Archinect
anchor

Politics Central

6349
x-jla

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theblaze.com/amp/tucker-carlson-bank-of-america-2650328252


Tduds said something once about 9-11 that brought in the Patriot act and the NSA, and Americans rah rah rah ing it and all...Do we not see the trends?  Something happens, govt takes liberty under the guise of security...people accept it until it’s too late...same shit different day.  

Feb 5, 21 2:00 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

If this doesn’t constitute illegal search and seizure...

 · 
tduds

I agree that this would be a huge violation of privacy but also was unable to corroborate this story beyond Carlson and right wing blogs referencing Carlson. Not saying it's not true, just surprising no other major publications have jumped on it.

 · 
x-jla

Yeah, that’s part of the problem. Democratic Aligned Media is ignoring this story. Looks like corporations, fascism (in it’s actual definition), and big banks are a-ok so long as they share a common enemy.

 · 
x-jla

Not that the bank actually cares...just trying to snuggle up to the new power

 · 
tduds

Yeah I found that one pretty easily. It's not really corroboration as much as it's a report referencing Carlsons allegations and outlining the affects of it. "Corroboration" has a journalistic meaning.

1  · 
tduds

"Democratic Aligned Media is ignoring this story." 

One could also suggest with as much legitimacy that the Trump Aligned Media is over-hyping it.

 · 
x-jla

Considering that Apple wouldn’t even unlock the phone of the San Bernardino mass shooter, because of concerns for setting a bad precedent, even if this story is 1/2 the hype it’s a very big
problem.

 · 
tduds

My point, I suppose, is that I simply don't trust Tucker Carlson's investigative journalism, and I'd like someone with more legitimacy to take a look.

 · 
x-jla

As for the media, it’s like Pepsi accusing coke of putting toxins in there soda...then you dismiss it because all the coke owned brands are staying hush and only Pepsi brands are making noise.

 · 
tduds

It's nothing like that.

2  · 
x-jla

It is

 · 

Who was watching the impeachment trial today? Anything important that I missed?

Feb 9, 21 6:23 pm  · 
 · 
SneakyPete

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.

1  · 

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

 · 
tduds

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."

1  · 
x-jla

^wrong
spot

 · 
tduds

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.

1  · 

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

1  · 
tduds

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).

2  · 

"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.

1  · 
x-jla

This impeachment was essentially a waste of time. The republicans should have used this as a chance to reestablish some principles and vote to impeach. It was a clear impeachable offense. Without broad republican support this will just be another partisan wedge.

 · 

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

2  · 
x-jla

The Democrats are at fault for a lot of things. For one, not condemning and punishing some of their own for past incitement’s of violence over the summer. But this is the issue that should be dealt with first. Then the republicans can demand for Maxine waters and many others resignations.

 · 
x-jla

But they have absolutely no moral footing if they fail to impeach trump after waving Their fingers at the politicians for encouraging mobs all year long.

 · 
x-jla

Not that I think their finger waving was rooted in anything more than politics...

 · 
x-jla

Essentially this whole thing is reduced to another political circus, one one hand the hypocritical Dems capitalizing on this to finally get trump...and on the other the hypocritical republicans refusing to condemn trump for something they’ve been calling out all year.

 · 

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.

2  · 
x-jla

I can’t do the ignore reality thing...

 · 
square.

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.

 · 
x-jla

If nazis believe that the earth is round,

 · 
x-jla

Doesn’t mean one is a nazi for believing the earth is round, and doesn’t mean the earth is flat by association. It’s round.

Many Democrat politicians encouraged political violence and rioting. This is a documentable fact. Yes the violence was different. One group attacked civilians, court houses, private businesses, politicians after trumps speech at the White House, and the police, in the name of a media spread narrative that police brutality and racism is a widespread epidemic at a scale that warrants such a reaction ...the other attacked the capitol, police, and attempted to attack politicians in the name of a media spread narrative that voter fraud was a widespread occurrence at a scale that warrants a reaction by “patriots”. Both camps of rioters believed they were doing something necessary and nobel. Both sides were reacting to an exaggerated reality that happens rarely but not to the extent to warrant the reactions it did. This is reality. The gaslighting and excuses is not helping anything, and no one believes it. The dedication to principles is gone. This is all about dedication to the tribe.

 · 
x-jla

Voter fraud was not zero. Police killing unarmed black men is not zero. The media and politicians who benefit exaggerated these infrequent problems to create divisions, a call for action, and a sense of urgency . This is obvious. Then, they step away and blame the overeacting emotional rioters. If you look at the data in regards to either problem- voter fraud or police shootings of unarmed black men- you will see that it doesn’t align with the narrative, reaction, or the amount of coverage by media and politicians.

 · 
square.

“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.

 · 
tduds

Jesus fucking Christ not this again. *leaves*

3  · 

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

1  · 
x-jla

I don’t care if Ted bundy makes same argument, true is true. This idea that any statement the “enemy” makes is automatically not true is soooo stupid. And, their hypocrisy is 100% relevant. It determines whether their case is politically motivated or principled. In principle Trump should be impeached. I can say this because I’ve been consistent on this. They are like thieves calling out other thieves that stole their things. Sorry, can’t take them seriously

 · 
tduds

Tiltin' at windmills again, are we?

1  · 
square.

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

1  · 
SneakyPete

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.

 · 
x-jla

Being intellectually dishonest is a requirement for the cult of wokeness. I’m not in that cult.

 · 
tduds

No cult would suffer you.

 · 
x-jla

That’s a compliment

 · 
proto


huh

Feb 10, 21 12:59 pm  · 
3  · 
x-jla

Recall Gavin newsom.  

Feb 11, 21 10:30 am  · 
 · 
x-jla

What’s taking so long.

 · 
square.

i don't know much, but there's something i really dislike about that guy. he and cuomo are cut from the same cloth.

2  · 
tduds

I haven't been paying much attention to California lately, since my actions can't really affect California, and I feel like my energy is best spent in my own locale. But I read this great op-ed this morning that reminded me of our previous back & forths about California. My beef previously was that I felt the situation (namely, the net-negative migration) was inherently too complicated and multifaceted to pin on any one cause or another But here, I think Klein puts it in a more comprehensive context while maintaining a clear "cause" in a way that I haven't considered before: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/opinion/california-san-francisco-schools.html 

Anyway, I agree Newsom (and Cuomo) raise some flags for me.

1  · 
square.

more than enough evidence that if tRump and the republicans hadn't been in charge, things would have been much, much better.

https://www.usatoday.com/story...

Feb 11, 21 1:20 pm  · 
3  · 
x-jla

That’s speculation. There are so many variables to consider.

 · 
square.

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

 · 
tduds

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.

 · 
x-jla

The article is making big claims. Meanwhile, Democratic run states don’t have the results to imply the claim of 40%...

1  ·  1
x-jla

And some European nations with socialized medicine had higher cfr’s...so where is this 40% coming from?

 ·  1
tduds

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.

 · 
tduds

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

 ·  1
x-jla

What “national policy” could trump have done?

 · 
tduds

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

 · 
SneakyPete

He seeks no answers.

1  · 
x-jla

No, they are not.

 · 
your conscience

i think something would have to literally shatter the earth for trump to get convicted. this is an incredible waste of time

Feb 11, 21 5:20 pm  · 
 ·  2
SneakyPete

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.

2  · 
square.

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.

2  · 
x-jla

I’m saying it’s a waste of time because it won’t curb trumpism, it will embolden it. They are martyring him. If the mainstream republicans distanced, it probably would have allowed the party to move in a more moderate direction taking with them the majority of republicans in the country...the Q folks are going to stay devout to their dear leader with or without him.

 · 
x-jla

But without republican support the impeachment is a waste of time in effect. It’s not going to change anything in a positive direction.

 · 
Wood Guy

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.

1  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

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.

 · 
x-jla

You’re in a cult^.

 · 
x-jla

The solution is a bipartisan impeachment of trump and then an impeachment of Maxine waters and the slew of others on record encouraging political violence.

 ·  1
tduds

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

1  · 
x-jla

That doesn’t make any sense.

 · 
tduds

He's on record encouraging political violence.

 · 
x-jla

He’s not an elected official. And always advocated for peace.

 · 
x-jla

Impeach Nancy, Chuck, Kamala, all of them!!!

 · 
x-jla

Let’s just rewrite the laws, because the current laws require consistent application...”incitement of violence” now means when a person invites violence, and the person is a republican, and the rioters are republicans, and the cause is not rooted in social justice issues as defined by Democrats”.

 · 
x-jla

Because under current law, if what trump did is impeachable, which I think it is, then everyone who committed comparable offenses should also be impeached...

 · 
x-jla

Can’t have that. The wokies don’t believe in consistency...see the mandalorian fiasco.

 · 
archi_dude

Its the first time in a long time that the other side doesnt feel worlds away from my opinions. The NY Time's morning briefing has a headline article about it being silly to try and stop all deaths in the name of safety. Not give up but realize we are human, need to socialize and there's more damage done than good if people take a mindset of "COVID absolutism" i.e. all mitigation of any risk of COVID is justified no matter the means. Theres still some intelligence out there, thank God.



