|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 17 2017 09:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 09:13 Plansix wrote:
It says "rebelled against the ruling government." about Washington and Lee.
Yeah, because liberty and protecting the practice of slavery are the same thing. Washington owned slaves. The Revolutionary War wasn't about freeing slaves. There were only a few advocates of abolition between 1770 and 1800, notable among them Thomas Jefferson (he's a bit of a paradox on the subject). You're missing the point that the only difference between the "traitors" Washington and Lee is that one won, and one lost, and history is written by the winners. Seriously, that's the only difference. So, really, it was about liberty for the white colonists. This cognitive dissonance on the part of the people advocating for the tearing down of statues like Lees, but not Washingtons, or Madisons, or Jeffersons belies the fact that they're selectively biased and a lot of it has to do with the one-sided narrative around the "Civil War". Tearing down Confederate veteran statues is nothing to be proud of (as what happened in N.C.). Even the US Congress (who I am loathe to appeal to) has recognized by law that Confederate veterans are US veterans way back in 1900. Plus, using modern morality to view Lee is real dumb. In the 1800s your home State was much more important than the Federal Government. It was the primary reason Lee fought in the Confederate side, because his home state of Virginia decided it so. It was not an uncommon view in the mid 1800s. Plus, putting Lee and someone like Forrest in the same breadth is some of the most idiotic conflation I've ever heard of (ie. there being no separation of degree when it comes to individuals during this time period). It's just ignorant college students getting a one-sided propaganda narrative through their biased professors - it's no wonder they act in this fashion.
I have a degree in US history, but thanks. Also Lee was also quoted and says slavery was an economic impartive for the South. And there are scores of people from his state that fought for the Union. But please tell me about the one sided narrative I got from my college professors.
|
On August 17 2017 09:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 09:31 LegalLord wrote:On August 17 2017 09:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there any good news to talk about? I feel the need to ask for a temp ban from posting in here just because the discussion is circular as hell. Let me dig up a little of non-Charlottesville news for you. In recent weeks, a deluge of leaks has sprung out from the U.S. intelligence community concerning North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs. Taken together, the leaks portray Kim Jong Un’s regime as nearing mastery of a nuclear-tipped missile that could hit American soil.
Three separate and critical intelligence assessments have emerged in recent weeks that merit attention. First, the U.S. intelligence community, in consensus, now assesses that North Korea is fully capable of developing compact missile-mountable nuclear weapons. Second, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospational Intelligence Agency assess that North Korea has a fissile material stockpile sufficient for 60 bombs today and is producing additional fissile material at a rate of 12 bombs per year.
Finally, the third assessment, which I first reported last week, is that the Central Intelligence Agency assesses North Korea’s intercontinental-range ballistic missile re-entry vehicle technology to likely be sufficient for the delivery of a nuclear device to the United States—meaning it could probably survive re-entry on a normal trajectory and successful detonate that compact nuclear warhead over an American city.
The sudden breakout of leaks as President Donald Trump blusters dangerously about meeting Kim’s threats with “fire and fury” has led well-intentioned observers to see echoes of the run-up to the Iraq war. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, for instance, has suggested that these leaks are aimed at supporting military action—as bogus stories about aluminum tubes and mobile weapons labs were back in 2002.
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Instead of paving the path to war, the public release of these intelligence assessments—two of which remain without known consensus within the intelligence community—are likely aimed at injecting caution into the debate over what to do about North Korea. They should cause Americans to understand the value of establishing a stable deterrent relationship with North Korea as we enter an era where its ICBMs are perhaps months from seeing operational deployment. In other words: The time to start a war with North Korea is not after various parts of the U.S. intelligence community assess that it could likely lob a nuclear weapon at U.S. cities today. The window is gone—certainly for a preventative war. Pre-emptive war also raises the uneasy prospect of betting that the United States would be able to detect and destroy all of North Korea’s road-mobile ICBMs, not leaving even a single launcher capable of retaliating with a devastating nuclear strike. www.politico.comPeople around the world have more confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin handling world affairs than in his U.S. Counterpart Donald Trump, a Pew Research Center survey showed.
Of 36 countries canvassed, 22, including Germany, France and Japan, trust Putin more, according to the pollster’s 2017 spring survey. People had more confidence in Trump in 13 countries, including the U.K., India and Israel. Only Tanzanians saw them as equals. Results from the U.S., which was also part of the survey, weren’t included in this question, and China wasn’t polled. Pew conducted its research from Feb. 16 to May 8.
Pew said that 23 percent of the American public had confidence in Putin, while 53 percent share the same feeling for Trump. Globally, a median 60 percent of people in 37 countries, including the U.S., said they lack confidence in the Russian leader’s actions in world affairs, versus 26 percent who said he’s doing a good job. About a third of the nations surveyed see Russia as a major threat to their country, similar to the level of concern caused by China and U.S. www.bloomberg.comA Florida man who federal authorities say planned to bomb a Jewish synagogue pleaded guilty Wednesday to a federal hate crime and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.
The timing of Justice Department's announcement of James Gonzalo Medina's guilty plea struck a chord during a week plagued by the aftermath of deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend.
The FBI launched an investigation into Medina in 2016 after authorities learned he had expressed anti-Semitic views with associates and discussed plans to attack the Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center in southern Florida, according to court filings.
Authorities say Medina scoped out the synagogue for potential vulnerabilities, told a confidential source that a Jewish holiday would be a "good day" to carry out the bomb attack, and then later procured what he believed to be an explosive device from an undercover agent.
"When asked whether he knew that if the attack succeeded, that people may have died, (Medina) responded, 'whatever happens,'" prosecutors said in the complaint. www.cnn.com Ah, refreshing. Thanks for that. The second story is hilarious and if that isn't a sign of the times to come, I don't know what is. The second one, didn't someone else post a story or a link similar in tone to this before? Something about people staking out a synagogue?
Someone posted a witness's account of being inside a synagogue in Charlotteville a while ago
|
On August 17 2017 09:40 farvacola wrote:I expect the white supremacists to disperse after only one or two Faygo barrages. That stuff really stings the eyes.
