Perhaps it’s just a typo.

^ get a load of this guy.

(o^▽^o)

(*^3^)/~☆

Netherlands, they let countries invade, and blow up their passenger planes! We should be able to do it by setting fires to their forests, and destroy their supply of wooden Doc Mäartenz.

Whatever floats your woke boat, so apparently you think it's a good idea to have lobbyists from arms producers run a so-called department of defense, your veneer of a self-proclaimed human rights activist is even thinner than I imagined...how the "mighty" has fallen...

（・∀・）

Naw. I just don't give af what some dopey doutch person thinks. Never have, never will. It's pot calling kettle.

You give enough fucks to respond but not enough to respond to the topic, your silence on that says it all...the hypocritical American imperialist strikes again! My condolences upfront to all the global victims of your politics, vote democrat and you get lobbyists for the weapons industry running the show...

what's the definition of insanity again?

"what's the definition of insanity again?"

voting democrat while pretending you care about human rights

    |￣￣|
＿☆☆☆＿
（ ´_⊃｀）

maybe.. or having a middle-school level understanding of morality where one sees the world in dumb binaries, conflating their vote with the entirety of their personal ethics, especially in a two-party system.

The true horror of American Imperialism is McDonald's and KFC! Just wait until we send them Chik Fil A, and Taco Bell. Is Friends on in Holland?

You have a two-party system because of how people are voting...which is in favor of imperialist mass murdering war criminals. You get the imperialist mass murderers you vote for...I really don't get why people take that shit as a given, there are other options you know. You don't have to support war mongering mass murdering imperialists, yet you choose to keep on supporting them and attack anyone who dares to question those motives ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (I really don't see how personal ethics of not committing genocide or murder are suddenly put aside when it is election time, if there's ever a time to let your personal ethics conflate...)

Wrong.

it's clear that politics is your religion- it defines your world view, your moral and ethical compass. (what you're doing here, saying the same thing over and over, is no different than the jesus freaks waving their signs and shouting that the end is nigh as the crowds pass by.)

this all is not the case for me, however, and your broad generalizations and dualistic thinking don't align with the way i see the world. end.

I might sound like a broken record, but it's simply my jam...I care about politics and the world to not let it all get ruined by American imperialism, illegitimate wars and mass murder. Can't even post worries about lobbyists of the weapons industry running the department of defense, but when the US Postal Service gets a new Post Master with interests in UPS it's a huge scandal! Hypocrisy all over...and that is only about delivering mail not weapons of mass destruction. Your priorities are way off! Keep voting the way you do, the body bag industry will thank you...

Kill Em' All, let KFC sort it out!

Randomised, we might find you less distasteful if you didn't have a nasty, sustained, and seemingly inexhaustible habit of reading articles about America the country and then coming here to tar and feather us individually because we may have had the unmitigated gall to vote for someone on the ballot as opposed to ... something you've never said. You generally build a straw man that's ignorant of the realities of living in America. Something you don't do. And every time you betray your petty personal vendetta, seemingly just to get your moral superiority rocks off. Never giving a single shit about the fact that there are people behind these accounts. 

You fucking prick. 

Maybe just don't vote for imperialist assholes that illegally invade other countries, commit mass murder and celebrate genocide, so I wouldn't have to remind you all the goddamn time...I do give a shit about people though, if you'd give as much about people as I do, you wouldn't be voting the way you do, I promise you...

We vote for who's on the ticket. You know this. You ignore this. You enjoy being willfully ignorant because otherwise you'd have to fall off that fucking high hobby horse you have built out of bullshit.

You fucking prick.

"You have a two-party system because of how people are voting..." 

Nope. We have a two-party system because our system of voting essentially necessitates it. I've explained this at length elsewhere in this thread.

I stopped reading there. No point in seeing what wrong conclusions come from wrong information.

It's like they think we have a parliamentary system. Which I'm all on board for, well, until we get the Proletariat motivated.

There are more than two parties and there are independent candidates as well, but apparently world peace is not that big of a deal for most here, what a shame!

There are multiple caucuses within the two dominant parties that effectively replicate the 'coalition' system common in Parliamentary / European models of legislatures. The minor parties are good at occasionally pushing policy ideas into the mainstream, but even they know they're not playing to win elections. "World Peace" is not a thing dependent on political parties, one, two or otherwise.

If you wouldn’t have your parties run by the weapons industry you wouldn’t be invading other countries, making world peace so much more likely...

Is the military industrial complex a problem? You betcha. 

Does the influence of money in politics create a status quo in which elected politicians - even the good ones - are ultimately beholden to lobbyists & corporate donors, many of whom are tied to the military industrial complex? Indeed it does! 

Is the way to fix this voting for a third party in an electoral system that all-but-guarantees two dominant parties? Nope. 

I'm trying to explain to you that your solution to the problem is wrong and you're accusing me of saying the problem doesn't exist. We're not having the same conversation, so unless that changes we're unlikely to reach any sort of understanding.

^ I need more thumbs

One should note that the military industrial complex is a global problem not necessarily inflicted solely by the US. It takes two to tango, but in reality it's an orgy.

Voting is the final and most insignificant step in a process of politics that takes years, sometimes decades, to come into prominence enough that it even appears on a ballot. If your understanding of "politics" is "voting", you're effectively apolitical.

seriously, tduds nailed it.. it's why i said rando's view on this hasn't passed a middle-school understanding of morality and ethics, as with his understanding of the united states, and why he continually comes off as a petulant teenager who just read about existentialism for the first time:

it's quite sad to assume that you are a good and moral person because you vote a certain way, and even more laughable that voting will bring about something called "world peace" - the way in which you concretely act in the world has far more significance than checking a box, and thinking so is profoundly naive.

If people keep voting for the two dominant parties that are run by lobbyists and the military industrial complex, guess what...they remain the dominant parties. Be the change!

Red card on the play, intentional missing of the point.

Due respect rando (I'm only saying that to be polite, which is negated by this parenthetical, but whatever), those of us participating in the political system you're criticizing, which is much more than just voting for the Rs, the Ds, or other, have done more to "be the change" than you ever will ... so respectfully (there's that politeness again), GTFO.

not fair- i'm sure rando is clogging his way to world peace as we speak.

I wasn't talking about his world peace campaign. He may have us beat there. I was talking about his "be the change [in the US political, two-dominant-party system]" comment.

square. You concretely act in this world partly by who you vote into office and the policies that those people execute...what difference does it make on a global scale if you are nice to your neighbour or volunteer in a soup kitchen to serve soup to homeless veterans when at the very same time you mandate politicians to bomb the hell out of poor innocent civilians halfway across the globe...can’t hide behind a faulty political system when it is a matter of life and death but apparently non-American lives don’t matter as much :-(

As I said - I think twice now in this very exchange - "Being the change" and "Voting" are nearly independent actions.

Plugging a different party into the same system will produce, at the absolute best, a new set of two corrupt parties.

EA, really no need for the niceties, don’t bother if you end with GTFO

“ it's quite sad to assume that you are a good and moral person because you vote a certain way”

your assumption is way off, as usual square I should add...I don’t assume I am a good and moral person because of the way I vote, I vote in a certain way because of my personal ethics and sense of morality. So it is actually the other way around...

seems like your theory is really working out:

Dutch military to send up to 150 new soldiers to Kurdistan Region
https://www.kurdistan24.net/en...

rando, I know. I should have internalized the article b3ta posted earlier about being an asshole. Apparently my parents' instilled some good manners in me despite my best efforts.

Spoiler alert: randomised is a prick

Dude, sneaky ... calling him names only lowers others' opinions of you. It's also just not cool, and never has been. You can be better than this.

square, rando is going to blame the US for that, but rightfully so. 

yes, but weakens the "argument" to non-existent when your own country, who's leaders you vote for, and even if you don't, who's taxes and world relations benefit you, is teaming up with the very world police you spend the majority of your time complaining about.

I've spent a decade talking with rando and jla and giving them the benefit of the doubt. They abused my good faith every step of the way. You can think of me as you like, but I'm fucking exhausted. I'm not a saint, and I am tempering my knee-jerk reactions with a one word descriptor that I think is appropriate. I would put rando and jla on ignore, however then I cannot participate when their fecal drippings are all over the threads, since you cannot reply to an ignored member.