Feb 12, 21 9:28 am  · 
 · 
square.

sort of, but you're still off. you were arguing early on pretty strongly against the lock downs. the biggest problem with the US was a lack of swift, coordinate mask mandate and short term, intense lockdown. take a look at australia and new zealand- they are able to gather in person (without masks) at different periods not because they were less strict, but more strict and cohesive early on, allowing for flexibility later. our messy, uncoordinated, and haphazard response has gotten us where we are today, requiring indefinite lockdowns.

4  · 
x-jla

We have a different culture here. Imo the best idea I’ve heard was from a doctor/epidemiologist who was pushing for mass distribution of weekly at home rapid testing. His math says that if the rate of transmission goes from 1.2 - 0.9 which would only require moderate test accuracy and half of the time good behavior we can get to 0 cases in a few months. It makes a lot of sense. The fda and bureaucratic bs has made it difficult. The government could have saved the bribe money aka stimulus...and printed these cheap tests weekly distributing them by mail to everyone. The logistics were completely doable according to him.

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

What the fuck are you talking about? Share a link.

 · 
bowling_ball

Absolute nonsense. Based on the last year, where millions have refused to wear masks and have continued disobeying health orders (including politicians in power), what makes you think that increased testing would be successful in the US? You don't think the conspiracy theorists (aka Trump supporters, aka republicans) would have freaked out at the thought of the government sending them weekly biological tests? What planet is that guy on? Because it's not in any way, shape, or form doable if recent history is any indication. It's straight up delusional. This isn't a math problem, it's a question of scientific literacy and people not being complete assholes. Good luck with that.

1  · 
archi_dude

I align my views with the Japanese minister of health. They took the Swedish approach successfully. Trying to stop a disease where 80% of cases are asymptomatic or are contagious up to 14 days prior to symptoms is a losing game and can only result in endless lockdowns. Every single country that was a "success" reimposed lockdowns this winter. Unless say you are an island nation with historically extremely strict immigration policies and have jokes made about you that there are more sheep than people in your country a.k.a. New Zealand, Australia, you
got to let it slow burn. You cant eliminate it.

 · 
archi_dude

Of course the argument really comes down to, save everyone at all costs no matter how low the death rate is, future generations be damned or this isnt actually that serious to warrant this response and we need to balance our approach to mitigate potential problems our reactions are creating. It's not black or white, just stating I'm glad to see a more left center publication easing back off the hype after realizing we cant do this forever.

 · 

archi_dude, please post one example of where someone with any power, or influence over people with the power, was making the argument that we have to "save everyone at all costs."

 · 
archi_dude

"If everything we do saves just one life I'll be happy" - Andrew Cuomo

 · 

So that's a governor saying that he wants to save "one life," not "everyone at all costs" ... try again.

2  · 
x-jla

I’m not talking about it...Dr Micheal Mina and Harvard doctor and epidemiologist is taking about it, but bowling ball knows better...the strategy doesn’t require 100% accurate tests or complete compliance. It just requires a slight downturn in transmission rate. If 100 people notmallspread to 120, and 120 to 150 you get a increase in cases. If 100 people only spread to 90, then 90 to 82 and so on you get a decrease. This makes a lot of sense. If you could test weekly at home, and quickly isolate while possibly mildly ill or asymptotic it would be effective if even 30% or 40% of people followed common sense and decency. Of the 10 people I know who had covid, all but 2 were so mildly sick they didn’t even know that they were sick. You can check him out on the Lex Fridman podcast. He explains it much better.

 · 
x-jla

“ You don't think the conspiracy theorists (aka Trump supporters, aka republicans) would have freaked out at the thought of the government sending them weekly biological tests?” No it’s a litmus strip rapid test. No need to resend to a lab. Like a pregnancy test it gives a result in a few mins. The ones he developed are like 99% accurate if you have an active infection

 · 
bowling_ball

Thanks for the clarification re: tests, but the more important part of my comment still stands. We've seen what happened when everyone was asked to stay home for two weeks - they didn't. We saw what happened when we asked everyone to wear masks - they don't. Americans simply loathe being told what to do. By your own definition of yourself as a libertarian, you should be keenly aware of this. That's a remarkably delusional assertion by that doctor. Yes, it may work in theory, but the real world tells us that it doesn't work that way when your culture has been telling everyone it's super duper special for the last 250 years.

 · 

If it's not clear, archi_dude is setting an extremely high bar, "save everyone at all costs," as a straw man so he can easily take it down with statements that people are suffering during lockdowns. No is disputing that people are suffering during lockdowns. That doesn't mean we abandon what has been shown to be effective.

It also doesn't mean we stop trying to figure out other ways to alleviate the suffering during lockdowns, or figure out other ways to slow the spread. I'm happy to continue discussions along those lines including jla's thing about more testing. I haven't read the article he posted, but from the very beginning of this, I've said that the government failed to provide sufficient resources for testing, so I imagine any effort to increase the availability of tests would be something I'd be in favor of. I think it would also need to be coupled with educational campaigns to instruct people about not only how to accurately administer tests and interpret results, but also how often they need to be testing themselves.

2  · 
archi_dude

Again, I started with saying I agreed with a center left publication NY Times that was discussing that we are going too far and adopting policies based on the assumption to stop COVID regardless of the costs. And that it was nice to hear them state these arent straw man claims and we need to make sure to not fall into this trap. However, so Everyday, stick your fingers in your ears as much as you want and twist and discount the things i say because I openly have diferent opinions than you but the world is
waking up and I'm glad to see it.

 · 
tduds

Coming up on the 1 year anniversary of this post & I'm furious at how true it turned out.

2  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

Put that in a vault.

 · 

You're misrepresenting the NYT's "The Morning" briefing. Whether or not you agree with that misrepresentation isn't really the point. The point is you are misrepresenting them to show us all how you've been right all along (you haven't) and the voice of reason (you haven't) and that we should agree with you because the NYT agrees with you (the briefing doesn't support your view). 

You set up the straw man, the NYT briefing did not, that we must "save everyone at all costs" so you can claim to be the voice of reason. The NYT briefing was about how absolutist policies to minimize all risk of infection go too far and have a counterintuitive effect. Yes, they talk about this in terms of absolutism, but not the kind you're describing.

2  · 
randomised

Some ICU doctors here (NL) are already saying that it is antisocial to let COVID dictate everything in the hospitals:

 · 
randomised

As head of the IC of Amsterdam UMC, Armand Girbes sees how covid care is disrupting hospitals. He thinks it is unfair that corona always takes precedence. “It’s just anti-social.”

“I like to compare covid care with a cuckoo cub. It sits in a nest, grows and throws out all the other birds. What we do: we look at that nest, at that one bird, and we put everything we can into it. But little birds lying under the tree that have been thrown out.

The patients who now have to wait longer for care. People who have their surgery postponed or who are not yet aware that they have cancer. I hear from colleagues in Paris that women who come to the breast clinic with breast cancer are often a stage further in their disease than women who came there a year ago. ”
“It is difficult to express it in numbers, because often there are none at all. Someone who does not undergo hip or knee surgery now will remain poorly mobile for longer and may develop thrombosis, or a pulmonary embolism, or fall badly. Much damage remains unnamed and counted. Much will only reveal itself in the coming years. We will be evaluating in two or three years, then committees will be set up to draw the conclusions that I have been drawing since March. ”

Scaling down care
The care is not distributed fairly right now, I can get very angry about that. We just watch Covid-19 every day. We report the corona numbers every day, but I never see the numbers of increasing waiting lists, of surgeries that are canceled. There is a focus on a small part of the care, the covid patient. But the counterpart, all those people who were still in the hospital a year ago and now no longer, we hardly portray. As a result, we hardly look at the whole. And that is all: we have more patients than available beds. ”

“As an intensivist I know very well what that means. Then you have to make choices. Just like in the past, the trade-off: how are you going to divide the capacity that we have fairly among all patients? But we don’t. We make a passive, unfair choice by allowing the ICs to fill up with corona patients, and by scaling down the other care. As if corona patients are pathetic than other patients. That is unjust. ”

“Any choice will be unfair and unjust for certain individuals. And every patient and every family must be able to have 100 percent confidence that as head of the ICU, I will do everything for them.