I need this entire event live streamed by at least 30 separate people. These alt right soft boys are not prepared for a full juggalo charge.
|
On August 17 2017 09:44 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 09:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 09:31 LegalLord wrote:On August 17 2017 09:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there any good news to talk about? I feel the need to ask for a temp ban from posting in here just because the discussion is circular as hell. Let me dig up a little of non-Charlottesville news for you. In recent weeks, a deluge of leaks has sprung out from the U.S. intelligence community concerning North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs. Taken together, the leaks portray Kim Jong Un’s regime as nearing mastery of a nuclear-tipped missile that could hit American soil.
Three separate and critical intelligence assessments have emerged in recent weeks that merit attention. First, the U.S. intelligence community, in consensus, now assesses that North Korea is fully capable of developing compact missile-mountable nuclear weapons. Second, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospational Intelligence Agency assess that North Korea has a fissile material stockpile sufficient for 60 bombs today and is producing additional fissile material at a rate of 12 bombs per year.
Finally, the third assessment, which I first reported last week, is that the Central Intelligence Agency assesses North Korea’s intercontinental-range ballistic missile re-entry vehicle technology to likely be sufficient for the delivery of a nuclear device to the United States—meaning it could probably survive re-entry on a normal trajectory and successful detonate that compact nuclear warhead over an American city.
The sudden breakout of leaks as President Donald Trump blusters dangerously about meeting Kim’s threats with “fire and fury” has led well-intentioned observers to see echoes of the run-up to the Iraq war. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, for instance, has suggested that these leaks are aimed at supporting military action—as bogus stories about aluminum tubes and mobile weapons labs were back in 2002.
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Instead of paving the path to war, the public release of these intelligence assessments—two of which remain without known consensus within the intelligence community—are likely aimed at injecting caution into the debate over what to do about North Korea. They should cause Americans to understand the value of establishing a stable deterrent relationship with North Korea as we enter an era where its ICBMs are perhaps months from seeing operational deployment. In other words: The time to start a war with North Korea is not after various parts of the U.S. intelligence community assess that it could likely lob a nuclear weapon at U.S. cities today. The window is gone—certainly for a preventative war. Pre-emptive war also raises the uneasy prospect of betting that the United States would be able to detect and destroy all of North Korea’s road-mobile ICBMs, not leaving even a single launcher capable of retaliating with a devastating nuclear strike. www.politico.comPeople around the world have more confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin handling world affairs than in his U.S. Counterpart Donald Trump, a Pew Research Center survey showed.
Of 36 countries canvassed, 22, including Germany, France and Japan, trust Putin more, according to the pollster’s 2017 spring survey. People had more confidence in Trump in 13 countries, including the U.K., India and Israel. Only Tanzanians saw them as equals. Results from the U.S., which was also part of the survey, weren’t included in this question, and China wasn’t polled. Pew conducted its research from Feb. 16 to May 8.
Pew said that 23 percent of the American public had confidence in Putin, while 53 percent share the same feeling for Trump. Globally, a median 60 percent of people in 37 countries, including the U.S., said they lack confidence in the Russian leader’s actions in world affairs, versus 26 percent who said he’s doing a good job. About a third of the nations surveyed see Russia as a major threat to their country, similar to the level of concern caused by China and U.S. www.bloomberg.comA Florida man who federal authorities say planned to bomb a Jewish synagogue pleaded guilty Wednesday to a federal hate crime and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.
The timing of Justice Department's announcement of James Gonzalo Medina's guilty plea struck a chord during a week plagued by the aftermath of deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend.
The FBI launched an investigation into Medina in 2016 after authorities learned he had expressed anti-Semitic views with associates and discussed plans to attack the Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center in southern Florida, according to court filings.
Authorities say Medina scoped out the synagogue for potential vulnerabilities, told a confidential source that a Jewish holiday would be a "good day" to carry out the bomb attack, and then later procured what he believed to be an explosive device from an undercover agent.
"When asked whether he knew that if the attack succeeded, that people may have died, (Medina) responded, 'whatever happens,'" prosecutors said in the complaint. www.cnn.com Ah, refreshing. Thanks for that. The second story is hilarious and if that isn't a sign of the times to come, I don't know what is. The second one, didn't someone else post a story or a link similar in tone to this before? Something about people staking out a synagogue? Someone posted a witness's account of being inside a synagogue in Charlotteville a while ago
That's what that was. I knew I had read mention of one.
@zf - I understand what you're saying. And I try to inject some different news in here, but apparently that news isn't worth having a discussion over. I've seen it too many times in this thread where CCSB or someone will drop a good article, one or two people commentate, and then it's by the wayside. It's sad we have to have over 40 pages of playing "Is this racist?" I wish we could move the thread along quicker. Maybe more warnings for circuitous arguments?
|
On August 17 2017 09:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 09:36 Wegandi wrote:Washington owned slaves. The Revolutionary War wasn't about freeing slaves. There were only a few advocates of abolition between 1770 and 1800, notable among them Thomas Jefferson (he's a bit of a paradox on the subject). You're missing the point that the only difference between the "traitors" Washington and Lee is that one won, and one lost, and history is written by the winners. Seriously, that's the only difference. So, really, it was about liberty for the white colonists. This cognitive dissonance on the part of the people advocating for the tearing down of statues like Lees, but not Washingtons, or Madisons, or Jeffersons belies the fact that they're selectively biased and a lot of it has to do with the one-sided narrative around the "Civil War". Tearing down Confederate veteran statues is nothing to be proud of (as what happened in N.C.). Even the US Congress (who I am loathe to appeal to) has recognized by law that Confederate veterans are US veterans way back in 1900. Plus, using modern morality to view Lee is real dumb. In the 1800s your home State was much more important than the Federal Government. It was the primary reason Lee fought in the Confederate side, because his home state of Virginia decided it so. It was not an uncommon view in the mid 1800s. Plus, putting Lee and someone like Forrest in the same breadth is some of the most idiotic conflation I've ever heard of (ie. there being no separation of degree when it comes to individuals during this time period). It's just ignorant college students getting a one-sided propaganda narrative through their biased professors - it's no wonder they act in this fashion. I have a degree in US history, but thanks. Also Lee was also quoted and says slavery was an economic impartive for the South. And there are scores of people from his state that fought for the Union. But please tell me about the one sided narrative I got from my college professors.
