Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On January 31 2025 12:00 KwarK wrote: Trump blamed the aerial collision on, among other things, dwarfs.
We do not know what led to this crash but we have some very strong opinions and ideas. …. The FAA website states they include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism all qualified for the position of a controller of air planes pouring into our country, pouring into a little spot. A little dot on the map. A runway.
It’s not currently clear why the dwarfs crashed the plane or what their agenda is but there’s one thing that is clear, DEI is to blame.
I'm a bit curious about the "this is actually what Trump meant" take that we usually get here after statements like these.
You see the problem with hiring controllers from all the other groups mentioned, but you agree dwarfism is over the line so you're singling it out? Or do you need each and every one of them explained?
Yes id like them all explained
Certainly: People with hearing disability could have trouble hearing conversations clearly on a radio. On multiple frequencies. Of multiple conversations happening at once. With their supervisor in the background and also needing to talk with colleagues when necessary. They could have trouble interpreting the various accents of pilots, not limited to those whose first language isn't English. People with vision disability could have trouble tracking things (people with dyslexia can confuse similar callsigns, waypoints, etc. leading to confusing -> dangerous situations - I've put dyslexia here as not an intellectual disability). Missing extremities is vague but you probably can't operate computers and equipment without working fingers. I'd let toes and feet slide on this one. Partial paralysis is the same - there are certain critical body parts, like fingers, mouth, vocal cords, eyes, that need to work. Complete paralysis obviously includes all of those. Epilepsy - You do not want people seizing in the middle of controlling airplanes. Sometimes a controller is the only one working a tower. That's a problem by itself, but you also can't fix this by personnel redundancy - If you have one guy who is epileptic, so you put another in case he seizes, in the event he seizes his partner is now helping him instead of directing planes. Or splitting attention. Or he can't take a bathroom break because of the risk. People with intellectual disability cannot direct airplanes. People with psychiatric disability are equally unable to direct airplanes, either all the time or in the event of an episode, which is not a risk to be taken. People with dwarfism cannot see out of the window in cases where it's necessary to directly visually interact with something, e.g. planes on the runway or taxiway, a runway incursion by a streaker, a plane doing a flyby to confirm their gear is down, etc. While it's true that a perfectly healthy person can have a heart attack and die also, potentially causing a dangerous situation, you can't proscribe perfectly healthy people on the assumption their risk is nonzero, because nobody is left to do the job. There have been cases of lone controllers having strokes on the job with no history. Not good. However, it's pretty much recognized internationally in cases of bus drivers, airplane pilots, that basically all of these factors are disqualifying. For basic reasons of safety. For similar reasons making them ATC is not very viable.
The main criticism that works is there's no sources, so we don't know if it was made up, or a misunderstanding of FAA hiring in general vs. ATC in particular, or if it's completely true. However, if true hopefully you can see the issue of the FAA prioritizing quite the wrong things. We do know the class action lawsuits are in progress accusing them of the same behavior. The investigation of this particular incident notwithstanding, many of the FAA's policies range from headscratchers to negligence.
I'm pretty sure that there's more to air traffic control than they literally look at the plane out of the window. The scenario where the window is too high and the plane is too low and you can't see the plane doesn't align with my understanding of how they track the positions of objects in the sky. If that were the process then clouds or night would be a bigger issue than dwarfism as dwarfism could be solved with a stepstool. I also don't think Biden was plotting to staff it exclusively with amputee dwarfs, surely there are some dwarf friendly roles.
Airplanes are subject to ATC while on the ground as well. The word "air" in air traffic control is not strictly prescriptive. It's related to why "air"ports aren't in the sky.
On February 01 2025 00:50 KwarK wrote: But clearly you're having fun with these scenarios so I'll join in. We should ban cis men from ATC jobs. Like what if they're trying to direct the plane but they get distracted by their penises? What if they fall in the urinals in the bathroom? While it's true that we need some ATCs I don't see why we'd accept this entirely avoidable risk. I don't know any facts about the subject but what I do have is some very strong ideas.
This was covered and preempted in the heart attack paragraph, everyone has genitals, it's not feasible and it's why a reduction to absurdity doesn't prevent you from having reasonable standards just like how you wouldn't have a wheelchair lifeguard. Women also being distractible by their own genitals, causing everyone to be ineligible to be ATC in your hypothetical, perhaps you would investigate vis-a-vis relative genital distractiveness and come back with the facts that you admit to lacking.
On January 31 2025 23:47 WombaT wrote: It’s the usual disingenuous bullshit that isn’t really worth entertaining, one will be subjected to (hopefully) ineffective gaslighting and an almost 0% chance of shifting opinions.
We’ve been headbutting that wall since 2016 to little real effect.
Whether it takes the form of ‘revolutionary socialism’ or not, GH is 100% correct that winning internet arguments with Fascist-enablers does shit all, and building up robust community efforts is the way to go.
So we just have to ban Blackjack and oBlade. Because that's the only way your going to stop this from not happening constantly for the next 4 years.
Admittedly it's often not easy to ignore, but I can say that I carry a little bit less negative energy in myself through the day when I have the discipline to avoid pointless topics such as this one. I've also stopped responding to certain individuals for many months (before I finally cave one time and then have to tell myself to never respond).
It's funny because most posters can mostly ignore criticism/discussion from their left but we know they can't help themselves when it comes to stuff like spending pages shitposting about ATC dwarfs with oBlade.
It's even worse right now since Democrats functionally have no leadership or message that Trump and his ilk are distracting the country from. So they literally end up asking for it.
Ah yes, Sadist asking Oblade to defend the latest idiotic thing Trump said on teamliquid is why you're still 0 for 0 on revolutions. He should do better.
Forget the revolutionary part, you guys need to be socialists ASAP or fascism is going to keep winning while your Democrat politicians collaborate with them.
None of you libs/Dems have a real argument not to be socialists. It was so that you could beat Trump. That failed spectacularly. Nothing stopping you all from spending the next 6 months acting in good faith as socialists just to try it out. Well, nothing except your stubbornly undue hubris.
Democrats have nothing else/better for you to be doing, and I promise bickering/shitposting with oBlade about dwarfs/genitals isn't more useful than developing a socialist worldview in community with your comrades.
On January 31 2025 23:47 WombaT wrote: It’s the usual disingenuous bullshit that isn’t really worth entertaining, one will be subjected to (hopefully) ineffective gaslighting and an almost 0% chance of shifting opinions.
We’ve been headbutting that wall since 2016 to little real effect.
Whether it takes the form of ‘revolutionary socialism’ or not, GH is 100% correct that winning internet arguments with Fascist-enablers does shit all, and building up robust community efforts is the way to go.
So we just have to ban Blackjack and oBlade. Because that's the only way your going to stop this from not happening constantly for the next 4 years.
Admittedly it's often not easy to ignore, but I can say that I carry a little bit less negative energy in myself through the day when I have the discipline to avoid pointless topics such as this one. I've also stopped responding to certain individuals for many months (before I finally cave one time and then have to tell myself to never respond).
It's funny because most posters can mostly ignore criticism/discussion from their left but we know they can't help themselves when it comes to stuff like spending pages shitposting about ATC dwarfs with oBlade.
It's even worse right now since Democrats functionally have no leadership or message that Trump and his ilk are distracting the country from. So they literally end up asking for it.
Ah yes, Sadist asking Oblade to defend the latest idiotic thing Trump said on teamliquid is why you're still 0 for 0 on revolutions. He should do better.
People should do better. What has arguing on the internet actually accomplished in the past 7/8 years? People feel smug and smart, but minds largely aren’t changed and it does sweet fuck all ultimately because you’re bashing your head against ‘yeah it’s Fascism but that’s fine’ folks, or folks completely oblivious to that element no matter how applicable.
On January 31 2025 23:47 WombaT wrote: It’s the usual disingenuous bullshit that isn’t really worth entertaining, one will be subjected to (hopefully) ineffective gaslighting and an almost 0% chance of shifting opinions.
We’ve been headbutting that wall since 2016 to little real effect.
Whether it takes the form of ‘revolutionary socialism’ or not, GH is 100% correct that winning internet arguments with Fascist-enablers does shit all, and building up robust community efforts is the way to go.
So we just have to ban Blackjack and oBlade. Because that's the only way your going to stop this from not happening constantly for the next 4 years.
Admittedly it's often not easy to ignore, but I can say that I carry a little bit less negative energy in myself through the day when I have the discipline to avoid pointless topics such as this one. I've also stopped responding to certain individuals for many months (before I finally cave one time and then have to tell myself to never respond).
It's funny because most posters can mostly ignore criticism/discussion from their left but we know they can't help themselves when it comes to stuff like spending pages shitposting about ATC dwarfs with oBlade.
It's even worse right now since Democrats functionally have no leadership or message that Trump and his ilk are distracting the country from. So they literally end up asking for it.
Ah yes, Sadist asking Oblade to defend the latest idiotic thing Trump said on teamliquid is why you're still 0 for 0 on revolutions. He should do better.
