General news thread

[Sturgeon]

1 minute ago, Alzoc said:

 

The US does it down-stream with overall pretty strong check and balances.

But given the current American society and mode of election it is possible to elect rather extreme candidates: Trump happened.

 

Trump isn't extreme politically. Every single one of his planks is something that was in one of the two mainstream parties 10-20 years ago.

 

3 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

The French system have much weaker checks and balances but the institutions and the election mode make it virtually impossible for extremist parties to get to the power.

The only way that would happen is that over 50% of the population vote for said extremist which is unlikely since we have much more political parties than in the US.

 

And what happens if one of your parties consolidates power, hmmm?

[Alzoc]

9 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Another thing is even if you try to spruce it up and rehabilitate the image of the policy here, it's still a case of nanny stateism (um, why is the government tracking the mental health of its citizens???) which I realize is something a lot of Euros are OK with but hooboy not us Yanks.

 

Yes I know that for Americans State intervention is generally seen with distrust a priori, while on the contrary Europeans tends to ask the State to regulate sensitives issues with all the power it wield.

That's one of the major difference between our societies.

[Alzoc]

12 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Trump isn't extreme politically. Every single one of his planks is something that was in one of the two mainstream parties 10-20 years ago. 

 

Politically probably not.

His personality however would have made him completely unelectable here.

 

For example Le Pen (speaking about her) had a debate with Macron just before the second turn of the 2017 election.

She shown everybody how incompetent and unfit for the function she was and lost millions of votes overnight, even among her core electors.

 

And being a professional politician, she is still pretty tame compared to Trump.

 

 

[Donward]

If Voltaire were alive in France today, he'd be given a psych eval.

 

 

[Sturgeon]

1 minute ago, Alzoc said:

Politically probably not.

His personality however would have made him completely unelectable here.

 

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that someone from Queens would be unelectable in France.

[Sturgeon]

10 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

Yes I know that for Americans State intervention is generally seen with distrust a priori, while on the contrary Europeans tends to ask the State to regulate sensitives issues with all the power it wield.

That's one of the major difference between our societies.

 

Yes, and it makes yours worse.

[Alzoc]

Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

Yes, and it makes yours worse.

 

That's where we disagree.

But it's not a surprise for anyone^^

[Donward]

Trying to see the other side of the concentration camp concertina wire fence here.

 

In the US, there is quite a bit of stigma attached to undergoing a psych exam and the whole process of having your mental health brought into question period. Or at least throughout much of the country.

 

I'm wondering if the same stigma is absent in France, where undergoing a psychiatric test is equivalent to - oh I don't know - having your eyesight tested before getting a driver's license?

[Alzoc]

15 minutes ago, Donward said:

Trying to see the other side of the concentration camp concertina wire fence here.

 

In the US, there is quite a bit of stigma attached to undergoing a psych exam and the whole process of having your mental health brought into question period. Or at least throughout much of the country.

 

 

Well psychoanalysis (and homeopathy) is still a thing here, and yes it bring me much shame to admit it^^

So I would say that having a psych eval isn't really a cause for stigmatization here, it's generally well perceived as a normal medical procedure (in that case finding wether or not there is an underlying medical condition before any judgment is passed).

 

15 minutes ago, Donward said:

I'm wondering if the same stigma is absent in France, where undergoing a psychiatric testing is equivalent to - oh I don't know - having your eyesight tested before getting a driver's license. 

 

That's one thing I wish we had here, especially the periodical examination (yes eyesight often tends to get worse with age and some peoples have a hard time admitting it).

 

So it's not completely equivalent to simply have your eyesight tested, but it's still viewed as pretty normal.

The main difference is that it may be more "stressful" because the stakes are potentially higher (like if you are going to test for cancer or some other serious illness for example).

[Sturgeon]

See now that's an interesting subject and one much more worth talking about, versus just how bad and backwards France is!

[Donward]

2 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

 

 

That's one thing I wish we had here, especially the periodical examination (yes eyesight often tends to get worse with age and some peoples have a hard time admitting it).

 

Wait, what?

 

French drivers don't undergo eyesight tests when they get their drivers licenses renewed?

 

No wonder why you Frogs are such terrible drivers!

 

 

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

It's absolutely true that mental health in this country is stigmatized.

 

I imagine it's a result of extreme pressures to fit in culturally. The US was the "melting pot". People came here and Americanized their last names. Look at swarzenagers picture he took when he got his citizenship.

 

Even relatively  recently Mexican Americans follow this same American pride formula. 

 

I'm sure having a mental issue wasn't something that lended itself to this dream of being an American and blending in to the greatest country on Earth. 

 

[Alzoc]

23 minutes ago, Donward said:

 

Wait, what?

 

French drivers don't undergo eyesight tests when they get their drivers licenses renewed?

