Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40379843

Jonny Depp playing the character of DT.

When a society & its leader villify those who criticise it, does it spell the end for that society/regime ?

Has the US come to a point where only the President can criticise the government & not deemed a crminal ?

(Jun 23, 2017 06:43 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40379843

Jonny Depp playing the character of DT.

When a society & its leader villify those who criticise it, does it spell the end for that society/regime ?

Has the US come to a point where only the President can criticise the government & not deemed a crminal ?

Once upon a time, I considered the potential of an online game (ARG or there abouts) whereby a pool of money would be placed onto a site with a ladder featuring the worlds most revered premier's with the intention of paying out based upon how the money was stacked for virtual assassinations. (The idea was if someone could paintball a premier, escape and prove they did it, they would get paid.)

The thing was my sister went paint balling one week and came back with some seriously wicked bruises, so I dumped the idea as it could technically be dangerous if a person suffers a rare genetic disorder that effects blood clotting. I didn't of course realize at the time that what I was planning was a felony of such magnitude, it makes me realize that the worlds governments would have seen me as of the same ilk as Hitler etc.

As for "When was the last time an actor killed a president?", that can be considered in many different ways. While initially people jump to the conclusion that the reference was about Booth, the real point can perhaps consider a Shakespeare play "As You Like It"

Quote: All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,...

We are therefore all actors/actresses playing a role.

There is also the point that many people that take it upon themselves to do things in this world (like assassinations) often likely feel that they have been pushed into doing so. Perhaps it's how they feel society has failed, perhaps they think they are stepping up for a god or king/queen (or "the devil told them to do it"). This in essence this makes them more like marionettes than actors, puppeteer-ed into acting out a scene for those either by their perception of belief, or because someone else pulls the strings with invisible hands.

(Jun 23, 2017 06:43 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ][...] Has the US come to a point where only the President can criticise the government & not deemed a crminal ?

There was a crazy movie released back in 1968 called Wild In The Streets, where a 20-something rock singer slash revolutionary named Max Frost becomes President (running surprisingly as Republican).

[...] Most states agree to lower the voting age [to 15] within days, in the wake of the demonstrations [...] When a congressman from Sally LeRoy's home district dies suddenly, the band [the Troopers] enters her in the special election that follows, and Sally (the eldest of the group, and the only one of majority age to run for office) is voted into Congress by the new teen bloc. The first bill Sally introduces is a constitutional amendment to lower the age requirements for national political office—to 14 [...] A joint session of Congress is called, and the Troopers [...] swing the vote their way by spiking the Washington water supply with LSD, and providing all the senators and representatives with teenaged escorts. As teens either take over or threaten the reins of government, the "Old Guard" (those over 40) turn to Max to run for president, and assert his (their) control over the changing tide. Max again agrees, running as a Republican to his chagrin, but once in office, he turns the tide on his older supporters. Thirty becomes a mandatory retirement age, while those over 35 are rounded up, sent to "re-education camps", and permanently dosed on LSD.

The anti-establishment movement of today certainly isn't as broad as the one in the '60s and early '70s. The latter was a deep and pervasive upheaval in culture, not just the current anger at a Washington or DC Beltway institution. Today's revival seems to have at least two forks, figuratively and respectively spearheaded by the Donald and Bernie. Occasionally the two rebel divisions express more animosity toward each other than at the establishment they're supposedly revolting against.

Due to its groveling to Trump, the GOP gets itself conflated with the rightest hipster fork (and its old-fogey populists). Democrats would probably be similarly brown-nosing Sanders if he had won, but with less embarrassment of genuflecting to an extremely inexperienced POTUS or erratic madman. The vocal, antifa extremists in the Bernie Sander's fork are arguably potentially violent and insolent in their own way (James T. Hodgkinson). Perhaps only differing political orientation-wise from the alt-right and the trash-talking libertarian trolls pretending to be such online.

- - -

(Jun 23, 2017 08:49 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 23, 2017 06:43 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ] [...] Has the US come to a point where only the President can criticise the government & not deemed a crminal ?

There was a crazy movie released back in 1968 called Wild In The Streets, where a 20-something rock singer slash revolutionary named Max Frost becomes President (running surprisingly as Republican).

[...] Most states agree to lower the voting age [to 15] within days, in the wake of the demonstrations [...] When a congressman from Sally LeRoy's home district dies suddenly, the band [the Troopers] enters her in the special election that follows, and Sally (the eldest of the group, and the only one of majority age to run for office) is voted into Congress by the new teen bloc. The first bill Sally introduces is a constitutional amendment to lower the age requirements for national political office—to 14 [...] A joint session of Congress is called, and the Troopers [...] swing the vote their way by spiking the Washington water supply with LSD, and providing all the senators and representatives with teenaged escorts. As teens either take over or threaten the reins of government, the "Old Guard" (those over 40) turn to Max to run for president, and assert his (their) control over the changing tide. Max again agrees, running as a Republican to his chagrin, but once in office, he turns the tide on his older supporters. Thirty becomes a mandatory retirement age, while those over 35 are rounded up, sent to "re-education camps", and permanently dosed on LSD.