The basis of our functioning is that trust. So I will never make a statement about who should and who shouldn’t have a place on the ic. But I would like to appeal: create a small group of content experts, real specialists in this field. Let them put it on paper on rational grounds: this is how the care should be divided. ”

Disappointed again

“We now know so much about the corona virus. I estimate that in the second wave on average 25 percent of the corona patients die on my IC. That is an average survival rate of 75 percent. Treatments are now being postponed for patients who now have much higher chances of survival. As a doctor, all patients are equally dear to me. I will treat everyone as best I can. I now take very good care of the people who face me. But the people who don’t face me are now being disadvantaged. There is no one to stand up for them. ”

“600 patients in the ICs and 1,600 in the rest of the hospitals are currently disrupting an entire country. This has been the case for a long time. And now we have the corona vaccine. Again, there is scarcity, so we have to make clear choices. And here too I am disappointed again. Until now, the Health Council has always recommended distributing the first vaccines among the weakest in society. ”

“The minister took over those recommendations. Yes, the health care workers eventually got a vaccine too, but after a lot of pressure, eh. I find it inconceivable that in such a huge crisis we are the first to distribute our scarce vaccines among 100, 90 and 80 year olds, the target group that hardly or never ends up on the ic. Mind you: I am not against vaccinating old people in nursing homes, not at all. ”
Defend the city

“Can I use another metaphor? Suppose you have a walled city in the Middle Ages that is under siege. A hostile force is trying to starve the population and you have little food. Then to whom do you give that food: to the people who defend the city, or to the weakest people who hide in the middle of the city? What is merciful? I think it is much better for society to feed the strong people first. In other words, the care personnel, the teachers, firefighters, police officers. ”

“If they can do their job safely, you then look at the people who end up on the IC and therefore now block care and keep society locked up. They are in their fifties and sixties, overweight men. If I have to choose between a vaccine for my 86-year-old father or a doctor, I say: give it to the doctor. And then my father has to wait a little longer, however unfortunate I think that is. ”

“People who are near the end of their lives, sometimes already demented, are given a vaccine. That sounds very merciful, and sweet. Just as it sounds very merciful that we are now always putting corona care ahead of other care. But if you think carefully, it is anti-social. I fear that in our luxurious society we are not able, have never learned, to make these kinds of choices. Neither is politics. Nobody dares to say: we should allow fewer corona patients to the ic. Everyone flees, looks the other way, while the problem is huge. ”
Armand GirbesImage twitter

“I still have to tell surgeons every day that their surgery cannot go ahead because there is no IC bed, and neither tomorrow nor the day after tomorrow. You really don’t have to be an Einstein to see that the offer is greater than we can handle, and therefore you have to make responsible, fair choices. But it hasn’t happened since March. I think that is bad, and to be honest, stupid. But it is also the case in countries around us. I mainly watch French TV, and you see exactly the same thing happening there. ”

“I think it is due to the politically correct, well-talked culture in many Western countries. And you don’t overcome a crisis with that good talking. We don’t want to face what’s really going on. We also find it difficult to recognize finiteness, that an old person will simply die at some point. And it has to do with courage, with the ability to make the correct analysis, with medical knowledge. ”

“I’ve been telling this story since March. And as far as I am concerned it is a very logical story. But it still hasn’t been picked up. Whether it is too late? Always knock, they say in France, you must always keep knocking on the door. It is never too late. But it is going to be damn slow. ”.

 · 
archi_dude

EA "save everyone at all costs" "policies that stop all infection"....that would literally be the same thing.

 · 

Neither I, nor the NYT briefing used that language, "policies that stop all infection," as you've quoted it. I recommend you read better.

 · 
archi_dude

Lol dude, scroll up and read your own writing you are splitting hairs trying to hold onto your ideology.

 · 

My words: "The NYT briefing was about how absolutist policies to minimize all risk of infection go too far and have a counterintuitive effect."

Surely you can see how this statement is different than what you're putting into my mouth with "policies that stop all infection" and how even that mischaracterization differs from "save everyone at all costs.

At any rate, I'm done trying to point out things that are clearly observable. (h/t to tduds for the tweet)

2  · 
archi_dude

EA you are proving my standing even more than. I've always been for a middle of the road approach, that wording is stating that the more extreme middle of the road approach, policies that minimize all risk of infection go too far. I agree, it's nice that NY times agrees with me. I'm sorry your argument is so weak you can only split hairs now. I hope it comforts you

 · 

My only argument here was that you were setting up a straw man. I've proved that. If you want to read the NYT and agree with it, without the straw man, go knock yourself out.

1  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

EA, you're correct of course, the article is lazy, and manages to lazily crib The Atlantic piece. The only thing I can possibly agree with is spending valuable resources on ineffectual solutions, rather than getting better ventilation, is a waste of time and money. This piece doesn't really get at what archi says, unless of course you want to look at handful of instances and claim that is universally occurring. But then that would be like seeing people all day wearing masks, and presuming everyone is wearing masks, until you confess that the only people you've seen are the ones in the mirror.

 · 
bowling_ball

I admit I didn't read the whole article, and it raises many good points that I agree with. Having said that, last time I checked, COVID was contagious and cancer / glaucoma / injured knees aren't. So yes, there's got to be a priority to get it under control. With the benefit of hindsight we understand the repercussions a lot better, but at some point a decision has to be made as to who to prioritize. Not a decision I'd like to have to make.

1  · 
tduds

Wow I'd heard that Trump's legal team was not doing great but this is just embarrassing.

Feb 12, 21 3:20 pm  · 
4  · 
x-jla

I’m sure the Dems are embarrassed too. Impeach them ALL

 · 

[redacted]

 · 
x-jla
x-jla

I’ll add to this...the folks on here also like playing a game called “our authoritarians are better than your authoritarians”

 · 

well, that was entirely predictable 

Feb 13, 21 4:10 pm  · 
2  · 
x-jla

No shit. Symbolic my ass. They just symbolized that Trump is not guilty in the minds of 175million people at least...they are so fucking incompetent...bOtH sIdEs

 · 
proto

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...

1  · 
x-jla

I’m convinced that they don’t want a more moderate Republican Party. They won’t be able to contrast as a lesser of two evils. A bombastic boogeyman is politically convenient for a party of soulless do nothing.

 · 
x-jla

And the republicans obviously don’t want to be more moderate either. For them it’s politically easier to sloganeer and hate monger than do actual work.

 · 
x-jla

We need a third party unity ticket. No hate mongering, no woke bs, no identity politics, no white nationalism, no toxicity...a principled party that is dedicated to the basics...That’s the only way I see out of this mess.

 · 
Wood Guy

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.

2  · 
x-jla

No, we have 2 corrupt elitist parties. And until “progressive” is completely redefined that’s not a good goal. They are incredibly toxic and regressive in their current incarnation.

 · 
x-jla

We need a stronger left/right libertarian party, because both main parties are autocratic.

 · 
Wood Guy

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.

 · 
Koww

the onus was on the democrats to persuade republicans. they failed, to the surprise of no one. people need to stop electing incompetent officials...this requires education and campaign finance reform... hope we can get it done in the next 50 years. also requires trust and tolerance. right now every move by anyone is assumed to political in motive. not sure how that can be transcended.

Feb 13, 21 7:28 pm  · 
 · 

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.

1  · 
x-jla

Nah man. Who tf they trying to convince? The republicans hate the democrats and think they are hypocritical scum bags (they are). The democrats hate the republicans and think they are hypocritical scumbags (they are). Nothing was accomplished. Waste of time and tax payer money. That’s all these cunts have done the last 4 years.

 ·  1
tduds

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

 · 
x-jla

Cuomo should get impeached 



Feb 16, 21 12:41 am  · 
 · 

Ranty update on my homeless friend's situation: Still no housing and it is *truly* Kafkaesque. She can't be accepted to the affordable apartments because, even though she has a state ID, the state ID address isn't accurate because she's been bumped to so many temporary housing situations over the last year, and she doesn't have a birth certificate AND social security card to prove her ID, because she's homeless and *big surprise* has lost pieces of paper while living on the street. You can't get a SScard without a birth certificate, and vice versa, unless you come to the office in person, which they won't allow because of COVID, so you have to do it through the mail, which takes 6-8 weeks, but if she can't produce it in 2 weeks she loses her place on the waiting list for the affordable apartment, an apartment that she needs so she has an address so she can update her state ID to be accurate, so that she can get an apartment so that she's not living on the street.

Capitalism is a sickness. The USA is terminal.

Feb 16, 21 10:49 am  · 
8  · 
Wood Guy

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

 · 
SneakyPete

The system is working as intended.

2  · 
archi_dude

Seems more like an issue with big government bureaucracy than capitalism no?

2  · 
x-jla

Again, complaining about capitalism without an alternative is a useless point. If capitalism causes suffering x 1 and know alternatives cause suffering x 100, then wouldn’t it make more sense to improve upon the system that works far better more often rather than demonizing it? The bloodsuckers in office would love to take your free market liberties away...because with it goes all the other civil liberties that keep them from complete power.

 ·  1
x-jla

And, devoid of reality when you look at how it’s greatly improved living conditions for more people than anything else. Don’t sacrifice the good for naive dreams of the perfect.

1  · 
randomised

“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.

1  · 
randomised

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

Would be priceless!

1  · 
SneakyPete

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

 ·  1
x-jla

Nope. Money exists to liberate make trade. If I grow apples, and you build cars, and a car equals 100,000 apples to trade, and you don’t need 100,000 apples, then you need money as a medium. how else do you propose we trade stuff without money?

 · 
x-jla

More empty angst...

 · 
archi_dude

Donna, I don't know, I always agreed with the theory that a bureaucracy that costs money protects its budget and staff. Solving problems would immediately destroy itself. Much like the oil companies buying up electric car specs. So they naturally tend to service issues without ever solving the problem slowly just growing larger and less efficient. My friend on an airforce base recently told me they ordered hundreds of tools and then proceeded to dump them to protect their maintenance budget.

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

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.

1  · 
x-jla

Lmfao

 · 
archi_dude

Lol, and that's gone so well wherever it was tried. People were/still do cross minefields to get to capitalism and away from Marxism.

 · 
x-jla

Totalitarians have cool logos, and architects are suckers for graphic design.

 · 
randomised

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...

 · 
randomised

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?

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

"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."


1  · 

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.

4  · 
x-jla

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”. By this, Marxism is a form of insanity.

 · 
randomised

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(!)

 · 
x-jla

Capitalism promotes innovation and variety. That’s very obvious. Socialism requires expanded state power, and power corrupts always. Marxism has failed every single time. Capitalism has succeeded with a few side effects. Those side effects are almost entirely caused by government.

