU under the justification of righteousness. Just a week ago a poster declared another poster as transphobic and proceeded to call her horrible names. He totally misinterpreted her post, either by accident or intent, and used the justification to say terrible things. His post was hidden but not before it did it's damage.

Your post 104 dont sound like the rationale of an open-minded Democrat. Sounds like a mob call. We have methods of dealing with bigots here and dont need to panic. Instant PPR sounds like something a tyrant would love, not Democrats. And we must never, ever censure a juror for how they vote.

Some times it's obvious who the bigots are and some times it's subjective. We need to avoid the rush to judgement that the conservatives love so much. We must not allow the bullies to ruin DU.

I am glad you posted this. I welcome a discussion of authoritarianism.

So let’s chat about authoritarianism. I recommend the book, “The Authoritarians,” by Bob Altemeyer. I think it important for further discussions re. authoritarianism.

Common definitions of authoritarian include:

“Characteized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.
Of or relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite.”

When Snowden stepped forward to expose possible violations of law and our Constitution he was greeted by those that immediately wanted him arrested and punished. They made it clear that they supported the “authority” of the NSA. They, at that time, derided those (anti-authoritarians) that cried for investigations and further discussion. They disparaged those calling for open-mindedness and skepticism. They did not want further investigations or oversight. So at that time there were two basic points of view.

One point of view wanted to blindly believe that the “authorities” were not violating the law. In fact some actually came out and said, “The NSA is not violating the law.” This is important because this point of view was convinced that the “authorities” were above the need for review. It characterized those calling for investigations and transparency as having “hair on fire” and were racist among other ridiculous labels, seemingly desperate to stifle discussion. This point of view clearly meets the definition of authoritarianism.

The “anti-authoritarian” point of view (as labeled in the OP) believed that the revelations of Snowden indicated that review and more transparency was needed. This is not blindly following authority; in fact this view was skeptical of authority as open-minded people know that authority can be corrupted, especially if operating in secrecy.

The OP states that the anti-authoritarian point of view tried to stifle honest discussion (looks like projection to me). Well, it’s not too late. I would love to have an honest discussion. I would love to see the arguments of those that don’t agree with the anti-authoritarian point of view. I posted an OP that laid out what I thought was the non-anti-authoritarian’s arguments and the non-anti-authoritarians tried to get it locked. I can see that maybe I didn’t make a good case for the non-anti-authoritarians. So please lay out your arguments.

In a Democracy it is the people’s responsibility to be skeptical of authority. Authoritarianism and democracy don’t mix.

Below are the arguments of those that support the NSA over Snowden's revelations*.

There is no spying, Snowden's girl friend is a pole dancer.

There is no spying because Snowden broke the law.

There is no spying because a warrant is required (and we know the NSA wouldn’t try to get around that).

This might reflect badly on Pres Obama, therefore Snowden, Greenwald, Ms. Valerie Plame, and Sen Wyden are racists.

The NSA isnt really looking at the data, only collecting it. And it's only meta-data after all.

Snowden isnt telling us anything we didnt know. (so he should be thrown in prison?)

Gen Clapper didnt really lie, well maybe just a little lie. When he said the NSA wasnt spying he really meant they werent looking thru keyholes. Collecting and analyzing data isn’t really spying. Pres Clinton could have taken a lesson from Gen Clapper on how to lie to Congress and get away with it.

Pres Obama says they arent reading emails. (“they” refers to him and Bo)

Snowden is a traitor because he is giving China and Russia all our secrets but he doesnt have enough to prove the NSA is spying. (I know that sounds confusing but trust me I know I know the truth, I got it from CNN)

The Constitution no longer applies because we have new technologies. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t even mention e-mails.

The NSA says we are reading emails but only of foreign suspects.

Warrants arent necessary for meta data, phone logs, Google searches, library reading lists, or anything else so deemed.

We need the spying to assure our safety. Dog bless Generals Clapper and Alexander.

The NSA says we are reading emails but only of foreign suspects and those in America they correspond with.

The NSA doesn’t do anything w/o a warrant. And the warrant they have authorizes spying on everything, anytime, on anyone. (At least it’s legal)

The President says that America needs the discussion that Snowden brings to daylight. (not sure he actually mentioned Snowden by name) He added that "we" still arent spying on Americans. (not sure who he included with his “we”, maybe he and Bo again)

The $100 billions we pay to Booz-Allen is worth the secret "something" that might make us safer.

The NSA says they are reading emails but only of foreign suspects, those they correspond with and those they correspond with. Sorry, lost track of how many "bumps" the NSA has admitted to spying on but I think it’s like 100 million persons and 20 million dogs.

The President says we are lucky to live in America where we can freely speak of possible Constitutional violations by our government. And he would gladly demonstrate such if he could only get his hands on Snowden. There is no greater reward than a lifetime of solitary confinement.

The President says “they” (he, Gen Clapper, Gen Alexander, and Gen ) will investigate and take the proper actions in secret, of course. And when it’s all over, he will be able to assure us that “they” aren’t spying on us. (can you spell déjà vu?)

Did I mention Snowden dated a girl that was a pole dancer.

* Subject changed as advised.
Go to Page: 1