The anti-establishment movement of today certainly isn't as broad as the one in the '60s and early '70s. The latter was a deep and pervasive upheaval in culture, not just the current anger at a Washington or DC Beltway institution. Today's revival seems to have at least two forks, figuratively and respectively spearheaded by the Donald and Bernie. Occasionally the two rebel divisions express more animosity toward each other than at the establishment they're supposedly revolting against.

Due to its groveling to Trump, the GOP gets itself conflated with the rightest hipster fork (and its old-fogey populists). Democrats would probably be similarly brown-nosing Sanders if he had won, but with less embarrassment of genuflecting to an extremely inexperienced POTUS or erratic madman. The vocal, antifa extremists in the Bernie Sander's fork are arguably potentially violent and insolent in their own way (James T. Hodgkinson). Perhaps only differing political orientation-wise from the alt-right and the trash-talking libertarian trolls pretending to be such online.  

- - -

Quote:The anti-establishment movement of today certainly isn't as broad as the one in the '60s and early '70s.

how many different agenda's are in play with anti-establishment factions ?

(Jun 24, 2017 01:34 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]how many different agenda's are in play with anti-establishment factions ?

What they want on the Sanders side of the anti-establishment ripple (but there's also a minority of aggressive antifa, radicals, nihilists / anarchists, and conspiracy elements jumping on board, too -- just as the '60s movement for change never consisted solely of Flower Children):

[JEFF] WEAVER: Well, I think the goal of Our Revolution is the same as was the goal of...

SIMON: Our Revolution is the title of your group.

WEAVER: Yes, yes, exactly - is the same as was the goal of Senator Sanders in the presidential campaign, which is to transform America. We have to move America in a much more progressive direction. We need to deal with income inequality. We need to create a more equitable society, both in terms of economics, in terms of race, in terms of social issues. So that's the goal of the organization is to move the country forward. Now, my contention is is that electing Hillary Clinton does move the country forward. (Sep 9, 2016 - NPR)

But as the election results stemming from indifferent Bernie supporters who didn't even vote for Hillary indicate, many of those revolutionaries didn't agree with Weaver. Hillary was a member of the old school of doing things in Washington and thus represented part of the very mainstream they were rebelling against.

Like the participants in "The Summer of Lover" of 1967, Bernie's fork of today's revolt against traditional institution craves "free stuff" (which of course actually isn't such): Most Bernie Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay for his revolution. Among the arguably better idealistic goals Weaver touched upon above. It's the demand for free stuff, programs, and services that undermines everything else; and was similarly short-lived for the Summer of Love once reality kicked in the doors of yet another socialist experiment.

Double that amount, as many as 100,000 young people from around the world, flocked to San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district, as well as to nearby Berkeley and to other San Francisco Bay Area cities, to join in a popularized version of the hippieism. A Free Clinic was established for free medical treatment, and a Free Store gave away basic necessities without charge to anyone who needed them. The Summer of Love attracted a wide range of people of various ages: teenagers and college students drawn by their peers and the allure of joining an alleged cultural utopia; middle-class vacationers; and even partying military personnel from bases within driving distance. The Haight-Ashbury could not accommodate this influx of people, and the neighborhood scene quickly deteriorated, with overcrowding, homelessness, hunger, drug problems, and crime afflicting the neighborhood. (Summer of Love)

- - - - -

What some of the populists, social conservatives, and economic hipsters want on the Trump side of the anti-establishment ripple (but there's also a minority of aggressive hate-groups, radicals, nihilists / anarchists, and conspiracy elements jumping on board, too):

[...Sarah Jo Reynolds...] "I wanted to support who I thought was best, and I guess I picked the right horse." She wasn't upset about the comments Trump made on the Access Hollywood tape saying he would grab a woman [...] "Everybody makes mistakes and I'd be mortified if something like that was caught on camera," she says. For Sarah Jo, the appeal lies in his promise of change, and his background as a businessman. Her two priorities are tax reform and repealing and replacing Obamacare.

[...] "I think Trump has a huge opportunity to restore America's respect on the world stage," [...Will Estrada...] says. "Trump is a phenomenon who defies expectations. He's rewritten the rule book. It's exciting to watch."

[...] Many Hispanic voters were incensed by Mr Trump's plan to build a wall, but not Marco [Gutierrez]. He believes the barrier will stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigration across the border.