SP, I won't discount anything you said, and I'm right there with you on the exhaustion and lack of sainthood. I still think you can do better. Same can be said for b3ta and others that engage in the near constant ad hominem attacks against him (note I don't hold out the same hope for him elevating the level of discourse if that's any consolation prize). 

I know this is quixotic and probably comes across as sanctimonious. I'm just exhausted of seeing the majority of the comments being nothing more than name calling. I would normally just let it be, but in the past week you've called him a "prick" 14 times. 

We get it. 

So does he. 

No one needs convincing. 

Say it once or twice a week if you have to get it off your chest and move on. This and my poking the bear comment in TC has been me getting it off my chest, and now I'll move on.

I'm definitely stuck in a rut. I'll see what I can do.

square. from the article: "They will be responsible for the security of Erbil airport, together with US forces." 

I'm sure they got an offer they couldn't refuse, severed horse head and all, as is always the case with America bullying its "allies" to fight in their conflicts. But to get back to my so-called theory, I didn't vote for anyone who OK'd this, try again...

still makes you complicit, nullifying most, if not all, of your arguments.

No, it doesn't! The result might be the same but that doesn't make me complicit at all. But you personally do actively and willingly vote for the people that wage (illegal) war, that want to make lobbyists for weapons manufacturers as Secretary of Offence.

a war your country participates in, the result being the death of innocent civilians at the hand of your fighter jets. complicit.

A war my country was forced to participate in by your country, in fighter jets that we are forced to buy from your country dropping American bombs, guided by American radar control. Those deaths are the direct result of the decisions of your country, made in the USA, not mine. Your country also threatened to invade my country if we ever brought American war criminals before the ICC and Obama himself invoked the doctrine of elite immunity, not being able to be held accountable for atrocities committed. I am in no way complicit in any of this, on the contrary!

I love this!

What about ranked-choice voting? yes? no? Maybe too late for us to apply at the federal level?

You haven’t tried hard enough...

Please share how you, personally, have had an effect on your country's voting process so we can emulate your perfection.

Never mind. I forgot for a second. You're a prick.

No just that.

This too. (Oh man, that's going to cost me.)

If I were rando I'd simply vote for ranked choice voting.

Two thumbs up for ranked choice!

"Please share how you, personally, have had an effect on your country's voting process so we can emulate your perfection."

No need to have an effect on the country's voting process as NL is a properly functioning democracy, so all I need to do is not vote for war mongering imperialists, that's my personal effect. It really is not that hard, first of all I don't vote for (illegal) war mongering imperialists, and you can do it too! If only enough people would abandon the parties that are responsible for fighting all those illegal wars all over the world and the killing of innocent civilians, but people unfortunately choose otherwise, power hungry.

Even a president that avoids being sent overseas to fight an illegal war against people, innocent civilians living in the middle of nowhere who never even had heard of the USA, let alone were a threat to the sovereignty of the States is being ridiculed as a coward. But I'm sure most here would've protested against that very war themselves, and try to avoid being sent to die for a cause not their own. If only you had more cowards running your country instead of people with all those inflated hero complexes, trying to "rescue" the world...

I know, if only FDR minded his own business like Lindbergh asked, we'd be a better off...

The States only got interested in the European front when the Soviets started kicking the Nazis ass a bit too successful. They didn't want to liberate us from the Nazis or even rescue the Jews, they wanted to occupy us before team Stalin would, and so they did, until this day we have American troops and weapons of mass destruction on our lands:

(https://www.basenation.us/maps...)

He's being forced by your lot, forced to risk his life for yet another illegal American war, the only thing Dutch is the little flag on his American uniform, carrying his American weapon, shooting American bullets in yet another American war. You could also post a picture of a bank robber(USA) forcing his hostage(NL) at gunpoint to shoot someone and blame the hostage instead of the bank robber(USA)...

lolwut.

that's right tduds, Dutch soldiers, people, and their government, are forced to kill people, or else we send KFC, and force them to take insignificant military bases next to windmills.

"Dutch soldiers, people, and their government, are forced to kill people [by the Americans]" ...sad but true.

The word "forced" is doing a lot of work here.

It is doing as much work as geese do to make foie gras.

Well, it sounds like the Dutch are shit at managing their government. Get new people, oh, wait, you don't like anyone that isn't a slighter shade of gouda.

“ Get new people, oh, wait, you don't like anyone that isn't a slighter shade of gouda.”

Just out of curiosity, what are you implying here...

I'm here for the gouda.

That's politics, baby.

Gouda is good. I think the first comment on page 1 is the best tho.

I just peeked at page one and every reply I made on page one could be copied & pasted as a reply on page five. I just saved myself a ton of time in the next few weeks, is what I'm saying.

... and those numbers are absent the people who have been nuked from the thread. But in the meantime Trump won't be getting his second term

I’m pretty sure I have more nuked comments than i have visible ones in this thread.

No, we good. I just gave your last comment about seeing what you can do a thumbs up.

I have a really bad scab-picking habit (figuratively). Helps to have people that care pointing it out. Thanks.

totally, emphatically disagree with this- critique is a vital part of the imagining and addressing of problems (though i agree that it must be paired with action). one could argue our entire discipline is founded on the notion of critique as a crucial part of making things better.

in other words, how can you operate as a designer without understanding the value of critique? bizarre.

It's a thought-piece not a political policy document.

The books he cites contain the detail you're looking for.

I think, also, more importantly than a detailed consideration of solutions, it highlights the frequently ignored blind-spots and short-sightedness of our current GDP-based growth-based capitalism. The author, rightly imo, condemns the lack of imagination built into the dominant systems we've created, with the intent of starting the conversation that might lead to better solutions. It, by its own headline, is a "challenge." It's by no means comprehensive, but an excellent opening salvo. To criticize the opening statement for lacking a conclusion is to misinterpret the place of the statement in the conversation.

It’s one thing for example to say “fossil fuels are causing global warming”. Perfectly true critique. It’s another to say “fossil fuels are causing global warming therefore we need to stop using fossil fuels”. 

I don't know how you can say the first part and not arrive at the second. What other possible conclusion could one draw from "This thing is killing life on the planet" than "We should stop using it"?

tduds, where do you go to find the books and essays you link to? I've screwed up the algorithm so it only shows me drum n bass music and articles about the election.

Also it's a physical truth that one needs to slow down before stopping, but don't let that get in the way of ideological purity...jla.

Combination of sites I specifically check in on (I subscribe to NYT, Wash Post, New Yorker & Harpers. When I have some free time I'll open up Atlantic, Aeon, Mother Jones, New Republic...). For less highbrow stuff I like the AVClub universe (Jezebel, The Root, The Takeout, RIP Deadspin) Also twitter, sometimes. Also reddit's "r/FoodforThought" and "r/Longreads" are decent. I read perhaps a little too much online, but I have a pretty good memory which helps me cite my sources. A lot of what I post on Archinect is something I read weeks or months ago that a comment reminded me of.

That's a silly analogy. Not only are we not in the desert, we aren't thirsty, and we have plenty of alternatives. Further, the man in the desert with nothing but soda would likely use the nutrients from the soda to get out of the desert, where I'd bet money he's going to look for a cold glass of water. 

To reverse the analogy: what would you say to a man who refuses to leave the desert because he has a bottle of soda he believes can sustain him?

You're doing that thing again where you (incorrectly) tell me what I'm saying in order to argue against something different. If you think the problems outlined in the article are not problems, say so. Otherwise, you're nitpicking a point no one is making & once again gumming up the conversation.

Sure, simply switching gasoline powered cars to electric powered cars with no change in miles driven is a ridiculous and shortsighted climate strategy. As the piece I posted suggests, we need to radically re-think systems themselves. It's not enough to change elements or players, a true solution is going to require changing goals. Is that going to be painful? Probably. Is it going to be less painful than maintaining the status quo? Probably not.

"...ignored the capitalist context." 

