SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Following a number of CEOs pulling out of President Trump's American Manufacturing Council and Strategic and Policy Forum, President Trump tweeted that the initiatives have been ended:
Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!
The CEOs of Merck, Intel, 3M, and other companies had already left:
3M Co. Chief Executive Officer Inge Thulin stepped down from the White House's manufacturing council, adding to the corporate exodus as the backlash grows to President Donald Trump's ambivalent response to racially-charged violence in Virginia over the weekend.
Thulin joined the White House panel in January "to advocate for policies that align with our values and encourage even stronger investment and job growth -- in order to make the United States stronger, healthier and more prosperous," the CEO said Wednesday in a statement tweeted by 3M. "After careful consideration, I believe the initiative is no longer an effective vehicle for 3M to advance these goals."
Update: The members of the Strategic and Policy Forum reportedly disbanded the group before President Trump's tweet:
The quick sequence began late Wednesday morning when Stephen A. Schwarzman, the chief executive of the Blackstone Group and one of Mr. Trump's closest confidants in the business community, organized a conference call for members of the president's Strategic and Policy Forum. On the call, the chief executives of some of the largest companies in the country debated how to proceed. After a discussion among a dozen prominent C.E.O.s, the decision was made to abandon the group altogether, said people with knowledge of the details of the call.
Also at Bloomberg:
Trump made the announcement on Twitter, less than an hour after one of the groups was said to be planning to inform the White House that it would break up. [...] Trump appeared to be making an effort to get ahead of the news as the councils began to disintegrate. The strategy forum, which is led by Blackstone Group LP's Stephen Schwarzman, planned to inform the White House Wednesday before making the announcement public, according to another person familiar with the matter, who wasn't authorized to discuss the news publicly.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:20PM (11 children)
Wow, that's a lot of words.
Have you considered that maybe people just don't like Nazis? Seems a bit simpler...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @06:06AM (9 children)
It's interesting to see conservatives and liberal swap roles so rapidly, mostly without either side ever realizing it. This [sagepub.com] incendiary but nonetheless likely still reasonable paper was written just 5 years ago. That was back at the time when liberalism still meant what it traditionally has - social cohesion, support of free speech, an appreciation and acceptance of ambiguity (as opposed to breaking the world down into black and white), and ultimately just a more nuanced view of the world. Now we've segregated to 'Stop bad person mean speech! Freeze peach! You no agree me!? You.. you... NAZI!!!'
Think about the so-called 'alt left' is doing today. You must follow their belief system or you are a nazi or, at best, a nazi sympathizer. And they are actively justifying physical violence against this group. The most ironic thing is that people don't really consider why the Nazis were racist. It was a tool for unification. Much like the 'alt left' today is breaking the world into progressive vs nazis, the Nazis broke the world down into Germans vs non-Germans. And they gradually came to justify violence against non-Germans. The reason Jews in particular was targeted is literally exactly the same reason that the alt left targets 'white males' today. You needed a group who had a disproportionate number of people in power and wealth. That group can be used to unite those that aren't doing so well, which is the state of the masses then as always, against as a common enemy. The fact the majority of Jews were just average people trying to get by then, like now, was of course not considered. They were used as a bogeyman more than giving a rational consideration to the issues of society.
Sorry, I understand I'm using lots of words too. Using more than 140 characters must mean bad think is involved. Let us go back to simple think. What could ever go wrong?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @08:40AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @03:07PM
A couple of things here. First yes, "they" obviously have. Some of the biggest that come to mind (all within the last couple of years) are:
- 2017 Congressional baseball game mass shooting [wikipedia.org] Alt-left extremist attempts to murder arbitrary politicians after verifying they are republicans. The only reason there weren't mass casualties is because he was extremely incompetent with his firearms.
- 2016 BLM march mass shooting [wikipedia.org] Alt-left extremist this time has weapons training. Murders 5, injures 11.
- 2015 'mass' shooting of two reporters [wikipedia.org] Alt-left extremist murders 2 reporters, while filming the event.
Why did I put "they" in quotes? These events, and the numerous others like them, are ultimately not terribly relevant. One off violence happens and it's deplorable, but it's one-off. Nobody told those people to go murder republicans, police, or perceived racists. It's something they did on their own. Similarly in the car thing - there's no group as part of their platform actively encouraging people to intentionally run over people they disagree with. However, using violence and intimidation against perceived opponents is something that is becoming a standard part of the alt-left. When I was learning about the recent disruptj20 controversy I saw a chilling quote [wikipedia.org] from an organizer with the site:
It's easy to glaze over things like that since Trump is an idiot, but actually think about what that's actually saying. They are actively calling for the complete rejection of the peace. That means violence. And that is something that groups like this are saying on the record. Imagine a leader of the KKK said, 'The idea is we want to undermine this idea of leaving peacefully with blacks. We need to undermine this peace.' And if the person saying that was in a position where he could expect people that actually act on these words, that is something that would likely be an arrestable offense. Free speech does not allow for calls to illegal behavior. And the platform of Antifa is little more than a call to illegal behavior.
