|
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 28 2017 23:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 23:27 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2017 23:22 Plansix wrote:
In an effort to change the topic, I found this article to be surprising. It is a weird regulation to roll back and I never heard any complaints about it. The explanation is very simple and a staple of the current Republican movement. Obama did it. It seems like a no brainer to keep in place, but I guess undoing everything Obama did enough of a reason for some.
That's an ongoing theme though.
We should have bets on what's chopped next, i just don't know much about "small scale domestic policies " of Obama. I feel like there should be an internet page somewhere for that.
edit: small scale domestic policies isn't really the correct way to phrase it, "regional" or something would be better.
|
On August 28 2017 23:43 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 23:42 Aquanim wrote:On August 28 2017 23:34 Acrofales wrote:
...
Over the last 3 pages, this discussion spiraled completely out of control in trying to condemn Danglars for choosing Nazis' civil rights over BLM's. If you're referring to the discussion I'm trying to have, this is an incorrect characterisation of it. It is a false dichotomy, because at no point did Danglars give the impression he felt more strongly about Nazis' rights than BLM's, and instead he maintains the point of view that ALL citizens have the same rights to protest, and taking civil rights away from ANYBODY is an atrocity. Now my own point of view is a few pages back (when I made my first fruitless attempt to steer the thread towards a more fruitful discussion), and a long story short: I disagree with Danglars.
In fact, I don't think I agree with Danglars on anything, ever. But we don't need a witch hunt. With respect to the bolded, I believe GreenHorizons' argument along these lines was based more on a history of year(s?) interacting with Danglars than what was said in this instance. Which brings us back to your point. Show nested quote +If we are going to have a not toxic environment it is important to acknowledge what everybody says and actually believes instead of whatever malicious insinuations that can be put out there about what they meant.
Show nested quote +For the record, witch hunts generally go:
- are you a witch?
- no
- *beatdown* are you a witch? lol, that literally is what's happening, are you blind? Danglars made clear that he condemned Nazis, so no, he's not a witch/Nazi.
I am contending that the question that is being asked to him, which would be the equivalent of "Are you a witch?" in the analogy, isn't "Are you a nazi?" But rather "out of these two groups that you disagree with, blm or nazis, who would you prefer to see obtain what they want". Please take the time to read my posts (or GH's), it would go faster.
|
On August 29 2017 00:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 23:43 m4ini wrote:On August 28 2017 23:42 Aquanim wrote:On August 28 2017 23:34 Acrofales wrote:
...
Over the last 3 pages, this discussion spiraled completely out of control in trying to condemn Danglars for choosing Nazis' civil rights over BLM's. If you're referring to the discussion I'm trying to have, this is an incorrect characterisation of it. It is a false dichotomy, because at no point did Danglars give the impression he felt more strongly about Nazis' rights than BLM's, and instead he maintains the point of view that ALL citizens have the same rights to protest, and taking civil rights away from ANYBODY is an atrocity. Now my own point of view is a few pages back (when I made my first fruitless attempt to steer the thread towards a more fruitful discussion), and a long story short: I disagree with Danglars.
In fact, I don't think I agree with Danglars on anything, ever. But we don't need a witch hunt. With respect to the bolded, I believe GreenHorizons' argument along these lines was based more on a history of year(s?) interacting with Danglars than what was said in this instance. Which brings us back to your point. If we are going to have a not toxic environment it is important to acknowledge what everybody says and actually believes instead of whatever malicious insinuations that can be put out there about what they meant.
For the record, witch hunts generally go:
- are you a witch?
- no
- *beatdown* are you a witch? lol, that literally is what's happening, are you blind? Danglars made clear that he condemned Nazis, so no, he's not a witch/Nazi. I am contending that the question that is being asked to him, which would be the equivalent of "Are you a witch?" in the analogy, isn't "Are you a nazi?" But rather "out of these two groups that you disagree with, blm or nazis, who would you prefer to see obtain what they want". Please take the time to read my posts (or GH's), it would go faster.
It would go even faster if you quote my entire posting including the "answer" to this one, rather than explicitly editing that part out.
Here.
People then went on for pages trying to get him to say that again, even though he already made his position clear.