To the contrary, this essay directly challenges the capitalist context. It doesn't even go as far as to provide a utopian vision, it simply makes the case that we need to be searching outside of the current context to find those solutions, and we currently (for the most part) aren't.

 "Capitalism is interconnected to many of these freedoms" 

I'd say not inherently, but only because we've set up a structure that makes it so. Again I'd point to the current running through the essay of a failure of imagination among the systems that so far structure our society. It's the water we swim in, but that doesn't mean other bodies of water are unswimmable. The first obstacle to overcome is the inability to see that we are in water. 

The reductionist idea of permanently fixing a word and then using at as a binary is really frustrating. It means that discourse is all but impossible, since nuance cannot affect a monolith. Capitalism is just a neat, tidy, and short way of saying a bunch of long winded stuff about a system, it's not a fixed thing unto itself. It's just a word, and the meaning can shift.

Quickly jumping in to support the effort tduds is making to have a better discussion in this thread. I'm following, but don't have much time to devote to it at the moment. 

I will say I'm noticing some parallels with the architecture and capitalism discussion so I'll just throw these out there ... the argument for addressing climate change is not the opposite of fossil fuels is no fossil fuels. 

The argument also is not the opposite of fossil fuels is alternatives to fossil fuels. That would be too reductionist and binary. 

The argument might better be thought of as the opposite to energy dependence and burning of fossil fuels to provide that energy is reducing energy use and using alternative sources to provide that energy.

I also think that can play into the larger discussion of capitalism if the dependence on energy as a way to drive GDP and growth is addressed through direct challenges to that economic system.

There's a strange and satisfying irony in that I'm more engaged and interested with jla on ignore than I was before.

I recently re-read a great book: Donella Meadow's "Thinking in Systems" (https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/thinking-in-systems/) that you'd probably enjoy. I think it's useful here in understanding that "capitalism" itself might not be the root problem, but rather the goal we've defined for the system to pursue - which is infinite growth measured by GDP. 

The essay I linked above touches on this as well: "Most definitions of mainstream economics are based on some version of Lionel Robbin’s 1932 definition as the ‘efficient allocation of scarce resources’. The answer to scarcity coupled with people’s presumed desire for more is, of course: keep producing stuff. Not surprisingly, the guiding star for success, of both policymakers and economists around the world, is a crude, if convenient metric – GDP – that does nothing but indiscriminately count final output (more stuff), independent of whether it’s good or bad, whether it creates wellbeing or harm, and notwithstanding that its ongoing growth is unsustainable." 

I don't know if I'd agree that capitalism is "a necessary feature of a free society", as you say, but I get what you're getting at. I think dismantling capitalism is *a* (not *the*) solution, but I also think re-defining the goal of capitalism is *a* solution. Most importantly, and as I think the essay attempts to illustrate, the dominant proposed "solutions" so far fail to do either of these things, and so they are unlikely to solve the problems created by the goal.

Changing the inputs without changing the goal will simply result in the new inputs being used to achieve the same goal. If the goal is the problem, the problem will persist.

I'd like to have a job where I can work for the benefit of my mind and my mental health instead of for a representational currency so I can buy shit.

I can't read that.

I'd contend we currently have monopolies on innovation. Dominant corporations are buying competitors and absorbing emerging technologies, either to increase their dominance or to "catch and kill" anything that might threaten their status. These monopolies arise from a lack of oversight, from regulation already removed. The fix isn't to further de-regulate but to actually enforce anti-trust laws in order to allow an actual competitive marketplace. Capital, like water, will flow into a single pool without a redistributive feedback loop.

"some pro-capitalists believe it will allow us to create an overabundance of wealth to the point where everyone will benefit from it." 

Similarly, I think this abundance already exists, but it's too unequally distributed. The future is here for those who can afford it. If people could learn to be happy with "enough", everyone could at least subsist. I'm not sure the best mechanism, but a combination of "force" (aka progressive taxation) and "culture" (a shift in the idea of success that moves away from infinite accumulation as a goal) would probably do more good than bad.

Because your reaction is emotionally drive.

without an alternative to the thing causing the problems it’s a useless discussion.

It’s presenting an alternative outcome/vision without going into the mechanics of how to get there.

lOvE aNd InNoVaTiOn WiLl PrEvAiL aNd SaVe Us

degradation (e.g. environmental destruction), violence (e.g. "innovation" of nuclear weapons, something that could objectively wipe out the entire human race) and exploitation (e.g. chinese workers committing suicide at alarming rates in order to meet the insane quotas for cheap iphones) have also been steadily evidenced in conjunction with innovation. it's a double edged sword. this is not to say that innovation is completely bad, of course it has had loads of benefits, but to claim that "love and innovation," through capitalism, only produce beneficial outcomes is naive. history runs in waves, perhaps this version of capitalism, or the system in general, has run its course.

one thing that can't be argued that is if we continue on the path of pure industrial capitalism, the future for us is not long.

this is not to say that innovation is completely bad, of course it has had loads of benefits

typically i would never feel the need to say something so basic as this, but considering who we're speaking with, it's important to remind everyone that most in this discussion don't see the world in strict binaries of "good vs bad" or "love vs hate" etc

I mean, holy shit there are truck drivers listening to 3 hour pod casts about quantum mechanics, history, etc.

surprising coming from a supposed libertarian humanist. what good are podcasts if you're required, thanks to ruthlessly efficient economic system, to sit on your ass for hours on end, alienated from other humans (which, in person, are a better medium for the exchange of knowledge)?

you're putting the cart before the horse- i think it's a little perverse to celebrate an "enlightenment" of knowledge that is predicated on a physical and spiritual degradation of the individual. (i know you'll claim it was just their "choice," to which much of modern life and its occupations could be compared, but i'm moving on.)

Liberated knowledge distributed via a fully owned system which can be turned off the moment someone doesn't pay a corporation for hosting, licensing, etc. doesn't sound so liberated to me.

typical, twisting my words into something i'm not saying at all. i said nothing about not working or unemployment, but responded to the specific job you mentioned, and how that specific job is literally physically dehumanizing (talk to any trucker and they'll tell you how unhealthy their job is).

will you ever change?

I clicked a button and he started making complete sense.

following your lead.

"dehumanizing to earn a living and support a family" 

That's frequently the exchange, yes.

I'm more optimistic about peoples' ability to define their own purpose, given the freedom of stability and sustenance to do so. Truck driving is, for many, not a "purpose." Coal mining is not a "purpose." (I'm sure exceptions exist but lets recognize they're exceptions.) Though many obviously have pride in their work, that work is a means of survival. People protest losing coal mining /truck driving jobs not because they love coal mining and truck driving, but because they love eating food and having a roof over their heads, and there are no alternatives built into our system for them to have the latter without the former.

Labor *can be* more than a paycheck, but for many it is not.

"The act of working/sacrificing/providing, is rewarding and fulfilling" 

Again it *can be* but isn't inherently or universally. Moreso, the act of working on / for / towards something you believe in, are passionate about, and find fulfilling is certainly more rewarding than staffing the Drive Thru at McDonalds or the checkout at WalMart. To flip your "innovation" point on its head: How much innovation is stifled because people's time and effort is sapped by bullshit jobs? How many more ideas could flourish if peoples' basic needs were met, freeing them to work on their passions? I think you're over-estimating the satisfaction of non-career work and under-estimating the self-motivation of the average person.

You mentioned elsewhere that you favor UBI. My reasoning above is what drives my support for UBI. Not sure where the disconnect is with your reasoning here.

Anecdotally relevant to the discussion is a recent podcast episode from NPR's Planet Money, "Big Rigged." It's hard to feel like you have purpose if you can't make ends meet and you feel like you've been exploited ... yet this is an example of capitalism at its finest, no?

"UBI + capitalism is good, and that the safety net will definitely create a crisis of purpose for some others who will fill the free time with destructive behaviors, which I’m also ok letting people have the freedom to do." Ok, we agree, I think.

EA, looking forward to listening to that episode, but no doubt by the description, it's a perfect example of what unchecked capitalism will do to every job (aside from the few "luxury" positions): degrade it through an attack on protections and eventually compensation and overall well-being, resulting in the absurd position that one must go in to debt to be a truck driver.

