you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

That's true and you're right, and I will concede the point that "nobody ever cared". That was wrong for me to say and you're right to point it out.

I guess I would rephrase my original objection. I was wrong to say "nobody ever cared" but I do stand by these other bullet points,

  • I disagree that the anti-WEF protest we've been linked to so far, was an exclusively left wing thing.

  • I disagree that there was, at one point, an anti-WEF position in general leftist politics that somehow disappeared

  • I disagree that the screenshot's claim about twitter is real, or that, if it was, it speaks to leftist politics in general

  • I also strongly disagree with conspiracy theories about the WEF that are really the exact same theories which people used to say about Bilderberg, trilateral, the fake, imaginary elders of Zion, etc. If someone wants to make a new conspiracy about wef then they need to explain why the last conspiracy about Bilderberg was wrong.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

That's true and you're right, and I will concede the point that "nobody ever cared". That was wrong for me to say and you're right to point it out.

Wow, quite frankly I'm shocked, but thats progress I suppose

Well I can agree with you here

I disagree that the screenshot's claim about twitter is real, or that, if it was, it speaks to leftist politics in general

And I said as much in the comments. If they shadow-banned everyone who said Trump or Vaccine, how could the left vote for 'anyone but trump' or encourage everyone to get vaccinated, you'd have to be retarded to believe this, and the tweet contains no supporting evidence

I disagree that there was, at one point, an anti-WEF position in general leftist politics that somehow disappeared

Half agree, no its not been a major position of the mainstream left. But RFK Jr is pretty well known and running for president as a Democrat, and really hates the WEF, so to say this is non-existent among the left is not quite right either

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

running for president as a Democrat

Only because he is a coastal elite literally having literal Curb Your Enthusiasm dinner parties, and he couldn't look Cheryl's guests in the eye if he had to admit being a republican.

But he doesn't fool anyone

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

and he couldn't look Cheryl's guests in the eye if he had to admit being a republican.

But he doesn't fool anyone

Let me give a rundown of his political and legal career from wikipeida, and you tell me whether it sounds like a democrat or a republican

Kennedy endorsed and campaigned extensively for Vice President Al Gore during his 2000 presidential campaign, and openly opposed his friend Ralph Nader's Green Party presidential campaign. In the 2004 presidential election, Kennedy endorsed John Kerry, noting his strong environmental record.[164]

In late 2007, Kennedy and his sisters Kerry and Kathleen endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries.[165] After the Democratic Convention, Kennedy campaigned for Obama across the country.[166] After the election, he was named as a front-runner for Obama's EPA administrator.[167]

In 1986, Kennedy won a landmark case against Remington Arms Trap and Skeet Gun Club in Stratford, Connecticut, that ended the practice of shooting lead shot into Long Island Sound.[30] Kennedy also filed federal lawsuits to close the Pelham Bay landfill and the New York Athletic clubs, arguing that those facilities were interfering with public use of Long Island Sound.[31] On the Hudson, Kennedy brought a series of lawsuits against municipalities, including New York City, to properly treat sewage, and against industries, including Consolidated Edison, General Electric and Exxon, to stop discharging pollution and to clean up legacy contamination.[32]

Kennedy and his students also sued dozens of municipal waste-water treatment plants to force compliance with the Clean Water Act.[36] In 2010, a Pace lawsuit forced ExxonMobil to clean up tens of millions of gallons of oil from legacy refinery spills in Newtown Creek in Brooklyn, New York.[39]

On April 11, 2001, Men's Journal recognized Kennedy with its "Heroes" Award for his creation of the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic.[40] Kennedy and his Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic received other awards for successful legal work cleaning up the environment.

Kennedy & Madonna is profiled in the 2010 HBO documentary Mann v. Ford[61] that chronicles four years of litigation brought by the firm on behalf of the Ramapough Mountain Indian Tribe against the Ford Motor Company over the dumping of toxic waste on tribal lands in northern New Jersey.[62] In addition to a monetary settlement for the tribe, the lawsuit contributed to the community's land being re-listed on the federal Superfund list, the first time in the nation's history that a de-listed site was re-listed

2007 Kennedy was one of three finalists nominated as "Trial Lawyer of the Year" by Public Justice for his role in the $396 million jury verdict against DuPont for contamination from its Spelter, West Virginia zinc plant.[64]

In 2017, the firm was part of the trial team that secured a $670 million settlement on behalf of over 3,000 residents from Ohio and West Virginia whose drinking water was contaminated with the toxic chemical, C8, which was released into the environment by DuPont in Parkersburg, West Virginia.[65]

In 2016, Kennedy became counsel to the Morgan & Morgan law firm.[66] The partnership arose from the two firms' successful collaboration on the case against SoCalGas Company following the Aliso Canyon gas leak in California.

In 2017, Kennedy and his partners sued Monsanto in federal court in San Francisco, on behalf of plaintiffs seeking to recover damages for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, that, the plaintiffs allege, were a result of exposure to Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup. Kennedy and his team also filed a class action lawsuit against Monsanto for failing to warn consumers about the dangers allegedly posed by exposure to Roundup.

