I'm only referring to something minor as the universal declaration of human rights...

You are taking an extremist group and summary executing all..Have you been to a Muslim country? Extremist groups in Turkey are swiftly persecuted, yes, even under Erdogan gov.
You are a nice guy but a little brainwashed when it comes to Islam as an Abrahamic religion.
Otherwise, all this is no more than demagogy. Stop wasting my time and your own.

I'm not sure I get what you mean Orhan, why me standing up for universal human rights is demagogy? What's wrong with not wanting female oppression, antisemitism or homophobia?

"One persons belief doesn’t violate another persons human rights. Only actions have the potential to violate human rights. Ironically, policing belief and religion is a violation of human rights." 

When a persons belief mandates the violation of other peoples human rights, then we've got a problem, and that's exactly what's happening unfortunately...

Google a little databases etc. educate yourself on human rights and then we might talk. otherwise you are just talking but not walking.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hate+crimes+against+muslims+in+europe&oq=hate+crimes+against+muslims+in+europe&aqs=chrome..69i57.12300j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It really upsets me when rando starts using the same disingenuous rhetorical tricks x-lax uses. NUANCE MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT. Fucking sea lion.

There is no islamic country in the world, rich or poor, where non-muslims, women, gays or jews have the same rights, where there is a free press and a properly functioning democracy. And everywhere where there is an increase in followers of islam you see a decline in freedom and universal human rights. How is that for demonising or oppressing. And I'm sorry if this upsets SneakyPete. The ideology is equal if not worse than national socialism (and yes, the Palestinian mufti was good friends with Adolf Hitler with whom they shared the same enemies ("the English, the Jews and the Communists") , does that make all followers equal to nazis? No, of course not...

List of synagogues in Turkey

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

List of Churches in Turkey
https://armenianweekly.com/201...

I hope you read a little randomized, because, so far, you are a lot of baloney bla...

"I'm sorry if this upsets SneakyPete"

You fucking liar.

more on women's suffrage in Turkey https://redyellowblue.org/data/tr/wdtr/

lgbt rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Orhan, you know just as well that the only way the islamists were being kept under control was by a sort of military dictatorship in Turkey, it's either military or religious dictatorship in islamic countries, there's nothing inbetween, even Indonesia is going downhill, fast. Makes one wonder, no? Are you claiming that under Erdoğan there is a free press and a functioning democracy?

"Therefore, we shall oppress muslims”. -John Adams"

who said anything about oppressing muslims? you can oppose an ideology without oppressing its followers...

your knowledge of world history is terrible

my knowledge of world history is still less terrible than yours...

This analogy, to put it lightly, is dogshit.

What are you talking about, duds? This is the Mad-Libs argument. Perfectly valid.

We should aspire to be more like the Saudis.

What are you trying to get at?

But then you couldn't be an American, could you? Which do you want? To be an American or to be a Saudi?

When jla and I are united against you, you're definitely in the wrong.

The beautiful thing about the American Dream (in theory at least... the thing we should aspire to) is that one can be a Saudi-American and not be forced to compromise on either.

To suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, Un-American.

Who comes first? USA or KSA?

I've seen how this ends.

I'd say you fundamentally misunderstand the global gag order and the effect it's had on international public health.

"Gag order"??? Why is abortion equated to health, particularly woman's? Woman don't all get sick while pregnant to the degree that they need to abort. Do they?

Way to prove my point.

You're already free to not wear a mask, it just restricts your ability to enter certain private businesses.

What if you go into a store to buy some food, and some people around you didn't wear masks? O you were in an elevator and someone popped in without a mask? Would you ask them to leave or would you hold your breath and look the other way?

I'd leave.

That's good, you had a choice to leave, and you did. Now, would I be right in saying, "I don't want to pay for your abortion"? Would be my choice, wouldn't it?

See my reply elsewhere about dogshit analogies.

Aps, you can leave Canada for a lesser educated and socially backwards country. Then your taxes can be spent doing less important things. But, your current taxes support a whole bunch of really important health services and there is literally zero useful argument not to include abortion within them. Leave the fucking crucifix in the closet and let society evolve without the arcane chains of the baby jesus.

Oh, so let me take your money, and spend it the way I want it.

"...a lesser educated and socially backwards country...", racist much? By defending your point of view, you resort to bigotry and racism. And Quebec/Canada is not racist? Bill 21? Heard of it?

Who elected you?

Not running, nor want to. Being elected gives you the right to spend my money the way you want to? Well, fuck you! I don't spend your money on shit I want or deem appropriate. So, why are you spending my money on bs? You have been there before; No taxation without representation...?

Just because you're unable/unwilling to understand does not mean it's bullshit. You're never to old to learn something Aps and this is an excellent opportunity for you. Your choice really, and I, like everyone else, don't give a fuck about your opinion on abortion because it's intellectually poor and grossly simplistic.

Google is free, my man.

Here I fixed some things for you.

Tduds... this horse has been beaten to a fine pulp already and no point gloating over the flaming ashes. That's just poor sportsmanship... although pointing out the flaws in the anti-abortion crowd is not really a sport. A sport implies there is some level of difficulty involved.

It's Friday afternoon let me eat my low hanging fruit.

Aps, We live in a connected world, a global village, so to speak, where our actions have real consequences that affect other human beings. You seem like the kind of guy who would tell an immigrant, "If you don't like it, leave." So, I'm going to tell you, "If you don't like it, go live off the grid, without any connection to another human being and try to live your archaic ideal of individualism and 'surviving by your own bootstraps'." But how about instead of being an curmudgeon be empathetic and accepting of your neighbors.

What if such tired, old rhetoric is till true today as it was yesterday? What if some people are inconsiderate, selfish, and arrogant to the point that they forget. Why did your mom tell you all the time to not go into the house with muddy boots? Is it because telling you just once didn't work? Why did you dad take his belt out to whip you when you did something you thought was perfectly ok to do?

Want to emphasize that I said "regurgitated talking points" not "rhetoric." The key difference, and what you're displaying, is a lack of critical thinking and analysis. 

What if the thing you thought was perfectly okay do to was, in fact perfectly okay? What if your dad is beating you for the same thing his dad beat him for, without stopping to ask why? What if your dad took his belt out to whip you for being gay? Or bringing home a black woman? What if your dad took his belt out to whip mom because her place is in the kitchen? 

My dad, to his infinite credit, taught me never to accept "because I told you so" as a reason. He taught me to interrogate authority, but also to respect it when (and only when) respect is due.

It's not that things true yesterday are not true today, it's that things are not necessarily acceptable today just because they used to be. But I'm getting off topic...

So, it's perfectly acceptable to take my money and spend the way you want? Hmmm....

in the way modern and current society chooses to spend it? yes, yes it is. It's not your money anyways, by that point it's everyone's money.

potential for a buddy cop movie: X-Lax and the Apshole

What would you rather be called in a foreign nation in which you have little to no understanding of the cultural norms and nuances that predates you? Specially when you are a transient employee?

Germans have a good word for it, "Gastarbeiter".

The Germans have a good word for everything.

Yeah, sometimes they do. You have to give them credit.

Just to give an example of discrimination...Office manager, a Scot, gave me and other Europeans an envelope. Two Indian co-workers sitting next to me, didn't get them. I thought I was being fired. I open the envelope, and it says that I'm being invited to the house party at the managers house, and that I'm not to tell the Indians or Pakistanis. The two Indian guys worked very hard, and were probably more in tune with locals life, including construction as well as their local building technology, yet they were treated like dirt.

The beliefs you’ve expressed are shit beliefs. They don’t deserve respect because they are shit. Feel free to move but your taxes are not yours to do as you want.

relax, it's just a fetish of beta...

I am not dank.lloyd.wright

my thoughts exactly when i saw this post... if i thought like rando, which, thank god i don't, i would ask him to answer for and accept responsibility for the entity of his nation's responsibility for unleashing such suffering on the world.

but luckily, i don't.

Sigh...I never claimed that beta is dankLW, but anywho...I don't ask anyone to answer for your nations unleashing suffering on the world, I only ask why people here do support this kind of unleashing, because they still and actively vote for the ones doing the unleashing. That has nothing to do with historic events we don't have any influence on but instead has to do with actively supporting and condoning such unleashing of suffering by voting for the ones responsible. It's like voting for the nazis because you don't like the communists and overlook the concentration camps and endlösung or voting for the communists because you don't like nazis and overlook the gulags or cultural revolution, as if those are all options.

Yep. Can't think of a tribe that were not brutal to other tribes at times. Called "survival of the fittest".

nothing more white then using non-white history to justify white actions

Not really Pete. Just pointing out that the Natives were not all angels all the time. The Sioux were particularly brutal to their neighbouring tribes they encountered on their way west and southwest as they migrated from Minnesota. Sometimes these incidents are ignored or whitewashed for the sake of political correctness. People should really be aware of all the good, and all the bad. White people migrating west certainly had their own ways of dealing with the natives, and many were not pretty at all.