Thanks for not addressing the thrust of the argument, but trying to deflect by being a dismissive ass. If this is the sort of conversation you routinely engage in, I don't expect the divide to shrink much. We can thank the "Founders" by the way for this continued conflict for 250 years. The southern colonies should have never been a part of the "US", but no, they just had to have had put disparate peoples into one organized polity. Great decision there. At least the Anti-Federalists saw the folly in this decision. No one listens to them though.
|
On August 17 2017 09:49 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 09:42 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 09:36 Wegandi wrote:Washington owned slaves. The Revolutionary War wasn't about freeing slaves. There were only a few advocates of abolition between 1770 and 1800, notable among them Thomas Jefferson (he's a bit of a paradox on the subject). You're missing the point that the only difference between the "traitors" Washington and Lee is that one won, and one lost, and history is written by the winners. Seriously, that's the only difference. So, really, it was about liberty for the white colonists. This cognitive dissonance on the part of the people advocating for the tearing down of statues like Lees, but not Washingtons, or Madisons, or Jeffersons belies the fact that they're selectively biased and a lot of it has to do with the one-sided narrative around the "Civil War". Tearing down Confederate veteran statues is nothing to be proud of (as what happened in N.C.). Even the US Congress (who I am loathe to appeal to) has recognized by law that Confederate veterans are US veterans way back in 1900. Plus, using modern morality to view Lee is real dumb. In the 1800s your home State was much more important than the Federal Government. It was the primary reason Lee fought in the Confederate side, because his home state of Virginia decided it so. It was not an uncommon view in the mid 1800s. Plus, putting Lee and someone like Forrest in the same breadth is some of the most idiotic conflation I've ever heard of (ie. there being no separation of degree when it comes to individuals during this time period). It's just ignorant college students getting a one-sided propaganda narrative through their biased professors - it's no wonder they act in this fashion. I have a degree in US history, but thanks. Also Lee was also quoted and says slavery was an economic impartive for the South. And there are scores of people from his state that fought for the Union. But please tell me about the one sided narrative I got from my college professors. Thanks for not addressing the thrust of the argument, but trying to deflect by being a dismissive ass. If this is the sort of conversation you routinely engage in, I don't expect the divide to shrink much. We can thank the "Founders" by the way for this continued conflict for 250 years. The southern colonies should have never been a part of the "US", but no, they just had to have had put disparate peoples into one organized polity. Great decision there. At least the Anti-Federalists saw the folly in this decision. No one listens to them though.
did you read farva's post about confederate symbology and ideology or any of plansix's numerous and repetitive posts about when and why the statues were erected? if not why are you commenting and shitting up the thread?
and if so why didn't you address them instead of shitting up the thread?
|
On August 17 2017 09:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 09:40 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 09:38 Plansix wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/jesticide/status/897941541221670912 This is the greatest news we could ask for. I expect the white supremacists to disperse after only one or two Faygo barrages. That stuff really stings the eyes. I need this entire event live streamed by at least 30 separate people. These alt right soft boys are not prepared for a full juggalo charge.
Ahh America, I personally expect a high quality dialogue and some real progress.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 17 2017 09:49 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 09:42 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 09:36 Wegandi wrote:Washington owned slaves. The Revolutionary War wasn't about freeing slaves. There were only a few advocates of abolition between 1770 and 1800, notable among them Thomas Jefferson (he's a bit of a paradox on the subject). You're missing the point that the only difference between the "traitors" Washington and Lee is that one won, and one lost, and history is written by the winners. Seriously, that's the only difference. So, really, it was about liberty for the white colonists. This cognitive dissonance on the part of the people advocating for the tearing down of statues like Lees, but not Washingtons, or Madisons, or Jeffersons belies the fact that they're selectively biased and a lot of it has to do with the one-sided narrative around the "Civil War". Tearing down Confederate veteran statues is nothing to be proud of (as what happened in N.C.). Even the US Congress (who I am loathe to appeal to) has recognized by law that Confederate veterans are US veterans way back in 1900. Plus, using modern morality to view Lee is real dumb. In the 1800s your home State was much more important than the Federal Government. It was the primary reason Lee fought in the Confederate side, because his home state of Virginia decided it so. It was not an uncommon view in the mid 1800s. Plus, putting Lee and someone like Forrest in the same breadth is some of the most idiotic conflation I've ever heard of (ie. there being no separation of degree when it comes to individuals during this time period). It's just ignorant college students getting a one-sided propaganda narrative through their biased professors - it's no wonder they act in this fashion. I have a degree in US history, but thanks. Also Lee was also quoted and says slavery was an economic impartive for the South. And there are scores of people from his state that fought for the Union. But please tell me about the one sided narrative I got from my college professors. Thanks for not addressing the thrust of the argument, but trying to deflect by being a dismissive ass. If this is the sort of conversation you routinely engage in, I don't expect the divide to shrink much. We can thank the "Founders" by the way for this continued conflict for 250 years. The southern colonies should have never been a part of the "US", but no, they just had to have had put disparate peoples into one organized polity. Great decision there. At least the Anti-Federalists saw the folly in this decision. No one listens to them though.
Jefferson was a slave owning elitist who called the federalist elites because he didn't understand how banks or an economy worked. Which is not shocking for Americas aristocrat founding father who got there on the back of unpaid labor. He got smarter once he had to be a big boy and govern. But he was one of the last ones to die, so he got to hype his legacy hard.
I have very poor opinions of the anti-federalist, who used the fear of a federal government to protect their ability to own slaves.