 

No wonder why you Frogs are such terrible drivers! 

 

Actually the license is never renewed at all, you get it pretty much for life (unless you lose all your points and simply need to repass it or follow a short training)

 

The only case where you have to pass a medical examination is when you declare on your honor that you have a bad eyesight or a kind of disability or illness which could impair your driving.

But you'll only be asked to do it if you declare so.

 

It's also needed for certain types of licenses (like the one you need to transport general public), but not for the generic license you need for a personal car.

 

For a country obsessed with regulation we have pretty much no requirement on driving license^^

 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/old/what_can_be_done_about_it/assessing_the_fitness_to_drive_en

 

If there is one thing you could compare the obsession with the freedom of speech 2nd amendment (it should be a more comparable situation) in the US it would be freedom to drive in France

Every time the government try to put more automatic radars, reduce the speed on roads or make the controls stricter they are sure to face major backslash^^

So I don't even imagine what would happen if the government declared that you could lose your license for medical reasons

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

21 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

If there is one thing you could compare the obsession with the freedom of speech 2nd amendment (it should be a more comparable situation) in the US it would be freedom to drive in France

Every time the government try to put more automatic radars, reduce the speed on roads or make the controls stricter they are sure to face major backslash^^

So I don't even imagine what would happen if the government declared that you could lose your license for medical reasons

Now this is interesting.

 

See, we have had politicians try to use mandatory mental health screenings as basis for removing second amendment rights from individuals. 

 

It was met with obvious scorn. 

 

If the French government did this with transportation I'm sure it would be also met with much scorn. This is a good connection we can see culturally. 

 

 

[Alzoc]

10 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

Now this is interesting.

 

See, we have had politicians try to use mandatory mental health screenings se basis for removing second amendment rights from individuals. 

 

It was met with obvious scorn. 

 

If the French government did this with transportation I'm sure it would be also met with much scorn. This is a good connection we can see culturally. 

 

 

 

The main difference is that we didn't put a freedom to drive in our constitution.

Which obviously makes the whole thing much easier (the speed was recently lowered from 90 km/h to 80 km/h on national roads)^^

 

Touching the subject is a major political risk but it doesn't mean that it's impossible.

And if the government didn't pass any law regarding road safety they would be accused of being lax and not doing anything (yeah we are schizophrenic as a People).

 

So far stats for death on the road are on a general down trend since 1972, and while some regulations had good effects (like installing a lot of automatic radars, or make the safety belt mandatory) a lot of others had little to no effects (often reducing the maximum content of alcohol in the blood).

 

So it's all about choosing an effective way to regulate.

 

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

Honestly, seatbelts are the best thing you can do. 

 

There's been 450 deaths so far this year on the highway I take to work. I drive it every morning. 

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

17 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

I didn't expected any other reaction from our fellow murricans ^^

 

Keep living in the US and I'll keep living in Europe and everybody will be happy.

 

We already had this conversation, the US seem bigot, libertarian (which isn't a compliment) and with a tendency to blow any insignificant event out of reasonable proportion when seen from Europe.

And Europe seem authoritarian and borderline socialist (with the negative connotation you have in the US) plus other bad stuff I forgot when seen from the US. (ofc those are over generalization)

 

Don't worry I find the US society just as distasteful as you might find European societies.

Working in the US for a few year sure, settling there certainly not^^

 

Back on topic, I just gave the legal basis behind the decision.

Do whatever you want with it^^

 

 

Guys, guys, come on, he's right, he knows his fellow French better than we do, and if he thinks they are of such low moral character, and so bad at figuring out what right and wrong is, that the state has to tell them these things surely he's right.  I mean, he's clearly right, look at all the wars those primitive assholes(Euros) have waged against each other.  

 

 

[Bronezhilet]

I find it kinda ironic when the Americans go full reeeee the EU doesn't have freedom of speech while they have a government agency watching TV to make sure you don't say those oh so dangerous words like fuck, shit and cunt.

 

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands...

[Bronezhilet]

And yes, I am awaiting those news messages where you'll explain to me where we reeeee the Netherlands doesn't have freedom of speech.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

12 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

I find it kinda ironic when the Americans go full reeeee the EU doesn't have freedom of speech while they have a government agency watching TV to make sure you don't say those oh so dangerous words like fuck, shit and cunt.

 

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands...

 

That's not a very good argument, the government regulates companies that broadcast on government TV frequencies, on cable and satellite there is profanity and nudity. If someone bothered to challenge the profanity rules for broadcast TV the supreme court would throw it out, no one really seems to care. 