Well there's a gross oversimplification of equilibrium if I ever saw one.

Worth emphasizing that long term stability of large systems often includes painful over-corrections. In the case of animal self interest you're looking at habitat degradation, prey population collapse, mass extinctions, to say nothing of external factors like invasive species or natural disaster (or long term climate change). 

"Stability" is a slippery term depending on your time horizon. Stability over centuries doesn't mean much to the people who will be born, live, and die during an unstable set of decades. To reduce the very real ability of human intelligence to influence systems to a concept of natural oscillation is to ignore the effect - positive or negative - that human influence has already inflicted upon the lives of billions. 

More simply put: We can rise above the cruel amorality of the natural world. In many ways we already have.

" The idea that self-interest is the only motivation for business is completely wrong and overly cynical." 

Good thing nobody said that, then.

"Business" and "Capitalism" are different words with different meanings.

You just don't want to admit I'm right.

worth a read

https://www.amazon.com/Curse-Bigness-Antitrust-New-Gilded/dp/0999745468

i hope the irony of providing a link for this book to be purchased on amazon is intentional.

Tangentially I'm a couple hundred pages into Moxon's novel "The Revisionaries" and it's amazing. I hope it can maintain this brilliance to the end.

"We have power drunken pirates sailing the ship, and their compass is possibly broken." 

"More often, especially if the destination is an ambitious one, or the path is long, there are challenges and setbacks and unforeseen difficulties. The route went off-plan, requiring delays and divergences and detours. Corrections." 

These are similar statements.

Also a good quote relevant to your point: "It’s OK to point out that the navigation is off. But when one does so to close off or delay questions of coordinated movement, then it’s the magic trick. Leadership disguised as governance. A compass statement disguised as navigation."

oops

I see this travelling down well-worn rhetorical paths. If we, as a species, decided to put people's well-being ahead of money, power, and control, we probably wouldn't need to have the difficult conversation that boils down to "You're too old, time to retire." But we don't. We put money, power, and control on a pedestal. Keep moving upwards (a direction measured against an anti-human baseline metric, natch) or get fired, marginalized, and relegated to the pile of trash humans who don't "strive" enough.

Side note, I only just noticed you can indeed reply to comment threads that have been most recently commented on by an ignored member. Just go back to the original comment and click reply.

read this as well. not sure it's the biggest problem, but definitely a big one. term limits, please.

good to know about replying, i've been wondering how to get around this... has been worth it though, as architnect once again feels like a sane space.

tduds' patience is enviable.

I'm just occasionally very distractable. Don't envy this.

Why?

Who?

I don't like his eyebrows.

I'll finish out the questioning: What? Where? When? How?

i thought ppl would recognize him. he shows up whenever i log into procore

I miss procore. I'm doing CA on two projects entirely over email. My inbox is a disaster.

sounds x-rated

Hard to see one pixel amongst the noise these days.

i'm too tired

They knew as well

Oh shut the fuck up.

The Democratic / liberal / progressive / left resistance to Republicans / conservatives / right is based in the policies they pursue and the world they have created with the power they've gained. The sole remaining motivation of the right is to make the left mad. They're not the same you obtuse dolt.

Hey look it's even in the damn op-ed I posted: "“But Democrats hate conservatives, too!” you might say. Indeed they do. Negative partisanship — being more motivated by your dislike of the other party than by affection for your own — is a key feature of contemporary politics. But when 18 Republican state attorneys general, more than half of House Republicans and multiple conservative organizations all demand that the results of a presidential election where no fraud was found be simply tossed aside so that Trump can be declared winner, something more profound has been revealed."

btw Trump *did* win. It was only four years ago. Surprising you don't remember the extremely peaceful and dignified transfer of power that happened then. 

You're free to disagree with both parties, but to pretend they're even remotely equal just grants quarter to some of the worst assaults on democracy itself in this country in your or my lives. Just because this coup is quixotic and unwinnable and mostly a money-scam doesn't make it less of an attempted coup. 

You're not above it, you're growing complicit. And we're noticing.

Here's the chariman of the Texas GOP - not some random extremist but a *high ranking party official* - advocating for secession.

“ And had Trump won, there would not be any commitment to democracy, or civilization for that matter from the left.” They had months of practice, no reason to think they would magically stop rioting and looting just because their preferred candidate would have lost...

I'm sorry, but j-laxative, you're high af, and severely damaged.

Ok, Republicans go first.

Pretending both sides are "fake" and "equally bad" ignores the fact that one policital party - not a fringe group, but literally hundreds of elected and appointed officials up to & including the sitting president of the United States - is actively seeking to overthrow the results of a free and fair election, and the other is not. 

I'm not arguing against Republicans from the perspective of a Democrat. I'm arguing against authoritarianism and tyranny from the perspective of an American. How fucking dare you immediately derail a point about this by insisting we acknowledge the imperfections of "the other side" WHILE AT THE SAME TIME accusing me of whataboutism.

This isn't even really about ideology anymore, I'm annoyed at you - specifically and personally. You jump into every conversation and demand the topic bend to whatever idiot whim you farted out that morning and thought brilliant. You argue from this position of elevated remove, yet curiously only seem to get your proverbial knickers in a twist when it involves whining about "the left". You make conversations impossible. Every post you comment on devolves quickly into you making outlandish statements or wild misinterpretation and then everyone else expending the sum of our efforts trying to clarify and un-nitpick. It's exhausting, You're exhausting. And I dunno, maybe if you're reminded of that more often you'll gain a little self awareness and control. Or maybe not. Whatever. I've said my peace. Bye.

How do we “like” that more than once?

Fucking spot on for the “conservative” apologists

Only the Republicans are currently trying to overthrow democracy. Either try to convince us they aren't or shut the fuck up already. 

Your opinion is wrong.

"They...absolutely abused power to “overthrow democracy” these past 4 years." 

Counterpoint - no they didn't. 

They...absolutely abused power to “overthrow democracy” these past 4 years.

How so?

I mean they used the Constitution, so there's that. Which is totally illegal.

Dipshit.

Not to mention, but to mention, but the FBI is filled with career agents that have worked for Republicans and Democrats and are largely independent, except for the Fat Orange Shitgibbon.

I'm calling out what I see as at attempted authoritarian coup by elected Republicans. I'm not "defending" democrats except to point out that they are *not* doing this . You're the one insisting on talking about Democrats in a thread about Republicans, for reasons I don't understand but that are plainly interpreted as derailing Republican criticism. 

If I'm an "apologist for the establishment", you're an apologist for fascists. See what I said about about you being an annoying little shit. It's a shame you've chosen to double down on it.

For someone so obsessed with being third party you're really insistent that anyone calling out Republican shenanigans must be defending Democrats.

For someone so obsessed with "Biased Media" you sure love to lean on the Wall Street Journal more often than not.

It's frankly comical how smart you think you are while consistently missing the point and exhibiting the very biases and flaws you foist upon the rest of us. At least I *know* my biases.

Now please either defend the Republican actions, agree that what they're doing is arguably seditious, or sit the fuck down and let the adults talk.

To avoid accusations of partisanship, here is a (now former) Republican saying what I said: https://twitter.com/RepPaulMitchell/status/1338599898141356034

So close.

tduds, he just can't help himself. You're way too patient but I thank you for your efforts in calling out his hypocrisy.

He'd be very disappointed in you.

I like drink tduds

*drunk (no, I’m not drunk, just sleep deprived)

"I like drink" -tduds

I like. Drink tduds!

Tduds is more cogent while drunk than you are while cold sober, xlax. Let that sink in a bit.

In all fairness I've had a lot of practice.

Every thread here is a virtual bar thread

I can't help but read this in light of Biden & the democrats' "Trump out" campaign...interesting read nonetheless.

Yeah I think there was some real progressive momentum going into 2018 but for reasons I don't entirely understand it just disappeared in 2020.

in certain parts of the country, yes. it continues to grow in others (here in nyc we elected a solid group of progressives)

Stanton about to lose his record. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/26/where-jeff-sessions-currently-ranks-among-historys-shortest-serving-attorneys-general/)

"Meanwhile, rumors are swirling about growing rifts between Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and national security adviser H.R. McMaster." Oh the decorum of 2017, how quaint.