Edit: and what Inge said, we already talked about Lee and southern ideology of confederate symbols for like 2 days.
|
On August 17 2017 09:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 09:44 Nevuk wrote:On August 17 2017 09:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 09:31 LegalLord wrote:On August 17 2017 09:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there any good news to talk about? I feel the need to ask for a temp ban from posting in here just because the discussion is circular as hell. Let me dig up a little of non-Charlottesville news for you. In recent weeks, a deluge of leaks has sprung out from the U.S. intelligence community concerning North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs. Taken together, the leaks portray Kim Jong Un’s regime as nearing mastery of a nuclear-tipped missile that could hit American soil.
Three separate and critical intelligence assessments have emerged in recent weeks that merit attention. First, the U.S. intelligence community, in consensus, now assesses that North Korea is fully capable of developing compact missile-mountable nuclear weapons. Second, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospational Intelligence Agency assess that North Korea has a fissile material stockpile sufficient for 60 bombs today and is producing additional fissile material at a rate of 12 bombs per year.
Finally, the third assessment, which I first reported last week, is that the Central Intelligence Agency assesses North Korea’s intercontinental-range ballistic missile re-entry vehicle technology to likely be sufficient for the delivery of a nuclear device to the United States—meaning it could probably survive re-entry on a normal trajectory and successful detonate that compact nuclear warhead over an American city.
The sudden breakout of leaks as President Donald Trump blusters dangerously about meeting Kim’s threats with “fire and fury” has led well-intentioned observers to see echoes of the run-up to the Iraq war. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, for instance, has suggested that these leaks are aimed at supporting military action—as bogus stories about aluminum tubes and mobile weapons labs were back in 2002.
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Instead of paving the path to war, the public release of these intelligence assessments—two of which remain without known consensus within the intelligence community—are likely aimed at injecting caution into the debate over what to do about North Korea. They should cause Americans to understand the value of establishing a stable deterrent relationship with North Korea as we enter an era where its ICBMs are perhaps months from seeing operational deployment. In other words: The time to start a war with North Korea is not after various parts of the U.S. intelligence community assess that it could likely lob a nuclear weapon at U.S. cities today. The window is gone—certainly for a preventative war. Pre-emptive war also raises the uneasy prospect of betting that the United States would be able to detect and destroy all of North Korea’s road-mobile ICBMs, not leaving even a single launcher capable of retaliating with a devastating nuclear strike. www.politico.comPeople around the world have more confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin handling world affairs than in his U.S. Counterpart Donald Trump, a Pew Research Center survey showed.
Of 36 countries canvassed, 22, including Germany, France and Japan, trust Putin more, according to the pollster’s 2017 spring survey. People had more confidence in Trump in 13 countries, including the U.K., India and Israel. Only Tanzanians saw them as equals. Results from the U.S., which was also part of the survey, weren’t included in this question, and China wasn’t polled. Pew conducted its research from Feb. 16 to May 8.
Pew said that 23 percent of the American public had confidence in Putin, while 53 percent share the same feeling for Trump. Globally, a median 60 percent of people in 37 countries, including the U.S., said they lack confidence in the Russian leader’s actions in world affairs, versus 26 percent who said he’s doing a good job. About a third of the nations surveyed see Russia as a major threat to their country, similar to the level of concern caused by China and U.S. www.bloomberg.comA Florida man who federal authorities say planned to bomb a Jewish synagogue pleaded guilty Wednesday to a federal hate crime and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.
The timing of Justice Department's announcement of James Gonzalo Medina's guilty plea struck a chord during a week plagued by the aftermath of deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend.
The FBI launched an investigation into Medina in 2016 after authorities learned he had expressed anti-Semitic views with associates and discussed plans to attack the Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center in southern Florida, according to court filings.
Authorities say Medina scoped out the synagogue for potential vulnerabilities, told a confidential source that a Jewish holiday would be a "good day" to carry out the bomb attack, and then later procured what he believed to be an explosive device from an undercover agent.
"When asked whether he knew that if the attack succeeded, that people may have died, (Medina) responded, 'whatever happens,'" prosecutors said in the complaint. www.cnn.com Ah, refreshing. Thanks for that. The second story is hilarious and if that isn't a sign of the times to come, I don't know what is. The second one, didn't someone else post a story or a link similar in tone to this before? Something about people staking out a synagogue? Someone posted a witness's account of being inside a synagogue in Charlotteville a while ago That's what that was. I knew I had read mention of one. @zf - I understand what you're saying. And I try to inject some different news in here, but apparently that news isn't worth having a discussion over. I've seen it too many times in this thread where CCSB or someone will drop a good article, one or two people commentate, and then it's by the wayside. It's sad we have to have over 40 pages of playing "Is this racist?" I wish we could move the thread along quicker. Maybe more warnings for circuitous arguments?
people often post because they vehemently disagree with something. they seldom bother posting for mild disagreements; even less so for agreement. we aren't supposed to post things like just /agree and on some issues there's really not much more ot be said than that.
really internet discussions often simply aren't a good venue; one of the purposes of news orgs should be to curate things, cut out the crap (sturgeon's law after all, a lot of posts are gonna be bad). i've at times proposed the idea of a curated politics thread feed; which would have to be run by someone and would basically consist of only the good posts in the thread.
more warnings/moderation may help, i've certainly advocated for it. or simply a mod push to "move things along" if an issue appears to be going nowhere.
If you want policy discussion on a topic we could go into that; i'm up for trying to be a wonk. the problem is those discussions may be derailed by crazies and people with lousy policy sense. and of course real policy work is well, work. mostly in practice people simply aren't that interested in such discussions; much as few people actually watch c-span. and of course going over the actual details of policy work isn't that useful if you're not in a position to implement things.
|
|
|
On August 17 2017 09:38 Plansix wrote:
This is the greatest news we could ask for.
Sometimes I wonder why I lurk so hard on this thread. Posts like this are the reason why. Thank you.
|
I think it's hilarious, how both white supremacists and antifa are so blinded by their own ideology, they fail to see, they're exactly the same!