He then comes out yet again stating "nope, still not a Nazi", and look where we are. No step closer, people now want to pin "well but you do like Nazis better than BLM, don't you?" on him.
|
On August 29 2017 00:08 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 00:00 Nebuchad wrote:On August 28 2017 23:43 m4ini wrote:On August 28 2017 23:42 Aquanim wrote:On August 28 2017 23:34 Acrofales wrote:
...
Over the last 3 pages, this discussion spiraled completely out of control in trying to condemn Danglars for choosing Nazis' civil rights over BLM's. If you're referring to the discussion I'm trying to have, this is an incorrect characterisation of it. It is a false dichotomy, because at no point did Danglars give the impression he felt more strongly about Nazis' rights than BLM's, and instead he maintains the point of view that ALL citizens have the same rights to protest, and taking civil rights away from ANYBODY is an atrocity. Now my own point of view is a few pages back (when I made my first fruitless attempt to steer the thread towards a more fruitful discussion), and a long story short: I disagree with Danglars.
In fact, I don't think I agree with Danglars on anything, ever. But we don't need a witch hunt. With respect to the bolded, I believe GreenHorizons' argument along these lines was based more on a history of year(s?) interacting with Danglars than what was said in this instance. Which brings us back to your point. If we are going to have a not toxic environment it is important to acknowledge what everybody says and actually believes instead of whatever malicious insinuations that can be put out there about what they meant.
For the record, witch hunts generally go:
- are you a witch?
- no
- *beatdown* are you a witch? lol, that literally is what's happening, are you blind? Danglars made clear that he condemned Nazis, so no, he's not a witch/Nazi. I am contending that the question that is being asked to him, which would be the equivalent of "Are you a witch?" in the analogy, isn't "Are you a nazi?" But rather "out of these two groups that you disagree with, blm or nazis, who would you prefer to see obtain what they want". Please take the time to read my posts (or GH's), it would go faster. It would go even faster if you quote my entire posting including the "answer" to this one, rather than explicitly editing that part out. Here. Show nested quote +People then went on for pages trying to get him to say that again, even though he already made his position clear.
He then comes out yet again stating "nope, still not a Nazi", and look where we are. No step closer, people now want to pin "well but you do like Nazis better than BLM, don't you?" on him.
Certainly wouldn't go faster since this still carries the same incorrect assumption about what the question is.
|
On August 29 2017 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 00:08 m4ini wrote:On August 29 2017 00:00 Nebuchad wrote:On August 28 2017 23:43 m4ini wrote:On August 28 2017 23:42 Aquanim wrote:On August 28 2017 23:34 Acrofales wrote:
...
Over the last 3 pages, this discussion spiraled completely out of control in trying to condemn Danglars for choosing Nazis' civil rights over BLM's. If you're referring to the discussion I'm trying to have, this is an incorrect characterisation of it. It is a false dichotomy, because at no point did Danglars give the impression he felt more strongly about Nazis' rights than BLM's, and instead he maintains the point of view that ALL citizens have the same rights to protest, and taking civil rights away from ANYBODY is an atrocity. Now my own point of view is a few pages back (when I made my first fruitless attempt to steer the thread towards a more fruitful discussion), and a long story short: I disagree with Danglars.
In fact, I don't think I agree with Danglars on anything, ever. But we don't need a witch hunt. With respect to the bolded, I believe GreenHorizons' argument along these lines was based more on a history of year(s?) interacting with Danglars than what was said in this instance. Which brings us back to your point. If we are going to have a not toxic environment it is important to acknowledge what everybody says and actually believes instead of whatever malicious insinuations that can be put out there about what they meant.
For the record, witch hunts generally go:
- are you a witch?
- no
- *beatdown* are you a witch? lol, that literally is what's happening, are you blind? Danglars made clear that he condemned Nazis, so no, he's not a witch/Nazi. I am contending that the question that is being asked to him, which would be the equivalent of "Are you a witch?" in the analogy, isn't "Are you a nazi?" But rather "out of these two groups that you disagree with, blm or nazis, who would you prefer to see obtain what they want". Please take the time to read my posts (or GH's), it would go faster. It would go even faster if you quote my entire posting including the "answer" to this one, rather than explicitly editing that part out. Here. People then went on for pages trying to get him to say that again, even though he already made his position clear.
He then comes out yet again stating "nope, still not a Nazi", and look where we are. No step closer, people now want to pin "well but you do like Nazis better than BLM, don't you?" on him. Certainly wouldn't go faster since this still carries the same incorrect assumption about what the question is.
"No step closer, people now want to pin "well but you do like Nazis better than BLM, don't you?" on him."
That's the question. Zero fucking spelled it out even.
He condemned Nazis. Now, I think, people are trying to get him to admit being a white supremacist. It's fucked up, honestly. He can either betray himself or confess. I don't like either option.
That's "your question". Stop arguing in bad faith.
|
On August 29 2017 00:16 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:On August 29 2017 00:08 m4ini wrote:On August 29 2017 00:00 Nebuchad wrote:On August 28 2017 23:43 m4ini wrote:On August 28 2017 23:42 Aquanim wrote:On August 28 2017 23:34 Acrofales wrote:
...
Over the last 3 pages, this discussion spiraled completely out of control in trying to condemn Danglars for choosing Nazis' civil rights over BLM's. If you're referring to the discussion I'm trying to have, this is an incorrect characterisation of it. It is a false dichotomy, because at no point did Danglars give the impression he felt more strongly about Nazis' rights than BLM's, and instead he maintains the point of view that ALL citizens have the same rights to protest, and taking civil rights away from ANYBODY is an atrocity. Now my own point of view is a few pages back (when I made my first fruitless attempt to steer the thread towards a more fruitful discussion), and a long story short: I disagree with Danglars.
In fact, I don't think I agree with Danglars on anything, ever. But we don't need a witch hunt. With respect to the bolded, I believe GreenHorizons' argument along these lines was based more on a history of year(s?) interacting with Danglars than what was said in this instance. Which brings us back to your point. If we are going to have a not toxic environment it is important to acknowledge what everybody says and actually believes instead of whatever malicious insinuations that can be put out there about what they meant.
For the record, witch hunts generally go:
- are you a witch?
- no
- *beatdown* are you a witch? lol, that literally is what's happening, are you blind? Danglars made clear that he condemned Nazis, so no, he's not a witch/Nazi. I am contending that the question that is being asked to him, which would be the equivalent of "Are you a witch?" in the analogy, isn't "Are you a nazi?" But rather "out of these two groups that you disagree with, blm or nazis, who would you prefer to see obtain what they want". Please take the time to read my posts (or GH's), it would go faster. It would go even faster if you quote my entire posting including the "answer" to this one, rather than explicitly editing that part out. Here. People then went on for pages trying to get him to say that again, even though he already made his position clear.
He then comes out yet again stating "nope, still not a Nazi", and look where we are. No step closer, people now want to pin "well but you do like Nazis better than BLM, don't you?" on him. Certainly wouldn't go faster since this still carries the same incorrect assumption about what the question is. "No step closer, people now want to pin "well but you do like Nazis better than BLM, don't you?" on him." That's the question. Zero fucking spelled it out even. Show nested quote +He condemned Nazis. Now, I think, people are trying to get him to admit being a white supremacist. It's fucked up, honestly. He can either betray himself or confess. I don't like either option.
That's "your question".
"My" (GH's) question is y. You're saying that it was x but it turned to y because leftists want to be mean. You couldn't demonstrate to Aquanim that this was the case. Barring that demonstration, I'm going to assume the question is indeed y. In which case my witch analogy works, and I get to not be blind. Which is neat.
|
For what it's worth, this is (afaik) the original post made by GH (link):
On August 27 2017 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 05:27 crms wrote:On August 27 2017 05:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2017 00:19 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 00:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:53 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 23:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:23 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 23:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:06 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Don't try to weasel around with "morally questionable things." Show me you afford citizens their civil rights no matter who they are and how disgusted you are, or show me the criminal act justifying their removal. Otherwise you're regressing the civil rights movement and totally forgetful of American history. Did you just piggy back nazis on the back of the civil rights movement? StealthBlue talked about old school lynchings. Tell me, did the movement argue to just include blacks in the privileged classes that get civil rights, or was it pretty sweeping? I absolutely consider the disgusting attitude that your hate justifies your violence to be in kind with the attitudes civil rights leaders came against. My hate? This isn't about me. This is about what you posted. Don't turn it around and play innocent. Answer the question I asked. Did you just propose that nazi's were part of the civil rights movement to give disenfranchised minorities equal standing in the law? This is about your opinion on the matter. And let me laugh off your dishonest and foolhardy question. Of course it isn't piggybacking and why the rule applies universally (read it again). I brought up why I made the comparison to the civil rights movement, and why it was applicable. Did you just justify removing civil rights from groups you deem unworthy? (As an example of an equally dishonest question) Yes. I do. Nazi's do not have civil rights. It's like Nazi Germany didn't even fucking happen in your world. And the rule does not apply to hate groups that fought tooth and nail to keep those disenfranchised groups from being considered equal under the law that their counterparts enjoyed for a couple hundred of years. You seem to conflate people fighting for legitimacy in the eyes of the law with white privilege to be hateful and not be held accountable. You think there is a privileged class Nazi's should be joining? m4ini and others have been trying to tell you how it works in Germany regarding this group, but "America is a land with freedom of speech and assembly. You can't stop them from speaking! Civil Rights!" Then absolutely you're an authoritarian, piss all over the civil rights movement (civil rights for all, not some), and I'm damn happy these regressive attitudes didn't prevail when people fought and won equality under the law and the equal protection of this nation's laws. You would have to be made king and god to label who you like "hate groups" not afforded their civil rights. I see I chose my words well. You think some citizens according to how they express themselves and the beliefs they hold to have an illegitimate claim to the same police protection and protection of laws against violent acts. This is absolutely the same issue and America is not about you deciding which individuals are not worthy in your eyes of their inalienable rights. I was happy that so many in this thread defended their rights to march, to speak, and freedom from violence (in principle, if they do not exercise violence and trigger the self defense principle). It pains me to see the dissenters, but you have the right to your dissent and expressing your opinion. I'm not gonna label you a regressive left hate group and take away your rights, rest assured. This has to be some sort of reddit meme or something. You can't have actually wrote this thinking it would be taken seriously? You frame your argument around civil rights, but your total lack of concern for people that aren't Nazis vs the in depth and repeated defenses of Nazi civil rights show's it's not the civil rights you prime on defending, it's the Nazis. Again not because you're concerned about everyone having civil/constitutional rights respected, but because you want Nazis to be able to spread their genocidal message of the complete destruction of people like me. It's completely and wholly disgusting to me at this point that you all keep doing this and keep pretending it's about their "rights". This has nothing to do with Nazi's constitutional rights and we shouldn't keep pretending that it is. Was going to make a post similar to this but instead I'll just quote yours. I'd find Danglars intentions more honest if he drew his sword over all civil rights infringements in the same or similar fervor as his defense of Nazi rallies. I don't think Danglars is a Nazi or a Nazi-sympathizer, he's just far too deep in the partisan hole that he finds himself having to die on some 'civil rights hill' to defend the far right, while simultaneously and consistently shrugging off the impact and severity of civil rights violations of other groups. It's not a good look. I've posed similar questions without answer, but if forced to choose between a country where BLM got their way or Nazis I'm not sure they wouldn't choose Nazis.
which is more or less what Nebuchad said. Whether the rest of the conversation was also on this basis, or eventually became "try to get him to admit to being a white supremacist" is a different question. I don't intend to try to answer that question but if you are going to continue this conversation I suggest it be on that premise.
|
Each side accuses the other of acting in bad faith; of using strawmen as well. Either someone with authority makes a factual determination as to which is correct, (though even then many will refuse to accept the authority's result), or there is an unresolvable impasse. in any event, future discussion will likely be poisoned by the incident; and a refusal to agree on basic facts means reality itself is undefined; even though all the evidence has been presented for all to see, they interpret it differently.