[...] "I think people have lost respect for America," Bill [Hartmann] says, "especially with Barack Obama going and bowing to other leaders in the world. Donald Trump doesn't want to be part of the new world order, he wants America to be independent." Bill believes Trump's business past, can help deliver a fresh approach to foreign policy. "He's someone who would be a good negotiator in contracts and agreements with foreign nations, he always seems to be open to discussion regardless of who the individual is."

[...June Savage...] backed Mr Trump because he's a political outsider. "You can't ask an attorney to be POTUS anymore. You need people who have built things, who have hired and fired people and who can stand up to these billionaire heads of state." She's met the new president and sees his direct approach as a strength. "He has a big mouth - we all know that. He says a lot of things that maybe people like or do not like."

[...] Originally from Argentina, Martha [Lehner] came to the US nearly 30 years ago, and believes his wall on the US-Mexico border is a good idea. She hopes Trump keeps the promises he talked about during the campaign, including "draining the swamp", reducing illegal immigration and beefing up national security.

[...] Cathy [De Grazia] says she's become more conservative with age, but remains socially liberal. She was fed up with politicians from both parties. She hopes Mr Trump can unite the country [...] "I just don't remember having racial divides as badly in my lifetime as we have in the past administration," she says. But it was Mr Trump's economic policies that sealed her vote. Her father was a manufacturer who owned a textile mill in upstate New York in the 1980s. "I know what's happened with trade agreements with other countries who don't have the same human rights standards and can lower costs, and unfairly compete with American workers. [...] A lot of people felt all of these jobs are disappearing and the government wasn't listening to us, things are decidedly worse for a lot of people." Security, healthcare and the military also rank as Cathy's key concerns for a Trump administration. And even though she's concerned about climate change, she doesn't think "pie in the sky agreements" are the way forward. (Trump inauguration: What the president's supporters want - BBC)

What can go wrong with the above or what undermines it is pretty well covered in day to day developments.

***

(Jun 23, 2017 06:43 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40379843

Jonny Depp playing the character of DT.

When a society & its leader villify those who criticise it, does it spell the end for that society/regime ?

Has the US come to a point where only the President can criticise the government & not deemed a crminal ?

coming back on topic...

Should it be legal or illegal for Actors to portray political figures in a western democracy ?

(Jun 25, 2017 09:09 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]coming back on topic...

Should it be legal or illegal for Actors to portray political figures in a western democracy ?

There is a difference between "Theatrics" and "Propaganda". One is to tell a story for entertainment (sometimes as satire) and the other is to tell a story for a political motive (fake news). Sometimes it can be very difficult to see a line between the two.

Every actor/actress is entitled to their own opinions and belief systems which they occasional share with the world from being placed on a pedestal, politicians on the other hand naively assume that their opinions and beliefs are shared by all those that voted them in (they tend to ignore the fact that not everyone votes and if everyone did vote they wouldn't necessarily vote for them).

It sounds like a blend of Orwell and P.K. Dick to have a world where Acting (or Political Theatrics) was made illegal. I can imagine the illegal speakeasy's (Emphasis on "speaking easy" where you aren't in fear of being arrested for speaking your mind) where theatrics occurs on a stage, where the outside world no longer has television or film, where the only things allowed are propaganda and nature programs where if the presenter embellishes a creatures nature act too far, they are rounded up for processing as a political deviant.

(Jun 25, 2017 09:09 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]coming back on topic... Should it be legal or illegal for Actors to portray political figures in a western democracy ?

When addressing the nature and limits of a system in general (no specific instances of it submitted) it falls back to whether there's anything in the internal structure of the concept that would entail or forbid (inconsistency) an _X_.

Unless one can demonstrate that it is prohibited by the fundamentals of "western democracy" (as mediated by representatives) or conflicts with a detailed definition of that idea or would make it impossible to implement... Then in theory _X_ is broadly allowed. Even if a particular state currently or historically placed at an area of the freedoms gradient or spectrum which didn't allow _X_, that state would still belong to an open-ended system or worldview that permits changes / mutability in the future if the stimulus is there. This of course excludes safety-mitigated "rule by majority" states which are actually bogus (like Democratic People's Republic of Korea).

- - -

(Jun 25, 2017 04:48 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 25, 2017 09:09 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]coming back on topic... Should it be legal or illegal for Actors to portray political figures in a western democracy ?

When addressing the nature and limits of a system in general (no specific instances of it submitted) it falls back to whether there's anything in the internal structure of the concept that would entail or forbid (inconsistency) an _X_.  