 · 
randomised

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?

3  ·  1
BabbleBeautiful

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.

1  · 
randomised

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

1  · 
x-jla

Randomized, come on with the bad logic. Global warming is a product of resource use. Resource use is a product of human needs. There is zero evidence that a socialist nation will use resources more efficiently. They are starving to death, so maybe they use less, but to maintain the same quality of life, sorry but Newton’s second law doesn’t go on pause because socialism. Again, mass deforestation...stop just stop. Have you looked at the worst offenders? Historically, Marxism has led to death, destruction, extreme oppression, poverty, environmental destruction, etc. capitalism has led to more freedom, prosperity, innovation, and stability than anything.

 · 
x-jla

“The so-called side effects of capitalism are worse than the presumed benefits when looking at the big picture holistically, no?” No. Not if you are looking at actual history lol.

 · 
x-jla

“ The issue is and always will be the PEOPLE running the system - whatever that system is.”. That’s the problem. When you centralize power, eventually bad people will cease it and abuse it. This is a guarantee. Marxism requires centralized power. Capitalism, as imperfect as it may manifest at times, does not require centralized power. Capitalism may have pockets of centralized power, like the coal industry having power over a town in West Virginia or something, but it’s escapable, localized, and non-permanent because of technological change...

 · 
x-jla

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/racial-unrest-us-congress-takes-reparations/story%3fid=75925706


I’m not sure how I feel about this particular proposal, that rep is a moron, and her gun bill is unconstitutional bs, but I think reparations of some kind is probably a good idea.  I don’t like the  idea of reparations going to individuals, because obviously none of us were alive then, and most of our ancestors weren’t connected at all, even if they were, paying for crimes of ancestors is too Kim Jungy...but potentially an infrastructure bill that goes towards neighborhoods that have black populations over a certain % would be a good think and benefit all people directly or indirectly...a reparations bill should look more like a modern version of the city beautiful movement....and should focus on basic infrastructure, cleaning up blighted lots, parks, street lighting, police reform, etc...   

Feb 17, 21 1:16 pm  · 
 · 
tduds

Good Riddance Limbaugh.

Feb 17, 21 5:33 pm  · 
2  · 

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.

 · 
SneakyPete

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.

2  · 
tduds

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."

3  · 
Non Sequitur

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

1  · 
x-jla

I usually feel sad when I hear of some celebrities death. I’d say if I had to make a graph of sadness, Bourdain would be at the top, and Rush somewhere between the bottom and Jenny McCarthys hamster. This doesn’t mean I’m happy to see him die. Just that someone needs to be at the bottom of the graph.

 · 
Wood Guy

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

1  · 
x-jla

Ey, fuck you ted Cruz 

Feb 19, 21 12:42 pm  · 
4  · 

Also fuck all the people who are trying to defend him . . .

2  · 
randomised

I don’t know if making love with Ted Cruz or the people defending him is going to solve anything

1  · 

Oh trust me, the way I'd do it would solve a lot . . .

 · 
x-jla

Probably why he was going to Cancun

 · 

If Ted was a democrat, we'd probably already have his resignation. But as a republican this is entirely on message.

Ted is just a normal guy who worked hard to get where he's at and he's just trying to enjoy his privilege. He's focused on his family and dropping everything to get them to a nice warm resort was what anyone would do. Don't be mad because he's able to afford it. We should all be so lucky to support the economy and support job creators. Think of all the workers who benefitted from him flying his family to the resort. If you can't afford to go on vacation, maybe you should support deregulation so more jobs can be created and your bosses can pay you better. Shame on you all for not going on vacation and easing the burden on Texas' energy grid.

2  · 
x-jla

Hahahahahahahaha. Hahahhahaha. Where’s Newsom, cuomo, pelosi, light foot, etc etc etc etc fucking etc

 ·  1
geezertect

+++++ Much truth there.

 · 
Wood Guy

None of them are in Cancun.

1  · 
x-jla

Ahhh Cancun, that’s pushing it too far...closing all wineries except the one you own is a bigger offense imo. Killing old folks and then hiding the data for political reason...getting caught in hair salon while simultaneously destroying hair salons with closures...then they wonder why people use terms like libtard.

 ·  1
x-jla

opinion: most teachers aren’t really scared of the virus, they just don’t want to go back to work.  

Feb 20, 21 10:36 pm  · 
 ·  1
geezertect

^ ++++++++ Much truth there.

 ·  1
Wood Guy

I know a lot of teachers, and as far as I can tell, 100% of them are "afraid" of the virus (as we all should be) and can't wait to get back to the classroom. Is your opinion founded on anything?

2  · 

Your opinion is shit. You obviously don't know many teachers.

 · 
tduds

Opinion: water is dry. sky is red.

 · 
x-jla

Many of them like the pandemic, in same way kids like snow days.

 · 
x-jla

Do you blame them not wanting to be in a room of 30 annoying kids...instead they now work from home still getting paid to do half the work...it’s an obvious assumption.

 ·  1
tduds

"it’s an obvious assumption" unless you talk to any teachers.

1  · 
x-jla

Yeah, because they are going to admit it

 · 
x-jla

Either open up, or Defund the schools.

 · 
x-jla

100%, no way. What realistic % do you think is loving this shit?

 · 
x-jla

Nothing is 100%

 · 
Non Sequitur

Every teacher I know prefer in-person over virtual teaching and all of them are happy to be back in class instead of teaching through a webcam.

3  · 
tduds

Your opinions on most things make more sense now that I realize you don't do any research and just "intuit" things out of whole cloth like some kind of Department Store Socrates.

2  · 
x-jla

That’s why I said “Opinion” tduds. I

 · 
tduds

Opinions based on incorrect (or insufficient) information are incorrect opinions.

 · 
x-jla

If you bet that 100% of teachers want to go back, you would lose your money. It’s not 100%. Can we agree on that? I think “most” don’t. If you said most do, that’s a valid opinion. 100% is completely unrealistic

 · 
x-jla

What is your counter opinion based on? Or you don’t have to justify it with data because it aligns with the acceptable narrative?

 · 
tduds

You're the one making a claim, burden of proof is on you.

 · 
Non Sequitur

99.42% of teachers want to go back. that 0.58% difference represents the minority that subscribe to the same news source as Jla... and probably should not be teaching in the first place... unless it's gym class.

1  · 
x-jla

Citation needed

 · 
Non Sequitur

ridiculous claims do not require citations to be labeled as ridiculous.

1  · 
tduds

"I can eat 100 eggs" 

"No you can't" 

"Prove I can't"

2  · 
randomised

My hypochondriac cousin is a teacher and hates teaching in person during this pandemic, not only are you surrounded by teenagers with questionable hygiene, they often think wearing a mask is lame and see wearing it half or not at all as a rebellious act...not to mention all the other teachers and support staff that share the same stuffy building and narrow corridors...or what about the parents of those kids, who knows how many Karens(m/f/x) among them that infect their kid. My cousin is a very dedicated teacher, one of the best really , yet fears for his health and worse every time he has to go to class. #2cents

 · 
Non Sequitur

Rando, every teacher I know would call that particular person a poor example of a teacher.

1  · 
Wood Guy

"Department Store Socrates" lolololol

1  · 
x-jla

Defund schools. Open or give me my taxes back so that I can put towards private schools that are almost all open

 · 
Non Sequitur

yeah, you're not gonna go very far with that nonsense Jla.

 · 
x-jla

By the way, can’t Google this topic for some reason and get any results. Use duckduckgo

 · 
x-jla

Google carefully curates a “progressive” narrative

 · 
randomised

My cousin would love to be teaching in person again, but it's simply not safe in his opinion, therefor he hates being forced to do it under these circumstances. Does that make him a poor example of a teacher, possibly sacrificing his health and wellbeing, like so many replaceable essential workers are forced to do? Sorry but I think that's nonsense. Would any of you voluntarily be put in a classroom with around 30 different teenagers every 1 to 2 hrs 5 days a week for 6hrs a day, not wearing a mask (that's only mandatory in the hallways or in the cafeteria), getting possibly exposed to COVID because your government is not yet planning on vaccinating teachers or students yet?

 · 
Non Sequitur

Yeah, I still keep my original statement rando. Just make the damn masks mandatory. Everyone here 6y or older has to wear one while on school grounds.

 · 
randomised

still doesn't make a person a bad teacher just because they're forced to work in a potentially unsafe work environment, hypochondriac or not. Or let's say he actually has COVID and exposes 90 students every day to it. I just think it's irresponsible. My former boss's kid (primary school) had one day of school (they reopened) before the entire class had to go into quarantine (for 5 days) and they all had to have a cotton swab jammed up their nostrils.

 · 
Non Sequitur

If they value their own hysteria (aka germaphobe) over giving their students proper in class education, yes, I would think that’s a poor example of a teacher.

 · 

In anticipation of opening schools back up, my local district polled the teachers and the students for their preference of continuing remote teaching or back in person. Most teachers opted for in person. About half the students (i.e. their parents) opted for continuing remote teaching.

TEACHERS WANT TO TEACH IN PERSON

To get ready for opening back up schools, the district had to tell teachers that wanted to go back in person that some of them would be required to continue teaching remotely instead. Half the allotted time for comments at the next school board meeting was about how much the teachers were pissed that they had to continue teaching remotely if the schools were open.