Makes one wonder what the objective truth is.
well, at least this one can't be pinned on me. kudos to those who posted well, shame to those who posted poorly (none of whom will recognize or admit that they did).
|
The 2016 Democratic presidential candidate's book comes out in two weeks. It is titled "What happened?" She promises candor and says "Now I'm letting my guard down."
|
Texas is currently a body of water the size of one of the great lakes, but lets talk about Hillary Clinton’s book.
|
It should have been "What happened?" Instead it's "What happened". I've yet to see or hear that she's learned her lesson.
|
On August 29 2017 00:39 Plansix wrote:
Texas is currently a body of water the size of one of the great lakes, but lets talk about Hillary Clinton’s book.
I'm fairly sure we can do both? What do you want to talk about re: Texas?
|
I feel like people aren't understanding the issue here. It isn't "are you a Nazi" , it is "you seem to think white Nazis are having their civil rights violated far worse than minorities are" which does seem a patently absurd position, and asking if that is the belief will clear up things.
Nothing even to do with being a Nazi sympathizer, basically just asking which group has their rights violated more. Fwiw I don't think Danglars falls into this.
|
My god, Hillary Clinton just needs to disappear. The sooner we forget she exists the sooner we can properly move on to talking about how bad Trump actually is and - more importantly - what we can do about it. With Hillary choking the opposition for personal gain, we are still mostly stuck playing this stupid ass game where we're talking past each other trying to establish who is worse - shitty party A or shitty party B.
|
On August 29 2017 00:53 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 00:39 Plansix wrote:
Texas is currently a body of water the size of one of the great lakes, but lets talk about Hillary Clinton’s book. I'm fairly sure we can do both? What do you want to talk about re: Texas?
Although I know the situation is developing, I really expected congress to start talking about setting aside money for relief. Or at least develop time table for how long it will take them to pass a bill. This entire thing will likely deplete the flood insurance fund.
Maybe I am expecting to much over a weekend. It just seems really quite on the federal front.
|
On August 29 2017 01:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 00:53 Ghostcom wrote:On August 29 2017 00:39 Plansix wrote:
Texas is currently a body of water the size of one of the great lakes, but lets talk about Hillary Clinton’s book. I'm fairly sure we can do both? What do you want to talk about re: Texas? Although I know the situation is developing, I really expected congress to start talking about setting aside money for relief. Or at least develop time table for how long it will take them to pass a bill. This entire thing will likely deplete the flood insurance fund. Maybe I am expecting to much over a weekend. It just seems really quite on the federal front.
Ghostcom was talking about the thread though, and he's right that there's not a ton to say so far afaik
|
On August 29 2017 00:58 LegalLord wrote:
My god, Hillary Clinton just needs to disappear. The sooner we forget she exists the sooner we can properly move on to talking about how bad Trump actually is and - more importantly - what we can do about it. With Hillary choking the opposition for personal gain, we are still mostly stuck playing this stupid ass game where we're talking past each other trying to establish who is worse - shitty party A or shitty party B.
It's a bit rich that you're talking about forgetting Hillary.
|
I am not sure if this is just due to the fact that you were not prepared for a disaster of this proportion or if there was no preparation for someting of that magnitude.
I remember the last really bad flooding in eastern germany and it was basically days and days of people fighting the dams to break. I haven't seen any coverage of people building sandsack dams.
I would find it interesting to know if that wasn't in the coverage i saw but happened or if it did not happen.
And if it did not happen, why not? I don't understand the concept of building paperhouses on faultlines, tornado zones and hurricane areas which seems to have happened here as well. Could this have been avoided if people had just tried before?
|
NPR was covering that this morning and there is only so much they can do to prepare. The problems are not across the entire state and some places that were supposed to be bad are fine. One mayor was very blunt about it: “If we evacuate, they could be facing the flood in their car or out in the open.” He also pointed out that there wasn’t places to put people if they evacuated everyone.
|
yea i mean we aren't talking about a potential river surge or anything. in these coastlands the sea level essentially rose at the magnitude of like six or seven feet.
no matter how well you plan and build the waters going to get where it wants at that point. i had read that the storm dumped 9 trillion gallons of water(this is the most popular figure i've found. i saw another at 11 trillion) like you said, at that point i don't think there exists a level of sufficient preparedness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