Might not lose his record since the new guy will just be "acting".

Totally obvious that someone from the justice dept will not find anything wrong with how their own agency operates. Should use outside investigators for that [/folds tin hat]

You mean the justice department that ran this, under Trump? Or did you mean the independent investigation "performed" and then misinterpreted by AG Barr, to fit Trump's narrative?

yes

That was a good little essay.

Did you read the article or just the screencap?

On a related note, does anyone here follow Dr Heather Cox Richardson? She's a brilliant historian who has been putting today's events in context almost daily all year. Her 12/30 post is partly about the rise of knee-jerk libertarianism, where people think they should be allowed to do whatever the frack they want. https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson

The responsible adults of our society need to determine what is realistic. Currently we have a bunch of selfish toddlers pulling the strings. Believe it or not, not all of us think that we should all be allowed to do whatever we want, whenever we want--our actions have consequences.

"Why shouldn’t you be able to do whatever you want as long as it’s not violating anyone’s right" 

Frequently because what people want to do *does* violate other's rights/freedoms, but not in immediately obvious or direct ways. It's a similar sleight-of-hand as the 'equality of opportunity/outcome' debate (in which many attempts at equalities of opportunity are incorrectly labeled as 'outcome' and dismissed on that false label)  We either consciously or subconsciously dismiss the externalities and second- / third-order effects of the things we love. We either pretend our behavior is harmless or remain blind to evidence of these harms our behaviors mostly because "I like it and I want it." 

We're all guilty of this, to some extent, myself very much included. It's human nature. A good system would account for the unwillingness and/or inability for every individual to consider every externality of their personal behavior, and put guard-rails up to prevent both accidental and intentional violations.

"What’s too rich?"
1 billion dollars. 

"That’s a very subjective parameter."
It sure is but you gotta start somewhere.

Ok.

Nobody should be able to lose a million dollars all at once (bad investment, charitable donation, etc) and still be a millionaire.

I agree that it's bad to execute people for having bread, and it's also bad for people to hoard billions while others starve. I think allowing 999 million dollars is a very generous compromise for the time being.

Since we're *into it now*, lets revisit the OP. 

"You and the author are presenting a moral argument- that her house is too big." 

If you read the article, you'd realize that no - this is not the argument. 

"A little bread, a little charity, an occasional glimpse of a private art hoard — these are the ways the ultra-rich have justified themselves throughout history. In the case of Sen. Loeffler, the veil of noblesse oblige has worn thinner now that she and her husband have fully entered public life." 

The thesis of the article - as you're so fond of claiming - is to point out the hypocrisy.

You asked "How rich is too rich?" I gave what I thought was a good jumping off point. If you think the correct amount is different, feel free to actually participate in the conversation you started. 

Peaceful redistribution is generous compared to violent redistribution. If history has taught us anything, it's that the aristocracy eventually meets one of those two endings.

I'm more optimistic than that.

There's a circularity here in which you're complaining about the current government that results from the influence of money, while insisting that the people with money who created such a government are good and should be left to continue doing this.

.

Hot take: Gov't is accountable to The People, business is accountable to shareholders. If money is going to have to go through shady characters (something arguably addressable with elected pols ... though Citizens United is not helpful with this), I'd rather have the shady characters be accountable to people based on the voting public rather than just accountable to people with money.

Also, The People trying to hold business accountable get criticized for "cancel culture" and "virtue signaling."

There's nothing circular about it. Like EA said - government is (or should be) accountable to the people. They're elected. I think a lot of anti-gov & anti-tax sentiment is based in the (fatalistic, imo) idea that the government is an "other" who takes money and keeps it, rather than "us" who receives money and redistributes it according to our lawfully agreed upon needs & priorities. Contrary to that, my point is that billionaire philanthropy relies on an altruism that can be revoked at any time with no explanation or consequence. Public social safety nets are protected by statute. Like I said, I'm optimistic. The elements of the system we have at the moment are broken, but the system itself is reformable. A starting point, but surely not the only necessary action, is to address both economic inequality and the outsized influence of money in politics.

Give examples.

Government has also solved a lot injustices and problems caused by business and I don’t really see where business is solving any of the problems caused by government ... but keep dreaming, ok?

Should probably be some soft air quotes around "solved" in my statement above, but that's also a byproduct of business interest and money in politics I think. 

Did the Civil Rights Act "solve" civil injustices and discrimination ... no, but it sure made some steps in the right direction. Does the Fair Labor Standards Act and the National Labor Relations Act (and others) "solve" exploitive practices of businesses and employers ... no, but it guarantees a lot of rights the free market wasn't and would probably never get to. 

What injustices has business solved?

I'm sorry I meant specific examples. I'll start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

That's a pretty narrow understanding of the world ... and you know it. 

BTW, for your comment about fixing problems they created to focus on creating other problems ... mafia = government or business?

So, no examples then. Got it.

LOL, the stimulus package is the way it is because of business interests pulling the puppet strings attached to McConnell's and other politicians' hands. Liability protections? ... anyone? ... anyone? ... Bueller?

tduds, no examples, hyperbole with the vampires comment, and deflection with the mafia comment. Waiting for changing the subject next. Or was that in the amen and awoman comment?

My takeaway from this is that what billionaires do with their money is none of my concern and also good, and when they use their money to elect a government who cater to their interests it's the government's fault.

An elected government being both a reflection of and accountable to our society (or a sliver of it, in many cases) simply means it will reflect the values that society projects. Be it racism, slavery, or rapacious exploitative industrialism, we get what we allow. The government didn't invent slavery, they enacted the will of the population who demanded it (as well as later enacting the will of the population who demanded its abolition). Like I said above, assuming these realities would never have occurred if not for "the government" is fatalistic.

"Without government, the oppressed would have had a greater chance at rebellion no?" 

The Tulsa Massacre, among many *many* other events, would suggest otherwise.

Still no examples, btw. I put up 2.

You're also saying there would have been greater opportunity for the oppressed to rebel and overcome the oppression if there was no government. When in the history of the world has that ever been the case? Specific examples please.

Somewhat related to a thing I wrote a couple years back: 

The post-WW2 global order was (for better or worse) almost entirely based on the premise that the US / UK will give a shit. In return, the US / UK benefitted immensely from the status quo. I'm not saying the US/UK imposed order was necessarily good, or that the goal should be to return to it. I'm simply saying that this is a systemic failure - one baked into the system from the start - and *something* needs to exist in its place, because a vacuum quickly descends into despotism and war.

The people currently in charge are the first generation to have no memory of the world before this order was imposed, and they massively underestimated the natural instability of it's existence. We began to see the maintenance cost of this system not as an investment from which we massively benefited, but as a tax imposed, for which we are not thanked enough. 

It only took a small disinformation campaign by powers who stand to benefit from the disintegration of the system to convince the US and UK to shrug off their duties and turn inward. 

What we're witnessing now are the first pieces of a crumbling infrastructure that we wrongly assumed was the default state. It's what the world becomes when the people charged with giving a shit forgot they needed to.

I rarely am ;)

Lot of good "outsider trading" jokes on twitter today.

Yeah, most are about how she’ll end up the winner when it comes out that she bought a bunch of stock in Warnock before the election.

you think she bet against herself.?

I mean there was a small part of me that was hoping for it ... but I did not expect it realistically.

I think most of us formed a protective shell around the GA election. A pleasant surprise indeed.

i thought for sure warnock would win, was concerned about ossoff. but what a start to the year.

Economic crash was going to happen regardless of the outcome of this or the Nov elections. Has more to do with a stock bubble that is going to burst. But yeah, my guess is before the end of the year for sure. Republicans will likely blame Democrats for it and will likely win handsomely in 2022.

Everyone knows there's a big lever in the white house that makes the stocks go up or down.

Time to get as much done as fast as possible.

I'm not all that knowledgeable about economics, but I wonder if there is an argument to be made that part of what is propping up the bubble is the emergency lending programs the Fed introduced early in the pandemic. The same ones the most recent stimulus bill prevents them from taking again thanks to Pat Toomey. [Shrugs shoulders]

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1346902396937535488

The far right is about to learn - the hard way - that cops are instruments of state power & not their pals.