People should do better. What has arguing on the internet actually accomplished in the past 7/8 years? People feel smug and smart, but minds largely aren’t changed and it does sweet fuck all ultimately because you’re bashing your head against ‘yeah it’s Fascism but that’s fine’ folks, or folks completely oblivious to that element no matter how applicable.
We don't post on forums to change the world. That's some Orson Scott Card fantasy where someone makes such a good livejournal that everyone starts reading it and they put the anonymous blogger in charge of the world.
GH routinely uses forum posts as evidence of other posters being in some way complicit in the political direction of the US, insisting that their posts are not doing enough to stop genocide or whatever. He does not hold his own posts to the same standard, instead giving himself an exception.
On January 31 2025 12:00 KwarK wrote: Trump blamed the aerial collision on, among other things, dwarfs.
We do not know what led to this crash but we have some very strong opinions and ideas. …. The FAA website states they include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism all qualified for the position of a controller of air planes pouring into our country, pouring into a little spot. A little dot on the map. A runway.
It’s not currently clear why the dwarfs crashed the plane or what their agenda is but there’s one thing that is clear, DEI is to blame.
I'm a bit curious about the "this is actually what Trump meant" take that we usually get here after statements like these.
You see the problem with hiring controllers from all the other groups mentioned, but you agree dwarfism is over the line so you're singling it out? Or do you need each and every one of them explained?
Yes id like them all explained
Certainly: People with hearing disability could have trouble hearing conversations clearly on a radio. On multiple frequencies. Of multiple conversations happening at once. With their supervisor in the background and also needing to talk with colleagues when necessary. They could have trouble interpreting the various accents of pilots, not limited to those whose first language isn't English. People with vision disability could have trouble tracking things (people with dyslexia can confuse similar callsigns, waypoints, etc. leading to confusing -> dangerous situations - I've put dyslexia here as not an intellectual disability). Missing extremities is vague but you probably can't operate computers and equipment without working fingers. I'd let toes and feet slide on this one. Partial paralysis is the same - there are certain critical body parts, like fingers, mouth, vocal cords, eyes, that need to work. Complete paralysis obviously includes all of those. Epilepsy - You do not want people seizing in the middle of controlling airplanes. Sometimes a controller is the only one working a tower. That's a problem by itself, but you also can't fix this by personnel redundancy - If you have one guy who is epileptic, so you put another in case he seizes, in the event he seizes his partner is now helping him instead of directing planes. Or splitting attention. Or he can't take a bathroom break because of the risk. People with intellectual disability cannot direct airplanes. People with psychiatric disability are equally unable to direct airplanes, either all the time or in the event of an episode, which is not a risk to be taken. People with dwarfism cannot see out of the window in cases where it's necessary to directly visually interact with something, e.g. planes on the runway or taxiway, a runway incursion by a streaker, a plane doing a flyby to confirm their gear is down, etc. While it's true that a perfectly healthy person can have a heart attack and die also, potentially causing a dangerous situation, you can't proscribe perfectly healthy people on the assumption their risk is nonzero, because nobody is left to do the job. There have been cases of lone controllers having strokes on the job with no history. Not good. However, it's pretty much recognized internationally in cases of bus drivers, airplane pilots, that basically all of these factors are disqualifying. For basic reasons of safety. For similar reasons making them ATC is not very viable.
The main criticism that works is there's no sources, so we don't know if it was made up, or a misunderstanding of FAA hiring in general vs. ATC in particular, or if it's completely true. However, if true hopefully you can see the issue of the FAA prioritizing quite the wrong things. We do know the class action lawsuits are in progress accusing them of the same behavior. The investigation of this particular incident notwithstanding, many of the FAA's policies range from headscratchers to negligence.
I'm pretty sure that there's more to air traffic control than they literally look at the plane out of the window. The scenario where the window is too high and the plane is too low and you can't see the plane doesn't align with my understanding of how they track the positions of objects in the sky. If that were the process then clouds or night would be a bigger issue than dwarfism as dwarfism could be solved with a stepstool. I also don't think Biden was plotting to staff it exclusively with amputee dwarfs, surely there are some dwarf friendly roles.
Airplanes are subject to ATC while on the ground as well. The word "air" in air traffic control is not strictly prescriptive. It's related to why "air"ports aren't in the sky.
On February 01 2025 00:50 KwarK wrote: But clearly you're having fun with these scenarios so I'll join in. We should ban cis men from ATC jobs. Like what if they're trying to direct the plane but they get distracted by their penises? What if they fall in the urinals in the bathroom? While it's true that we need some ATCs I don't see why we'd accept this entirely avoidable risk. I don't know any facts about the subject but what I do have is some very strong ideas.
This was covered and preempted in the heart attack paragraph, everyone has genitals, it's not feasible and it's why a reduction to absurdity doesn't prevent you from having reasonable standards just like how you wouldn't have a wheelchair lifeguard. Women also being distractible by their own genitals, causing everyone to be ineligible to be ATC in your hypothetical, perhaps you would investigate vis-a-vis relative genital distractiveness and come back with the facts that you admit to lacking.
I don't have any facts and I don't need any. What I have is strong opinions and ideas and those are that cis men are to blame for this crash. Why are you holding me to a higher standard than you hold Trump to? Do you think that I should do better than Trump? Is that even possible? Why are you questioning the President's judgment? Are you DEI? Explain your CRT immediately!
On January 31 2025 23:47 WombaT wrote: It’s the usual disingenuous bullshit that isn’t really worth entertaining, one will be subjected to (hopefully) ineffective gaslighting and an almost 0% chance of shifting opinions.
We’ve been headbutting that wall since 2016 to little real effect.
Whether it takes the form of ‘revolutionary socialism’ or not, GH is 100% correct that winning internet arguments with Fascist-enablers does shit all, and building up robust community efforts is the way to go.
So we just have to ban Blackjack and oBlade. Because that's the only way your going to stop this from not happening constantly for the next 4 years.
Admittedly it's often not easy to ignore, but I can say that I carry a little bit less negative energy in myself through the day when I have the discipline to avoid pointless topics such as this one. I've also stopped responding to certain individuals for many months (before I finally cave one time and then have to tell myself to never respond).
It's funny because most posters can mostly ignore criticism/discussion from their left but we know they can't help themselves when it comes to stuff like spending pages shitposting about ATC dwarfs with oBlade.
It's even worse right now since Democrats functionally have no leadership or message that Trump and his ilk are distracting the country from. So they literally end up asking for it.
Ah yes, Sadist asking Oblade to defend the latest idiotic thing Trump said on teamliquid is why you're still 0 for 0 on revolutions. He should do better.
People should do better. What has arguing on the internet actually accomplished in the past 7/8 years? People feel smug and smart, but minds largely aren’t changed and it does sweet fuck all ultimately because you’re bashing your head against ‘yeah it’s Fascism but that’s fine’ folks, or folks completely oblivious to that element no matter how applicable.
We don't post on forums to change the world. That's some Orson Scott Card fantasy where someone makes such a good livejournal that everyone starts reading it and they put the anonymous blogger in charge of the world.
GH routinely uses forum posts as evidence of other posters being in some way complicit in the political direction of the US, insisting that their posts are not doing enough to stop genocide or whatever. He does not hold his own posts to the same standard, instead giving himself an exception.
I'm pointing out that as far as posting on a forum about US politics goes, it's more useful/beneficial to everyone to engage in building a deeper understanding of the US political world through dialectical materialism in an effort to develop critical consciousness AKA "developing a socialist worldview in community with your comrades".
You petulantly insist instead on shitposting like this:
On January 31 2025 12:00 KwarK wrote: Trump blamed the aerial collision on, among other things, dwarfs.
We do not know what led to this crash but we have some very strong opinions and ideas. …. The FAA website states they include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism all qualified for the position of a controller of air planes pouring into our country, pouring into a little spot. A little dot on the map. A runway.
It’s not currently clear why the dwarfs crashed the plane or what their agenda is but there’s one thing that is clear, DEI is to blame.
I'm a bit curious about the "this is actually what Trump meant" take that we usually get here after statements like these.
You see the problem with hiring controllers from all the other groups mentioned, but you agree dwarfism is over the line so you're singling it out? Or do you need each and every one of them explained?
Yes id like them all explained
Certainly: People with hearing disability could have trouble hearing conversations clearly on a radio. On multiple frequencies. Of multiple conversations happening at once. With their supervisor in the background and also needing to talk with colleagues when necessary. They could have trouble interpreting the various accents of pilots, not limited to those whose first language isn't English. People with vision disability could have trouble tracking things (people with dyslexia can confuse similar callsigns, waypoints, etc. leading to confusing -> dangerous situations - I've put dyslexia here as not an intellectual disability). Missing extremities is vague but you probably can't operate computers and equipment without working fingers. I'd let toes and feet slide on this one. Partial paralysis is the same - there are certain critical body parts, like fingers, mouth, vocal cords, eyes, that need to work. Complete paralysis obviously includes all of those. Epilepsy - You do not want people seizing in the middle of controlling airplanes. Sometimes a controller is the only one working a tower. That's a problem by itself, but you also can't fix this by personnel redundancy - If you have one guy who is epileptic, so you put another in case he seizes, in the event he seizes his partner is now helping him instead of directing planes. Or splitting attention. Or he can't take a bathroom break because of the risk. People with intellectual disability cannot direct airplanes. People with psychiatric disability are equally unable to direct airplanes, either all the time or in the event of an episode, which is not a risk to be taken. People with dwarfism cannot see out of the window in cases where it's necessary to directly visually interact with something, e.g. planes on the runway or taxiway, a runway incursion by a streaker, a plane doing a flyby to confirm their gear is down, etc. While it's true that a perfectly healthy person can have a heart attack and die also, potentially causing a dangerous situation, you can't proscribe perfectly healthy people on the assumption their risk is nonzero, because nobody is left to do the job. There have been cases of lone controllers having strokes on the job with no history. Not good. However, it's pretty much recognized internationally in cases of bus drivers, airplane pilots, that basically all of these factors are disqualifying. For basic reasons of safety. For similar reasons making them ATC is not very viable.
The main criticism that works is there's no sources, so we don't know if it was made up, or a misunderstanding of FAA hiring in general vs. ATC in particular, or if it's completely true. However, if true hopefully you can see the issue of the FAA prioritizing quite the wrong things. We do know the class action lawsuits are in progress accusing them of the same behavior. The investigation of this particular incident notwithstanding, many of the FAA's policies range from headscratchers to negligence.
I'm pretty sure that there's more to air traffic control than they literally look at the plane out of the window. The scenario where the window is too high and the plane is too low and you can't see the plane doesn't align with my understanding of how they track the positions of objects in the sky. If that were the process then clouds or night would be a bigger issue than dwarfism as dwarfism could be solved with a stepstool. I also don't think Biden was plotting to staff it exclusively with amputee dwarfs, surely there are some dwarf friendly roles.
Airplanes are subject to ATC while on the ground as well. The word "air" in air traffic control is not strictly prescriptive. It's related to why "air"ports aren't in the sky.
On February 01 2025 00:50 KwarK wrote: But clearly you're having fun with these scenarios so I'll join in. We should ban cis men from ATC jobs. Like what if they're trying to direct the plane but they get distracted by their penises? What if they fall in the urinals in the bathroom? While it's true that we need some ATCs I don't see why we'd accept this entirely avoidable risk. I don't know any facts about the subject but what I do have is some very strong ideas.
This was covered and preempted in the heart attack paragraph, everyone has genitals, it's not feasible and it's why a reduction to absurdity doesn't prevent you from having reasonable standards just like how you wouldn't have a wheelchair lifeguard. Women also being distractible by their own genitals, causing everyone to be ineligible to be ATC in your hypothetical, perhaps you would investigate vis-a-vis relative genital distractiveness and come back with the facts that you admit to lacking.
I don't have any facts and I don't need any. What I have is strong opinions and ideas and those are that cis men are to blame for this crash. Why are you holding me to a higher standard than you hold Trump to? Do you think that I should do better than Trump? Is that even possible? Why are you questioning the President's judgment? Are you DEI? Explain your CRT immediately!
My dude, everyone here has a long history with each other, theres no way you're gonna get any progress with your ideals around here in any super meaningful way, I've shifted more towards your viewpoints over the years as it seems like all of the electoral types here have as much of a plan as they accuse you of not having for dealing with basic shit like political corruption and all of the absurd issues we've had in this country for years.
Petulant, cynical back and forthing is all we have here, that and posting the news, usually cynically.
On January 31 2025 23:47 WombaT wrote: It’s the usual disingenuous bullshit that isn’t really worth entertaining, one will be subjected to (hopefully) ineffective gaslighting and an almost 0% chance of shifting opinions.
We’ve been headbutting that wall since 2016 to little real effect.
Whether it takes the form of ‘revolutionary socialism’ or not, GH is 100% correct that winning internet arguments with Fascist-enablers does shit all, and building up robust community efforts is the way to go.
So we just have to ban Blackjack and oBlade. Because that's the only way your going to stop this from not happening constantly for the next 4 years.
Admittedly it's often not easy to ignore, but I can say that I carry a little bit less negative energy in myself through the day when I have the discipline to avoid pointless topics such as this one. I've also stopped responding to certain individuals for many months (before I finally cave one time and then have to tell myself to never respond).
It's funny because most posters can mostly ignore criticism/discussion from their left but we know they can't help themselves when it comes to stuff like spending pages shitposting about ATC dwarfs with oBlade.
It's even worse right now since Democrats functionally have no leadership or message that Trump and his ilk are distracting the country from. So they literally end up asking for it.
Ah yes, Sadist asking Oblade to defend the latest idiotic thing Trump said on teamliquid is why you're still 0 for 0 on revolutions. He should do better.
Forget the revolutionary part, you guys need to be socialists ASAP or fascism is going to keep winning while your Democrat politicians collaborate with them.
None of you libs/Dems have a real argument not to be socialists. It was so that you could beat Trump. That failed spectacularly. Nothing stopping you all from spending the next 6 months acting in good faith as socialists just to try it out. Well, nothing except your stubbornly undue hubris.
Democrats have nothing else/better for you to be doing, and I promise bickering/shitposting with oBlade about dwarfs/genitals isn't more useful than developing a socialist worldview in community with your comrades.
Can you clarify what you mean by becoming socialists?
On January 31 2025 23:47 WombaT wrote: It’s the usual disingenuous bullshit that isn’t really worth entertaining, one will be subjected to (hopefully) ineffective gaslighting and an almost 0% chance of shifting opinions.
We’ve been headbutting that wall since 2016 to little real effect.
Whether it takes the form of ‘revolutionary socialism’ or not, GH is 100% correct that winning internet arguments with Fascist-enablers does shit all, and building up robust community efforts is the way to go.
So we just have to ban Blackjack and oBlade. Because that's the only way your going to stop this from not happening constantly for the next 4 years.
Admittedly it's often not easy to ignore, but I can say that I carry a little bit less negative energy in myself through the day when I have the discipline to avoid pointless topics such as this one. I've also stopped responding to certain individuals for many months (before I finally cave one time and then have to tell myself to never respond).
It's funny because most posters can mostly ignore criticism/discussion from their left but we know they can't help themselves when it comes to stuff like spending pages shitposting about ATC dwarfs with oBlade.
It's even worse right now since Democrats functionally have no leadership or message that Trump and his ilk are distracting the country from. So they literally end up asking for it.
Ah yes, Sadist asking Oblade to defend the latest idiotic thing Trump said on teamliquid is why you're still 0 for 0 on revolutions. He should do better.
People should do better. What has arguing on the internet actually accomplished in the past 7/8 years? People feel smug and smart, but minds largely aren’t changed and it does sweet fuck all ultimately because you’re bashing your head against ‘yeah it’s Fascism but that’s fine’ folks, or folks completely oblivious to that element no matter how applicable.
We don't post on forums to change the world. That's some Orson Scott Card fantasy where someone makes such a good livejournal that everyone starts reading it and they put the anonymous blogger in charge of the world.
GH routinely uses forum posts as evidence of other posters being in some way complicit in the political direction of the US, insisting that their posts are not doing enough to stop genocide or whatever. He does not hold his own posts to the same standard, instead giving himself an exception.
I'm pointing out that as far as posting on a forum about US politics goes, it's more useful/beneficial to everyone to engage in building a deeper understanding of the US political world through dialectical materialism in an effort to develop critical consciousness AKA "developing a socialist worldview in community with your comrades".
You petulantly insist instead on shitposting like this:
On February 01 2025 01:28 KwarK wrote:
On February 01 2025 00:57 oBlade wrote:
On February 01 2025 00:50 KwarK wrote:
On January 31 2025 22:38 oBlade wrote:
On January 31 2025 22:18 Sadist wrote:
On January 31 2025 21:54 oBlade wrote:
On January 31 2025 20:56 EnDeR_ wrote:
On January 31 2025 12:00 KwarK wrote: Trump blamed the aerial collision on, among other things, dwarfs. [quote]
It’s not currently clear why the dwarfs crashed the plane or what their agenda is but there’s one thing that is clear, DEI is to blame.
I'm a bit curious about the "this is actually what Trump meant" take that we usually get here after statements like these.
You see the problem with hiring controllers from all the other groups mentioned, but you agree dwarfism is over the line so you're singling it out? Or do you need each and every one of them explained?
Yes id like them all explained
Certainly: People with hearing disability could have trouble hearing conversations clearly on a radio. On multiple frequencies. Of multiple conversations happening at once. With their supervisor in the background and also needing to talk with colleagues when necessary. They could have trouble interpreting the various accents of pilots, not limited to those whose first language isn't English. People with vision disability could have trouble tracking things (people with dyslexia can confuse similar callsigns, waypoints, etc. leading to confusing -> dangerous situations - I've put dyslexia here as not an intellectual disability). Missing extremities is vague but you probably can't operate computers and equipment without working fingers. I'd let toes and feet slide on this one. Partial paralysis is the same - there are certain critical body parts, like fingers, mouth, vocal cords, eyes, that need to work. Complete paralysis obviously includes all of those. Epilepsy - You do not want people seizing in the middle of controlling airplanes. Sometimes a controller is the only one working a tower. That's a problem by itself, but you also can't fix this by personnel redundancy - If you have one guy who is epileptic, so you put another in case he seizes, in the event he seizes his partner is now helping him instead of directing planes. Or splitting attention. Or he can't take a bathroom break because of the risk. People with intellectual disability cannot direct airplanes. People with psychiatric disability are equally unable to direct airplanes, either all the time or in the event of an episode, which is not a risk to be taken. People with dwarfism cannot see out of the window in cases where it's necessary to directly visually interact with something, e.g. planes on the runway or taxiway, a runway incursion by a streaker, a plane doing a flyby to confirm their gear is down, etc. While it's true that a perfectly healthy person can have a heart attack and die also, potentially causing a dangerous situation, you can't proscribe perfectly healthy people on the assumption their risk is nonzero, because nobody is left to do the job. There have been cases of lone controllers having strokes on the job with no history. Not good. However, it's pretty much recognized internationally in cases of bus drivers, airplane pilots, that basically all of these factors are disqualifying. For basic reasons of safety. For similar reasons making them ATC is not very viable.
The main criticism that works is there's no sources, so we don't know if it was made up, or a misunderstanding of FAA hiring in general vs. ATC in particular, or if it's completely true. However, if true hopefully you can see the issue of the FAA prioritizing quite the wrong things. We do know the class action lawsuits are in progress accusing them of the same behavior. The investigation of this particular incident notwithstanding, many of the FAA's policies range from headscratchers to negligence.
I'm pretty sure that there's more to air traffic control than they literally look at the plane out of the window. The scenario where the window is too high and the plane is too low and you can't see the plane doesn't align with my understanding of how they track the positions of objects in the sky. If that were the process then clouds or night would be a bigger issue than dwarfism as dwarfism could be solved with a stepstool. I also don't think Biden was plotting to staff it exclusively with amputee dwarfs, surely there are some dwarf friendly roles.
Airplanes are subject to ATC while on the ground as well. The word "air" in air traffic control is not strictly prescriptive. It's related to why "air"ports aren't in the sky.
On February 01 2025 00:50 KwarK wrote: But clearly you're having fun with these scenarios so I'll join in. We should ban cis men from ATC jobs. Like what if they're trying to direct the plane but they get distracted by their penises? What if they fall in the urinals in the bathroom? While it's true that we need some ATCs I don't see why we'd accept this entirely avoidable risk. I don't know any facts about the subject but what I do have is some very strong ideas.
This was covered and preempted in the heart attack paragraph, everyone has genitals, it's not feasible and it's why a reduction to absurdity doesn't prevent you from having reasonable standards just like how you wouldn't have a wheelchair lifeguard. Women also being distractible by their own genitals, causing everyone to be ineligible to be ATC in your hypothetical, perhaps you would investigate vis-a-vis relative genital distractiveness and come back with the facts that you admit to lacking.
I don't have any facts and I don't need any. What I have is strong opinions and ideas and those are that cis men are to blame for this crash. Why are you holding me to a higher standard than you hold Trump to? Do you think that I should do better than Trump? Is that even possible? Why are you questioning the President's judgment? Are you DEI? Explain your CRT immediately!
My dude, everyone here has a long history with each other, theres no way you're gonna get any progress with your ideals around here in any super meaningful way, I've shifted more towards your viewpoints over the years as it seems like all of the electoral types here have as much of a plan as they accuse you of not having for dealing with basic shit like political corruption and all of the absurd issues we've had in this country for years.
Petulant, cynical back and forthing is all we have here, that and posting the news, usually cynically.
Alternatively, we could be adults capable of participating in a democracy? I'd really like us to be that *eyes glisten dramatically with optimism*
On January 31 2025 23:47 WombaT wrote: It’s the usual disingenuous bullshit that isn’t really worth entertaining, one will be subjected to (hopefully) ineffective gaslighting and an almost 0% chance of shifting opinions.
We’ve been headbutting that wall since 2016 to little real effect.
Whether it takes the form of ‘revolutionary socialism’ or not, GH is 100% correct that winning internet arguments with Fascist-enablers does shit all, and building up robust community efforts is the way to go.
So we just have to ban Blackjack and oBlade. Because that's the only way your going to stop this from not happening constantly for the next 4 years.
Admittedly it's often not easy to ignore, but I can say that I carry a little bit less negative energy in myself through the day when I have the discipline to avoid pointless topics such as this one. I've also stopped responding to certain individuals for many months (before I finally cave one time and then have to tell myself to never respond).
It's funny because most posters can mostly ignore criticism/discussion from their left but we know they can't help themselves when it comes to stuff like spending pages shitposting about ATC dwarfs with oBlade.
It's even worse right now since Democrats functionally have no leadership or message that Trump and his ilk are distracting the country from. So they literally end up asking for it.
Ah yes, Sadist asking Oblade to defend the latest idiotic thing Trump said on teamliquid is why you're still 0 for 0 on revolutions. He should do better.
Forget the revolutionary part, you guys need to be socialists ASAP or fascism is going to keep winning while your Democrat politicians collaborate with them.
None of you libs/Dems have a real argument not to be socialists. It was so that you could beat Trump. That failed spectacularly. Nothing stopping you all from spending the next 6 months acting in good faith as socialists just to try it out. Well, nothing except your stubbornly undue hubris.
Democrats have nothing else/better for you to be doing, and I promise bickering/shitposting with oBlade about dwarfs/genitals isn't more useful than developing a socialist worldview in community with your comrades.
Can you clarify what you mean by becoming socialists?
In the temporary sense and to be probably dangerously reductive, I basically mean approaching everything here with a sort of "how would a socialist I can relate to engage with this" and going from there.
On February 01 2025 01:52 Zambrah wrote: My dude, everyone here has a long history with each other, theres no way you're gonna get any progress with your ideals around here in any super meaningful way, I've shifted more towards your viewpoints over the years as it seems like all of the electoral types here have as much of a plan as they accuse you of not having for dealing with basic shit like political corruption and all of the absurd issues we've had in this country for years.
Petulant, cynical back and forthing is all we have here, that and posting the news, usually cynically.
Its extra funny considering he doesn't follow any of his advice. If anyone is petulantly shitposting its GH. Dude offers no solutions, no open hands to convince anyone of anything. He's never tried to convince anyone of anything other than cynically trying to opine why everyone else doesn't abandon their positions and admit he was right all along.
On February 01 2025 01:52 Zambrah wrote: My dude, everyone here has a long history with each other, theres no way you're gonna get any progress with your ideals around here in any super meaningful way, I've shifted more towards your viewpoints over the years as it seems like all of the electoral types here have as much of a plan as they accuse you of not having for dealing with basic shit like political corruption and all of the absurd issues we've had in this country for years.
Petulant, cynical back and forthing is all we have here, that and posting the news, usually cynically.
Alternatively, we could be adults capable of participating in a democracy? I'd really like us to be that *eyes glisten dramatically with optimism*
On January 31 2025 23:47 WombaT wrote: It’s the usual disingenuous bullshit that isn’t really worth entertaining, one will be subjected to (hopefully) ineffective gaslighting and an almost 0% chance of shifting opinions.
We’ve been headbutting that wall since 2016 to little real effect.
Whether it takes the form of ‘revolutionary socialism’ or not, GH is 100% correct that winning internet arguments with Fascist-enablers does shit all, and building up robust community efforts is the way to go.
So we just have to ban Blackjack and oBlade. Because that's the only way your going to stop this from not happening constantly for the next 4 years.
Admittedly it's often not easy to ignore, but I can say that I carry a little bit less negative energy in myself through the day when I have the discipline to avoid pointless topics such as this one. I've also stopped responding to certain individuals for many months (before I finally cave one time and then have to tell myself to never respond).
It's funny because most posters can mostly ignore criticism/discussion from their left but we know they can't help themselves when it comes to stuff like spending pages shitposting about ATC dwarfs with oBlade.
It's even worse right now since Democrats functionally have no leadership or message that Trump and his ilk are distracting the country from. So they literally end up asking for it.
Ah yes, Sadist asking Oblade to defend the latest idiotic thing Trump said on teamliquid is why you're still 0 for 0 on revolutions. He should do better.
Forget the revolutionary part, you guys need to be socialists ASAP or fascism is going to keep winning while your Democrat politicians collaborate with them.
None of you libs/Dems have a real argument not to be socialists. It was so that you could beat Trump. That failed spectacularly. Nothing stopping you all from spending the next 6 months acting in good faith as socialists just to try it out. Well, nothing except your stubbornly undue hubris.
Democrats have nothing else/better for you to be doing, and I promise bickering/shitposting with oBlade about dwarfs/genitals isn't more useful than developing a socialist worldview in community with your comrades.
Can you clarify what you mean by becoming socialists?
In the temporary sense and to be probably dangerously reductive, I basically mean approaching everything here with a sort of "how would a socialist I can relate to engage with this" and going from there.
I mean look at this shit. He can't even answer what a socialist is without trying to put himself as the example people should be following. He doesn't understand that he lives in a democracy and that people can seriously engage with the one form of government that we have. I know communists and they're at least unafraid to tell people they don't belive in democracy and want authoritarianism. This guy is just scared to tell people how he thinks we should be doleing out power in this country.
On January 31 2025 12:00 KwarK wrote: Trump blamed the aerial collision on, among other things, dwarfs.
We do not know what led to this crash but we have some very strong opinions and ideas. …. The FAA website states they include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism all qualified for the position of a controller of air planes pouring into our country, pouring into a little spot. A little dot on the map. A runway.
It’s not currently clear why the dwarfs crashed the plane or what their agenda is but there’s one thing that is clear, DEI is to blame.
I'm a bit curious about the "this is actually what Trump meant" take that we usually get here after statements like these.
You see the problem with hiring controllers from all the other groups mentioned, but you agree dwarfism is over the line so you're singling it out? Or do you need each and every one of them explained?
Yes id like them all explained
Certainly: People with hearing disability could have trouble hearing conversations clearly on a radio. On multiple frequencies. Of multiple conversations happening at once. With their supervisor in the background and also needing to talk with colleagues when necessary. They could have trouble interpreting the various accents of pilots, not limited to those whose first language isn't English. People with vision disability could have trouble tracking things (people with dyslexia can confuse similar callsigns, waypoints, etc. leading to confusing -> dangerous situations - I've put dyslexia here as not an intellectual disability). Missing extremities is vague but you probably can't operate computers and equipment without working fingers. I'd let toes and feet slide on this one. Partial paralysis is the same - there are certain critical body parts, like fingers, mouth, vocal cords, eyes, that need to work. Complete paralysis obviously includes all of those. Epilepsy - You do not want people seizing in the middle of controlling airplanes. Sometimes a controller is the only one working a tower. That's a problem by itself, but you also can't fix this by personnel redundancy - If you have one guy who is epileptic, so you put another in case he seizes, in the event he seizes his partner is now helping him instead of directing planes. Or splitting attention. Or he can't take a bathroom break because of the risk. People with intellectual disability cannot direct airplanes. People with psychiatric disability are equally unable to direct airplanes, either all the time or in the event of an episode, which is not a risk to be taken. People with dwarfism cannot see out of the window in cases where it's necessary to directly visually interact with something, e.g. planes on the runway or taxiway, a runway incursion by a streaker, a plane doing a flyby to confirm their gear is down, etc. While it's true that a perfectly healthy person can have a heart attack and die also, potentially causing a dangerous situation, you can't proscribe perfectly healthy people on the assumption their risk is nonzero, because nobody is left to do the job. There have been cases of lone controllers having strokes on the job with no history. Not good. However, it's pretty much recognized internationally in cases of bus drivers, airplane pilots, that basically all of these factors are disqualifying. For basic reasons of safety. For similar reasons making them ATC is not very viable.
The main criticism that works is there's no sources, so we don't know if it was made up, or a misunderstanding of FAA hiring in general vs. ATC in particular, or if it's completely true. However, if true hopefully you can see the issue of the FAA prioritizing quite the wrong things. We do know the class action lawsuits are in progress accusing them of the same behavior. The investigation of this particular incident notwithstanding, many of the FAA's policies range from headscratchers to negligence.
I'm pretty sure that there's more to air traffic control than they literally look at the plane out of the window. The scenario where the window is too high and the plane is too low and you can't see the plane doesn't align with my understanding of how they track the positions of objects in the sky. If that were the process then clouds or night would be a bigger issue than dwarfism as dwarfism could be solved with a stepstool. I also don't think Biden was plotting to staff it exclusively with amputee dwarfs, surely there are some dwarf friendly roles.
Airplanes are subject to ATC while on the ground as well. The word "air" in air traffic control is not strictly prescriptive. It's related to why "air"ports aren't in the sky.
On February 01 2025 00:50 KwarK wrote: But clearly you're having fun with these scenarios so I'll join in. We should ban cis men from ATC jobs. Like what if they're trying to direct the plane but they get distracted by their penises? What if they fall in the urinals in the bathroom? While it's true that we need some ATCs I don't see why we'd accept this entirely avoidable risk. I don't know any facts about the subject but what I do have is some very strong ideas.
This was covered and preempted in the heart attack paragraph, everyone has genitals, it's not feasible and it's why a reduction to absurdity doesn't prevent you from having reasonable standards just like how you wouldn't have a wheelchair lifeguard. Women also being distractible by their own genitals, causing everyone to be ineligible to be ATC in your hypothetical, perhaps you would investigate vis-a-vis relative genital distractiveness and come back with the facts that you admit to lacking.
I don't have any facts and I don't need any. What I have is strong opinions and ideas and those are that cis men are to blame for this crash. Why are you holding me to a higher standard than you hold Trump to? Do you think that I should do better than Trump? Is that even possible? Why are you questioning the President's judgment? Are you DEI? Explain your CRT immediately!
The reason your ironic whatabouting isn't effective, is from your very first post starting this garbage when you said he "blamed" dwarfs, you didn't manage to read your own post quoting him saying "We do not know what led to this crash." Like just sit and read that sentence to yourself for an entire minute. That obnoxiously false framing immediately poisons an otherwise discussable news event which should matter to you as one of the few actual citizens in the thread. He later said in a press conference, verbatim, "I'm not blaming the controller. I'm saying there are things that you could question, like the height of the helicopter and the height of the plane, being at the same level and going in opposite directions." Again for some reason he failed to recant and say "No, actually, dwarves did this." Just hasn't said it. But for example, you could unironically question the protected characteristics of the airliner's pilots, as you are wont to do, the information has been made public that they are men. Maybe they were good old boy hires and at the wrong altitude. Have at it.
As the domino of women's reproductive rights has already fallen, thanks to Donald Trump and his Republican Supreme Court, and the more recent declarations by Trump that trans-people can no longer serve in the military and non-binary people can't exist at all, some conservative states are now moving on to banning gay marriage:
Idaho Republican legislators call on SCOTUS to reverse same-sex marriage ruling The Idaho House passed a resolution Monday calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its 2015 decision on same-sex marriage equality. The court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision established the right to same-sex marriage under the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The resolution comes after Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’s expressed interest in revisiting the Obergefell decision in his concurring opinion on the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that overturned the federal right to abortion. Thomas, who issued a dissenting opinion in 2015 against same-sex marriage, wrote in 2022, "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
On February 01 2025 00:26 Zambrah wrote: Y'all gotta try the Not-Engaging-With-People tactic, let me tell you it makes my time in this thread 10x more tolerable. Why spend your energy on people who have proven over multiple years that they're basically brick walls? I never understand what people are gaining from doing a back and forth with any of the myriad posters in this thread's history that just seem to be Debate Lord types with no real beliefs or interest in anything beyond owning the libs or whatever.
Its not so much as "not-engaging-with-people" but not getting stuck in a dog chasing their tail exercise. You can pick up on the very basic bad faith and debate lord tactics pretty easily. Just making your point and then not wasting time on the follow up will at least let you express yourself without shitting up the thread with people who lack self-reflection and self-control. The thread is a lot better when it moves quicker and a lot of the time the best service you can do is to just let it move on.
On January 31 2025 12:00 KwarK wrote: Trump blamed the aerial collision on, among other things, dwarfs.
We do not know what led to this crash but we have some very strong opinions and ideas. …. The FAA website states they include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism all qualified for the position of a controller of air planes pouring into our country, pouring into a little spot. A little dot on the map. A runway.
It’s not currently clear why the dwarfs crashed the plane or what their agenda is but there’s one thing that is clear, DEI is to blame.
I'm a bit curious about the "this is actually what Trump meant" take that we usually get here after statements like these.
You see the problem with hiring controllers from all the other groups mentioned, but you agree dwarfism is over the line so you're singling it out? Or do you need each and every one of them explained?
Yes id like them all explained
Certainly: People with hearing disability could have trouble hearing conversations clearly on a radio. On multiple frequencies. Of multiple conversations happening at once. With their supervisor in the background and also needing to talk with colleagues when necessary. They could have trouble interpreting the various accents of pilots, not limited to those whose first language isn't English. People with vision disability could have trouble tracking things (people with dyslexia can confuse similar callsigns, waypoints, etc. leading to confusing -> dangerous situations - I've put dyslexia here as not an intellectual disability). Missing extremities is vague but you probably can't operate computers and equipment without working fingers. I'd let toes and feet slide on this one. Partial paralysis is the same - there are certain critical body parts, like fingers, mouth, vocal cords, eyes, that need to work. Complete paralysis obviously includes all of those. Epilepsy - You do not want people seizing in the middle of controlling airplanes. Sometimes a controller is the only one working a tower. That's a problem by itself, but you also can't fix this by personnel redundancy - If you have one guy who is epileptic, so you put another in case he seizes, in the event he seizes his partner is now helping him instead of directing planes. Or splitting attention. Or he can't take a bathroom break because of the risk. People with intellectual disability cannot direct airplanes. People with psychiatric disability are equally unable to direct airplanes, either all the time or in the event of an episode, which is not a risk to be taken. People with dwarfism cannot see out of the window in cases where it's necessary to directly visually interact with something, e.g. planes on the runway or taxiway, a runway incursion by a streaker, a plane doing a flyby to confirm their gear is down, etc. While it's true that a perfectly healthy person can have a heart attack and die also, potentially causing a dangerous situation, you can't proscribe perfectly healthy people on the assumption their risk is nonzero, because nobody is left to do the job. There have been cases of lone controllers having strokes on the job with no history. Not good. However, it's pretty much recognized internationally in cases of bus drivers, airplane pilots, that basically all of these factors are disqualifying. For basic reasons of safety. For similar reasons making them ATC is not very viable.
The main criticism that works is there's no sources, so we don't know if it was made up, or a misunderstanding of FAA hiring in general vs. ATC in particular, or if it's completely true. However, if true hopefully you can see the issue of the FAA prioritizing quite the wrong things. We do know the class action lawsuits are in progress accusing them of the same behavior. The investigation of this particular incident notwithstanding, many of the FAA's policies range from headscratchers to negligence.
I'm pretty sure that there's more to air traffic control than they literally look at the plane out of the window. The scenario where the window is too high and the plane is too low and you can't see the plane doesn't align with my understanding of how they track the positions of objects in the sky. If that were the process then clouds or night would be a bigger issue than dwarfism as dwarfism could be solved with a stepstool. I also don't think Biden was plotting to staff it exclusively with amputee dwarfs, surely there are some dwarf friendly roles.
Airplanes are subject to ATC while on the ground as well. The word "air" in air traffic control is not strictly prescriptive. It's related to why "air"ports aren't in the sky.
On February 01 2025 00:50 KwarK wrote: But clearly you're having fun with these scenarios so I'll join in. We should ban cis men from ATC jobs. Like what if they're trying to direct the plane but they get distracted by their penises? What if they fall in the urinals in the bathroom? While it's true that we need some ATCs I don't see why we'd accept this entirely avoidable risk. I don't know any facts about the subject but what I do have is some very strong ideas.
This was covered and preempted in the heart attack paragraph, everyone has genitals, it's not feasible and it's why a reduction to absurdity doesn't prevent you from having reasonable standards just like how you wouldn't have a wheelchair lifeguard. Women also being distractible by their own genitals, causing everyone to be ineligible to be ATC in your hypothetical, perhaps you would investigate vis-a-vis relative genital distractiveness and come back with the facts that you admit to lacking.
I don't have any facts and I don't need any. What I have is strong opinions and ideas and those are that cis men are to blame for this crash. Why are you holding me to a higher standard than you hold Trump to? Do you think that I should do better than Trump? Is that even possible? Why are you questioning the President's judgment? Are you DEI? Explain your CRT immediately!
The reason your ironic whatabouting isn't effective, is from your very first post starting this garbage when you said he "blamed" dwarfs, you didn't manage to read your own post quoting him saying "We do not know what led to this crash." Like just sit and read that sentence to yourself for an entire minute. That obnoxiously false framing immediately poisons an otherwise discussable news event which should matter to you as one of the few actual citizens in the thread. He later said in a press conference, verbatim, "I'm not blaming the controller. I'm saying there are things that you could question, like the height of the helicopter and the height of the plane, being at the same level and going in opposite directions." Again for some reason he failed to recant and say "No, actually, dwarves did this." Just hasn't said it. But for example, you could unironically question the protected characteristics of the airliner's pilots, as you are wont to do, the information has been made public that they are men. Maybe they were good old boy hires and at the wrong altitude. Have at it.
If they were good old boy hires and at the wrong altitude then that wasn't what Trump blamed for the crash at his press conference. he said it was "common sense" that it was DEI. I don't know how you define DEI but a bunch of white guys isn't that in all the definitions I've seen.
It was due to a lack of staffing, Its not difficult to just wait for the facts of the issue and see the obvious saftey issue. Its only difficult if you fire all the people who are responsible for air traffic saftey and all the people that are responsible for finding the facts of an issue. Its not hard to be confused at who trump is blaming when he tells you to your face what it is and then makes an executive order to tell you this.
Unironically more DEI initiative's to get more people into ATC positions would have helped the problem the ATC has at the moment.
On January 31 2025 12:00 KwarK wrote: Trump blamed the aerial collision on, among other things, dwarfs.
We do not know what led to this crash but we have some very strong opinions and ideas. …. The FAA website states they include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism all qualified for the position of a controller of air planes pouring into our country, pouring into a little spot. A little dot on the map. A runway.
It’s not currently clear why the dwarfs crashed the plane or what their agenda is but there’s one thing that is clear, DEI is to blame.
I'm a bit curious about the "this is actually what Trump meant" take that we usually get here after statements like these.
You see the problem with hiring controllers from all the other groups mentioned, but you agree dwarfism is over the line so you're singling it out? Or do you need each and every one of them explained?
Yes id like them all explained
Certainly: People with hearing disability could have trouble hearing conversations clearly on a radio. On multiple frequencies. Of multiple conversations happening at once. With their supervisor in the background and also needing to talk with colleagues when necessary. They could have trouble interpreting the various accents of pilots, not limited to those whose first language isn't English. People with vision disability could have trouble tracking things (people with dyslexia can confuse similar callsigns, waypoints, etc. leading to confusing -> dangerous situations - I've put dyslexia here as not an intellectual disability). Missing extremities is vague but you probably can't operate computers and equipment without working fingers. I'd let toes and feet slide on this one. Partial paralysis is the same - there are certain critical body parts, like fingers, mouth, vocal cords, eyes, that need to work. Complete paralysis obviously includes all of those. Epilepsy - You do not want people seizing in the middle of controlling airplanes. Sometimes a controller is the only one working a tower. That's a problem by itself, but you also can't fix this by personnel redundancy - If you have one guy who is epileptic, so you put another in case he seizes, in the event he seizes his partner is now helping him instead of directing planes. Or splitting attention. Or he can't take a bathroom break because of the risk. People with intellectual disability cannot direct airplanes. People with psychiatric disability are equally unable to direct airplanes, either all the time or in the event of an episode, which is not a risk to be taken. People with dwarfism cannot see out of the window in cases where it's necessary to directly visually interact with something, e.g. planes on the runway or taxiway, a runway incursion by a streaker, a plane doing a flyby to confirm their gear is down, etc. While it's true that a perfectly healthy person can have a heart attack and die also, potentially causing a dangerous situation, you can't proscribe perfectly healthy people on the assumption their risk is nonzero, because nobody is left to do the job. There have been cases of lone controllers having strokes on the job with no history. Not good. However, it's pretty much recognized internationally in cases of bus drivers, airplane pilots, that basically all of these factors are disqualifying. For basic reasons of safety. For similar reasons making them ATC is not very viable.
The main criticism that works is there's no sources, so we don't know if it was made up, or a misunderstanding of FAA hiring in general vs. ATC in particular, or if it's completely true. However, if true hopefully you can see the issue of the FAA prioritizing quite the wrong things. We do know the class action lawsuits are in progress accusing them of the same behavior. The investigation of this particular incident notwithstanding, many of the FAA's policies range from headscratchers to negligence.
I'm pretty sure that there's more to air traffic control than they literally look at the plane out of the window. The scenario where the window is too high and the plane is too low and you can't see the plane doesn't align with my understanding of how they track the positions of objects in the sky. If that were the process then clouds or night would be a bigger issue than dwarfism as dwarfism could be solved with a stepstool. I also don't think Biden was plotting to staff it exclusively with amputee dwarfs, surely there are some dwarf friendly roles.
Airplanes are subject to ATC while on the ground as well. The word "air" in air traffic control is not strictly prescriptive. It's related to why "air"ports aren't in the sky.
On February 01 2025 00:50 KwarK wrote: But clearly you're having fun with these scenarios so I'll join in. We should ban cis men from ATC jobs. Like what if they're trying to direct the plane but they get distracted by their penises? What if they fall in the urinals in the bathroom? While it's true that we need some ATCs I don't see why we'd accept this entirely avoidable risk. I don't know any facts about the subject but what I do have is some very strong ideas.
This was covered and preempted in the heart attack paragraph, everyone has genitals, it's not feasible and it's why a reduction to absurdity doesn't prevent you from having reasonable standards just like how you wouldn't have a wheelchair lifeguard. Women also being distractible by their own genitals, causing everyone to be ineligible to be ATC in your hypothetical, perhaps you would investigate vis-a-vis relative genital distractiveness and come back with the facts that you admit to lacking.
I don't have any facts and I don't need any. What I have is strong opinions and ideas and those are that cis men are to blame for this crash. Why are you holding me to a higher standard than you hold Trump to? Do you think that I should do better than Trump? Is that even possible? Why are you questioning the President's judgment? Are you DEI? Explain your CRT immediately!
The reason your ironic whatabouting isn't effective, is from your very first post starting this garbage when you said he "blamed" dwarfs, you didn't manage to read your own post quoting him saying "We do not know what led to this crash." Like just sit and read that sentence to yourself for an entire minute. That obnoxiously false framing immediately poisons an otherwise discussable news event which should matter to you as one of the few actual citizens in the thread. He later said in a press conference, verbatim, "I'm not blaming the controller. I'm saying there are things that you could question, like the height of the helicopter and the height of the plane, being at the same level and going in opposite directions." Again for some reason he failed to recant and say "No, actually, dwarves did this." Just hasn't said it. But for example, you could unironically question the protected characteristics of the airliner's pilots, as you are wont to do, the information has been made public that they are men. Maybe they were good old boy hires and at the wrong altitude. Have at it.
If Trump had said “We do not know what led to the crash, we have a body that investigates these, we’ll wait for their report and implement whatever corrective actions they recommend. In the mean time my thoughts and prayers are with all the victims of this tragedy” you’d have a point.
But he didn’t say that. He said that we don’t have facts but we do have strong opinions and my opinions lead me to blame dwarf amputee DEI.
Yeah, we know Trump often just JAQs off instead of actually making a point. But you are not stupid enough not to realize that you can imply an argument through questions, without explicitly making in argument.
If you are "Just asking questions" enough, people start to assume that you are not actually asking questions, but that you are instead making an argument with a thin curtain of implausible deniability.
Kinda like if i would go: "Isn't it weird that white supremacists always seem to love Trump? Now, i am not saying that Trump is a white supremacist, i am just an interested person asking questions. Does Trump actually have black people in important positions in any of his companies? I don't know. Sounds like a question one should ask."
When i write something like that, i am clearly making an argument, despite the fact that i am just asking questions.
On January 31 2025 23:47 WombaT wrote: It’s the usual disingenuous bullshit that isn’t really worth entertaining, one will be subjected to (hopefully) ineffective gaslighting and an almost 0% chance of shifting opinions.
We’ve been headbutting that wall since 2016 to little real effect.
Whether it takes the form of ‘revolutionary socialism’ or not, GH is 100% correct that winning internet arguments with Fascist-enablers does shit all, and building up robust community efforts is the way to go.
So we just have to ban Blackjack and oBlade. Because that's the only way your going to stop this from not happening constantly for the next 4 years.
Admittedly it's often not easy to ignore, but I can say that I carry a little bit less negative energy in myself through the day when I have the discipline to avoid pointless topics such as this one. I've also stopped responding to certain individuals for many months (before I finally cave one time and then have to tell myself to never respond).
It's funny because most posters can mostly ignore criticism/discussion from their left but we know they can't help themselves when it comes to stuff like spending pages shitposting about ATC dwarfs with oBlade.
It's even worse right now since Democrats functionally have no leadership or message that Trump and his ilk are distracting the country from. So they literally end up asking for it.
Ah yes, Sadist asking Oblade to defend the latest idiotic thing Trump said on teamliquid is why you're still 0 for 0 on revolutions. He should do better.
People should do better. What has arguing on the internet actually accomplished in the past 7/8 years? People feel smug and smart, but minds largely aren’t changed and it does sweet fuck all ultimately because you’re bashing your head against ‘yeah it’s Fascism but that’s fine’ folks, or folks completely oblivious to that element no matter how applicable.
We don't post on forums to change the world. That's some Orson Scott Card fantasy where someone makes such a good livejournal that everyone starts reading it and they put the anonymous blogger in charge of the world.
GH routinely uses forum posts as evidence of other posters being in some way complicit in the political direction of the US, insisting that their posts are not doing enough to stop genocide or whatever. He does not hold his own posts to the same standard, instead giving himself an exception.
I'm pointing out that as far as posting on a forum about US politics goes, it's more useful/beneficial to everyone to engage in building a deeper understanding of the US political world through dialectical materialism in an effort to develop critical consciousness AKA "developing a socialist worldview in community with your comrades".
You petulantly insist instead on shitposting like this:
On February 01 2025 01:28 KwarK wrote:
On February 01 2025 00:57 oBlade wrote:
On February 01 2025 00:50 KwarK wrote:
On January 31 2025 22:38 oBlade wrote:
On January 31 2025 22:18 Sadist wrote:
On January 31 2025 21:54 oBlade wrote:
On January 31 2025 20:56 EnDeR_ wrote: [quote]
I'm a bit curious about the "this is actually what Trump meant" take that we usually get here after statements like these.
You see the problem with hiring controllers from all the other groups mentioned, but you agree dwarfism is over the line so you're singling it out? Or do you need each and every one of them explained?
Yes id like them all explained
Certainly: People with hearing disability could have trouble hearing conversations clearly on a radio. On multiple frequencies. Of multiple conversations happening at once. With their supervisor in the background and also needing to talk with colleagues when necessary. They could have trouble interpreting the various accents of pilots, not limited to those whose first language isn't English. People with vision disability could have trouble tracking things (people with dyslexia can confuse similar callsigns, waypoints, etc. leading to confusing -> dangerous situations - I've put dyslexia here as not an intellectual disability). Missing extremities is vague but you probably can't operate computers and equipment without working fingers. I'd let toes and feet slide on this one. Partial paralysis is the same - there are certain critical body parts, like fingers, mouth, vocal cords, eyes, that need to work. Complete paralysis obviously includes all of those. Epilepsy - You do not want people seizing in the middle of controlling airplanes. Sometimes a controller is the only one working a tower. That's a problem by itself, but you also can't fix this by personnel redundancy - If you have one guy who is epileptic, so you put another in case he seizes, in the event he seizes his partner is now helping him instead of directing planes. Or splitting attention. Or he can't take a bathroom break because of the risk. People with intellectual disability cannot direct airplanes. People with psychiatric disability are equally unable to direct airplanes, either all the time or in the event of an episode, which is not a risk to be taken. People with dwarfism cannot see out of the window in cases where it's necessary to directly visually interact with something, e.g. planes on the runway or taxiway, a runway incursion by a streaker, a plane doing a flyby to confirm their gear is down, etc. While it's true that a perfectly healthy person can have a heart attack and die also, potentially causing a dangerous situation, you can't proscribe perfectly healthy people on the assumption their risk is nonzero, because nobody is left to do the job. There have been cases of lone controllers having strokes on the job with no history. Not good. However, it's pretty much recognized internationally in cases of bus drivers, airplane pilots, that basically all of these factors are disqualifying. For basic reasons of safety. For similar reasons making them ATC is not very viable.
The main criticism that works is there's no sources, so we don't know if it was made up, or a misunderstanding of FAA hiring in general vs. ATC in particular, or if it's completely true. However, if true hopefully you can see the issue of the FAA prioritizing quite the wrong things. We do know the class action lawsuits are in progress accusing them of the same behavior. The investigation of this particular incident notwithstanding, many of the FAA's policies range from headscratchers to negligence.
I'm pretty sure that there's more to air traffic control than they literally look at the plane out of the window. The scenario where the window is too high and the plane is too low and you can't see the plane doesn't align with my understanding of how they track the positions of objects in the sky. If that were the process then clouds or night would be a bigger issue than dwarfism as dwarfism could be solved with a stepstool. I also don't think Biden was plotting to staff it exclusively with amputee dwarfs, surely there are some dwarf friendly roles.
Airplanes are subject to ATC while on the ground as well. The word "air" in air traffic control is not strictly prescriptive. It's related to why "air"ports aren't in the sky.
On February 01 2025 00:50 KwarK wrote: But clearly you're having fun with these scenarios so I'll join in. We should ban cis men from ATC jobs. Like what if they're trying to direct the plane but they get distracted by their penises? What if they fall in the urinals in the bathroom? While it's true that we need some ATCs I don't see why we'd accept this entirely avoidable risk. I don't know any facts about the subject but what I do have is some very strong ideas.
This was covered and preempted in the heart attack paragraph, everyone has genitals, it's not feasible and it's why a reduction to absurdity doesn't prevent you from having reasonable standards just like how you wouldn't have a wheelchair lifeguard. Women also being distractible by their own genitals, causing everyone to be ineligible to be ATC in your hypothetical, perhaps you would investigate vis-a-vis relative genital distractiveness and come back with the facts that you admit to lacking.
I don't have any facts and I don't need any. What I have is strong opinions and ideas and those are that cis men are to blame for this crash. Why are you holding me to a higher standard than you hold Trump to? Do you think that I should do better than Trump? Is that even possible? Why are you questioning the President's judgment? Are you DEI? Explain your CRT immediately!
My dude, everyone here has a long history with each other, theres no way you're gonna get any progress with your ideals around here in any super meaningful way, I've shifted more towards your viewpoints over the years as it seems like all of the electoral types here have as much of a plan as they accuse you of not having for dealing with basic shit like political corruption and all of the absurd issues we've had in this country for years.
Petulant, cynical back and forthing is all we have here, that and posting the news, usually cynically.
Alternatively, we could be adults capable of participating in a democracy? I'd really like us to be that *eyes glisten dramatically with optimism*
On January 31 2025 23:47 WombaT wrote: It’s the usual disingenuous bullshit that isn’t really worth entertaining, one will be subjected to (hopefully) ineffective gaslighting and an almost 0% chance of shifting opinions.
We’ve been headbutting that wall since 2016 to little real effect.
Whether it takes the form of ‘revolutionary socialism’ or not, GH is 100% correct that winning internet arguments with Fascist-enablers does shit all, and building up robust community efforts is the way to go.
So we just have to ban Blackjack and oBlade. Because that's the only way your going to stop this from not happening constantly for the next 4 years.
Admittedly it's often not easy to ignore, but I can say that I carry a little bit less negative energy in myself through the day when I have the discipline to avoid pointless topics such as this one. I've also stopped responding to certain individuals for many months (before I finally cave one time and then have to tell myself to never respond).
It's funny because most posters can mostly ignore criticism/discussion from their left but we know they can't help themselves when it comes to stuff like spending pages shitposting about ATC dwarfs with oBlade.
It's even worse right now since Democrats functionally have no leadership or message that Trump and his ilk are distracting the country from. So they literally end up asking for it.
Ah yes, Sadist asking Oblade to defend the latest idiotic thing Trump said on teamliquid is why you're still 0 for 0 on revolutions. He should do better.
Forget the revolutionary part, you guys need to be socialists ASAP or fascism is going to keep winning while your Democrat politicians collaborate with them.
None of you libs/Dems have a real argument not to be socialists. It was so that you could beat Trump. That failed spectacularly. Nothing stopping you all from spending the next 6 months acting in good faith as socialists just to try it out. Well, nothing except your stubbornly undue hubris.
Democrats have nothing else/better for you to be doing, and I promise bickering/shitposting with oBlade about dwarfs/genitals isn't more useful than developing a socialist worldview in community with your comrades.
Can you clarify what you mean by becoming socialists?
In the temporary sense and to be probably dangerously reductive, I basically mean approaching everything here with a sort of "how would a socialist I can relate to engage with this" and going from there.
You are, as ever, probably more hopeful than I am.
If you send me digestible socialist information I would gladly read it, but word of warning I ain't readin' through no full books and I ain't readin' no Freire, I have very limited time so its gotta be ~3 pages in length max if I'll read through something lol
So, what Trump really meant when he questioned whether DEI was to blame (in the form of hires with disabilities and dwarfs, bizarrely) for the accident was that he didn't know why the accident happened, but the pilots were white men, and he couldn't blame the controller?
Can you explain the logical steps here? I can't parse this.
FYI my understanding is that the correct pluralization of dwarf is dwarfs unless they're wearing mithril in which case dwarves is fine. Didn't have this on my 2025 US politics bingo card but it has been a long 11 days since the inauguration.
On February 01 2025 02:07 Sermokala wrote: Its extra funny considering he doesn't follow any of his advice. If anyone is petulantly shitposting its GH. Dude offers no solutions, no open hands to convince anyone of anything. He's never tried to convince anyone of anything other than cynically trying to opine why everyone else doesn't abandon their positions and admit he was right all along.
On February 01 2025 01:52 Zambrah wrote: My dude, everyone here has a long history with each other, theres no way you're gonna get any progress with your ideals around here in any super meaningful way, I've shifted more towards your viewpoints over the years as it seems like all of the electoral types here have as much of a plan as they accuse you of not having for dealing with basic shit like political corruption and all of the absurd issues we've had in this country for years.
Petulant, cynical back and forthing is all we have here, that and posting the news, usually cynically.
Alternatively, we could be adults capable of participating in a democracy? I'd really like us to be that *eyes glisten dramatically with optimism*
On February 01 2025 01:55 Sadist wrote:
On February 01 2025 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
On February 01 2025 00:54 KwarK wrote:
On February 01 2025 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
On February 01 2025 00:20 Magic Powers wrote:
On February 01 2025 00:00 Gorsameth wrote:
On January 31 2025 23:47 WombaT wrote: It’s the usual disingenuous bullshit that isn’t really worth entertaining, one will be subjected to (hopefully) ineffective gaslighting and an almost 0% chance of shifting opinions.
We’ve been headbutting that wall since 2016 to little real effect.
Whether it takes the form of ‘revolutionary socialism’ or not, GH is 100% correct that winning internet arguments with Fascist-enablers does shit all, and building up robust community efforts is the way to go.
So we just have to ban Blackjack and oBlade. Because that's the only way your going to stop this from not happening constantly for the next 4 years.
Admittedly it's often not easy to ignore, but I can say that I carry a little bit less negative energy in myself through the day when I have the discipline to avoid pointless topics such as this one. I've also stopped responding to certain individuals for many months (before I finally cave one time and then have to tell myself to never respond).
It's funny because most posters can mostly ignore criticism/discussion from their left but we know they can't help themselves when it comes to stuff like spending pages shitposting about ATC dwarfs with oBlade.
It's even worse right now since Democrats functionally have no leadership or message that Trump and his ilk are distracting the country from. So they literally end up asking for it.
Ah yes, Sadist asking Oblade to defend the latest idiotic thing Trump said on teamliquid is why you're still 0 for 0 on revolutions. He should do better.
Forget the revolutionary part, you guys need to be socialists ASAP or fascism is going to keep winning while your Democrat politicians collaborate with them.
None of you libs/Dems have a real argument not to be socialists. It was so that you could beat Trump. That failed spectacularly. Nothing stopping you all from spending the next 6 months acting in good faith as socialists just to try it out. Well, nothing except your stubbornly undue hubris.
Democrats have nothing else/better for you to be doing, and I promise bickering/shitposting with oBlade about dwarfs/genitals isn't more useful than developing a socialist worldview in community with your comrades.
Can you clarify what you mean by becoming socialists?
In the temporary sense and to be probably dangerously reductive, I basically mean approaching everything here with a sort of "how would a socialist I can relate to engage with this" and going from there.
I mean look at this shit. He can't even answer what a socialist is without trying to put himself as the example people should be following. He doesn't understand that he lives in a democracy and that people can seriously engage with the one form of government that we have. I know communists and they're at least unafraid to tell people they don't belive in democracy and want authoritarianism. This guy is just scared to tell people how he thinks we should be doleing out power in this country.
Nah, I disagree, I think most of the people use GH as their caricature of whatever internet leftist they most hate, there have been plenty of reasons not to like GH over the years obviously but at this point I dont really believe any of the people who shit on GH do it for any other reason other than a personal dislike.
I'd love to hear all you liberal fuckers solutions, is it to vote? Hows that shit working for you? Everyone is constantly bitching at GH about not having the world's solutions mapped out entirely on paper as if thats a vaguely reasonable expectation that a single one of you people meets in even the vaguest possible way.
At the very least GH has made me more left wing, after all what can I do in this thread but watch as everyone talks about norms and democracy while fascists actively dismantle it before our eyes and the most reasonable solutions any of you have is "we're fucked, give up!" and not at least think that GH's solutions are untried and at least aren't actively in the process of failing. GH might be on the bench but most of the so-called democracy enjoyers are getting trashed on the field and don't even seem to have a game plan.
While I will never read a single piece of academic literature, no Freire or what the fuck ever, I can at least say that GH's presence has had an impact on my being as left as I am. The rest is learning about the history of labor rights and revolutions and realizing that a whole lot of this thread strikes me as advocating the weak ineffective political structures that lead up to a lot of history's revolutions.
As far as the collision in DC goes, the optics are terrible for Trump, but frankly, it would've likely happened in any other circumstance as well. The lack of ATCs has been a problem for a long time now, it's not a new problem. The ATC didn't do anything wrong as far as I can tell, the helicopter pilot requested visual separation and got it, which puts the onus on avoidance with the helicopter pilot.
Blancolirio is probably the best explainer for the situation here.
That particular stretch of airspace is really tight - the helicopter route is 100-150ft below the approach glideslope for runway 33. The helicopter pilot was supposed to be flying at a maximum of 200ft, but was at 300-350 ft, and failed the visual separation that was requested (Pass behind the jet)
Edit:: Doesn't excuse the absolute madness that is Trump's response to the incident, just absolving him and his administration of causing the crash.
EPT