Why is this relevant?

Old Chinese proverb, Everything in life is relevant. It's up to you to see the relevancy, grasshopper.

Wow! Both sides!

Read the question again.

here we are, again. again.

Shouldn't you be working instead of wasting valuable company's time surfing the internet?

you made your position redundant by posting that.

but, who's to assume the company i work for (which is what i think you meant) is valuable?

capitalism*

Weird how you read "done more damage to the planet per capita" and decided it meant "killed more people". Weirder that you did this while, elsewhere, harping on about your staunch environmentalism.

I never said those things.

I didn't say anything except point out your curious reading comprehension. It was a critique, not a counterpoint.

Like I said. Reading comprehension.

"Meant to be in response to the post by EA." "Was conflating you twos [sic] posts."

ok, I'll respond in kind then ... I never said those things. I was only pointing out that your curious reading comprehension skipped over the part about capitalism (stated by the OP in the meme's post). It was a critique, not a counterpoint.

Cue idiotic attempt to defend himself in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Is lower better for the self-owning scale? Assuming the person doing the rating wants the troll to self-own?

SP, no lower is worse. In this case it wasn't a blatantly obvious that it was a self own (i.e. it took me explaining it). This one came up in my twitter feed over the weekend and is a much better ... 10/10

The scoring is also loosely related to this hierarchy. In the previous example, "Hot Take Harry" ended up deleting the account.

For as much as you stake your identity on being above partisan binaries, you sure love this capitalist/communist one.

Why must there be a binary choice? Most of the world already functions quite nicely somewhere in the middle. I'm happy to argue degrees but to insist on entirely one or the other is just plain silly. And of course, to insist that a degree away from one extreme is entirely the other extreme is just plain dumb.

Here's a binary: jla-x is (smart/dumb). Pick one.

I honestly have trouble deciding if his statements are good faith naivete or bad faith trolling.

I lean toward bad faith trolling more. Perhaps I'd lean more toward good faith naivete if you couple it with inability to admit he's wrong ... but then that isn't really good faith is it?

Anyone who digs themselves into a position as hard as this and refuses to acknowledge any other positions as valid is either so fucking dumb as to be an indication that the human race might not make it after all OR is a troll. And trolls, all of them, can go get hit by a truck.

lol, he just jumped up from around level 2 to level 3 on the pyramid.

This is definitely bad faith at this point. If he can see the part in the original about mercantilism he can also see the part about capitalism (the part he just skipped over) and continues to defend because it reinforces his affinity for right-wing libertarianism (free market = good ... capitalism = good).

Ok dude, you're obviously going to keep doing you, and since I was never really invested nor engaged in this ... I'll leave you to it.

I wAS JUst hErE tO POinT OUt You'RE BiASeD.

xlax, capitalism has no doubt had many positive effects for many people. even david harvey, a marxist, concedes this. but could your small brain, even for once second, consider that capitalism is not a permanent or inevitable condition and system, and that it could, even if it has been, for x amount of years in history, more positive than negative a force, at any given moment in history, cease to be that and flip, being more negative than positive?

doubt it. i'll resort to sneaky's binary and choose the former.

ps- sneaky's binary sounds like a stellar philosophical proposition.

Yep, definitely in level 3 of the pyramid now. You can stop now and this will blow over in a day or so. Or you can double (triple? quadruple? I'm not really keeping track) down and shoot for level 4.

it must be exhausting constantly existing somewhere between a level 3 and 6. who does this to themse... oh, right.

i know that once you've resorted to copying me, which happens often, you've failed, but i'll leave you with this riddle that will likely prove difficult for you:

does someone need to imagine an alternative that doesn't yet exist in order to critique something that already does?

Fully-automated Luxury Space Communism will get us there, obviously.

"Left sucks, right sucks" is not a real useful point of view unless you have a way to get to a different planet ... and have a good hypothesis as to why it will suck less.

*This has been a burn, not a request for more information. You DO NOT need to give me your hypothesis as to why you think libertarianism will solve everything. No one is asking for it.

Luxury Space Communism

Need.

You're outta ye r element Donnie.

that's just so basic, it's also boring to try and discuss with someone with the arguments of a 10 yr old.

at least xlax can get out of level 1.

No there's a different pyramid for this ...

Thanks for the hook, the Dutch do lead the way forward! It's called a social democracy, having both capitalism and taxes to fund a welfare state. We actually do tax the rich, anyone making over 68k pays 49.5% taxes for everything above that amount...

"I'd rather make less money than more" ok

If the difference between debt-free education, universal healthcare, childcare, good public transit, unemployment assistance, etc. and, well, not those things means I only take home 10k out of my 20k raise, please take my $10,000.

I see "People are moving out of California" is the new "Communism killed 100 million people"

People are leaving the least affordable places in the country because wages are in a decades long stagnation and the social isolation brought on by a global pandemic has changed the cost-to-benefit of the affordability / density equation. But sure, go off about "the dems"

ALSO 

"a new population estimate released Wednesday by the Department of Finance found that 136,000 more people left California than moved here from July 2019 to July 2020. That makes three consecutive years of net migration out of the state. While more residents may have moved away than moved in, the total population of the state still increased by a net of 21,200, up to a total of 39.78 million, by far the largest population of any state in the nation." (https://www.lamag.com/citythin...)

So, a net out-migration of three tenths of one percent and an overall population increase. "Exodus" seems like a slight overstatement.

It's so tiring looking up facts for you. 

I wish more Americans understood how their taxes work. People see 49.5% tax rate and think they are paying half their income in taxes (mostly because that's how anti-tax politicians have been framing it). I've literally had to tell family members that getting a raise will not mean you take home less pay even if you break into a higher tax bracket.

"But (fill in name here) said they got a raise and their taxes went up."

"Well, I'm not sure what (fill in name here) is on about, but they're an idiot who doesn't understand how their taxes work."

Anyway, to bring this back to a semblance of "on-topic" people appear to be flocking to the Netherlands. So perhaps they're doing something right. https://www.statista.com/statistics/525434/netherlands-total-immigration-total-emigration-and-migration-balance/

In the end, it took watching a video like this for them to "get it." I had even done the math in front of them and they still didn't believe me. Apparently the Venn diagram of people who don't know how tax brackets work, and people who only trust paid actors on youtube videos, is pretty close to a circle.

I feel sorry for you x-jla, you don't know what you're missing!

jla, I said nothing about you. A little narcissistic to think I was directing my comment to you, no?

Statistics = BS.
Stories jla hears on the morning talk show and regurgitates = the real deal. 

You know my stance on sources. Put up or shut up.

x-jla, don't worry too much, you first need to make sure you get to those 67k ;-)

You get what you pay for...

snicker ...

Maybe they're imagining all that freedom.

If only you'd post a source so we could actually figure out what you mean when you regurgitate stuff. Then we wouldn't have to imagine things.

Like a true capitalist, jla seems to have decided to conflate people and companies here.

Anyway, my stance is that these sorts of tax arguments don't work well comparing individual states as much as it does between nations. There are lots of reasons for this, not least of which is that federal taxing and spending dwarfs even the largest state budgets. Nevermind that people move for all sorts of reasons - not *not* because of taxes but certainly not only because of them. Plus, the increased freedom of movement of money & moneyed interests (read: the wealthy and the businesses they incorporate) means one can "live" or "incorporate" in the most financially or politically friendly state while spending a great deal of their time elsewhere. It's a race to the bottom that has little bearing on overall quality of life and even less bearing on individual benefits for all but the top ~10-15%. 

Instead of comparing over-priced under-built California to tax-haven Texas, why not compare the US as a whole to, oh I dunno, The Netherlands? or Germany?

sigh...

"You mean places where people are stuck accepting whatever tax the country demands."

On the contrary most folks seem pretty content with it.

"Simply, you pay for what you get. Taxes in the U.S. have taken on a pejorative association because, well, we are never really quite sure of what we get in return for paying them, other than the world's biggest military."
https://www.marketwatch.com/st...

"Although these countries have high tax rates, only four landed under the 50th benchmark. In fact, four appear in the top ten happiest countries. None of the lower-tax rate countries broke into the top ten, in contrast."
https://www.lawyer-monthly.com...

"A recent article in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science suggests that countries with a more progressive tax system are in fact happier than those where tax rates are flatter.

In “The Political Economy of Human Happiness,” one of us (Radcliff) examined individual-level data on 21 countries over three decades and found that people are happier as tax burden increases.

This held even when accounting for other factors known to affect happiness such as income, health, employment status, gender, age, race, education, religion and so on. Similarly, the national or aggregate level of happiness went up or down with the level of taxation (again, controlling for other factors)."
https://theconversation.com/wh...

Now, of course, correlation is not necessarily causation, and surely tax rate / social benefits aren't the *sole* source of satisfaction or happiness. There are also other variables within the economic / taxation system - like "progressiveness" mentioned above, and overall national wealth. 