Unless one can demonstrate that it is prohibited by the fundamentals of "western democracy" (as mediated by representatives) or conflicts with a detailed definition of that idea or would make it impossible to implement... Then in theory _X_ is broadly allowed. Even if a particular state currently or historically placed at an area of the freedoms gradient or spectrum which didn't allow _X_, that state would still belong to an open-ended system or worldview that permits changes / mutability in the future if the stimulus is there. This of course excludes safety-mitigated "rule by majority" states which are actually bogus (like Democratic People's Republic of Korea).

- - -

moral equity ambiguity
i am pondering Barak sitting in the audience watching some type of Roman or Greek tradgedy that has the characters dressed as modern politicians himself included.
From my general malaise observation it would seem the Republicans would declare such a performance as inciting terrorism while the Democracts would define it as theatrical circumspect fable presentation.
I can percieve Barak being asked to step on stage & take a bow at the end as being well inside the social intellect of the event.
However i am unable to percieve the same level of intellectual comprehension and Free Speech being accepted by the Republicans.

it leaves me pondering if this a Trend or change in culture that we are observing ?

(Jun 25, 2017 06:40 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]moral equity ambiguity. i am pondering Barak sitting in the audience watching some type of Roman or Greek tradgedy that has the characters dressed as modern politicians himself included. From my general malaise observation it would seem the Republicans would declare such a performance as inciting terrorism while the Democracts would define it as theatrical circumspect fable presentation. I can percieve Barak being asked to step on stage & take a bow at the end as being well inside the social intellect of the event.

However i am unable to percieve the same level of intellectual comprehension and Free Speech being accepted by the Republicans. it leaves me pondering if this a Trend or change in culture that we are observing ?

Remember, though, that the anti-establishment populist and alt-right supporters of Trump aren't traditional GOP (some of them are former independents and democrats). For instance, when a couple of those protesters stormed the Julius Caesar play back on June 16 to object to a slain Caesar deliberately made to resemble Trump, Ben Shapiro tweeted afterwards: "This is total, complete horse crap. She [Laura Loomer] invaded a public performance to obstruct it. She has no right to the stage."

Conventional conservatives disdain protesting and disruption of events (like theatrical plays and campus speeches), long deeming such public behavior as part of what distinguishes them from historic elements of their rivals on the Left (as well as the "newcomers" they're now sharing turf with in the GOP): "While those of us who are principled conservatives understand the difference between the limited government principles of freedom that distinguish conservatism from the populist nationalist tribalism of the Alt-Right, the leftists that make up the media are more than happy to blur the distinction between the two in order to create the impression in the minds of low-information voters that conservatives no longer support free speech." That's from a traditionalist GOP response to the Julius Caesar incident found here: 5 Reasons Storming Stages Is Idiotic. Another excerpt:

Furthermore, to pretend that the Left is winning because they “break windows, hurl eggs, shoot us, shout us down” is ridiculous. They’re losing because of all of this. The Left’s insanity drove the Right to victory across the country. Trump isn’t ascendant because he has no boundaries — he’s ascendant because an anti-Left backlash has been rising across America for nearly a decade. He’s also ascendant not because he started shutting down Democratic rallies, but because he defended his own right to have his rallies. When John asks for a plan, here’s one: speak on college campuses, speak for free speech, shame the Left routinely, force them to acknowledge their own tyranny. Don’t participate in tyranny. This is a winning plan. Even leftists like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama have been forced to disown the radical Left snowflakes on campus. The common refrain from events like the political riots in Berkeley, Middlebury et al. in shutting down speakers that drew the ire of the Left is: This is why Trump won. Such examples of the Left's attack on free speech only helps Trump and increases his chances of re-election in 2020. So why would the Right want to embrace a tactic that is causing the Left to lose?

To further emphasize the distinction between purely Trump-only supporters and the traditional GOP electorate, take the 6th Congressional District in Georgia where Republican Karen Handel recently defeated Democrat Jon Ossoff. That area is a hotbed of conventional Republicans who at best feel indifferent about Trump today (and were outright hostile to him back during the GOP presidential candidate races of 2015 to 2016). Contrary to the POTUS declaring Handel's victory to be an endorsement of his policies / approach, Handel actually won by staying away from Trump and his anti-establishment followers:

[Karen] Handel’s victory, however, revealed as much about Trump’s lingering problems among Republicans as it did the challenges facing Democrats. In a ruby-red district that her Republican predecessor won in November by 23 points, Handel struggled with Trump’s looming presence over the race. She won not with an embrace of the president but by barely mentioning his name. Handel, who will be the first Republican woman elected to Congress from Georgia, repeatedly ducked opportunities to echo Trump’s populist roar and instead presented a classic Republican case to voters, all while deflecting the barrage of questions about Trump’s latest tweets or his handling of investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The Republican unease evident in the district could replay across the country next year, when both major parties are bracing for a bruising season of midterm elections at an uncertain national moment. (LINK)

- - -