We the human race are doomed, we're too easily manipulated by mob mentality. We'd rather believe in our own bullshit, than opening up and calling it out, sadly those who do are ridiculed by each side for not picking a side.
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” - Plato
|
On August 17 2017 10:11 thePunGun wrote:
I think it's hilarious, how both white supremacists and antifa are so blinded by their own ideology, they fail to see, they're exactly the same!
We the human race are doomed, we're too easily manipulated by mob mentality. We'd rather believe in our own bullshit, than opening up and calling it out, sadly those who do are ridiculed by each side for not picking a side.
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” - Plato
Yeeeeaaaaaah.....
Been over this quite a bit in the thread. If you want to compare anyone with actual Nazi or KKK groups, you'd better have more than "they're both mobs".
|
On August 17 2017 10:08 mikedebo wrote:Sometimes I wonder why I lurk so hard on this thread. Posts like this are the reason why. Thank you.
The dark carnival is the home of end game SJW.
|
On August 17 2017 10:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 10:11 thePunGun wrote:
I think it's hilarious, how both white supremacists and antifa are so blinded by their own ideology, they fail to see, they're exactly the same!
We the human race are doomed, we're too easily manipulated by mob mentality. We'd rather believe in our own bullshit, than opening up and calling it out, sadly those who do are ridiculed by each side for not picking a side.
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” - Plato
Yeeeeaaaaaah..... Been over this quite a bit in the thread. If you want to compare anyone with actual Nazi or KKK groups, you'd better have more than "they're both mobs".
You totally missed my point here, it was less about the incidents in the last few days and more a critizism about society in general!
|
That's why I'm woke as fuck when I said the individual was more important than their identity before it was cool.
I say that as a half white, half first nations, half black, pre op trans person lol.
|
Well that quote is 2400 years old, so I guess Plato was woke before woke was a thing...ugh now I feel dirty.
|
On August 17 2017 10:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 09:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 09:44 Nevuk wrote:On August 17 2017 09:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 09:31 LegalLord wrote:On August 17 2017 09:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there any good news to talk about? I feel the need to ask for a temp ban from posting in here just because the discussion is circular as hell. Let me dig up a little of non-Charlottesville news for you. In recent weeks, a deluge of leaks has sprung out from the U.S. intelligence community concerning North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs. Taken together, the leaks portray Kim Jong Un’s regime as nearing mastery of a nuclear-tipped missile that could hit American soil.
Three separate and critical intelligence assessments have emerged in recent weeks that merit attention. First, the U.S. intelligence community, in consensus, now assesses that North Korea is fully capable of developing compact missile-mountable nuclear weapons. Second, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospational Intelligence Agency assess that North Korea has a fissile material stockpile sufficient for 60 bombs today and is producing additional fissile material at a rate of 12 bombs per year.
Finally, the third assessment, which I first reported last week, is that the Central Intelligence Agency assesses North Korea’s intercontinental-range ballistic missile re-entry vehicle technology to likely be sufficient for the delivery of a nuclear device to the United States—meaning it could probably survive re-entry on a normal trajectory and successful detonate that compact nuclear warhead over an American city.
The sudden breakout of leaks as President Donald Trump blusters dangerously about meeting Kim’s threats with “fire and fury” has led well-intentioned observers to see echoes of the run-up to the Iraq war. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, for instance, has suggested that these leaks are aimed at supporting military action—as bogus stories about aluminum tubes and mobile weapons labs were back in 2002.
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Instead of paving the path to war, the public release of these intelligence assessments—two of which remain without known consensus within the intelligence community—are likely aimed at injecting caution into the debate over what to do about North Korea. They should cause Americans to understand the value of establishing a stable deterrent relationship with North Korea as we enter an era where its ICBMs are perhaps months from seeing operational deployment. In other words: The time to start a war with North Korea is not after various parts of the U.S. intelligence community assess that it could likely lob a nuclear weapon at U.S. cities today. The window is gone—certainly for a preventative war. Pre-emptive war also raises the uneasy prospect of betting that the United States would be able to detect and destroy all of North Korea’s road-mobile ICBMs, not leaving even a single launcher capable of retaliating with a devastating nuclear strike. www.politico.comPeople around the world have more confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin handling world affairs than in his U.S. Counterpart Donald Trump, a Pew Research Center survey showed.
Of 36 countries canvassed, 22, including Germany, France and Japan, trust Putin more, according to the pollster’s 2017 spring survey. People had more confidence in Trump in 13 countries, including the U.K., India and Israel. Only Tanzanians saw them as equals. Results from the U.S., which was also part of the survey, weren’t included in this question, and China wasn’t polled. Pew conducted its research from Feb. 16 to May 8.
Pew said that 23 percent of the American public had confidence in Putin, while 53 percent share the same feeling for Trump. Globally, a median 60 percent of people in 37 countries, including the U.S., said they lack confidence in the Russian leader’s actions in world affairs, versus 26 percent who said he’s doing a good job. About a third of the nations surveyed see Russia as a major threat to their country, similar to the level of concern caused by China and U.S. www.bloomberg.comA Florida man who federal authorities say planned to bomb a Jewish synagogue pleaded guilty Wednesday to a federal hate crime and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.
The timing of Justice Department's announcement of James Gonzalo Medina's guilty plea struck a chord during a week plagued by the aftermath of deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend.
The FBI launched an investigation into Medina in 2016 after authorities learned he had expressed anti-Semitic views with associates and discussed plans to attack the Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center in southern Florida, according to court filings.
Authorities say Medina scoped out the synagogue for potential vulnerabilities, told a confidential source that a Jewish holiday would be a "good day" to carry out the bomb attack, and then later procured what he believed to be an explosive device from an undercover agent.
"When asked whether he knew that if the attack succeeded, that people may have died, (Medina) responded, 'whatever happens,'" prosecutors said in the complaint. www.cnn.com Ah, refreshing. Thanks for that. The second story is hilarious and if that isn't a sign of the times to come, I don't know what is. The second one, didn't someone else post a story or a link similar in tone to this before? Something about people staking out a synagogue? Someone posted a witness's account of being inside a synagogue in Charlotteville a while ago That's what that was. I knew I had read mention of one. @zf - I understand what you're saying. And I try to inject some different news in here, but apparently that news isn't worth having a discussion over. I've seen it too many times in this thread where CCSB or someone will drop a good article, one or two people commentate, and then it's by the wayside. It's sad we have to have over 40 pages of playing "Is this racist?" I wish we could move the thread along quicker. Maybe more warnings for circuitous arguments? people often post because they vehemently disagree with something. they seldom bother posting for mild disagreements; even less so for agreement. we aren't supposed to post things like just /agree and on some issues there's really not much more ot be said than that. really internet discussions often simply aren't a good venue; one of the purposes of news orgs should be to curate things, cut out the crap (sturgeon's law after all, a lot of posts are gonna be bad). i've at times proposed the idea of a curated politics thread feed; which would have to be run by someone and would basically consist of only the good posts in the thread. more warnings/moderation may help, i've certainly advocated for it. or simply a mod push to "move things along" if an issue appears to be going nowhere. If you want policy discussion on a topic we could go into that; i'm up for trying to be a wonk. the problem is those discussions may be derailed by crazies and people with lousy policy sense. and of course real policy work is well, work. mostly in practice people simply aren't that interested in such discussions; much as few people actually watch c-span. and of course going over the actual details of policy work isn't that useful if you're not in a position to implement things.
Agreed that discussing policy is useless unless one of us is a secret congressman looking for ideas to float to McConnel.
The need to vehemently disagree is fine, that's what discussions are for. But when we are continuously so blinded by left vs right or antifa vs nazi (which is FUCKING absurd), we don't get anywhere. We are not wanting to see a different side nor be told we are wrong because x, y, z. Like the people we lambaste against, we have our own views and we're not going to change our minds. There are a few in here that are at least open to positive critique and listening to othersides and being open to thinking they need to expand the way they think. But that's very few and far in between.
My biggest gripe, is that there is good news out there, but we get these gems and we stay on them for a week and no one is trying to move the discussion towards any amicable agreement between the differing opinions. Obama may get a lot of flak for what he did, but at least we got a lot of good news and we weren't stuck perpetually in sad/divisive news all day every day.
/rant
|
On August 17 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:21 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 06:59 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:
mozoku: You might want to consider the idea that sexism and racism are ever present in our lives and combating them requires talking about them. Even progressives to racist things. The difference is that when we are called out on them, I don't see it as someone calling me a racists. Just that I did something that was racist, likely without meaning to. I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier: Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong? Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent. Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad. This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above. You're conflating a culturally specific skillset with character. I don't think it's racist to think that an Asian person is more likely to be familiar with a game that is historically Asian. I don't know anyone that would think that. But the concept of statistical populations and the differences between them aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skillsets. For reasons that are likely at least partially due to historical injustices, crime rates among African Americans from the South Side of Chicago are x times higher than they are among the general US population. If I'm sitting on a train car with 5 African Americans from the South Side of Chicago, I can observe that I'm x times more likely to be the victim of a crime than if I were sitting among five random members of the general US population. Therefore, I feel more threatened on this train car. It's literally the same example as Mahjong, but now it's politically sensitive. No, it's not fair to the African Americans on the train. And I would be irrational to assume I'll likely be the victim of a crime on that train, since base crime rates are very low. But I'm still logically and mathematically justified in feeling more threatened on that train car than I would with 5 other random US citizens. Now does that mean we should treat African Americans differently? Again, that's a judgment between utility and fairness. Mathematically, I would be maximizing utility for myself in terms of safety by choosing the random train car passengers. It's irrational in terms of utility to choose the African American train car. On the other hand, I'm aware that the base probability of being a victim of a crime is still low, even on that train car, so I as a human being I don't mind being on the train car because I'm willing to sacrifice infinitesimal utility in the interest of avoiding a lot of unfairness. Where people fall on the scale of utility vs fairness is an individual issue that doesn't really jive with black and white morality. ----------- I'd like to highlight that I'm making a very technical argument out here. A lot of people who are accused of racism are just racists and are "deplorable." I don't think this argument applies to a lot of people that are accused of being racists. But, when you call someone racist for e.g. making the analysis that I just did, you begin to dilute the term racist imo. The analysis is racist though. It completely neglects that arrest and conviction rates are NOT crime commission rates. We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. 1) The specifics of "which race" aren't relevant to my argument. You may pick whichever race has the highest crime rates. No matter which race it happens to be, the point was that stereotypes from empirical distributions increasing utility/efficiency aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skill sets, and that fairness vs utility is hard to paint as a moral dichotomy (as a realistic human being with interests in maximizing utility), so life isn't as simple as "stereotypes = bad/immoral." 2) Doesn't this only feed into my point about the term "racist" being diluted? I hope it's clear that I didn't make the statement with the intention to demean black people. I was only extending my argument that I made with Mahjong into a politically sensitive arena. The fact that the analysis may have been wrong due to incorrect facts (which I could debate, but there's no need) does not make an analysis "racist." It makes the analysis "faulty." To accuse something (or someone) of "racism" requires knowledge of its intent, and I think it was quite clear from my chain of posts that I wasn't intending to be racist against blacks.
If you're on a train with 100 random Americans, there will be more white criminals on the train than black ones.
While true, it's orthogonal to my point. I see your point, but I think you're missing mine. The reason you used the example that you did is because of conditioning of white supremacy. That's what makes it a racist analysis. Doesn't mean you're a member of the KKK, it means that your presumptions are racist and those are borne of a long history of white supremacist culture. If you were familiar with and had an understanding of white supremacist culture you wouldn't have used that example. As to your point of dilution. No. But I'm open to developing a lexicon that doesn't trigger those who feel it dilutes the term racist. It's such an inane thing to argue I'd rather it never be mentioned again as it's about catering to people who don't have the human decency and intellectual integrity to recognize fellow human beings as equally endowed by their creator to a right of life liberty and pursuit of happiness and the protections of their constitutional rights. We're supposed to act as if it's an honest disagreement between decent people of different minds, when it's actually people who refuse to believe the bank of justice is bankrupt and people who deem their fellow man unworthy of the promises America keeps to them, because of phenotypical genetic traits and the socioeconomic fallout of our country's systematic destruction of their history, culture, families, intellectual development, bodies, and rights. One could argue that the South should have seen reason and found Jesus and freed slaves on their own, but the truth of the matter was, where there was money to be made it took the unfriendly side of a lot of guns to get them to act right. You may argue that had Lincoln just used the right words that the Civil War could have been avoided, but I would suggest that naive and obtuse.
I just don't agree there. KwarK said he didn't how the original Mahjong point could have implications on character. The example I provided is an obvious case where the concept can be reasonably applied to character and is also is relevant to the mainstream race conversation.
Assuming that it's because of some white supremacy backstory seems like something you're artificially inserting into the conversation. I don't see how it's necessary to explain anything.
On August 17 2017 08:20 IgnE wrote:
so how do you determine the correct frame for your statistical stereotype calculations? if on a train, at a certain geophysical location, at a certain time, with certain people, what are the "correct" details to factor into your "rational" fears? average global crime rate? average US crime rate? average black crime rate? black crime rate in chicago? crime rate on trains? crimes by blacks on trains? crimes by blacks on trains within this neighborhood? crimes by blacks of this age within this neighborhood at this time of day?
the "racism" comes in precisely in determining this mental frame that is pre-conscious and inherently unjustifiable. this is the ideological ether that you live in but are apparently completely blind towards
I'm not sure how this even addresses my argument. I made up a theoretical example to demonstrate that stereotypes can increase utility at the cost of fairness/justice. This proves that the use of stereotypes is not a clear cut good/bad moral issue for real-world humans beings who are inherently inclined towards increasing utility (i.e. everyone).
I never claimed that stereotypes (priors) couldn't be abused, miscalculated, etc. But it's seems like pretty ham-handed life guidance for anyone to assert that "stereotypes = bad in all cases" when they're obviously useful and everyone uses them on a day-to-day basis.
What people are probably actually upset about when they curse about "stereotypes" is when people refuse to adjust their view of someone after evidence contradicts their preconceived biases (i.e. stereotypes).
This is much easier to talk about in (Bayesian) statistical terms, if you or anyone else is familiar with them, and it's ironically fairly controversial in statistics.
Bayesian statisticians have these things called priors, which describe your state of knowledge about something before seeing any new data. For example, I know that Chinese play more Mahjong than whites, on average. Therefore, my prior for the difference between their quantified "Mahjong skill" is a probability distribution that has more mass on the side of the Chinese guy being better. Your posterior (your belief after seeing new data) is compromise between your prior and the observed data (the likelihood, roughly). All of this (in a more formal statement) can be derived from simple probability theory.
Priors can have different strength. I have a strong prior on gravity, for example. If I throw an apple up, and suddenly it keeps flying up instead of coming back down, I'm going to suspect some trickery is at work rather than that the laws of nature changed for my throw of the apple. Priors can also be weak. A weak prior would be something like my expectation that a tall guy is a better basketball player than a shorter one--yes, it's maybe more likely to be true than not, but if the tall guy hasn't played much basketball and the short guy has then the short guy is probably going to be better.
Obviously, different Bayesian statisticians will have different priors for the same problem (i.e. different beliefs). Their philosophical statistical opponents (the Frequentists) think the concept of a prior is anathema to good science in the first place. They argue that, similarly to you, that these priors can't be tested.
Some priors are horrible and harm Bayesian analysis relative to Frequentist ("no prior") analyses. Some priors are very good and add a ton of value. On average, Bayesians usually do better in predictions than non-Bayesians though.
Getting back to your point, the fact that some people have good priors and some people have bad priors doesn't mean that everyone should just stop using priors. That's silly advice.
Getting around to your "pre-conscious" claim", I have no idea where you're getting this from. I can do research on whether blacks are more violent than the average US person. I can be critical of my own beliefs, and try to improve my prior. Bayesians think of their prior as data that essentially comes from the sum of their life experience.
Lastly, the claim that they're "inherently unjustifiable" is basically the claim that Frequentists make. "Priors are untestable." This is usually counter-argued in two ways: 1) Not really, because bad priors lead to bad predictions and good priors lead to good predictions, and 2) ignoring prior information often leads to silly conclusions and worse results on average. Ignoring the fact that Mahjong is popular in China, and virtually unplayed in the US is going to lead to worse predictions, on average, when betting on a random white guy vs a random Chinese in Mahjong.
btw im kind of annoyed youve started up this google memo nonsense again after going silent and ignoring my questions in the last go-around
I had been responding to posts for the previous four hours from multiple posters, and even said I had to go back to real life. Sorry to leave you hanging though.
|
On August 17 2017 10:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 10:01 zlefin wrote:On August 17 2017 09:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 09:44 Nevuk wrote:On August 17 2017 09:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 17 2017 09:31 LegalLord wrote:On August 17 2017 09:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there any good news to talk about? I feel the need to ask for a temp ban from posting in here just because the discussion is circular as hell. Let me dig up a little of non-Charlottesville news for you. In recent weeks, a deluge of leaks has sprung out from the U.S. intelligence community concerning North Korea’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs. Taken together, the leaks portray Kim Jong Un’s regime as nearing mastery of a nuclear-tipped missile that could hit American soil.
Three separate and critical intelligence assessments have emerged in recent weeks that merit attention. First, the U.S. intelligence community, in consensus, now assesses that North Korea is fully capable of developing compact missile-mountable nuclear weapons. Second, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospational Intelligence Agency assess that North Korea has a fissile material stockpile sufficient for 60 bombs today and is producing additional fissile material at a rate of 12 bombs per year.