Finally, I've definitely mentioned this before, but I think the main source of dissatisfaction with taxation in the US is that our taxes don't pay for social benefits. We aren't well connected to the goods & services our taxes provide, and the messaging on the things they do provide is frankly abysmal. So we have this pervasive idea throughout the country that taxes are something "the government" takes from us, rather than something "we" pool to provide physical and social infrastructure. Ironically this sentiment seems strongest among the areas that receive the most relative to what they pay.

Simply lowering taxes won't solve this problem anymore than simply raising them will. We need to bridge the disconnect, and we need to redirect national spending to real, tangible, and visible benefits. We have more than enough wealth to do it. It's a PR problem.

Anyway I'm sure you'll respond with something somehow equal parts inane and condescending so I'll shut up after this comment.

Sounds like a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. Let the companies in with a tax break to get the jobs for the city, and become beholden to the societal and infrastructural issues they bring with all those workers because you can't raise the money through taxes to fix those issues.

Or scare the companies away by telling them they'll have to pay their fair share so the city can deal with the issues they'll inevitably cause, and in the process doom your city to not having any jobs.

Race to the bottom!

NY particularly is a Disney land city

^ this is such a dumb take, and i've only seen it from people who's reality isn't remotely close to the city. there's more to NYC than manhattan.. in fact, there are two boroughs that are each as large as the entire city of chicago, and those nearly 5 million people who would refute your ignorant disney land hypothesis.

Let's talk again in 10-15 years when those cities in AZ, TX and NV are feeling the pain of overdrawn accounts for improvements and social programs. Or, better yet, why not talk more about how the rich should be philanthropic and put money into those programs in order to make those cities better. It's not like we can't look at Seattle as an example of how your preferred system doesn't work. Bezos and Gates could single-handedly take care of any of the issues Seattleites are hoping the city will address ... yet they do just the bare minimum to feel like they can sleep at night.

Dude, did you forget you were the one pushing for altruistic philanthropists to fill in the gap where public funds couldn't? There are receipts ... https://archinect.com/news/article/150240876/facebook-to-invest-150-million-to-build-2-000-affordable-homes-in-bay-area

Also, check your facts when you lump me in with how you phrase "you Democrats want" ... I've never claimed, nor have I ever been, a member of the Democratic Party.

Philanthropy is good, but based on history, not enough to correct the issues capitalism and lower taxes create. Even if all you want is a zero sum game, capitalism fails. If not philanthropy, what is the solution you'd propose to correcting the issues capitalism creates?*

*Again, this is rhetorical. I'm not really asking for you to pontificate.  

I don't support a party.

I haven't actually supported any individual politician with anything more than my vote and my voice (and I don't mean voice in the "money is free speech" way). I have voted (and will vote) for, as well as voiced (and will voice) my opinions of both for and against, politicians from various parties.

dunkkk

Local, state, or federal election?

I know you're not asking me but I've got 10 minutes to kill. I voted for at least one Republican candidate in every election until 2018, and I've supported some third-party & independent candidates for local positions up to and including 2020.

That doesn't surprise me at all tduds.

I would never.

I voted for Jill Stein in 2012,mostly for reasons of party representation. Ain't no way Obama was losing Massachusetts so I felt content to "throw my vote away." But seeing what Jill has become in the decade since it might be the only vote I truly regret.

I have voted for a Republican presidential candidate (Bush '04) ... when I was young and not really paying attention to politics. I have not yet voted third-party for president, though I was tempted in '16. I have voted third-party a number of times for local elections including most recently in '20. Last time I voted non-Democratic Party for a federal office was in '12, and for a state office in '18.

If your question was whether I had voted for a non-Republican Party candidate prior to '08, I think the answer would be no.

Glad you guys are over here giving Don Quixote more windmills.

I agree, the Dems tacked far too right for my preference after the 2008 crash.

'04 was the first presidential election I could vote in. I was living abroad at the time and my roommate was a guy from TX who I think had some business ties in his family to the Bushes. He was was all in on Bush and I wasn't really paying attention to the election except for what I'd hear from him.

It wasn't until the next year when I had a different roommate that had close ties to Senator Chris Dodd. He (the roommate, not Senator Dodd) started questioning and challenging some of my preconceived notions about party politics and policies in general over the time we spent together. Coincidentally, Senator Dodd was traveling abroad for official business and we were able to meet with him one morning and have breakfast just the three of us. I still regret not taking him up on his offer to tag along with him for that day.

I know. And you have a point, if anything the rightward tack happened after Mondale lost in '84. Clinton was basically Eisenhower (minus the aversion to a military industrial complex).

Go fuck yourself, gramps.

you seem stuck on the bottom of that pyramid SP...

You (pot) and kettle can also go fuck yourselves.

Now, now...temper, temper.

Public service announcement: You are on ignore and I am not removing you to see whatever bullshit you posted. I am sure it's well thought out and witty, because obviously everything you say is.

I'm sorry for your loss...

Pete... don't go insulting pots and kettles. They are responsible for my coffee... and thus, my sanity. Sweet sweet black coffee. Wait, why am I jumping into this? oh well, too late. It's belgian tripple time anyways.

The absolute pleasure this brings me, I'm actually crying, with laughter.

I'm conflicted.

I know. I feel for them, I really do. But at the same time I can't help myself from taking pleasure in their misfortune. Do the Germans have a word to describe empathy and schadenfreude?

Nah. These aren't civil servants, these are political appointments, that means they had zero problems with kids in cages, the insurrection, the racism, the hate...fuck em.

My rationale for why I'm allowing myself the pleasure is that it's not like they're really going to suffer. They might have to dip into their savings while they find a new job, but they were always going to have to find a new job. The difference is they aren't doing it while taking their salary paid from the taxpayers' dime ... the same dime they fought to leave in the taxpayers' pockets anyway. So I hope they can manage without their avocado toast for a month or two.

Team Biden should have taken the high road here...missed opportunity.

what's the high road rando? how would a dutch do it? 

Nobody should be in their position ever, if parental leave was a right, BUT they were appointed by politics into a position from where they did absolutely nothing to improve the lives of anybody but themselves. 

high road my ass.

^ they are right, should've taken the high road, and forced their children into cages, and sent their parents to gitmo.

Whelp, thumbs downing that hot take. The law that allowed for paid leave was only put into effect a month before they knew they were going to lose their jobs in January. They had plenty of time to figure it out. It was their administration's efforts to drag their feet on the transition that forced the new administration's hands. Let them cry about how they've earned the entitlement a little more.

With that attitude you’re not that different than what you think you’re opposing...

My above comment was supposed to follow after b3ta’s, not meant for you EA...

I don’t know but when I became a parent, my head was not at all about figuring out my parental leave situation, it was pure survival mode in and out of hospital and stuff, hell even the so-called big green head forgot to renew the archinect web domain when becoming a parent...
I think parents should be supported no matter the politics, therefore missed opportunity to bridge a divide and just more fuel for more divisiveness, well done!

I think we all (well, all but two...) would agree that the US should have universal parental leave. But that's not the issue at hand here. It's also not "the parents" who spaced out on figuring out their situation, it was the previous administration (for whom they were essentially lackeys, like EA said, not civil servants) who checked out on doing much of anything. I have mixed feelings on this but I'm leaning towards playing my very tiny violin. These people are well off, well connected, and privileged. They'll be fine.

yes, parents should be supported no matter the politics, ALL parents and not just these opportunistic grifters.

It's a shame the Trump administration didn't push for paid parental leave for all workers and didn't push for private employers to pay their employees for parental leave when they lost their jobs due to the pandemic. Missed opportunity ... could have taken the high road.

“When they go low, we go high”

–Michelle Obama

Matter of opinion, but I think the current administration is already going higher than the previous one. Taking this as the one example to judge them by is petty.

I’m not really judging them, just could imagine this to be a bridge worth building to cross the divide...especially when kids are involved, but I do get all the gloating that’s going on (here), finally some pay back to those mofos. It is difficult not to be like Nelson Mandela Muntz in a situation like this.

"Politics, is never polite, and doesn't have fucks to give." - Me

I'm going to say, the high road has been taken, Melanie's family hasn't been deported, and she hasn't been arrested for immigration fraud.

Petty is par for the course in this thread.

All the vindictiveness, what a way to celebrate a win.

For the record, no one is celebrating this as a win. We're finding pleasure and humor in how the republicans have for years decried entitlements and government handouts and now there are a few who want what they feel entitled to as a literal handout.

Irony is lost on some.

We were already here on the PPP loans SneakyPete. Your first comment over there was basically the same. Apparently people never learn.

With “win” I meant the elections, not the cancellation of parental leave...and of course I see the irony here SP, Biden “grabbing those Trumpers by the [uterus], or is that not what you meant? (I thought you had me on ignore SP, you didn’t even last a day without me)

“ It's a shame the Trump administration didn't push for paid parental leave for all workers and didn't push for private employers to pay their employees for parental leave when they lost their jobs due to the pandemic. Missed opportunity ... could have taken the high road.”