TEACHERS WANT TO TEACH IN PERSON

When the district and the teachers union reached an agreement on how to proceed with reopening the schools. Something like 80% of the teachers voted to approve the agreement. Some of those that voted against it thought it didn't go far enough to open up the schools

TEACHERS WANT TO TEACH IN PERSON

At the same time, those who are afraid of getting sick want to feel protected at their workplace. The district hasn't invested in better air handling equipment, or filtration, or really anything beyond cloth masks to protect their employees. This means that while teachers want to go back, they are also apprehensive about not getting the proper protection and getting sick. The same teachers that want to go back can also want to be protected. It's not either-or ... it's not simply black or white.

 · 
randomised

It's not safe to do proper in class education, for anyone, us non-hypochondriacs too, under these circumstances here, others might ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but he's freaking out. Does that make him a poor example of a teacher? I honestly don't think so, the opposite actually. He also has two small kids, his mum and father in law are in a risk group, but he has to simply suck it up and pretend it's all cool? Last time I checked we're still in the midst of a pandemic...but okay you've made your point.

 · 
x-jla

There is basically zero risk for kids. Most teachers are young. The old ones and sick ones can stay home and continue remote learning. Not a risk worth stunting millions of kids education over. Statistically it’s more life endangering to drive to school. Covid is not going away. Every one needs to deal with some risk. Teach outside, do something. It’s been a year, these school boards and unions are being unreasonable.

 · 
x-jla

No one is following the friggin science. If every other person can be back at work, so can teachers. This online shit is a burden for parents. Or, lower school taxes now that they have less expenses and call it a day.

 · 
BabbleBeautiful

Yes, it's understood the risk for kids of certain age bracket are much lower, but they can be carriers and transmit the disease, ergo risk for teachers.

"If every other person can be back at work, so can teachers."

But this isn't true.

1  · 

They actually are trying to follow the science. The science is saying that certain protections should be in place to protect teachers, children, their families, and their communities. The issue is that there is not enough money, incentive, political will, ???, to prioritize the protective measures. Once those are in place, you'll see teachers begging to get back into the classrooms.

 · 
Non Sequitur

Serious questions, has this shit not been done yet? It has here and save for the post Xmas planned closures, schools are open. Daily screening and mandatory Masks and all that jazz. I at least assumed this was common ish in non m’erica places hence my comments to rando above. Am I safe to assume this is due to the public vs private schools in god’s chosen land of freedom?

 · 
x-jla

Non, in my state most school districts are still closed since last March. Every single other business has been open, including gyms, and despite no mask mandate at the state level, nearly every person wears them. School openings have been left to the districts, and unions are making it impossible to open.

 · 
x-jla

EA, risk is part of life. I literally know of teachers who are complaining about going back to classroom, covid as a reason, and then they go out drinking in crowded restaurants, have gatherings, attend kids bday parties (seen this first hand) etc. I’m not buying it.

 · 
x-jla

This is why state run shit doesn’t work.

 · 
BabbleBeautiful

Sounds like the problem is isolated to your state? This isn't happening in the New England states.

 · 
Non Sequitur

Thanks for the clarification.

 · 

I'm not saying you're making shit up, but it's not what I'm seeing though. Most teachers I know would love it if people would simply stay home, so community spread is low and they could get back into the classroom. Of course, they'd also like better ventilation, kids who would actually wear masks, and unselfish parents that would be willing to forego their planned vacations, workouts in gyms, drinks with friends etc. It's about the collective community being willing to make sacrifices for the sake of educating their children. When all the other businesses are open, and schools are not, it's pretty apparent that community does not prioritize education. If they really wanted kids back in person, they'd all stay home and send their kids to school. My state won't even prioritize educators so they can get the vaccine yet. It won't be until later this spring before teachers are eligible (other states are different). So when people (politicians from the left and right included) complain that the unions are making it impossible to open classrooms I call BS. It's the community prioritizing money and business over education that is making it impossible to open.

1  · 
Non Sequitur

EA, I'm not saying you're incorrect, but the unions were 100% at fault for delaying school reopening in my province since we had all the safety protocols and system in place. They used the initial shut down to shoe-horn in demands unrelated to covid that were not met in previous negotiations under the ruse of "think of the children"... when in fact children are a very... very distant 4th concern of theirs (their first is the increase in union dues, then miles behind that are teachers and taxpayer's money... then it's the kids, if they have time).

 ·  1
randomised

"Most teachers I know would love it if people would simply stay home, so community spread is low and they could get back into the classroom. Of course, they'd also like better ventilation, kids who would actually wear masks, and unselfish parents that would be willing to forego their planned vacations, workouts in gyms, drinks with friends etc. It's about the collective community being willing to make sacrifices for the sake of educating their children."  

Exactly! 

Now it seems schools have to reopen prematurely just so the parents can go back to business as usual, sacrificing the health and wellbeing of the teachers along the way. It's disgusting in my opinion...because teachers would love nothing less than to teach in person when it's safe to do so, for all involved.


 · 
x-jla

Ok, I think we’ve all come to a solution...two words- holographic teachers. Let them stay home, send the kids to school.

 · 
Non Sequitur

are the holograms armed? You can't be too careful. 

 · 
x-jla

No, but they all look like Samuel L Jackson from the move 187...

1  · 

NS, That sucks. I can't speak for all the unions in the US, but for the one my wife belongs to, they are definitely focused on their mission to advocate for teachers, but a big part of that is to support the teachers' mission which is to the students.

The district was the hold up in reaching an agreement here, not the union. Once the agreement was reached, 80% (+/-) of the membership voted to accept it. They weren't renegotiating their contract so they couldn't change other terms of the agreement they'd already negotiated for pay, etc. (union dues wouldn't factor in at all in these negotiations) ... it was just a memo of understanding about how the district would implement reopening and what protections would be provided. In other words, narrowly focused on reopening under covid alone.

The new agreement/memo was only necessary because the state changed the way they were reporting infection rates. The district and union already had an agreement in place when they went remote about how and when schools would reopen. It was mostly based on rates of community spread, but when the state changed what they were reporting (I think in response to CDC guidelines, etc.) there was no way for the previously agreed upon metrics to be followed. The district was pushing to just open up regardless of the metrics which was not in line with the previous agreement. So they needed to come up with something new based on the metrics that the state is currently reporting. The union was making a good faith effort to negotiate the new memo, but the district was dragging its feet because they were expecting more leniency from the state in reopening guidelines (all in the name of passing liability to someone else). When it became clear that wasn't happening on the timeline they thought it would, they were basically forced to go to the table to negotiate with the union. Agreement was reached within a few days once that happened, which was quickly followed by union acceptance of the terms, which was followed by the schools reopening (those that could reopen under the accepted terms) in about a week and a half.

I'll reiterate that even then, more students wanted to stay remote vs the amount of teachers that wanted to get back in the classroom in person. Teachers that wanted to be in the class were told they had to stay home because not enough students opted to go back in person. So at least in my community, parents are keeping their kids home even when the schools are opening. Sort of flies in the face of the reporting that teachers have it easy staying home and want to remain there, while parents are not able to handle having their kids at home and need the schools to reopen, no?

1  · 
Non Sequitur

Sounds far more reasonable then what we had last spring. The union boss was having a public dick-measuring contest with the Premier on the radio. Not a pretty sight and certainly not something most teachers wanted to be associated with at that time (my wife included). Anyways, that part is over with, for now, but it's mostly just dormant.

 · 
x-jla

nyt tard hack thinks fears that private conversations are “unfettered” 


“fetter: a chain or manacle used to restrain a prisoner, typically placed around the ankles.”


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-taylor-lorenz-clubhouse-unfettered-conversations.amp

Feb 22, 21 12:12 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/national/immigrant-children-camp-texas-biden/2021/02/22/05dfd58c-7533-11eb-8115-9ad5e9c02117_story.html%3foutputType=amp


But but she’s got melanin, and at least he doesn’t talk like he’s from Queens amiright.

Feb 23, 21 6:24 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

What, no one cares about kids in cages aka “not cages” anymore?

 · 

I think mostly no one cares to click through the random links you post without some context.

Quick poll: How many of you click on the links jla posts with no indication of the content or topic, or only a vague reference to it?

I click maybe 2% of the time.


 · 
x-jla

Crickets

 · 
tduds

I haven't clicked a single link on this page.

1  · 
x-jla

Both sides

 · 
x-jla

It’s about Biden putting kids in cages, being a NAZI...

 · 
tduds

...

Feb 24, 21 5:04 pm  · 
3  · 
x-jla

Yup, even let that through

 · 
x-jla

And that

 · 
SneakyPete

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

1  · 
tduds

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

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

4  · 
x-jla

Do you work for Google?

 · 
x-jla

Search for vaccine deaths on Google, and then DuckDuckGo. Compare the results. One latter provides direct links to stories for the grownups, the former provides disclaimered msm articles for the children.

 · 
x-jla

It’s well documented that Google does this. Why are you defending them?

 · 
tduds

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

3  · 
tduds

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.

5  · 
x-jla

I’ve been dunking on you since page 1

 · 
tduds

sure you are honey.

3  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

This,

Is gold.

1  · 
tduds

wise.

3  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

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

1  · 
x-jla

I’m using Google, so what. Never said I wouldn’t use Google.