.

That twitter feed is something special. And you guys still want to be considered a super power? Anyways, how many are wearing masks in that mob?

"Insurrection" by definition is violent bro

Coo

Those are some “very fine people”...what a day!

For the record, no one ever said jla wouldn't condemn the mob, just that they don't want to hear jla say "both sides are equal" again. This is NOT equal to BLM protests. This is is much worse than BLM protests.

.

It's a tired response at this point ... but why would the cops fire bomb their own cars?

Someone was shot inside the US Capitol.

If, so some bizarre reason, it was Biden supporters storming the capital, Trump supporters would be calling for mass culling of everyone involved.

.

Looking real tough with those aviator shades tucked into your ammo vest... and sporting a new red iphone.  Funny thing, walk into any gov building north of your border carrying a silly pistol like this wanker and you will be shot down but it's just an everyday occurrence in the "land of the free".   

Click page to page 4 of this thread and you can find where archi_dude and jla were more worried about left-wing rioters after the election.

I occasionally forget archi_dude is an obnoxious fascist enabler but thankfully he reminds us from time to time.

Don't make me get the dril tweet.

No, you showed up in every thread pointing out the long Republican slide into fascism to bitch about Democrats & derail the thread. And you're doing it again, in the middle of a literal fucking coup attempt. Get fucked.

"I'd be happy with fascism if it was peaceful"

Did somebody ask for words coming out of a mouth from page 4?

Peaceful Fascism, new christian-rock punk band?

So when I said that you were more worried about left-wing rioters back on page 4, also completely true then. I didn't put any words in your mouth that weren't your own.

"The left is more unhinged," "more likely to go nuts in the streets than boomers with maga fanny packs," "more likely to engage in mob behavior."

would have, could have, should have.... all meaningless assumptions with no supporting evidence. Anyone jump the Whitehouse fence carrying Hillary banners back in 2016?

Why does every forum or web community have that one guy who's rabidly one-sided but protests loudly about being the only unbiased person around?

Pete I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice that. If you have to tell everyone how unbiased you are, maybe you aren't as unbiased as you think...

Frankly, I don't really care anymore about blanket condemnation of "riots and violence" but rather about condemning or condoning what they're in service of.

What gets me is - as I've said before - this sort of forced binary between "Trump and his people" and "Biden and his people." This is not about Republicans v. Democrats or really even the right vs. the left. It's about anti-trump, anti-fascist forces vs. pro-Trump, pro-fascist forces. There is simply no equivalent within the Democratic leadership. Today's events - whatever you want to call them - were carried out quite explicitly at the behest of, and in support of, Donald Trump. Had Trump won, there would have been protests against Trump, but not *for* Biden. One side is protesting against authoritarianism, the other side is protesting in favor of it. They are not the same. 

Fuck you. Piece of shit. You'd defend the King's Tea, your garbage take, human disease.

What's ultimately disgusting, you privileged fucking muppet, is that you think people, Black fucking People, demanding to be treated with fucking decency, and never getting it, and looting stuff, is morally equivalent to what occurred today. You're basically saying "things" are "people" are "democracy". You're bullshit Libertarian infantilism can suck my modest 6" cock.

You dumb fuck. The police station is still standing, I drive by it every fucking day. You stupid punk. Plus it was burned by Boogaloo Bois.

Your head is consistently up your ass. Go take care of your wife, covidiot.

To add a humorous (not really) note, there were 2 parallel pro-trump rallies in, the totally the opposite of trumpanistan, Candada today. A few dozen people (literally) in both toronto and calgary, some wearing army/armour and distributing covid and flyers. The funny part is the one US site I saw with coverage claimed the Toronto protestors marched to the US Embassy... which clearly is a surprise to me since the embassy building is about 2 football fields (cfl regulation fields, please) away from my office... in downtown Ottawa some 500+km (about this many miles) away. Made me chuckle for half a communist second until I realized how sad these people are. The media obviously meant to say the Consulate General building, but then that probably means they would need to explain the difference to their audience and as today has shown, education is not particularly popular.

PEOPLE OVER PROPERTY

You mealy mouthed piece of shit.

beta, unless it's MY property... /s

x-jla, are you seriously equating BLM and anti-fascist protests with what happened at the capitol building today?
Go fuck yourself.

the fact that xlax down-voted my post shows everything you need to know: he's a fascist masquerading as a libertarian. you know you have a problem when you can't unequivocally condemn a coup without reverting to the cult of both-sidesism (which, let us not forget, is one of trump's favorite moves)

says "they are not equal" and then IMMEDIATELY follows with "they are both.. both.. both.." the gaslighting far right/trump tactics continue.

you are either not very bright or a disingenuous troll. probably a combination of both.

gaslighting... not bright... there is a pun in here somewhere but can't quite put my finger on it. Someone care to shine some light on this point?

For the record, it was square. who first said he didn't want to hear jla say both sides are equal. I was just pointing out that jla missed that when he transformed that into an assertion that he wouldn't condemn the mob. Still something no one said jla wouldn't do. 

Also for the record, there is a difference between simply condemning something and unequivocally condemning something. While jla has shown willingness to condemn the mob and the coup attempt, he has not been able to unequivocally condemn it. 

Finally, let the record also reflect that in addition to accusations of dimness and disingenuousness from others, EA is also accusing jla of poor reading comprehension.

poor is generous.

i've noticed that when you're losing, you often resort to repeating what others just said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Edit: mostly for the record. Also hoping that jla might read it and learn something, but not holding out hope (ibid. poor reading comprehension)

x-lax is incapable of learning. x-lax is a waste of responses. can we ALL just put him on ignore? Then he won't bitch about unfair suppression of his precious rights and the rest of us can have civil discourse without being derailed by his drivel EVERY FUCKING TIME. Christ on a crutch, there are better ways to spend time than providing context, nuance, and facts for whatever poor, brain dead fucks might fall for his brand of bullshit. 

yep, no false equivalencies here *rolls eyes*: 

"They are both capable of despicable behavior of their own brand. Both are degenerative manifestations of American politics, and both are being used and exploited by political elites and media cronies"

taking your suggestions SP. i lifted the ban to see what his depraved ass would say about the coup.. no change, and if any, deeper into the cesspool. pathetic.

you could have at least aligned the text with the button labels correctly in your meme above...

I didn't make it!

Based on the clips I saw it was a rioter who got shot in the chest and died, but it wasn't clear who shot her.

I'm aware of that. It's still a murder and it appears to be a direct result of the violence the Trump supporters are committing.  

I could be incorrect though.

oh wait not murda... she was shot by capital police

Actually it's considered murder until the police review the shooting and determine it was justified.

Also at the time of my posting the details of the shooting where not known.

jla, we'll remember this next time to try to justify the 2A nonsense for self-defense.

jla, one person with a knife is not the same threat-level as a mob with firearms. I wrote it above here somewhere, break into my gov's buildings brandishing a weapon and you will be taken down, in less than lethal methods preferably, by a very apologetic RCMP officer.. Why this mob was not stopped at the gates is a more important point tho.

"Praising" police? Clearly your ability to understand what you're watching is in line with your inability to grasp reality. Every news organization I watched was excoriating the Capitol PD, FBI, DHS. They failed, miserably.

I'm guessing that you missed what happened this past year, and last night.

jla, if anything deserves a militarized police defense, should it not be your main government headquarters? M'erica, look at how tough we are, flying bombers over a football game and whatnot, yet we can't keep our own house from getting sacked by a bunch of wankers.

If this bullshit leads to the fucking police getting MORE militarized, I'm gonna be PISSED.

Listen, choad, police tear gassed peaceful protestors, shot rubber bullets at press, shot gas canisters in the face of bystanders, and took offensive positions on rooftops. Not to mention were found t o congregate, and found brotherhood WITH Proud Boys. Yesterday, they let terrorists sache into the capital. They took selfies. So fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you and my moral inconsistent take, you are a child. I'll say what others have said; we don't demand that cops start shooting people, but that cops start treating Black people like white people were treated yesterday.