With the Democrats in charge now, there shouldn’t be any reason not to get this done by like, yesterday...

Not sure if SP has you on ignore or not, but he's only responded to things he can see and infer from my posts up to this point. So it's plausible he's not seeing anything you're writing (not that he needs to).

Mitch McConnell and the Senate filibuster is the reason. Try to follow along. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/03/schumer-and-mcconnell-agree-to-organizing-resolution-for-50-50-senate-465444

“ We were already here on the PPP loans SneakyPete. Your first comment over there was basically the same. Apparently people never learn.”

You think I don’t see the irony? Of course I see it but choose to ignore it for the sake of argument.

It's like febreeze for the soul.

-------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------

Nice switching the ignore on for your screenshot but we all know you’re still reading me.

The radio isn't transmitting, champ.

Worth highlighting that it doesn't appear the Biden admin did this out of any sense of vindictiveness or petty revenge. If anything it seems like a bureaucratic hiccup that the previous admin could have averted, but didn't.

We were having a pretty nuanced conversation, in fact.

If the gov't was allowed to make decisions without being hogtied by the folks in Congress, there might be wiggle room for empathetic bureaucrats to do what they felt was ethical. But since certain factions in the Senate feel like they need to check the size, shape, color, and hirsuteness of everyone's genitals before they even let them into the bathroom much less pee (for the boys on mute: that's a sarcastic way of saying they feel the need to have overt and total control of everything), here we are.

TIL the word "hirsuteness"

I'd have thought "hirsutability"

"Worth highlighting that it doesn't appear the Biden admin did this out of any sense of vindictiveness or petty revenge."

Nope, but the responses to it, at least some here, are vindictive and show petty revenge...at least in my opinion.

"We were having a pretty nuanced conversation, in fact."

Someone started micro dosing again...

We're barely 2 weeks past an insurrectionist regime, so forgive me if I'm not willing to delivery an FTD to racist cuck fetishists.

febreze*

Lasers are fine, but where is he going to get his mutated sea bass? What does you expect him to attach them to, sharks?

Didn’t Mitch McC call Greene’s lies “a cancer” for their party? Doesn’t sound like that’s an approving OK to me...

random, the Senate and the House, are two different entities, and the Minority Leader has little to offer.

True

Not even a contradiction, just full-throated white nationalist authoritarianism.

Anyway I'm taking a great deal of enjoyment from the impending GOP implosion. I hope they eat themselves alive, they deserve every bit of it.

"I hope they eat themselves alive, they deserve every bit of it." 

And every bite!

jla, you know that only one of those things is in reality true, right? Just making sure you're still in touch with reality.

Dare I ask you to say which one?

Apparently Republicans only think Liz Cheney must go when they're on the record and they think their constituents will hold them accountable. When they can hide behind secrecy, they're all "She's ok I guess."

Done

I think Trump might easily be convicted in a secret ballot.

"Easily" might be too generous for me, especially after Rand Paul's constitutionality motion and subsequent vote last week, but I agree. I also have issues with representatives feeling like they can vote differently if they feel like they have some plausible deniability in how they voted. A part of me wants to die on that hill, but I'm not that fanatic about it in principle.

My pipe dream would be that they have a secret ballot and it turns out to be 100-0 to convict, so they don't have any option of pointing their fingers at anyone else to say they didn't stand up for Trump.

Maybe it would be better for 99-1 so they infighting can happen as they all claim to be the lone vote and avoid getting primaried by a Trumpist.

Yeah square why didn't the Democrats do any of the things they had literally no power to do? We need to stop focusing on the Republicans, who *had* this power and did nothing, and look at the whole picture here.

Anyway, I hope the legislature isn't immediately hamstrung by obstructionism & gridlock the way it was from 2010-2016 (and in a different way from 2016-2020). The reconciliation process is absurd and annoying, but at least it seems like they're having an honest go at and end-run around the stupid fucking filibuster (more on this below) to implement, as you said "progressive, broadly popular policy."

The only way the Democrats are going to hold on in 2022 is to provide direct, tangible, visible benefits to average Americans, and publicize the hell out of it. Part of that starts with policy, the other part is to quit letting Republican leadership set the tone of conversation. Dem leadership needs to get on offense, something they're historically terrible at but seems to be getting better with the younger generations. 

tduds, at some point, you have to realize, even Babe Ruth stopped embarrassing the kids playing t-ball. You're the GOAT, let Timmy keep swinging at pitches no one is throwing, he'll never get a hit no matter how slow the ball moves on the tee.

Ok but my actual name is Tim so this confuses me.

Billy?

Sold!

The filibuster is a hot potato that is barely above room temp at this point. I'm coming around to the idea that the only reason it is still here is so the opposite team can claim the other one did something bad when they finally get rid of it.

Imagine what it would be like if one of the teams simply got ahead on the messaging and said, 

"This thing sucks and it's why we can't do our jobs (and it's their fault). We're going to fix it by getting rid of it. We'll be in the lobby signing autographs because you should all be screaming our praises like rock stars. If not right now, you'll see in a year and a half when the tangible benefits of us getting rid of it are more apparent. You're welcome."

"We should get Americans back to work."

As if you ever do any work at all, you slime.

Jim Jordan is a waste of a bad suit.

By and large, Republicans are great at messaging and campaigning but bad at governing. While Democrats are good at governing and bad at messaging and campaigning.

Naw I'm right.

You missed the part where the really "Schoen" lawyer defended Trump, saying he couldn't POSSIBLY have incited a large number of people as he was only one guy with a constitutionally protected right to speak, but individual Democratic lawmakers' calls for impeachment (not protected, I guess?) drove them all prematurely into the decision to impeach.

So if 44 senators think this is all unconstitutional, they can just stay home, right? Only 2/3 present need to vote to convict.

I'm ignoring it. Paraphrasing a Eugene Mirman joke, asking Republicans to convict Trump "is like hiring an insincere baby with amnesia to solve a crime that it committed."

So far the only thing I've read about the trial, and it sounds like a total embarrassment for Trump's legal team. It's a shame that will almost definitely make no difference whatsoever: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trumps-impeachment-trial-lawyers-refuse-to-seriously-engage-with-the-constitutional-issues

I've been catching bits and pieces today of the House Managers' case and it's being reiterated to me that they are 1) making the case that this wasn't just against Dems, or even the US in general ... this was against the GOP as well; and 2) they are asking for people to side with them that were entirely complicit in the ramp up to this, not only from election night until Jan 6, but also from much earlier in 2020 (really the last 4+ years), and have largely benefitted from it.

The GOP could save themselves here ... but they won't.

Edit: that may be too generous. The GOP could start to save themselves here ... but they won't.

Meanwhile, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/us/politics/republicans-leaving-party.html

^ hence why they need to try to start the "saving themselves" process.

I truly think they've been insulated from electoral accountability - thanks to a combination of our country's inherent anti-majoritarian institutions and their own decades long campaign of disenfranchisement - that they've simply forgotten about it. That or they really are arrogant enough to assume they can just break the process further to extend their immunity (frighteningly, they might be right).

"insulated from electoral accountability" ... I like that. Well, I like the phrasing, not the actual thing itself.

The scary part is they probably think they *are* acting in a way that the(ir) electorate wants. They are more concerned about getting primaried and needing to beat other Republican challengers than they are concerned about beating Democrats in the general elections ... for exactly the reasons you've outlined.

To me, that's just further evidence that the party is nearly, if not already, gone. When someone who has been embedded in the party long enough to make it to this level of government is worried about the party turning on them, enough to prevent them from making the difficult choices, it's pretty much over for the party they once knew. Seeing the antics of the GOP in AZ, and the fact they even had a vote on Liz Cheney is telling.

^I'm waiting to hear how it's the Democrats fault. You're failing us jla. You have one job here. [winking face emoji]

There's the x-both sides-jla we've been waiting for. I see it took you 4 posts to make your point too. Glad to have you back at full strength.

equivocating what happened over the summer and what happened on january 6th shows any lack of critical thinking skills, and is purely a republican talking point.

“You can moan and groan, but he was far more explicit about his calls for peace than some of the BLM and left-wing rioters were this summer when we saw violence sweep across this nation,” Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida said in defending Trump before the House voted 232-197 to impeach the president for inciting an insurrection.

https://apnews.com/article/don...

again, not arguing your "points," just noting the fact that your per usual, your talking points are eerily similar to the most far-right members of congress.

Jesus fucking Christ not this again. *leaves*

I'm watching jla make his arguments in front of the Senate right now.

Tiltin' at windmills again, are we?

the irony is it takes more dogmatism to adhere to the idealized form of belief that both sides are exactly equivalent, all the time.

It gives him the freedom in his brain (I have acknowledged all sides) to spout his bullshit (Dems and progressives are the bad guys) free of cognitive dissonance.