 · 
x-jla

I said that Google is curating a certain narrative, which is true, and has been established by many others. You are nit picking my posts to avoid that by your own standards Biden and Kamala are NAZIS!!!

 · 
x-jla

*avoid acknowledging

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

TEN to 3.

 · 
x-jla

Bad month for Cuomo huh



Feb 25, 21 5:12 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

Hopefully Warren Wilhelm Jr. aka the guy who identifies as Bill Deblasio, a relatable Italian ny’er, gets caught for something next. That guy is the puke of the earth.

 · 
tduds

Tell me more about bias.

 · 
tduds

"He changed his name to Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm in 1983 and finally to Bill de Blasio in 2001 to honor his maternal family, and because of his alienation from his father." Well at least I learned something today.

 · 
x-jla

I was making fun of that grifter

 · 
x-jla

Is Biden a nazi?

 · 
x-jla

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/potato-head-hasbro-rebranding-gender-neutral-name-change/


A gender neutral potato head.  Seriously.  Everyone knows potatoes only have 2 genders 



Feb 27, 21 7:02 pm  · 
 · 
randomised

Libertarian? ;-)




Feb 27, 21 9:15 pm  · 
1  · 
x-jla

I’m complaining that I have to live among people that stupid

 · 
x-jla

And I don’t know a single person left or right that isn’t making fun of this.

 · 
randomised

Was just kidding

 · 
Non Sequitur

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.

 · 
Wood Guy

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)." 

4  · 
Non Sequitur

um... exhibit A below.

3  · 
x-jla

Currently in my Amazon shopping list- potato head, dildo, tiny maga shirt and hat...

 · 
x-jla

Wood Guy, it’s worth discussing because it’s a funny thing tied to a really corrosive and toxic thing- woke culture

 · 
Wood Guy

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

2  · 
x-jla

It’s a symptom of the biggest sociological problem we face.

 · 
x-jla

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

 · 
Wood Guy

Mmm hmm

1  · 
tduds

Mmmm hmmm

 · 
Non Sequitur
x-jla

You can ignore it all you want. It’s religious fundamentalism.

 · 
tduds

Mmmm hmmm

1  · 

"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.

2  · 
tduds

hmm...


2  · 
Non Sequitur

OooooooOoOoooOoO hmmmm

 · 
x-jla

If you don’t see what’s going on then you are not thinking critically or paying much attention. You can start by reading or listening to what many others who find this woke shit toxic including people on the left are saying. It’s racist, anti intellectual, pits feelings against reason, prefers less speech over more speech, banishes rather than teaches, sterilizes rather than makes more colorful, kills humor, demands allegiance, demands perfection, promotes fake sanctimonious bs, self serving, self righteous....

 · 

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.

1  · 
tduds

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.

2  · 
tduds

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.

 · 
x-jla

I just listed several things EA. I’m not writing a term paper for you. Many prominent voices have already hashed out this shit. Read. Like I said, the problems are obvious to any thinking
person.

 · 
x-jla

But here’s on obvious thing- racism. 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. 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. 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. Listen to Coleman Hughes or read his essays on the subject. He covers this in great depth and clarity.

 · 
tduds

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.

1  · 

"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.

1  · 
x-jla

No, it’s not hard at all. It’s just a waste of time. I’m not going to write term papers with citations for you. The problems with woke culture and cancel culture is self evident. Do I need to explain that a bunch sanctimonious assholes canceling Abe Lincoln or Dr Seuss is retarded? Do I need to explain the dangers of people being afraid to speak their minds because they may get something wrong? Do I need to explain the dangers of abandoning reason and scientific inquiry in academia to satisfy some preconceived narrative? This woke filter is deranging the way people interpret information and communicate.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmXTUSP9a9M

 · 
x-jla

Bill Mahers funny take on it^

 · 
tduds

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.

1  · 
x-jla

I’m not sure what your argument is on the subject, because you are both being vague. You believe ‘woke’ culture is good, bad, doesn’t exist, what’s they thing You’re arguing ?

 · 

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.

1  · 
x-jla

I’d like to get into the weeds

 · 
square.

i see we're still doing this, huh?

1  · 
x-jla

But if you expect a dissertation after a “umm hmmm” not going to waste time

 · 

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.

1  · 
Non Sequitur

I came here to discuss potato head builds.

3  · 

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

 · 
tduds

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. 

1  · 
x-jla

I’ve made countless points on multiple subjects. If you don’t recognize the existence of “woke culture” or “cancel culture” I can analyze them all day and night, only to be told that I’m chasing Bigfoot. Similarly, I argued against the tactics of antifa for months back last summer, just to be consistently countered by “not real”, “down exist”. I’ve argued against the crazy stuff happening on campuses back since 2015, only To be countered by “it’s just college” “not a thing” “who cares”. So, If you want to debate ‘woke’ culture will you acknowledge its existence and its growing pervasiveness over that last several years?

 · 
tduds

Please define "woke culture"

1  · 
x-jla

Otherwise, I’m arguing that Bigfoot is an asshole, and your saying he doesn’t exist....which is a misaligned argument...

 · 

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

1  · 
x-jla

Woke culture: A sanctimonious compulsion to condemn and punish violations/violators, of an absolute, utopian, unquestionable, and unreasonable socially progressive creed that flattens context, nuance, culture, and time.
 · 
x-jla

Something like that

 · 
x-jla

EA, the religious right was doing most of the pearl clutching up until around the mid 2010’s. Now, this illiberal stuff is coming from the left. The danger that I see, is mainly a replacement of traditionally liberal values (which are shared by libertarians) with illiberal woke culture. With the right being illiberal, and the left being illiberal...who carries the torch...

 · 
Non Sequitur

define bigfoot

4  · 

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.

1  · 
square.

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.

 · 
x-jla

There are many parts, but racism is definitely one major part. The 60’s brought about a way to view race that were imo positive and in line with modern thought- mainly that it shouldn’t be an important factor in ones identity or how we interact or judge people. There was certainly progress in terms of racial relations since the 60’s. Woke culture embraces identity politics, critical race theory, and intersectionality. It rejects the notion of colorblindness that MLK envisioned, and that has led us into a better place since the 1960s. From 1960-2010, we saw an enormous amount of racial tension reduced.

 · 
square.

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

2  · 
Non Sequitur

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


3  · 
x-jla

Listen to this young man. He lays it out well. Full episodes on Spotify...

 · 
square.

just fyi, that's not mlk.

1  · 
x-jla

I see an opportunity for ‘Mr. Spud’. Comes in one gender- Man. ar-15, fuck your feelings shirt, and handlebar mustache not included. Any investors???

 · 

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.

 · 
x-jla

All three of those related things are being threatened by the ideological mindset promoted by woke culture. Identity politics in general (race being one major parameter) places emphasis on group identity over individual identity. 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. People are being asked to bear guilt or carry pride for their racial group, which is something they are born with, not a part of their individual character. How can you not see a problem with this? Woke ideology is in fact racist. It’s telling people to prejudge (good or bad) based on immutable characteristics.
Before this woke crap....The idea was something like: “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...”.

 · 
tduds

The sheer depth of misunderstanding is kind of impressive.

1  · 
x-jla

You are the one misunderstanding.

 · 
x-jla

But woke goes even further. It demands a perfection of wokeness which intimidates most people from actual conversations, stifling growth, imposing social consequences on mistakes. It’s soft authoritarianism at its core. This is the script, agree or you are xyz and we will banish you.

 · 
tduds

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.

 · 
x-jla

There is a presumption of entitlement to other people’s thoughts and words that annoys pretty much anyone with a spine.

 · 

"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?

1  · 
tduds

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.

1  · 
x-jla

EA, 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 it’s effect on the present. We can however empower ourselves and our culture with a mindset that creates a new path. Woke-ism is not the right tool box to navigate this reality. It’s completely counterproductive and divisive.

 · 

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.

1  · 

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.

 · 
square.

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.

 · 
x-jla

The problem is that EA pretends that the enormous amount of opposition to this doesn’t exist. There are countless well reasoned and worded critiques of wokeism. He expects me to argue as if he’s unaware of the many arguments that have been made already by others. It’s a huge chore to bring him up to speed with the other side of the debate.

 · 
x-jla

It’s like someone saying if climate change is bad show me the evidence! Ok, I’ll take a year off the compile it because you are totally pretending to be unaware.

 · 

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.

1  · 
x-jla

You wrote: “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.”

This is obviously wrong. The cause of racism was never tied to ignoring racial identity. The cause of racism has always been tied to defining and emphasizing racial identity. Woke culture- is not saying that individual identity is more important than group identity. If it was, we wouldn’t be talking about this. Woke culture is saying that racial identity is a major factor in ones identity.

 · 
x-jla

I don’t believe that this is true. If you do believe that this is true, then you are really saying that identity is immutable, because race is immutable. If true, then major aspects of ones identity can be assumed or prejudged from their appearance. This is a huge divergence from the colorblind mindset of MLK. Keep in mind, the colorblind mindset that I hope to see is not a trivial one...but one that comes from a place of heightened enlightenment and perspective. This is not something that is necessarily innate. We have to achieve this through a conscious effort. I believe this is not achieved by looking in at the micro, but out at macro.

 · 
tduds

"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.