You third rate chump.

I actually picked the right day to stay home with a hangover. They did this to themselves and I have zero sympathy.

not pictured: snow, hockey sticks, maple syrup.

It's interesting to hear the right now saying that the police over reacted and the officer should be charged with the murder of someone who's only crime was practicing their first amendment rights.

She committed a laundry list of crimes. Does that justify her death? What if she was selling loose cigarettes?

was it not that already pre yesterday's ridiculousness? I can put in a good word for you with JustinT up here. I'm sure he'll open a gap in the border long enough for you, and a few bottles of burb, to sneak in.

Maybe, I could excuse an Italian fascist if they can make a decent pizza with pineapple tho.

No Italian since the beginning of time ever put pineapple on a pizza...

The Italian at the pizza joint near my house does. QED.

The joint, not a pizza joint, but an Italian restaurant does an amazing vegan with pineapple za.

^do tell, what is their substitute for ham? The real secret to a good pineapple za is a spicy sauce.

it's better.

No ham, just pineapple with a spicy pepper deal and red sauce

Yes the culture needs to change. It needs to stop trying to equate protests over basic human rights, with an armed insurrection at your capitol building.

gold star for this comment.

My only note ... the reality TV star has no honor. I'd be happier if you added an adjective like "perceived," "imagined," "self-assumed," etc. in front of the word honor. Still gold star work.

In this same vein of 'on-brand Americanism,' there was a tweet I saw yesterday (but can't seem to find again so I'll paraphrase poorly) pointing out that one wondering if we have to still work our jobs through the attempted coup is pretty 'on-brand American' as well.

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/Wn7qhj3

Pretty sure that was the one, thanks randomised

I came closer to the ignore button this morning than ever before.

Done.

I'm sure what you posted is thoughtful, logical, nuanced, eloquent, and truthful. Not to mention factual. 

But I don't care to read it. 

You'll think I'm doing this out of fear. I am not. 

You don't listen to cancer. You don't debate a tumor. You do not reason with a virus. You eradicate it. Since I am not the owner of this site, the way I do that is with the ignore button. So move along, little infection. You aren't making me sick anymore.

said this above but.. taking your suggestions SP. i lifted the ignore to see what his depraved ass would say about the coup.. no change, and if any, deeper into the cesspool. pathetic.

I'm in a couple of Facebook groups for INTP personality types and I swear x-jla is in them--identical arguments, can't let anybody have a different opinion than their version of reality where everyone sucks and will always suck, only they can see the truth. I find that anarchist/nihilist mindset to be very sad, and without imagination.

At least I know I'm in a bubble.

Who said I didn't know I was in a bubble?

Sorry, I was talking at jla. You're cool. We're cool.

he's probably responding to lax

Somewhere in a could-be-a-West-Wing-episode alternate universe, Pence would be president tonight (via unanimous impeachment), appoint President-Elect Biden as VP, and then promptly resign.

Looking like the people who could invoke the 25th are choosing to resign instead of taking the stance. Kind of a shame, really.

still too scared of the base

1. Stormed the Capitol building

2. Encouraged by president to riot

3. Object to lawfully cast ballots and attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters (or are we only talking about the rioters?)

4. Get help to break through the barricades by the police that should have been turning them away.

5. Sit on the daises of the congressional chambers.

6. Carry confederate flags into the capitol building unmolested.

jla's rebuttal so far: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

jla's rebuttal so far:

And this is the last I'll harp on it, please continue.

I can think of one thing the fascists are doing that the anti-fascists are not. Starts with an F...

fucking the dog?

You mean the time that police dragged 40 disabled people out of the Capitol back in 2017 for peacefully protesting the proposed changes to ACA, Medicaid, and insurance subsidies? Yesterday's crowd was treated much nicer.

The Allies also killed people in world war two. Basically no difference between them and the Nazis.

Investigating and impeaching the president are not the same as voting against acceptance of duly appointed and certified electors, which if successful would have nullified the votes of millions and spat upon states' rights as apportioned by the constitution. 

Nothing you've alluded to, or will be able to present, is the same as #1 either.

"# 3 was pretty much all they did for 4 years" 

So you believe an elected president should be entirely above the law and unaccountable for their actions while president. Thanks for clarifying.

Just stop. You're allowed to say nothing.

7. Called the Georgia Sec. of State asking him to "find" enough votes to change the results of an election (not yesterday, but close enough if jla is also looking at the past 4 years rather than just the past year as he established at the beginning of his game).

How many of those other buildings were the literal houses of a branch of government during the precise moment they were being used to certify and count the results of a democratic election? 

"bUT thEY TriED tO stORm ThE WHiTE HouSE" doesn't count, because as you pointed out "[unsuccessful] because greater police presence and barricades."

LOL, "too site specific" ... nice that you get to make up whatever rules you want to in the game, no?

That is not a fact. Even if it were true (it isn't), it is not a fact by any definition of the word. Interpretation at best. You want to be pedantic? I'll out-pedant you in my sleep, motherfucker.

If you think all violence is deplorable regardless of intent or justification, I've got some rough news about the foundation of our country.

jla over here maintaining allegiance to King George in order to keep a consistent stance against violence.

^ you kidding tduds!?! I've got some rough news about some people that were here before the British.

Regarding #1, I believe I wrote CAPITOL BUILDING, not random federal buildings. Somewhat equivalent, sure, but not the same. I don't recall seeing anything about a liberal mob taking over the floor, breaking windows and stealing things from the CAPITOL BUILDING, but maybe I missed something.

#1 never said "attacking federal buildings." That is the result of the mental gymnastics you're doing to try to save face. 

Attacking the building that serves as the seat of the legislative branch during the process to certify a democratic election are unique to the right. That they did so upon encouragement of the fascist leader of the executive branch who lost that democratic election is the definition of a coup. So ... 

8. Attempted coup.

9. Left pipe bomb at the RNC headquarters.

l o fucking l

This is a fun game in which actual events are compared to or substituted for jla's hypotheticals based on whether or not they reinforce jla's thesis.

Antifa used them on political party headquarters? And just so we're clear, are these actual explosive devices or the candles that the Seattle PD claimed were explosive devices?

"if you believe [...] the left wouldn’t have been morally capable of doing the same minus excessive police presence then give yourself a shiny point." 

Since they had apparently four years to try and they never did, I'll take the shiny point. For making the game and changing the rules as needed, you seem to be losing a lot at this game.

I warned you...

"Almost Every point you’ve brought up has a left wing version." 

Even if that were true (and it's not), you've still conceded the following points: #1, #2, and #4. But since it's not true and your mental gymnastics aren't enough to convince anyone but yourself for #3, #8, and #9 ... I'm claiming points for those too. 

Also since you've had ample opportunity to refute #7, but haven't yet ... I'm claiming a point for it as well. 

Finally, in the sake of fair gamesmanship, I'm also deciding that you can't make up rules like you don't think an item "counts" unilaterally, nor that an item is "too site specific," so we get points for #5 and #6. 

So that makes the score *checks notes* nine for us and zero for you. Thanks for playing.

Hmm, let's check the rules you set up for the compare and contrast game ... 

"Let’s play a game. Name things that the right wing nuts did yesterday that the left wing nuts haven’t this past year." 

As suspected, it said nothing in there to limit the game to the mobs. Trump is a right wing nut and should be fair game. I mentioned earlier it's a bit of a stretch because it wasn't done yesterday ... but then again you're reaching back 4 years rather than just this past year so ... ?

You were already using that in your rebuttals that aren’t convincing to anyone but yourself. So it’s still 9-0.

10. Got Facebook and Twitter to suspend Trump’s accounts. The left wing nuts have been trying, but it was the right wing nuts that were successful.

No, that's exactly how you compare and contrast things in order to show the similarities and differences ... bro. YOUR point is that they are both stupid and do similar things. MY point is that you keep drawing false equivalencies to support your point. I'm showing that by staying completely within the bounds (things right wing nuts did that left wing nuts have not) you created when you invented the stupid game. Hate the game, not the player.

11. Got that 'more reasonable' member of your family* to stop saying, "you're overreacting," and instead say, "I guess you were right all along." 

*For me it was my sister, my wife's grandfather and his second wife.

I won't post it, but my sister wrote quite a thoughtful Facebook post about how she also changed her party registration (something she held from when she was 18-years-old) and voted a straight ticket for the first time ever last year because she could not stomach what the Republican Party had become. So it's not like #11 came out of nowhere for her, but there was definitely a change in her attitude to what she had considered exaggeration previously ... and that did come about because of Wednesday's attempted coup.

Again what people are calling out is this perverse reflex you have, in which you insist on couching criticism of the right inside of criticism of the left, constructing a false-equivalence between the two. You're incapable of letting a conversation about what after yesterday is a literal attempted coup against democracy stand on its own. I'm not even sure you're smart enough to realize you're doing it, but you are in effect minimizing the horror of an authoritarian uprising by finding superficial similarities with social justice uprisings in order to - what, own the god damn libs? How childish. How completely fucking inane. Knock it off.

Damn. Tduds FTW.

"Stop killing black people" and "Invalidate a democratic election" are not opposite sides of a coin unless you reduce them to a fantastically simple "left/right" binary. Try again, dummy.

The Civil War also arose out of a long and complex degeneration, but I think we can pretty universally agree which side was in the wrong there.

^not if they both used violence.

Narrator: They did both use violence.

I guess it's all the same then.

Narrator: It's not all the same.

"Stop killing black people" and "Invalidate a democratic election" are not opposite sides of a coin"--in one way they are--both sides are people who feel like they are getting the shit end of the stick in a big way. The difference, though, and this is important--is that one side really is getting the shit end of the stick.

Damn Wood! Another FTW.

.

Ted Kaczynski probably believed he was getting the shit end of the stick too. Doesn't mean his actions are comparable to anything we've been talking about today. See false equivalency again.

Wait, hang on ... just figured out another one to add to the list above.

"If an area experiences a wave of robberies and rapes, do we separate the rapes from the robberies or look at the overall crime wave and examine to causes?" 

Do we barge into the conversations of rape victims to yell about the robberies? No, because that would be a real asshole thing to do. Perhaps you see the parallel here.

Just to be perfectly clear, since this is not the first time I've had to say this and you seem to be almost willfully unable to acknowledge it: I'm not *defending* anything, I'm calling out your behavior as obnoxious.

Aren't we all technically victims of subverted democracy?

something tells me xlax is losing hard.

he must have a thing for punishment.

A humiliation fetish would explain so much about the right-libertarian folks I encounter online.

Spewing bullshit ad infinitum and declaring victory when everyone is finally too sick of you to respond seriously is also a tactic I run into a lot online.

last post, I win

I had to go run a webinar--we had the architect, builder and consultant for the second-ever Living Building Challenge house on BS + Beer tonight. Amazing project. Anyway... X-JLA, you are still wrong. There are similarities to the two sides but they are different. I understand the Trumpist side better than you might think. My community is mostly Trumpers and my family is a long line of rednecks on both sides (Scots-Irish, same as Appalachia settlers) and I did not grow up privileged. I could easily be one of them. But I can think critically, have travelled, worked in the building trades and can see to some degree what minorities have to deal with, and it's not the same. It's objectively different. While poor white assholes (again, I'm talking about specific people I know and am related to) feel shat upon, it's 100% their own doing and that of their upbringing. That's not the same as hundreds of years of systemic racism that is not fair to people with skin that's not pale pink. When the motivations are that different, even if the actions look somewhat similar, they are not the same at heart.

Sorry Pete.

It's ok; I still win. See?

There is a perceived class struggle, absolutely. Nobody is systematically trying to keep poor white people poor, except for poor white people.

Look what you've done - in just one day you turned "Hey maybe invading the US Capitol to overthrow democracy is bad" into "Well working class anxiety, global capitalism, bla bla bla" 

You seem to be pathologically, infuriatingly incapable of seeing the trees for the forest. You can't let a point just be a point. You're the “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe” of conversation. Exhausting.

And yet millions of people still manage to simply make a fucking apple pie in a couple of hours.

Anyway, invading the US Capitol to overthrow democracy is bad. I will not be taking questions.

i have him on ignore, but if he is indeed talking about class struggle and working class anxiety, utilizing a definitively marxist perspective, we can finally put to rest that he is a clever troll, and instead confirm that he is a moron.

i posted my original "both sides" post as a final chance for xlax to redeem himself. instead, like much of america, we've seen the true depths of his depravity and lunacy. it's unbelievably pathetic and sad that he can't simply, unequivocally condemn what happened at the capital without resorting to his typical talking points, which, are the exact same points he's been parroting and fetishizing for years.

definition of insanity folks. i encourage everyone to stop giving oxygen to this completely stupid fire.

"Yes, but" NO. NO BUT.

You cannot win because I already won. Winning.

"I can also walk and chew gum." To extend the analogy, I'd suggest in this thread we're trying to chew gum while sitting and you're running in circles bitching that no one is walking. 

I'm running out of different ways to say that I *get* what you're saying, I just think it's derailing a more interesting conversation, which is annoying.

Maybe the better tactic is to just plow ahead with the interesting conversation and simply mute you. Can't say I didn't try.

Giving up on discussing issues with someone is not the same as losing the debate.

What's frustrating is that we are pointing to a tree and saying, "This tree is on fire and it will burn down the entire forest if we don't do anything about it." 

And you are saying, "Yeah, but there are other trees in the forest that are problematic and if left alone might threaten the forest too." 

To which we respond, "Yeah, not disagreeing with that. We can get to those trees later, but right now we have to do something about the one that's on fire in order to save the forest." 

Then you respond, "Yeah, but it's the same thing. They are both threatening the health of the forest." 

And we say, "That's a false equivalency. One is much more of a dire and immediate threat." 

And you say, "They are both threats. It's the same thing. I win." 

And we say, "No, again it's a false equivalency. You're an idiot." 

And you say, "You all know I'm right." 

And we say, "No, you're an idiot."

And then I finally decide to put you on ignore

jla: My galaxy brain is capable of putting events in larger contexts, its your fault if you don't want to do that. 

also jla: HURR HURR BLUE STATES BAD RED STATES GOOD CUZ PPL MOVE

Ok I chuckled. Good one.

A bit of comic relief in these idiocratic times...

rando, so now you are off the Trump bandwagon?

That's funny, but he is catholic, so is that blasphemy?

I’m a big fan of blasphemy.

jla, maybe you need glasses?

More like the disgruntled intern who takes a shit on someone's desk right before he's escorted out of the building by security. Its not really architecture-specific, but more accurate.

More like the principal who deletes the entire project server and quietly walks out of the office shortly before evidence of massive embezzlement is unearthed.

*was an architect.

I hear he's was there to make sure the trads were repping, and the neo-classical didn't get Morphosis'd.

"For me, it's important from the group and the people around me to see that side of things, to see the truth," John Sullivan said Wednesday night. "I don't care, like what side you're on, you should just see it raw." https://www.ksl.com/article/50083768/utah-activist-inside-us-capitol-says-woman-killed-was-first-to-try-to-enter-house-chamber

Half the far-right is trying to paint this as an "Antifa false flag" and the other half of them are posting selfies from in the Capitol Rotunda & bragging about what they did. Can't believe you believed it.

Whaaaaaa?

Did he think they were there to kidnap Trump?

LETS RUN WITH THIS AND IGNORE THE REST GUYS

I mean, obviously this guy is the only person at fault, right? Personal responsibility for everyone who was there is on this guy, right? RIGHT GUYS?

Brought to you by the folks who gave us the One Drop Rule.

Well, if that fucking KKKunt Andy says he's antifa, it must be true.

You're a simp.

If you're cozying up to white nationalists, you're one of them . I don't care what your race is.

What's that you say? You're quitting twitter?

Jla, the problem with your rhetoric is that even though you claim to dislike Trump, a lot of what you say sounds a lot like him. And this is the problem in libertarian thought. It sounds so militant and nutso, very much like Trump.

You know how when children tell you something over, and over again, with such certainty that if try to reason with them you only get more confounded? Yeah, that.

Say when, and it can happen...