No cult would suffer you.

this is the lowest of hanging fruit, and you still can’t grab it.

square it's important to see both sides here. And by both sides I mean we need to only and endlessly talk about the evils of Democrats.

The existence of individual sub-jurisdictions doesn't amount for much when you consider their place within the overall jurisdiction. A state, regardless of the party of their Governor, can only get so far within the confines of the national policy.

"so where is this 40% coming from?" The study is linked in the article. Do your own homework.

Again, the answers you seek are in the article, the study, and other articles about the study that are going around this week.

He seeks no answers.

The Republicans are wasting all of our time because they refuse to do their jobs. If this was Benghaz instead of the fucking capital, they'd be all over it. But This loss of life requires HEALING and MOVING ON because it was incited by and controlled by their lord and savior Donald Trump.

those who are saying this is a waste of time, because of the republican response, have an acute case of myopia. the democrats are following public opinion on this, and know that it's a winning issue both morally and politically, to frame trump, accurately, as the instigator of this historically embarrassing and destructive episode.

it might have been "a waste of time" trying to convince secessionist senators of anything by the same logic, but history hasn't exactly looked kindly upon them, and thank god for the politicians who did not heed the sort of advice you are giving, allowing our country, albeit much later, to heal and move on.

The impeachment trial is basically theater, but important theater--it's the only official punishment against his actions. Without it, there would be zero reason for Democrats to not storm the Capitol in 2024 if a Republican wins. Precedent matters, or it should.

I know it's already been stated, but Jlax is the dumbest mf I've seen on this site. "...it's a waste of time, because it won't curb trumpism, it will embolden it." I wonder, is there possibly a counterfactual that will disprove this moronicism? I wonder, does it actually exist, that doing nothing, DOING NOTHING, will actual curb trumpist? You fucking seething idiot. Shoot yourself.

Better posthumously convict MLK then, while you're at it.

He's on record encouraging political violence.

...

[redacted]

WTF is up with McConnell’s bullshit pedantry in avoiding responsibility to convict this impeached president? Too late to convict because he’s out of office?!? Especially when McConnell specifically delayed a senate trial...

Ignoring the name, we have a centrist party currently in power that should have broad appeal. What we need is a Progressive party as powerful as the right wing. There's not a lot of space between Democratic and Republican platforms to squeeze in a whole new party.

No successful party is going to combine right and left, even if they share a distaste for autocratic/authoritarian governance, because the core values are so different--right is self-oriented, left is collective-oriented.

The point of the impeachment was never about Democrats persuading Republicans, at least not those in the Senate anyway (maybe some of the more moderate Republican voters). The point was to make it as embarrassing as possible for those Republicans to vote to acquit. The trial was always about the show, they teed up witnesses perfectly ... and then took the L everyone knew they were going to get anyway and went home for Valentine’s Day.

It was like watching the team losing by 21 points in the Super Bowl with 2 minutes to go get a 1st and goal ... then just pack it up and say “well we weren’t going to win anyway so let’s just hit the showers.” Unless you were going to make a spectacle and make them look bad, the impeachment was a waste of time. The impeachment, really any impeachment, was always political and they didn’t even try to score any political points.

"The wise man bowed his head..." you know the rest.

Ugh. We are very good at keeping the poor down. Kudos for supporting her.

The system is working as intended.

“The computer says no”

archi-dude there is some truth to that statement, but the bigger truth is that the bureaucracy exists in its current form because in the Reagan years we were taught to think of government as able to be "run like a business" and that "public-private partnerships" are better than "big government" and that government agencies need to make a profit. So when it costs a bunch of money to administer a system, like say the DMV, the government is constantly trying to show how responsible it is by squeezing its budget to make it more "efficient" and "create synergies to maximize leanness" and all that other business bullshit rather than make it run perfectly but be accused of wastefulness. My attitude towards waste is: bring it. If every child in this country is fed and every human housed and every pothole filled (lower priority LOL) and every toxic chemical cleaned up then I don't give a damn how much it costs.

“I don't give a damn how much it costs”

Would be priceless!

Money exists to rationalize and perpetuate the lies that allow the system to continue.

Donna, you're correct of course. Capitalism and Bureaucracy are ouroboros. The idea that solving the problem is contrary to effective governing, is exactly what capitalism wants; break the government, to prove government doesn't work, to create more private sector governance. The point, end result, of Marxism is to solve the problems of the people, so we can get rid of bourgeois asshat, be free, and happy. We work, to pay bills, and debt - ouroboros - not to be happy. Thank capitalism.

Dude, they first and foremost escape poverty and oppression...it’s not like they run away because they have a startup idea they really need to pitch to Silicon Valley, they don’t even know what capitalism is, they just want out...

Bureaucracy/big government can be found in any political or ideological system and its running successfully is not necessarily tied to the politics. Capitalism and bureaucracy can easily go hand in hand...it’s a great way to keep people busy and employed, it’s nice to know that for the incompetent underachievers there’s also a job available, what if they’d all be sacked because the government is run like a fortune500 company...who’s going to feed them and prevent the Revolution from happening in such a dog eat dog world?

"We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we’re going to fight it with socialism."

I mean let's be realistic: we could spend a billion dollars on federally-employed social workers so that every human had a main contact person to help them navigate the system, then the system wouldn't be keeping people down. Alternatively, if we invested a billion dollars in making all the different agencies communicate completely and transparently so that a human didn't have to run all across town to get any information, the system wouldn't be so hard to navigate and regular people could do it. Instead we have the Texas power gird: vastly underfunded, operating on short-term thinking to survive the next round of budget cuts rather than actually having the security to be able to focus brainpower on solving the problems we face as a society.

It’s actually capitalism that promotes repetition, the more the better, variation is anticapitalist as it is inefficient and expensive and screws up the profit margins, you know for the sake of efficiency and cutting costs...by your own analogy capitalism is a form of insanity(!)

Global warming “a few side effects”? Mass extinction of species “a few side effects”? Global refugee crisis “a few side effects”? Mass deforestation and loss of habitats “a few side effects”? The so-called side effects of capitalism are worse than the presumed benefits when looking at the big picture holistically, no?

Here we go again...capitalism and free-trade vs socialism/marxism...

As I understand it now, ERCOT, is a private non-profit organization and it exists so to rid itself of gov't regulations. In other words, a private organization. Look at where that got them.

-1 for capitalism and privatization.

The issue is and always will be the PEOPLE running the system - whatever that system is.

Oh and speaking of side effects of capitalism...Marxism itself is a side effect of capitalism too ;-)

Bringing back memories of being a high school grad framing houses where the boss would tune the jobsite radio to his show every afternoon ... I certainly won't miss him. I do miss working with those guys sometimes though.

In before someone criticizes you for celebrating the death of someone whose entire thing was being hateful and rooting for the demise of rhetorical foes.

In the (almost definitely apocryphal) words of Mark Twain: "I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."

Please let me know where to send my thoughts and prayers.

There are very few people I would wish dead, but I have to say that the world is a better place with Rush gone.

Tduds, for a second there, before I realized you had posted an image, I thought archinect had broken.

"Can't trust google!" *incessantly posts links obviously pulled from google searches* 

idk seems like you're finding what you're looking for.

I'm not defending Google. You're *using* Google and I'm just pointing it out.

We're on page 9 of this thread and you still haven't figured out that I'm not making counterpoints, I'm debunking / dunking on / laughing at you. I gave up taking you seriously months ago. Catch up.

sure you are honey.

This,

Is gold.

wise.

tduds, and by that I mean, SEVEN comments, to your three, the ratio alone, but actually not getting anywhere after SEVEN. Is extraordinary.

TEN to 3.

Was just kidding

I like the sexy eye-shadow+mascara eyes, Dark Vader helmet and classic brushy moustache on the potato head. Red high heels optional tho, depending on the day’s schedule.

I don't know a single person to the left of center who thinks the potato thing is worthy of discussion. Private company, more inclusion, fewer words. Don't you have something more substantial to worry about?

A friend of mine, politically centrist, had this to say: "My company sells over a quarter million pounds of seed potatoes every year. I've never seen a potato with a cock or a vag, or an apron or a mustache. Even biologically speaking, potato tubers have zero sex or gender. The plants themselves are hermaphroditic (both male and female)." 

um... exhibit A below.

Yeah woke culture, that's the real problem in this country.

Mmm hmm

Mmmm hmmm

https://youtu.be/z8lnOA9xgv8

Mmmm hmmm

"It’s undoing all of the progress that we saw from the 60’s -present."

I'm sorry everyone, I gotta take the bait. Please elaborate on all the progress that woke culture is undoing. Seriously. Lay it out 'cause I gotta hear this. Take your time. None of this off-the-cuff hot take crap you're known for that under the slightest scrutiny falls apart. Convince me your statement above is actually true.

OooooooOoOoooOoO hmmmm

Ok, so nothing then. Can't say I expected anything more. If I were trying to make your argument I'd start with defining what woke culture is, naming progress that has been made since the 60's, then show definitively how the culture you previously defined is undoing that progress. But that's just me. You're obviously trying Bannon's "flood the zone with shit" approach. It's not convincing anyone.

I see a pile of conclusions, but a weak thesis and absolutely no supporting evidence. D+ effort, generously.

For my last term paper in college I turned in a paragraph that just said, "If you, the professor, don't know this already ... I can't help you." I obviously got 100% because that's how the world works.

It would seem we've yet again reached the point you inexorably drag every discussion towards, where one of us has to take the time to explain that it's not so much your ideas that are bad, as your piss-poor ability to expand upon or defend them that makes them / you unworthy of a serious response. And, just as inevitably, whether through some sort of emotional defense mechanism or simple trolling, you'll assume as a tacit acknowledgement of victory. Rinse, repeat, fuck you.

Ok maybe what I said above was a little harsh. 

Still, C- on that last reply

I'm not asking for what the prominent voices are saying to support whatever they are arguing. I'm asking *you* to support what *you* are arguing.

Your comment, "It’s undoing all of the progress that we saw from the 60’s -present," seems oddly specific yet vague and nondescript and I'd like you to elaborate so I might be able to understand what you're getting at. If you need to quote prominent voices, go ahead. But just like you, I can say woke culture (whatever that means, you still haven't defined it) is progressing us more than anything since the 60s and provide no supporting evidence. I mean that's cool and all, but it gets us nowhere.

BTW, anytime anyone says that something is obvious if you just think about it ... it usually means it isn't obvious and they have no supporting evidence, or they are too lazy to provide supporting evidence.

"But here’s on obvious thing- racism." Good set up to lay out the topic (though it isn't obvious).

"The goal was once to make race a less important, less deterministic factor in ones identity. Content of character, judge individuals, etc. Thats an undeniably true and modern view." Who's goal was this, where was this goal laid out and defined? You'll need to provide some supporting evidence if you want me to believe this is "undeniably true."

"It’s also effective and has over time led to progress. Since the 60’s race relations have gotten way better because of that notion." Perhaps, but I think the argument was also that it wasn't doing enough and there are still plenty of people that aren't progressing and holding us as a society back. See all the people that came out and starting saying the racist stuff out loud once it was seen as acceptable because POTUS was giving them hugs and warm feelings.

"The woke movement rejects this notion, and instead pushes a bs critical race theory intersectionality narrative. They view race as the most important aspect of ones identity. It’s not. This is not only a false narrative, but it literally is the definition of racist." Define "woke movement." Link to a source on "critical race theory intersectionality narrative" that supports your statement that "they view race as the most important ..."

"Listen to Coleman Hughes or read his essays on the subject. He covers this in great depth and clarity." Provide some links to sources you find most illuminating on the subject. Or give some quotes of in context of your argument.

It's really not that hard to make a strong argument.

If you just read and think all of the things I've read and thought in my lifetime, and ignore all the things I have not read or thought, the conclusions I've reached are self evident. 

No, actually, I won't tell you what I've read. How dare you.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm just asking you to explain your argument.

I'm also not asking for a term paper (I only brought up the idea of a term paper as I riffed on tduds' letter grade because it was funny). All I'm asking for is a coherent argument. This is the last time I'm asking for it. If you can't present one, I'll just assume you have no idea what you're talking about.

i see we're still doing this, huh?

I'm giving you permission to get into the weeds (not that you need it). But it is *your* argument so *you* need to present it if you want to get into the weeds on it.

I came here to discuss potato head builds.

I never gave you any "umm hmm" or whatever. I just want to hear you lay out a coherent argument.

My argument is that you suck at making a point, and when asked to elaborate, you stubbornly refuse to. I even said this explicitly a few posts ago, and roughly 2-3 times per month since we first began discussing politics several years ago, so I don't know why it's unclear.

NS, if you keep discussing potato head builds, you'll undo all the progress we've made since the 60s. You know, the progress that said potatoes have penises or vaginas. 

Please define "woke culture"

If something is not universally defined and accepted, the starting point to define and come to a consensus on it. Not just say it exists and if you don't think so you're not reading and thinking the same way as me. Applies to both Bigfoot and "woke culture."

TIL that the Republican party was responsible for "woke culture" in the 60's ... the 1860's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Awakes

define bigfoot

Thanks, I'm won't get into the definition with you, but thanks for providing it. Now, please explain how what you just defined is "undoing all of the progress that we saw from the 60’s -present." You might first start with defining what that progress is so we are all on the same page, then show how "woke culture" is undoing it.

i can recognize abstractly the there are issues with "woke" culture- but this mr potato head thing is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

are there people who's worlds are so small that they are enraged by the brand removing mr? while mr and mrs still exist as products?

this is not an issue to the majority of americans; sometimes it's important to recognize when you're spending too much time in your internet bubble.

.

"i don't see race" is definitely one of my favorite mlk quotes.

Sorry, been a busy morning and I meant to post this last night. See above build, inspired by this thread's discussions.

just fyi, that's not mlk.

So is it racism, racial relations, and/or racial tension that has seen progress from the 60s until today. You bring up all three in your post but they aren't all the same and you really only make statements that there has been progress with racial relations, and that racial tension has been reduced through overly broad statements. You note that colorblindness "has led us into a better place since the 1960s" but don't address that "a better place" does not equal "the best place" or "a place where racism is solved."

Nor have you really addressed that "woke culture" is undoing, or will undo, "all the progress" that has happened with regard to race since the 60s. All you've done is say that MLK advocated for colorblindness, and that woke culture rejects it (which in itself could be a topic of hot debate without even getting into the undoing progress thing). The whole time apparently assuming that we've actually reached the form of colorblindness that MLK advocated for (or at the very least getting there) and that rejecting it would be detrimental to society. It's a big leap and you haven't really provided supporting arguments in favor of making that leap.

The sheer depth of misunderstanding is kind of impressive.

Yeah that's the common line. Yet there are vanishingly few (not zero, but very few) examples of this happening where the things being said were not deserving of the backlash.

"in the past stupid people believed that race determined one’s characteristics...it caused lots of problems...we now know that race is a trivial factor..."

One might argue that that trivialization of race and other identity characteristics is the reason we are where we are today with regard to race and identity, both good and bad (you seem to only be focusing on the good while ignoring the bad). All of this isn't to say that one's individual characteristics are not important and that only their racial identity or other group identity is important. Rather it's to say that you can't simply negate *any* part of someone as trivial simply because you want to ... whether it's their race, gender, etc. or other characteristic of their individuality not tied to a group identity.

Also, I said I wouldn't get into your definition of woke culture but I kind of need to now as none of this is really related to your definition of "woke culture" unless you assume this "ideological mindset" is part of the "socially progressive creed" you put in your definition as "absolute, utopian, unquestionable, and unreasonable." You haven't defined what "socially progressive creed" is (let alone why it is absolute, utopian, unquestionable, and unreasonable) so all it really does right now is allow you to lump together anything you don't like and categorize it there as unacceptable and therefore a problem with "woke culture." So what is the socially progressive creed that your definition relies on?

There's a sleight of hand here where you're defining things in terms that people who identify with the movement you're talking about would not use or agree with. You're telling people what they think and then telling them that they're wrong. But your interpretations are simplified and quite frequently mis-conflating unrelated things. It would take a lot of time and effort to really dive into this and you'll just dismiss it anyway so I'm gonna go do something else. I really should just ignore this thread permanently.

So I see we aren't going to respond to my valid questions or criticisms then and instead just flood the zone again. Cool.

There is what is, and how we navigate it. What is cannot change. The past is the past. We should not ignore the past, or its effect on the present. We can however empower ourselves and our culture with a mindset that creates a new path, maybe it's woke-ism, maybe it's not. You say woke-ism is not the right tool box to navigate this reality, but you've offered nothing of substance to support that view. It’s completely counterproductive and divisive.

Your last statement is also a very high-level, lack-of-details view for someone that said, "I’d like to get into the weeds" just yesterday. Seems to me that someone started getting into the weeds and couldn't handle it.

Identity politics in general (race being one major parameter) places emphasis on group identity over individual identity.

i'll be honest- there are parts of this i agree with. critical race theory puts primacy on identity through race above everything else. one can't deny race as identity, but overemphasizing it rejects the other conditions (social, economic, political) that also make up identity.

the problem is your cram 30 thoughts into 3 sentences, and when paired together they are incredibly incoherent.

The narrative of victims and oppressors is not a healthy, accurate, or effective way to promote the interracial “brotherhood” that MLK preached, and that we (people growing up pre 2000’s) learned.

this is the next sentence, a rambling, unconnected thought about oppression and exploitation, aka your typical "anti-marxist" bent.

if you stuck to one idea, these might be real conversations. instead you throw whatever latest youtube video you watched in the wall and hope something sticks. there's not debate here. no conversation. just you talking to a wall.

I've learned from the past and realized that trying to argue with you without first establishing what page you're on is pointless because you always seem to be on a different page. So I wanted you to define the page you were on, so we could at least speak the same language from the beginning.

I mean you tried to take a comment about how one party is focusing on covid relief and the other is focusing on potato genitalia so you tried to use that to say that wokeness is undoing all progress in the past 50 years (like it was even close to the same page). I'm sorry, that needs a little explaining if you want anyone to take it seriously. Apparently that's too much of a chore for you.

tduds said it earlier, "My argument is that you suck at making a point, and when asked to elaborate, you stubbornly refuse to." I've given you every chance to make your point, you just stubbornly refuse to do so. You wanted to get in the weeds, I'm down here playing in the dirt while you stubbornly refuse to do so.

At this point all I've been able to gather is 1) you think wokeism is bad. 2) You think it's bad because it rejects colorblindness (citation needed). 3) You think colorblindness is good because it was supported by MLK (citation needed). 4) Colorblindness has been the source of all racial progress in the past 50 years (citation needed). Conclusion: Wokeness is undoing all progress in the past 50 years including, but not limited to, Mr. Potato Head's penis. 

Is there any other way to connect the dots you've actually laid out here? I could argue with you on points 2, 3, 4, and your conclusion, but it would be worthless unless you're willing to actually define what page the debate will take place on. I'd provide the page and the context but you'd just dismiss it without offering anything substantial to rebut it except some zone flooding shit.

"Huge chore to bring [me] up to speed" ... please. You're not even close to being at my speed. Come back when you're ready to have a debate.

"He expects me to argue as if he’s unaware of the many arguments that have been made already"

Hey, not all of us spend our entire day digesting Reason, Federalist, and National Review blog posts.

The "dream" of King was to someday build a society in which colorblindness was possible, not to simply decide to be colorblind while still inhabiting our current - quite racist - world. Until we've done the work to undo the cultural & systemic racism built into our world by our ancestors, insisting that we ignore race is to insist that we ignore the pressures and prejudices that have been foisted upon people throughout their entire life *because* of their race. It's callous and it's lazy. 

"you are really saying that identity is immutable, because race is immutable." No, we're saying that we still live in a world where your outward appearance affects your lot in life, and in order to be anti-racist you need to acknowledge that experience in your interactions with people of different backgrounds - whether that's people of color, people of different genders, nationalities, orientations, etc. 

You speak of "a place of heightened enlightenment and perspective" and our counterpoint is that this is the work that needs to be done to get there. We're certainly not there yet.

Guess I failed (again) at quitting the thread.

I'm going to quote tduds because I let the MLK colorblindness stuff go without comment because I was trying to get to something larger without following jla down the rabbit hole, but it shouldn't be left without comment because it is a completely bad take on Dr. King's work and legacy.

"The 'dream' of King was to someday build a society in which colorblindness was possible, not to simply decide to be colorblind while still inhabiting our current - quite racist - world. Until we've done the work to undo the cultural & systemic racism built into our world by our ancestors, insisting that we ignore race is to insist that we ignore the pressures and prejudices that have been foisted upon people throughout their entire life *because* of their race. It's callous and it's lazy."

That is all. I'm going to enjoy a long weekend without feeling the need to get involved in arguments on the internet.

What are you trying to say with that? "Haha! Your guy did the same thing our guy did, which makes your guy worse!"? Something like that? Everybody knows that Biden is a centrist. I don't know enough about Syria specifically, but speaking personally I don't support what I consider to be global military over reach, and violently meddling in the affairs of others, regardless of who's in the White House.

Deep state? Trojan horse? Establishment? GTFOH with your conspiracy nonsense. Maybe if Trump hadn't so completely and utterly fucked up everything he touched, he'd still be in office. I think I'm putting you on ignore now.

All I’m trying to say bb is po-tah-to puh-tei-tow...same shit different president

By the nature of their job I'd argue all presidents are essentially war criminals. But only Trump was *gleefully* a war criminal. Important distinction, if you ask me.

I think begrudgingly accepting the moral quandary of an inherited broken system (even if one were to want to change it, institutional inertia would mean any substantial change takes years) is morally superior to indulging in and actively worsening the system. Not by a lot, but certainly not equivalent. 

Put more simply: I disagree with Biden on policy and individual actions &I'm happy to call him out when his admin disappoints me. I disagreed with Trump on philosophy, character, and direction and I think he nearly brought the system down entirely. 

Better isn't necessarily good, but "not good" isn't just as bad. All things exist on a spectrum. It's not inconsistent to recognize improvement while also recognizing room for further improvement.

That's all I gotta say about that.

The style is not what offends me. The content is what offends me. I'm a brash as fuck Bostonian, but I do it to call out assholes, not be one. Trump is an childish asshole who appeals to other childish assholes. It's nothing to do with "delicate sensilibites" and everything to do with people who were quietly shitty people inside and got permission from him to be loud about it. It's quite simple.

"The people who voted for him are not responsible for his bad deeds." 

I never said they were. Of course you're not responsible for the actions of people you publicly support, but your continued vocal support of that person is - in light of those actions - reprehensible itself. Again this is simple. Quit making me expand on obvious ethical philosophy.

It was a proverbial 'you', obviously.

It's exhausting to keep up with this tendency to introduce a wholly novel concept and/or metaphor with every reply. Good day.

Tduds, you do know what they say about wrestling with pigs, right?

Everything America does in the Middle East can be traced to decisions made right after World War 2. We're managing shit that is 70 years old. If we can stop fucking around, and end the "war" with Iran, we'd actual set a course where 70 years from now, we can have a better situation, and lessen the Saudi bullshit. Political courage is lacking, fuck the Saudis.

no time to raise minimum wage at home but all the time in the world to kill somewhere on the other side of the world, Biden sure shows his cards :-(

no, I was convinced it would pick up again, continue if not intensify...as posted before: 

If I recall correctly, neo-cons, trace their lineage to Trotsky?

Meh, it's wishful thinking that the current republican party will implode under it's own failures but it won't. We have a two party system and it's going to be nearly impossible for the current republican party to be forced to change itself.

Their formula is hate.

To be fair, I know enough R's that I am confident that they are fueled by more than hate. There is also a lot of fear. In fact I think fear is the engine that drives them, and hate is a result.

Racism, bigotry, sexism, and homophobia are hate.

The anger, like the hate, is a product of exploited fear. They know exactly what they're doing, but they were too arrogant to realize that eventually they'd lose control of the asylum.

I've been characterizing the Republican Party the same way since not long after I left it: 

• Republican Base: We fear/hate those people so much that we'll accept policies that hurt them, even if those policies also hurt us.
• Republican Establishment: Economic policies that hurt everyone (except our rich donors and ourselves, of course) coming right up.

I used "those people" as a catch-all term. There are separate (but often overlapping) constituencies for "those people" being blacks, white liberals, illegal aliens, LGBTQ, perfectly legal Latino permanent residents and citizens, non-Evangelical Christians, "coastal elites", intellectuals, women's' libbers, etc.

Racism and homophobia do play a huge part in this. The current republican party has used it to stir up fear in their base and claim that they are the only ones who can protect them from all the bad things they say non whites and LGTB people are trying to do to 'Murica.

Just to bring it back to the original topic, here's some charts. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22274429/republicans-anti-democracy-13-charts

"All the reasons for the GOP’s turn against democracy — backlash to racial progress, rising partisanship, a powerful right-wing media sphere — remain in force after Trump. The leadership is still afraid of Trump and the anti-democratic MAGA movement he commands. 

More fundamentally, they are still committed to a political approach that can’t win in a majoritarian system, requiring the defense of the undemocratic status quo in institutions like the Senate and in state-level electoral rules."

To use the Soviet comparison, the only reason the Party was able to hang on for so long was the lack of competition. The GOP is approaching this level of out-of-touch-ness, and so the natural inclination is to undermine the mechanisms of accountability that would otherwise keep them in check.

If we had a fair democracy, the Republican party would win very few elections, either driving them towards reform or irrelevance, from which a new 2nd major party would eventually emerge. The only reason the Democrat/Republican divide seems remotely competitive is through a combination of a rural advantage enshrined in The Constitution, and good old fashioned disenfranchisement. They're staking their own success on undermining democracy. The "other side", to put it simply, isn't.

https://miro.medium.com/max/2590/1*dUTkjI-1JieCQeS_xvJNyA.png can't i just post an image?

for my dem friends https://miro.medium.com/max/1200/1*oM8JgvgcpwuF_E1DB4sDfg.png

"Did you read the chart in that article?" There are 13 charts, in fact. Did you read them?

"Majority believes fraud occurred." despite *overwhelming* evidence to the contrary, and in line with a series of lies fed to them by elected Republicans and right wing media.

 "Majority believes voting should be easier." Re-read that. A *huge* majority (looks like around 80%) believe voting *should not* be made easier.

"Among Democrats, 97% say there was no widespread fraud in the election"

I feel like its important at this point to distinguish between Republican *voters* and Republican *representatives* (and the same for Democrats). 

The charts represent mostly polls of voters, but from those results conjecture a narrative about elected representatives (and their media sycophants). For example, the so-called "Big Lie" about election fraud. The voters believe it because the representatives & the media machine planted it and amplified it. I'm not saying the voters are anti-democracy, I'm saying the reps & pundits are, and their ploy is working.

Nevertheless, the point remains that the Republican Party policy is deeply unpopular, and they only win elections through lies and disenfranchisement. If you think otherwise, feel free to plead your case.

Notice the word "possibility"

Please stop responding to events with hypotheticals.

Please stop responding to events with hypotheticals.

I frequently change my mind in light of new evidence. Do you not?

No.

the Republican Party policy is deeply unpopular, and they only win elections through lies and disenfranchisement. If you think otherwise, feel free to plead your case. Otherwise, go to bed.

No I suggested they're losing because their platform is quite unpopular, and instead of pivoting to a more popular platform they're using what little power they have left to make voting harder. Hell, they literally torched the official platform in 2020 and exist solely to do what Trump wants (look at the National GOP Convention statement, it is exactly this and nothing more). They're also spinning up a propaganda campaign that seems to be working among their most fervent supporters, which is troubling.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/voting-rights-case-gop-lawyer-says-quiet-part-loud-n1259439

I thought it went without saying but I guess I need to say it: The main difference I see between election skeptics on the left and election skeptics on the right is that, on the left these people tend to be far-left, out of the mainstream of Democratic identity (many would balk at being labeled "Democrat" or "Liberal", and largely a "bottom-up" kind of thing. On the right, it's much more "top-down", and completely in line with the mainstream of Republican identity, to the point where it's a primary motivator of their actions within government. Yes, this exists on "both sides" but in wildly different capacities.

You want to talk about 2016? Then look at the two candidates' answers to the debate question "Will you accept the results?"

"... allowed the Dems to bend laws, act outside of certain traditions, etc" Give examples.

I agree but that's not what we're talking about right now.

Lot to unpack there but short answer is *eyeroll*

I've said it before but here we go again: For someone so fervently anti-partisan you frequently and uncritically parrot Fox News narratives. I've got a busy workday ahead so I doubt I'll have time to pick apart the subtleties of the 3 things you just said, but suffice to say each one could be its own longform article. Maybe I can find some articles...

Meanwhile https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/03/02/capitol-police-qanon-march-4-theory-claims-trump-president/6894882002/

You know what might be nice in a 2-party, binary star, inevitable implosion, death spiral scenario? That the third party that wants to assert itself as the alternative to that scenario, and eventual savior of cosmic implosion, would come up with new content that isn't just regurgitating the major talking points of one of the stars caught in the death spiral as a way to criticize the other star in the death spiral. Cause in that way it sounds less like the third party is trying to save us, and instead is simply trying to replace one of the stars.

Not holding my breath there.

She then goes and shows off by finding an appointment for herself on Friday through a different provider. Which was really the plan all along. Book something just to get it on the calendar, then try to find something better if we could and cancel the first appointment.

You mean to tell me, Government, works?

Well, leadership from the federal level in this case worked.

Good, smart, simple article. Thanks for sharing.

np- i love new republic, it has thoughtful, sober analysis that like you said is easily digestible. another point i really liked:

Never mind that Mr. Potato Head is gender neutral by design—you can make it look however you want! Never mind that the allegation also wasn’t true—Hasbro was still making Mr. and Mrs. Potato Heads, it had just changed the name of the umbrella brand. And never mind that, in the end, it’s a toy potato.

it's just further proof that the right, aimless without their cult-of-personality leader, are now almost entirely a party of grievance. i miss the days of debating conservative economic policy.

Have you noticed that [xlax] treats every instance of leftist lunacy as a [part of a larger trend], and every instance of right lunacy as [an isolated incident]?

see, it's easy to make incredible generic sentences instead of engaging with the specific ideas at hand.

Way to talk past the sale. This can't be an isolated incident of "left lunacy" since it isn't lunacy or leftist at all. It's a manufactured outrage and you're out there guzzling bait.

Yes. Just once I'd like to see him make one, salient response and move on instead of spamming every comment with multiple responses that don't say anything. But maybe that's just me. I guess it's a numbers game for him?

it's a combination of delusions of grandeur, paranoia, and distraction from the most shiny grievance of the day.

No, you are using the article to spew the same multiple points you always make. Have you noticed how every other forum regular puts their thoughts into a single response? That's good forum etiquette.

No, you're just typing a lot of text without saying anything.

Here are the topics at hand: 

"Dr. Seuss Enterprises won’t be publishing new versions of six books"
"Hasbro is still making Mr. and Mrs. Potato Heads, it just changed the name of the umbrella brand." 

Please, please explain how in the hell these two events are remotely "left lunacy."

Dr Seuss is not getting cancelled. 

To reiterate: "Dr. Seuss Enterprises won’t be publishing new versions of six books"

SIX. BOOKS. Less than 10% of his published work, and among the *least* popular. More than that, the Seuss estate itself elected to stop publishing these books. No one made anyone do anything. No one cancelled anyone. It's a manufactured outrage. Take the L, man.

the article that he claims he "read"

clearly went right over his head.

his attempt at debate completely stunk

on which all of archinect was able to dunk

"Be less white" or "be less of an asshole?" If being less of an asshole makes a company more money, seems like a win/win to me. Manufactured rage from wackos who think potatoes have genders aside.

Just my casual observance, but it seems the neurosis is not from the left but more the odd fascination on the right to bring it to everyone's attention all the time. In the case of Hasbro or the Dr. S Foundation, each of these enterprises simply asked themselves 'how can we do better, how can we be more inclusive?' Many of Dr. Seuss' books touch on environmental awareness, listening to the minority, raising up the weak, and in general, being a decent person (or creature). The Foundation doesn't have to be defensive about racism because they know that the author never intended to hurt with his words. They're simply acknowledging that some of their catalogue is outdated and needs retired. Why does the right have this weird obsession with pointing out the natural progression and evolution of the world getting slightly better each day at a time? Oh yeah, because they see it as a slight against them. 'Your win, is my loss--poor me.'

If the majority thought it was a good idea for you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

Nah, but if the minority claimed they had won the poll suggesting he jump, he'd bitch and moan about being prevented from doing so and then whine about how his taxes were being wasted on the facility at which he was being treated at no further cost.

xlax- the majority of the country does not give a shit about mr potato head. they care about raising the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, federal stimulus checks, and health care- all of which enjoy upwards 70% support nationwide.

the irony is that you are the one who is out of touch obsessing about the decisions of private company's toys and children's books.

This is the free market at work.

80% of people believe a thing that this isn't an example of. Cool. cool.

lol you're all over the map, man. I'm bored, see you in a day or two when you make some other unrelated issue into a crusade about the only thing you're able to talk about.

...

x-jla - you're an idiot

You're an idiot.

The books where pulled because they where the lowest selling of all of the Seuss catalog - almost zero sales. During market research with a focus group of teachers in the US the six books in question where identified as ones that they didn't use. The teachers also mentioned that there where questionable racial characterchers illustrations in the books as well. Even the late Dr. Seuss said that the six books in question where disappointments and because of his racial drawings in it they should never be sold again.

The company owning Seuss' work decided to pull the six books because they weren't selling, no body was using them. AND they had racial characterchers from early on in Seuss' career as a cartoonist.

No on 'canceled' the books.  

jla, this game is old. I'm not interested in playing anymore. If anyone wants to have actual discussions, I'm all for it. Your style of "debate" is a complete waste of time.

we were making progress when people ignored him and talked to each other instead. unfortunately, his verbal vomiting is like a car wreck and hard to ignore sometimes, especially by a select few.... while the occasional collective dunking is helpful, trying to engage him point for point is completely useless if others hope to raise the level of discourse beyond toy potatoes and imaginary conservative greivances.

I'm all for trying to revive this thread again by ignoring or disregarding these rants, to the best of my ability.

Honestly attempting to counter the right's pretend outrage lends it a legitimacy on which they can further their platform, yes. Quit falling for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spo1jK4CCEU

I dunno man you seem like the angriest one around here by a long shot.

IM NOT SHOUTING YOURE SHOUTING

dunkkk.

vs what xlax thinks dunking is.

Also the one most "religiously" dedicated to a cause.

^lol

^^lolol

I knew it--he thinks the one with the most comments wins!

Halfwit Calvinball world champ right here.

“I retire champion”

Undisputed!

please, retire. preferably somewhere off the grid.

Oh man. I just felt a deep pang of sadness over the loss of Philip Seymour Hoffman. I miss him.

ugh, for real. every time i see him in a movie it's heartbreaking.

Barr killed Epstein, duh.

maybe it was a virus...

I've been trying to figure out a good Epstein-Barr Virus joke for well over a year. The setup is so obvious, yet any clever construction has so far eluded me.

what

ahhhh I get it.

Friday brain.