 

None of that stops any US citizen from going out to the local City hall with a sign saying Fuck so and so or whatever else they want. They can go protest about how unchecked illegal immigration takes jobs from Americans, they can protest in favor of the Nazis, hell, they can protest and claim the government is all lizard people. When a US citizen says they don't want a bunch of Syrian "refugees" because they do not want truck of peace events in their country, the government cant takes action against them.  Hell, they can even go an protest at soldiers funerals because America protects fagots, so the soldiers should burn in hell or whatever those nuttbags, assholes from the Westboro Baptist church,(who are not in any way like the regular American Christian who gets smeared with their bullshit. 

 

Being able to protest what your government is doing is important to Americans,  well most of us, the left in this country can't actually argue their side anymore since their policies have failed on all fronts, so now they want to shut down the speech of the other side. But it used to be a nearly UNIVERSAL American belief. 

 

 

[Donward]

37 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

I find it kinda ironic when the Americans go full reeeee the EU doesn't have freedom of speech while they have a government agency watching TV to make sure you don't say those oh so dangerous words like fuck, shit and cunt.

 

Meanwhile, in the Netherlands...

 

36 minutes ago, Bronezhilet said:

And yes, I am awaiting those news messages where you'll explain to me where we reeeee the Netherlands doesn't have freedom of speech.

 

What are you on about?

 

The Federal Communications Commission essentially works hand-in-glove with the corporations that air content on the public airways. It's a public-private partnership which is essentially voluntary.

 

As for the "seven dirty words" you alluded to, the very liberal US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and a liberal Supreme Court of 1978 upheld that those words were indecent but not obscene but that the FCC regulating them did not violate the First Amendment (or the Fifth). In other words we gots our Freedom of Speech. 

 

Wikipedia is shit but... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words#Federal_Communications_Commission_v._Pacifica_Foundation

 

And meanwhile you can still say shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am. And the advent of cable television and now streaming, and the demise of broadcast television has made that irrelevant anyway.

 

And how that applies to the leading French opposition politician being sent to a shrink for posting anti-ISIS and anti-Islamic fundamentalist tweets is beyond me.

 

But then I don't live in a country where a Dutch filmmaker is killed for exercising his freedom of speech after criticizing Islamic fundamentalists.

 

 

[Bronezhilet]

Oh I'm sorry Don, I didn't realise this discussion was purely about the free speech regarding a French opposition politician and that no other things were allowed, I'm sorry.

 

I wasn't specifically talking about those words but they did pop up in my mind as an example. But anyway, you say they are being regulated and that that regulation does not violate the First Amendment. But that sounds a lot like "You have freedom of speech, except when [...]".

 

22 minutes ago, Donward said:

But then I don't live in a country where a Dutch filmmaker is killed for exercising his freedom of speech after criticizing Islamic fundamentalists.

And how is this relevant to my point about governmental suppression of freedom of speech?

 

 

I do admit I did include bad words into the definition of "obscenity" but apparently that's not the case, looking at Miller v. California.

[Sturgeon]

8 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

I find it kinda ironic when the Americans go full reeeee the EU doesn't have freedom of speech while they have a government agency watching TV to make sure you don't say those oh so dangerous words like fuck, shit and cunt.

 

The US government was particularly anti-freedom and especially prudish between the years of 1933-1980, and we still have a lot of baggage left over from that. My guess is that as the tide shifted a bit in the '90s and 2000s, these regulations would likely have been repealed, except now they only govern a small segment of our total media outlets so nobody cares anymore. The irony here is that we have loads of cussing on cable (which is almost all anyone watches anymore) as a direct response to the banning of the seven words on network television.

You're right that I think it ultimately is an abridgment of free speech - but it's one that is so small today that I doubt it will get challenged in the courts. The question is whether indecency is considered speech I guess - does a couple having sex in public count as speech? Hard to say, depending on the case - but that's not really the same thing as saying "motherfucker", I would agree. That is the principle the rulings are based on, however.

 

The key difference to me isn't the law in the US or the application of the law, it's the way people feel about it. Aside from the moralists, who are relatively few but loud, Americans don't like the Seven Words Rule. Carlin famously lambasted it and he is almost universally revered specifically for that bit. Meanwhile, Alzoc will sit here and say "mandatory psych evals for speech? Sounds good to me!" which I find a disturbing attitude. Push back!

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

More Strava news.

 

My question is... 5 bikes stolen? After the FIRST I'd be far more vigilant. 

 

Oh, but then I noticed that it's in the UK. Aka crime island. It's probably illegal to lock up your garage at night, in case someone needs to borrow a bike or car or wife or something.

 

https://road.cc/content/news/248798-cyclist-who-had-five-bikes-stolen-says-thieves-are-looking-quick-times-strava

 

 

Crime & Legal

Cyclist who had five bikes stolen says thieves are looking for quick times on Strava to try and find high-end bikes – warns other users to check their privacy settings

 

 

[Collimatrix]

Alzoc, didn't you mention at some point that Le Pen and/or her allies had some longstanding issues with corruption?