Finally, the third assessment, which I first reported last week, is that the Central Intelligence Agency assesses North Korea’s intercontinental-range ballistic missile re-entry vehicle technology to likely be sufficient for the delivery of a nuclear device to the United States—meaning it could probably survive re-entry on a normal trajectory and successful detonate that compact nuclear warhead over an American city.
The sudden breakout of leaks as President Donald Trump blusters dangerously about meeting Kim’s threats with “fire and fury” has led well-intentioned observers to see echoes of the run-up to the Iraq war. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, for instance, has suggested that these leaks are aimed at supporting military action—as bogus stories about aluminum tubes and mobile weapons labs were back in 2002.
This is precisely the wrong conclusion.
Instead of paving the path to war, the public release of these intelligence assessments—two of which remain without known consensus within the intelligence community—are likely aimed at injecting caution into the debate over what to do about North Korea. They should cause Americans to understand the value of establishing a stable deterrent relationship with North Korea as we enter an era where its ICBMs are perhaps months from seeing operational deployment. In other words: The time to start a war with North Korea is not after various parts of the U.S. intelligence community assess that it could likely lob a nuclear weapon at U.S. cities today. The window is gone—certainly for a preventative war. Pre-emptive war also raises the uneasy prospect of betting that the United States would be able to detect and destroy all of North Korea’s road-mobile ICBMs, not leaving even a single launcher capable of retaliating with a devastating nuclear strike. www.politico.comPeople around the world have more confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin handling world affairs than in his U.S. Counterpart Donald Trump, a Pew Research Center survey showed.
Of 36 countries canvassed, 22, including Germany, France and Japan, trust Putin more, according to the pollster’s 2017 spring survey. People had more confidence in Trump in 13 countries, including the U.K., India and Israel. Only Tanzanians saw them as equals. Results from the U.S., which was also part of the survey, weren’t included in this question, and China wasn’t polled. Pew conducted its research from Feb. 16 to May 8.
Pew said that 23 percent of the American public had confidence in Putin, while 53 percent share the same feeling for Trump. Globally, a median 60 percent of people in 37 countries, including the U.S., said they lack confidence in the Russian leader’s actions in world affairs, versus 26 percent who said he’s doing a good job. About a third of the nations surveyed see Russia as a major threat to their country, similar to the level of concern caused by China and U.S. www.bloomberg.comA Florida man who federal authorities say planned to bomb a Jewish synagogue pleaded guilty Wednesday to a federal hate crime and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.
The timing of Justice Department's announcement of James Gonzalo Medina's guilty plea struck a chord during a week plagued by the aftermath of deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend.
The FBI launched an investigation into Medina in 2016 after authorities learned he had expressed anti-Semitic views with associates and discussed plans to attack the Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center in southern Florida, according to court filings.
Authorities say Medina scoped out the synagogue for potential vulnerabilities, told a confidential source that a Jewish holiday would be a "good day" to carry out the bomb attack, and then later procured what he believed to be an explosive device from an undercover agent.
"When asked whether he knew that if the attack succeeded, that people may have died, (Medina) responded, 'whatever happens,'" prosecutors said in the complaint. www.cnn.com Ah, refreshing. Thanks for that. The second story is hilarious and if that isn't a sign of the times to come, I don't know what is. The second one, didn't someone else post a story or a link similar in tone to this before? Something about people staking out a synagogue? Someone posted a witness's account of being inside a synagogue in Charlotteville a while ago That's what that was. I knew I had read mention of one. @zf - I understand what you're saying. And I try to inject some different news in here, but apparently that news isn't worth having a discussion over. I've seen it too many times in this thread where CCSB or someone will drop a good article, one or two people commentate, and then it's by the wayside. It's sad we have to have over 40 pages of playing "Is this racist?" I wish we could move the thread along quicker. Maybe more warnings for circuitous arguments? people often post because they vehemently disagree with something. they seldom bother posting for mild disagreements; even less so for agreement. we aren't supposed to post things like just /agree and on some issues there's really not much more ot be said than that. really internet discussions often simply aren't a good venue; one of the purposes of news orgs should be to curate things, cut out the crap (sturgeon's law after all, a lot of posts are gonna be bad). i've at times proposed the idea of a curated politics thread feed; which would have to be run by someone and would basically consist of only the good posts in the thread. more warnings/moderation may help, i've certainly advocated for it. or simply a mod push to "move things along" if an issue appears to be going nowhere. If you want policy discussion on a topic we could go into that; i'm up for trying to be a wonk. the problem is those discussions may be derailed by crazies and people with lousy policy sense. and of course real policy work is well, work. mostly in practice people simply aren't that interested in such discussions; much as few people actually watch c-span. and of course going over the actual details of policy work isn't that useful if you're not in a position to implement things. Agreed that discussing policy is useless unless one of us is a secret congressman looking for ideas to float to McConnel. The need to vehemently disagree is fine, that's what discussions are for. But when we are continuously so blinded by left vs right or antifa vs nazi (which is FUCKING absurd), we don't get anywhere. We are not wanting to see a different side nor be told we are wrong because x, y, z. Like the people we lambaste against, we have our own views and we're not going to change our minds. There are a few in here that are at least open to positive critique and listening to othersides and being open to thinking they need to expand the way they think. But that's very few and far in between. My biggest gripe, is that there is good news out there, but we get these gems and we stay on them for a week and no one is trying to move the discussion towards any amicable agreement between the differing opinions. Obama may get a lot of flak for what he did, but at least we got a lot of good news and we weren't stuck perpetually in sad/divisive news all day every day. /rant
some people indeed do'nt want to see a different side and aren't open to considering other views. also, many people do a poor job of arguing for their side; and back and forth poor arguments usually lead to even worse arguments.
getting amicable agreement is hard with fundamentally disagreeable people; and with people who don't argue in good faith; and when the political leadership acts that way, it's not surprising others do as well. as to getting people together more: that's part of the job of diplomats; one of the problems at present is that politicians aren't being diplomats trying to bring people together.
we can also discuss policy if you simply find it fun to do so :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://media1.giphy.com/media/l41Yv2OaqsyHcYKdy/giphy.gif)