 · 
x-jla

Which brings me to mr potato heads dick...the 60’s: expand your mind man! 2020’s: omg I’m so offended so and so dressed like an Indian in 1982!!! Combing through society, looking for the smallest offenses...it’s good to clean your room, but crawling in the floors with a magnifying glass trying to remove 100% of all dirt is not enlightening...it’s neurotic and totalitarian

 · 
tduds

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.

1  · 
tduds

Guess I failed (again) at quitting the thread.

 ·  1
x-jla

Undo systemic racism. Define systemic racism. That’s another problem. We’ve largely removed all systemic racism already. We cannot remove racist thoughts or people, unless we load everyone up to some neurolink thing. It’s not a reasonable goal. You can remove all the racist laws off the books, and that’s definitely 100% doable and good. You cannot prevent a racist from getting on the bench.

 · 

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.

1  · 
randomised

“ “Diplomacy is back!” President Joe Biden declared at the Munich Security Conference last week. But so is bombing Syria, apparently. Biden has only been president a bit more than a month, but he has already ordered his first bombing campaign. (It took Trump four months to do the same.)” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/26/biden-iran-deal-diplomacy-syria

Feb 28, 21 2:33 pm  · 
1  · 
bowling_ball

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.

1  · 
x-jla

Biden is a Trojan horse for the deep state. Anyone who believes that the coordinated push to get biden in office from the establishment was because he’s nicer or something is not a thinking creature.

 ·  1
bowling_ball

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.

1  · 
x-jla

Hahahahahahha bb, nahhh son. You motherfuckers held Trump supporters liable for every thing he did, now Biden supporters will be held liable for every thing he does! All Biden voters are kid caging nazis and war mongers!!!

 · 
x-jla

Liberals in 2006: the government is run by special interests, and military industry. Liberals 2021: government love you

 · 
x-jla

Trump said a thing so now that thing doesn’t exist! Gtfoh with that shitty logic.

 · 
randomised

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

 · 
tduds

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.

 · 
x-jla

So would you deem the mannered slave driver more honorable than the brutish one? I would argue that the masking,

 · 
x-jla

is another layer of moral turpitude.

 · 
tduds

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.

2  · 
tduds

That's all I gotta say about that.

 · 
x-jla

But that depends on the culture you grew up in I guess. Trumps blunt style is most repulsive to the upper middle class, softly raised, passive aggressive types.

I suspect that if trumps policy was better than Biden’s (not saying it was or wasn’t), he would still be hated based purely on his mannerisms and the low brow culture that he portrays.

Like it or not, Trumps outside matches his inside, and that of Americas political class. He’s honest in that regard. Not in a conscious way, but like a Louis Kahn brick.

This is mostly where the divide is happening- style and culture, not policy.

 · 
tduds

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.

2  · 
x-jla

No, Trump was a 1 of 2 choices. The people who voted for him are not responsible for his bad deeds. the people who voted Biden are not responsible for his. This is not a democracy. It’s WWF wrestling. Regardless of whether you prefer hulk or machoman, the wwf is getting paid and running the show.

 · 
tduds

"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.

1  · 
x-jla

“You”. I never supported Trump. I find him reprehensible in every way. I’m Just saying that a biting dog that barks is not more worrisome than a biting dog that wags it’s tail.

 · 
x-jla

You, and many others here on the other hand seem to be less worried about the biting dog that wags it’s tail...either you have to prove that it bites less, that it’s bark is in and of itself dangerous, or something else, but pound for pound the two differ almost entirely on style. One barks, the other wags, both bite.

 · 
x-jla

You can say the barks get the other dogs riled up...the wag leads to more bites...who knows. The lesser ofn2 evils isn’t my favorite game...it’s the game you admittedly play

 · 
tduds

It was a proverbial 'you', obviously.

 · 
tduds

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

1  · 
Wood Guy

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

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

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.

2  · 
randomised

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 :-(

 · 
x-jla

What, you thought the ceo of America was going to stop exporting their most profitable thing

 · 
randomised

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

1  · 
x-jla

“US finds Saudi crown prince approved Khashoggi murder but does not sanction him”.  


Biden is off the great start.  

Feb 28, 21 9:02 pm  · 
 · 
tduds

The status-quo approach to Saudi Arabia is & has been one of our most unforgivable foreign policy actions. Four (five?) decades of abetting terrorism for cheap oil.

3  · 
x-jla

Agree on that

 · 
tduds

Well here's a simple uncontroversial opinion that certainly won't ruffle any feathers around here:

"I do not mean that modern American Republicans are communists. Rather, I mean that the Republicans have entered their own kind of end-stage Bolshevism, as members of a party that is now exhausted by its failures, cynical about its own ideology, authoritarian by reflex, controlled as a personality cult by a failing old man, and looking for new adventures to rejuvenate its fortunes."

https://www.theatlantic.com/id...

*pulls pin. runs like hell*

Mar 1, 21 11:26 am  · 
4  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

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.

 · 
x-jla

I think it’s true. It’s hard for them to turn the ship around now because they have changed their demographic base. A more working class and less religious base means their old philosophy of low taxes and social conservatism doesn’t work anymore. The formula is not something like nationalism, isolationism, grievances about oppression from the elites...

 · 
x-jla

*the formula is now...

 · 

Their formula is hate.

 · 
Wood Guy

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.

4  · 
x-jla

Hate is a simplistic way to look at it. But, I’d say anger is a more accurate description. Anger at the perceived authoritarianism of the elite, anger towards a changing economy, anger towards the way that they are culturally outcast and stereotyped, and anger towards the hypocrisy of the left. Politics of anger are also being used by the democrats. Anger towards perceived inequalities, anger towards ineffective govt, anger towards racial and ethnic stereotypes, etc. of course the political class has a vested interest in exaggerating the extent of these issues. Division is easy politically. Anger is easy. The parties have nothing real to run on, because the 2 parties have overall similar actions...so they exaggerate and instigated

 · 
x-jla

-anything that will create the illusion of contrast...and then they fly their bombers with the stickers like random posted

 · 

Racism, bigotry, sexism, and homophobia are hate.

 · 
tduds

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.

2  · 
atelier nobody

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.
6  · 
x-jla

All true. I don’t think the racism and homophobia play a real important part in any of this though. There are some legit racists, but not many. It’s more of a fear of the other team, globalism, and economics. Evidence: the vast majority of republicans would prefer a black republican over a white liberal.

 · 
atelier nobody

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.

1  · 

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.

 · 
x-jla

I think that the democrats are capitalizing the fear that republicans are racists and homophobics. I just don’t see it. Yes, there is definitely a push back against the identity politics, but it’s not a fear of the actual groups per se, but a fear about how these identities have become weaponized by the democrats. It’s more complicated than simple blatant racism or homophobia.

 · 
x-jla

And, the bar for racism, transphobia, etc is constantly changing. So, when a republican says something like “trans women should not be allowed to complete in woman’s boxing” the left calls them transphobic. No, that’s not transphobic.

 · 
x-jla

It’s just that most republicans are not as willing to sacrifice logic to spare offense. But then they do run with those points to troll, which probably causes unnecessary collateral damage to these groups.

 · 
tduds

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

 · 
tduds

"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.

 · 
x-jla

Holy shit. Did you read the chart in that article? That’s quite a ridiculous conclusion.

 · 
x-jla

Majority believes fraud occurred. (This is not anti democratic, it’s concern for fair democratic process. Majority believes voting should be easier. How does one take that information and conclude “anti -democracy”

 ·  1
x-jla

And the rest of the dem vs repub graphs are pretty even. I do find it cute how they used a faded color on the dem side info graphic...vox lol

 · 
curtkram
tduds

"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.

1  · 
x-jla

Didn’t a good number of democrats think the election was rigged too? The data is cherry picked, and I’m sure the conclusion was made beforehand. “Shouldn’t” yes...this still doesn’t equate to anti democracy, and the question posed in the middle of a debate over mail in voting wasn’t accounted for...which probably translates to skepticism over the integrity of democracy, not democracy
. I read the whole thing. It’s a typical vox style article.

 · 
tduds

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.

1  · 
x-jla

Notice the date^

 · 
x-jla

If trump won, the Dems would be saying that the election was rigged, but it would not be a conspiracy theory, it would be on msm 24/7

 · 
tduds

Notice the word "possibility"

 · 
tduds

Please stop responding to events with hypotheticals.

 · 
x-jla

Jim and bob believed that there was a possibility the ref would score their boxing match unfairly. Jim wins. Who holds on to that belief?

 · 
tduds

Please stop responding to events with hypotheticals.

 · 
tduds

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

 · 
x-jla

Answer my question

 · 
tduds

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.

1  · 
x-jla

“ 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.”. They win because voters aka humans are given 2 bad choices. Half the country finds one choice a little worse or a little better. That’s all it is.

 · 
x-jla

And what policy specifically
is unpopular?

 · 
x-jla

And no, Hypothetical thinking is important. You can’t compare the behavior of the winners and losers, without speculation on how their behavior would differ or be similar if reversed. You are suggesting that the losers are being sore because they are morally inferior...no, it’s because they lost. Losing does that, see 2016

 · 
tduds

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.

 · 
x-jla

Tduds, you are right about their trumpism platform. You are just not right about the base (49% of the country or whatever) being trumpist. Politics has become more about voting against than voting for. So as the voters are concerned with the opposition and how bad they are, the tolerance of their own parties bs increases. Its a 2 way feedback loop. Trump being a villain in the eyes of voters also allowed the Dems to bend laws, act outside of certain traditions, etc, and the base tolerated it. The lesser of 2 evils thing always tends towards a greater tolerance of evil.