I don't really have a horse in this game. I imagine like most people, I'd be happiest if both extremes simply vanished from the face of this planet tomorrow. But the thing that concerns me most is when one group begins advocating for violence as a part of their platform. It's cliche, but violence really never is the answer. If you need to defend yourself then do so by all means and hold absolutely nothing back. But when you're the one throwing the first punch, you are the reason for the violence. Remember, nearly all evils throughout history have been committed in the name of some greater good or purpose.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:59AM (6 children)
Let me get this straight... you are telling me that the guys marching through Charlotteville the other day, with their swastikas and seig heils, you're saying that these people aren't Nazis... They are just poor, misunderstood victims of an "alt-left[1]" conspiracy.
You guys are really getting desperate if that's the best you can come up with.
[1] Note that the "alt-left" is a term entirely invented by the right[2], used to try to create a moral equivalence between the vile, indefensible attitudes of white supremacists and their enemies on the left. There is no such thing, it's another phantom bogeyman like "SJWs". Wherever you see someone talking about the "alt-left", you can be pretty sure the author is just regurgitating Breitbart propaganda.
[2] "Alt-right" on the other hand, is a term invented by and embraced by the people it describes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @03:36PM (5 children)
Please read what I wrote and then read your post. This is an ironically perfect example of what I am talking about. "You guys..." Typical. I have been and remain extremely liberal in votes, ideology, and by any measurement whatsoever. Yet in a very short period of time as I am quick to call out violence and intolerance I am now the enemy. Am I just full on nazi, or just a nazi sympathizer? You've lost any sort of grasp of ambiguity. I can disapprove of the alt-left and the alt-right simultaneously..? I can be a liberal yet vehemently call out any and all calls for violence, intimidation, or refusing others to speak? Even if they're bad people? Yes, the answer is yes.
If the alt-left wanted to have peaceful rallies in support of passing laws allowing the police to arrest people who say offensive things then I'd be completely in support of the alt left being able to have such a rally. I would disagree, absolutely and completely, with their position but it is their right to express their views. And similarly, I disagree completely with the alt-right but I fully support their right to express absurd views. The thing I oppose, however, is when groups begin to start organizing rallies that are not about expressing themselves but about trying to inimidate and indeed provoke violent confrontations against people they disagree with. That is where you go from expressing yourself to trending towards fascism.
Quick question for you. Let's imagine two scenarios:
- Scenario One: You go to the middle of an alt-right rally and yelled at the top of your lungs that you think all races and people are equal, that Trump is a horrrible awful president, and that we should massively increase immigration to destroy the patriarchy.
- Scenario Two: You go to the middle of an alt-left rally and yell at the top of your lungs that you think white people have been behind nearly all successful civilizations, that Trump is an amazing president and inspiring man, and that we need to really crack down on illegal immigration and illegal immigrants to help strengthen the working class.
What do you think the reactions would be in both scenarios?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:42PM (4 children)
You used the term "alt left several ties in your post, kindly it for me. It's a term that's only just appeared in the last few days or weeks, and it seems to be used exclusively to suggest equivalence between the hate, intolerance and violence of the far right, and... well.. anyone the right disagrees with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:37PM (3 children)
There are several typos in your post. I assume you are asking me to define alt-left. And sure, I think there are several points but the most fundamental identifier is what I was getting at above: A willingness to support or engage in efforts to intimidate, marginalize, and/or preemptively cause harm to others because of their political views.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:41PM
To clarify, that is a 'rectangle' vs 'square' definition. I would say that all alt-left individuals fall within that definition, but not all individuals that fit that criteria are alt-left. I'm reluctant to try to create a 'square' definition without getting verbose, but I do think it probably reasonably sums it up if you add the criteria that they are left leaning. You'd need to get into more specific views to make it comprehensive, but I think it's a workable off the cuff definition.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday August 18 2017, @08:54AM (1 child)
Okaaaaay. So according to your definition, the Charlotteville killer is alt-left, because he was clearly willing to cause harm for his political views. Want to narrow your definition a little?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 18 2017, @02:08PM
Quoting what I posted just above you, hours ago:
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 18 2017, @03:14PM
Honestly, that's a glib reply to a point I wasn't making at all.
The point I was actually making was that Trump, the media, Congress, corporations, and all the other pillars of the society we have known have formed into a circular firing squad and are blasting away. In the process they're not just taking each other further and further down, but they're destroying the very idea of leadership in America. Who can step in and lead the country when they have all annihilated each other?
What's more, given America's role in the world at this time that process is having, and will have, global repercussions. What follows after the world's most prominent and powerful democracy has self-destructed in this way? Do we move to the rival totalitarian blocs of Orwell's 1984? Do we return to feudalism? Corporatocracy?
To me, none of those are good options because none of them will promote and safeguard virtue and the common good. Further, the democracy we have had can no longer continue as it is because crony capitalism has strangled the dreams of the citizenry for self-betterment in the cradle, and has totally undermined every mechanism for redress that was carefully built into the system 250 years ago.
I don't know what the exact shape of a better system would be, but I do know that this current behavior that has obsessed the Powers That Be will lead to ruin for all, at least in the short- to medium term.
Washington DC delenda est.