Minority and poor communities In his first case as an environmental attorney, Kennedy represented the NAACP in a lawsuit against a proposal to build a garbage transfer station in a minority neighborhood in Ossining, New York.[79]

In 1987, he successfully sued Westchester County, New York, to reopen the Croton Point Park, which was heavily used primarily by poor and minority communities from the Bronx.[80] He then forced the reopening of the Pelham Bay Park in the Bronx, which New York City had closed to the public and converted to a police firing range.[24]

Kennedy has argued that poor communities shoulder the disproportionate burden of environmental pollution.[81] Speaking at the 2016 SXSW Eco environment conference in Austin, Texas, he said, "Polluters always choose the soft target of poverty", noting that Chicago's south side has the highest concentration of toxic waste dumps in America.[82] Furthermore, he added that 80 percent of "uncontrolled toxic waste dumps" can be found in black neighborhoods, with the largest site in the United States being in Emelle, Alabama, which is 90 percent black.[83]

International and indigenous rights Starting in 1985, Kennedy helped develop the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)'s international program for environmental, energy, and human rights, traveling to Canada and Latin America to assist indigenous tribes in protecting their homelands and opposing large-scale energy and extractive projects in remote wilderness areas

From 1993 to 1999, Kennedy worked with five Vancouver Island Indian tribes in their campaign to end industrial logging by MacMillan Bloedel in Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia.[89]

In 1993, Kennedy and NRDC, working with the indigenous rights organization Cultural Survival, clashed with other American environmental groups in a dispute about the rights of Indians to govern their own lands in the Oriente region of Ecuador.[87] Kennedy represented the CONFENIAE, a confederation of Indian peoples, in negotiation with the American oil company Conoco to limit oil development in Ecuadorian Amazon and, at the same time, obtain benefits from resource extraction for Amazonian tribes.[87] Kennedy was a vocal critic of Texaco for its previous record for polluting the Ecuadoran Amazon.[88]

Oil, gas, and pipelines Kennedy has been an advocate for a global transition away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy.[109][110] He has been particularly critical of the oil industry. He began his career at Riverkeeper during the time that the organization discovered that Exxon was using its oil tankers in order to steal fresh water from the Hudson River for use in its Aruba refinery and to sell to Caribbean Islands. Riverkeeper won a $2 million settlement against Exxon and lobbied successfully for a state law outlawing the practice.[111] In one of his first environmental cases, Kennedy filed a lawsuit against Mobil Oil for polluting the Hudson.[112]

He accused Charles and David Koch, the owners of Koch Industries, Inc., the nation's largest privately owned oil company, of subverting democracy and for "making themselves billionaires by impoverishing the rest of us".[151] Kennedy has spoken of the Koch Brothers as leading "the apocalyptical forces of Ignorance and Greed".[152]

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

By definition. Once a person has a mental break. Then it doesn't really matter what you can find in their history or how many Wikipedia paragraphs you can paste at me. Because he had his mental break and became a MAGA antivax Qanon adjacent fauci virtue signaller, it's very clear to everyone where he stands politically

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

He opposes vaccine mandates on the grounds of belief in bodily autonomy, and a distrust of a corrupt mega-corporation that has previously misled the public and FDA about the safety and efficacy of their drugs. These are historically liberal principles. Not agreeing with you on vaccines doesnt make him MAGA, thats retarded

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Easily testable. If you're right then a greater number than zero of leftists or democrats will support him for president

If I am right, then the number will be precisely zero

So let's see

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Easily testable. If you're right then a greater number than zero of leftists or democrats will support him for president

If I am right, then the number will be precisely zero

So let's see

I am a registered Democrat and I will be voting for him because he defends traditional liberal values, rather than censorship, social authoritarianism, and war mongering like the woke neoliberal swamp creatures

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

By definition. Once a person has a mental break. Then it doesn't really matter what you can find in their history or how many Wikipedia paragraphs you can paste at me. Because he had his mental break and became a MAGA antivax Qanon adjacent fauci virtue signaller, it's very clear to everyone where he stands politically

So when Biden campaigned that Trump's border policies were evil and inhumane, then decided to keep them in place and maybe drill for some oil after promising to be 'the greenest president ever', this made Biden both a Republican and a monster? I totally agree. I think I get it now

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is there still a family separation policy?

Is travel from six Muslim countries banned until "we figure out what's going on over there"?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Here, here is John Stuart Mill arguing against vaccine mandates, this is a CLASSIC LIBERAL POSITION, you have heard of John Stuart Mill right?

Wikipedia says: "One of the most influential thinkers in the history of classical liberalism, he contributed widely to social theory, political theory, and political economy."

https://brownstone.org/articles/john-stuart-mill-on-contagious-diseases-and-the-law/

Your hyper-partisan nonsense is not very well informed on the history of liberal theory.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

First of all John Stuart Mill never claimed to offer the last word on any ethical question, only an approach for finding it.

Secondly, I wouldn't look to him for guidance on nuclear safety or data privacy and I don't look to him for guidance on modern medical ethics either

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

First of all John Stuart Mill never claimed to offer the last word on any ethical question

Ummm....what are you talking about, he developed an entire system of ethics called utilitarianism to do just that. Get off twitter and read a book dude. And you didn't read that article, he most definitely took an ethical position on compulsory medical care

"I do not consider it justifiable on principle, because it appears to me to be opposed to one of the greatest principles of legislation, the security of personal liberty."

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I addressed both objections in the comment you're replying to

For example, if I find some JSM quote which indicates you should change your position on nuclear safety or cyber privacy.... would reading the quote cause you to update your position on nuclear or cyber safety?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For example, if I find some JSM quote which indicates you should change your position on nuclear safety or cyber privacy....will you change your behaviour?

This isn't a new issue now, its the same. He is saying the public interest in reducing the spread of disease does not trump personal liberty at a philosophical level. Changing technology does not change any of the principles he invokes

For example, if I find some JSM quote which indicates you should change your position on nuclear safety or cyber privacy....will you change your behaviour?

If the principle he invokes is analogous and applies philosophically, yes, I'd strongly consider what he says, and at least admit that his position could be considered liberal even if I disagreed. I don't agree with utilitarianism, but it's certainly a liberal viewpoint, and you can apply old utilitarian arguments to new technology, you are being obtuse