 · 
x-jla

The 2 party system is like 2 binary stars locked in orbit...spiraling towards each other...

 · 
tduds

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?"

 · 
tduds

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

 · 
x-jla

Any “cultural revolution” or “awakening” that doesn’t involve departure from the 2 party death spiral is a product of the establishment, and completely regressive.

 · 
tduds

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

 · 
x-jla

Examples, bogus fisa warrants, fake dossier, wire taps, etc. these are all serious offenses. The base accepted them because Trump was eviler. Hence ,
lesser of two evils being a degenerative sum game.

 · 
tduds

Lot to unpack there but short answer is *eyeroll*

 · 
tduds

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...

1  · 

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.

1  · 
x-jla

Ideally we should get rid of political parties. All of them, including the libertarian party. Individuals

 · 
tduds

Not holding my breath there.

1  · 

Thanks Biden. My state has now reversed policy to allow teachers to get the vaccine, and I made an appointment for my wife to get her first dose next week. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Mar 3, 21 11:52 am  · 
4  · 

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.

1  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

You mean to tell me, Government, works?

 · 

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

 · 
square.

Dr. Seuss! Mr. Potato Head! Why the Culture Wars Have Never Been Dumber


https://newrepublic.com/articl...

"..it’s worth stressing that the entire episode is embarrassing for everyone involved and deeply stupid. It’s emblematic of the state of the culture wars right now, in which bad-faith nonsense is continuously elevated into existential importance."

couldn't have said it better. this stuff is such a stupid distraction from the material concerns of real americans.

Mar 4, 21 9:29 am  · 
3  · 
Wood Guy

Good, smart, simple article. Thanks for sharing.

1  · 
square.

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.

2  · 
x-jla

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

 ·  1
x-jla

This woke stuff has been happening since well before trump. It’s been on my radar since at least 2014-15 when students demanded a “no white people on campus day” at evergreen university, and Bret Weinstein, a liberal evolutionary biologist refused out of principal...and was chased down by a mob of spoiled 20 year olds.

 · 
x-jla

I warned back then that this woke lunacy on campuses would spill out into the real world...I was correct

 · 
square.

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.

5  · 
x-jla

This is what happens when parents and teachers raise their kids to be spoiled little shits. Those kids are now adults.

 ·  2
tduds

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.

6  · 
Wood Guy

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?

3  · 
x-jla

Watch the vice vid square?

 · 
square.

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

1  · 
x-jla

I am engaging with the article. I am disagreeing with its conclusion.

 · 
Wood Guy

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.

4  · 

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

2  · 
x-jla

I do have an ichy finger with that enter button...my bad

 · 
tduds

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."

6  · 
x-jla

Dr Seuss...getting canceled posthumous for something that was from a different era, and actually progressive for that era is very stupid...this is what I meant by flattening of context and time. Do we cancel Obama for not agreeing with gay marriage in 2012? Any reasonable human should be able to recognize that things from the past were created under a different set of norms...people too unreasonable or mentally inept to understand this should not be of concern.

This can be put into the basket with “baby it’s cold outside” “blazing saddles” or honest Abe fuckin Lincoln. The left could not stop at confederate statues (which I agree should be removed) because as I’ve said, the left never defines what is “too far”.

Imagine a messy room. Confederate statues were the old pizza boxes on the floor. Cleaning your room is good. The problem is, you cannot get any room 100% clean without turning it into a miserably sterile sanitarium. What is clean enough? The neuroticism is not that of the right obsessing over potato genitalia. The right and many liberals alike are simply being annoyed by the stupidity and neuroticism of the woke culture that finds it necessary to re-examine the gender identity of a 60 year old potato.

1  ·  2
tduds

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.

6  · 
square.

the article that he claims he "read"

clearly went right over his head.

4  ·  1
square.

his attempt at debate completely stunk

on which all of archinect was able to dunk

5  · 
x-jla

This has been a trend with corporations being woke. It’s not isolated. “Be less white” coke. Disney fires that big chick from mandalorian. Etc. It’s corporate America trying to appease the woke culture so they don’t lose any money. That’s called self censorship

 · 
Wood Guy

"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.

5  ·  1
gibbost

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.'

6  · 
x-jla

You guys don’t get it. Fortunately 80% of the country does. Hopefully this will all backfire, as it already has to some degree.

 · 
x-jla

Just don’t get mad when we call you all snowflakes

 · 
x-jla

“ Most members of the “exhausted majority,” and then some, dislike political correctness. Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/572581/

 · 
Wood Guy

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

1  · 
SneakyPete

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.

1  · 
square.

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.

3  · 
tduds

This is the free market at work.

2  · 
tduds

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

4  ·  1
x-jla

I didn’t say that they don’t have the right to do it. I said it’s dumb and part of this larger trend. Yes, this is definitely an example of PC culture that 80% disagree with. And, it’s a reason Trump won over more minorities than any previous gop president.

 · 
tduds

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.

4  · 
SneakyPete

...

Don Quijote by Octavio Ocampo | Pinturas ilusionistas, Ilusão de ótica,  Ilusão óptica

1  · 

x-jla - you're an idiot

 · 
x-jla

And x-jla goes for the dunk! Slaaammmm! Crowd: you idiot! You suck!!!

 ·  1
x-jla

"Be less white" or "be less of an asshole?" Are you implying those things are synonymous?

 · 

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.  

5  · 
Wood Guy

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.

4  · 
square.

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.

3  · 
tduds

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

2  · 
x-jla

“ After cracking some jokes during his monologue about Dr. Seuss books with alternative "woke" titles, Kimmel warned that recent incidents of cancel culture could pave the way for Trump's return to the White House.” Even Jimmy
gets

 · 
x-jla

It

 · 
tduds

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.

2  · 
x-jla

As I’ve said, you are living in an alternative universe. The right is not outraged. They are making fun of the lefts pretend woke outrage. Their pretend outrage and public tantrums are tantamount to “catching the Holy Spirit” in the weird religion of woke.

 · 
x-jla

^on woke capitalism

 · 
tduds

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

3  · 
SneakyPete

IM NOT SHOUTING YOURE SHOUTING

1  · 
square.

dunkkk.

vs what xlax thinks dunking is.



 · 

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

 · 
x-jla

Have fun on woke island or democrats apologist island or whatever this is...I’m not wasting my time engaging in these bad faith arguments with you people.

 · 
x-jla

I retire champion

1  · 
Wood Guy

^^lolol

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

 · 
tduds

Halfwit Calvinball world champ right here.

2  · 
randomised

“I retire champion”

Undisputed!

 · 
square.

please, retire. preferably somewhere off the grid.

1  · 

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

3  · 
square.

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

1  · 
tduds

Say what you will about Hillary, she knows how to hire good social media managers.


Mar 5, 21 12:35 am  · 
4  ·  1
x-jla

Epstein didn’t kill himself. Couldn’t resist. Ok back to retirement

1  · 
tduds

Barr killed Epstein, duh.

 · 
proto

maybe it was a virus...

1  · 
tduds

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.

 · 
x-jla

You should sneak it into your mono-logue

 · 
tduds

what

 · 
x-jla

Bad joke. It’s the virus that causes mono

 · 
tduds

ahhhh I get it.

Friday brain.

 · 
SneakyPete

CAN WE PLEASE STOP CALLING THEM MODERATE DEMOCRATS?

It suggests, in very real language, that the other Democrats are:

excessive, extreme, inordinate, radical
irrational, unreasonable, unreasoning
extremist, fanatic (or fanatical), rabid
unbridled, unchecked, uncontrolled, unrestrained

This is unhelpful to our discourse and has become normalized. I'm also starting to hear mainstream media call it the "Democrat Party."

For fuck's sake, as much as certain rabid, mouth-breathing members might suggest, the media spends WAY more time giving a shit about offending and cow-towing to the GOP than they ever have the Democrats.


Mar 5, 21 5:46 pm  · 
1  · 
tduds

Call them what they are: sane Republicans.

 · 
tduds

I'm also with you on "Democrat Party" - like nails on a chalkboard every time I hear someone say it.

 · 
proto

well, that is the purpose: to demonize the other

That said...I don't necessarily agree with SP that "moderate democrat" is problematic. No one has exclusive right to to the majority view & describing moderates as distinct from progressives isn't divisive as much as descriptive. The label isn't a smear from the GOP but a self-described one.

 · 
SneakyPete

It's the same issue I have with pro-life and pro-choice. They are cynically chosen self-labels which intentionally cast the people who disagree as bad, not just people with different opinions. The opposite of moderate (excessive, etc) is not what the rest of the democrats are, the opposite of pro-choice (anti-choice) is not what the opposition is, same with pro-life (anti-life?).

1  · 
proto

I see what you mean, but, at some point, we can only use the language that we have. Perhaps the exclusionary aspect is more in the eye of the beholder/ear of the listener? But my perception may be jaded by my predilections...

 · 
tduds

I'd counter that we have lots of language, and it's not much effort to carefully choose the pieces of it we employ.

1  · 
SneakyPete

People often claim I'm overly concerned with the meaning of words, but I figure that makes them anti-semantic.

2  · 
archi_dude

Only if we can stop referring to the people who have normalized mass stereotyping and the creation of a hyper racist society "progressives"

 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: