EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 206
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On December 03 2018 21:02 ReditusSum wrote: I'm not sure yet. I'd need to do more research. I'm leaning toward theocratic-monarchy with some democratic elements as regards to local councils and what-not; maybe some kind of National Senate appointed by the State Governors (who would be more like Dukes; a hereditary position of basically absolute authority within the State) that has some kind of advisory, possibly more important function. I intially wrote a far more sardonic reply to this, but it's hard to tell with this guy whether he is genuine or trolling. Then again he did say that he did think that 1250s where peaceful times for people's souls. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9675 Posts
On December 03 2018 21:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I intially wrote a far more sardonic reply to this, but it's hard to tell with this guy whether he is genuine or trolling. Then again he did say that he did think that 1250s where peaceful times for people's souls. Remeber when your ability to rule was judged solely by what family line you are from? Those were the days, I definitely don't remember that causing any issues | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
I think RSum has generally demonstrated a lack of understanding of the history he's referencing, given the assumptions he makes about such times (even about the 'quality' of faith in those times, which I'd say is arguably his main focus). On those grounds there's little value to be gained from talking about it. On its face I don't think it's necessarily an impossible or even horrible idea, but only with serious thought given to how the past centuries have exposed serious flaws in the church. Whatever theology of choice would have to be severely altered to prevent wealth acquisition for such an idea to be remotely practical (since wealth was the whole corrupting problem the first time round). | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Introvert wrote: by what measure? They gained House seats and took over the Senate in 2014. edit: however this outrage on behalf of the federal workforce is great fun to read. You can all keep pretending that I'm trashing federal workers if it makes you feel better. edit2: below post is exactly what I'm talking about lmao User was temp banned for this post. Introvert was just temp banned for 2 days by KadaverBB. That account was created on 2011-04-18 15:54:46 and had 3564 posts. Reason: I don't care about your political views, but don't make fun of people less fortunate than you. It looks like he was just giving his perspective on the frequency of shutdowns, long term impact (given universal recovery of all lost pay at the end of it), and how many people were intentionally falsely interpreting his perspective (which I happen to agree with). Think what you wish about whether or not his political appraisal is accurate, but you should at least be able to debate the long term ramifications of shutdowns in today's political climate. If even Introvert can't bring it up, who can? I hope cooler heads (Liquid'Drone maybe? Falling?) prevail on the mods to reverse the decision or speak out. I expect the next couple of years to involve dozens more "Take it or leave it" temporary funding bills where the entire debate is whether or not certain funding or defunding is worth a partial government shutdown. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 02 2019 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote: That seems like an odd post to get KBB's attention and banhammer unreported? The only attention I want is mods that regularly read and post in this thread and can evaluate Introvert's ban on the merits for their own, and they might interact with KBB or reduce the ban on their own intiative. Alternatively, they can inform me of what I'm missing about the ban reason and his past posting. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
On January 02 2019 10:43 Danglars wrote: The only attention I want is mods that regularly read and post in this thread and can evaluate Introvert's ban on the merits for their own, and they might interact with KBB or reduce the ban on their own intiative. Alternatively, they can inform me of what I'm missing about the ban reason and his past posting. I didn't mean yours I meant I don't think anyone reported introverts post so it was simply something KBB read and actioned on his own while perusing the thread I guess. I just thought it seemed odd is all. I rarely had such luck where a post I found trivializing the suffering of less fortunate people was acted on reported or not. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
there are some mod actions that come from non participating mods which sometime feel a little out of the blue/ harsh, but that might be due to the thread being a rather unique posting environment overall, i guess. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On January 03 2019 04:57 ticklishmusic wrote: i'm 50/50 on the intro ban. feels a little harsh (maybe a warning instead?), but he also seemed to go out of the way to insist there was no human cost/ impact to the shutdown in a rather dickish way, and then mock/strawman others about it. there are some mod actions that come from non participating mods which sometime feel a little out of the blue/ harsh, but that might be due to the thread being a rather unique posting environment overall, i guess. He merely pointed out/corrected facts regarding the previous shut down and then everyone else in the thread decided that he was pro shutdown and disregarding any valuable discussion that could actually happen. Reminds me of a few months ago when I was discussing gerrymandering and quite a few people explaining to me why gerrymandering was bad instead of discussing actual solutions over and over again. You can certainly justify it with his edited comment to | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On January 03 2019 05:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: He merely pointed out/corrected facts regarding the previous shut down and then everyone else in the thread decided that he was pro shutdown and disregarding any valuable discussion that could actually happen. Reminds me of a few months ago when I was discussing gerrymandering and quite a few people explaining to me why gerrymandering was bad instead of discussing actual solutions over and over again. You can certainly justify it with his edited comment to Falling, but it is frustrating to try to have a discussion with people who aren't having a discussion. Labeling outrage over people directly affected by a government shutdown as "great fun to read" is not trying to have a discussion about it. There were half a dozen different ways he could have posted if he wanted to transition into a conversation about the ins and outs of a government shutdown. The action might seem like it came from left field, but I would have to go well out of my way to say something that douchey about other people. I don't have a terrible amount of sympathy for him. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 03 2019 05:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: He merely pointed out/corrected facts regarding the previous shut down and then everyone else in the thread decided that he was pro shutdown and disregarding any valuable discussion that could actually happen. Reminds me of a few months ago when I was discussing gerrymandering and quite a few people explaining to me why gerrymandering was bad instead of discussing actual solutions over and over again. You can certainly justify it with his edited comment to Falling, but it is frustrating to try to have a discussion with people who aren't having a discussion. Like many long time posters, introvert ban has more to do with a history in the thread than the one specific post. On the topic of immigration he can get a bit hyperbolic while glossing some of the more repugnant of current immigration policy. People are used to it and get annoyed quickly. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
On January 03 2019 05:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: He merely pointed out/corrected facts regarding the previous shut down and then everyone else in the thread decided that he was pro shutdown and disregarding any valuable discussion that could actually happen. Reminds me of a few months ago when I was discussing gerrymandering and quite a few people explaining to me why gerrymandering was bad instead of discussing actual solutions over and over again. You can certainly justify it with his edited comment to Falling, but it is frustrating to try to have a discussion with people who aren't having a discussion. Your use of the word “merely” is incorrect; he “corrected” others and then added in a bunch of careless hyperbole that is plainly contradicted by some basic facts about how this shutdown has affected federal workers and those who depend on federal functions. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On January 03 2019 06:02 farvacola wrote: Your use of the word “merely” is incorrect; he “corrected” others and then added in a bunch of careless hyperbole that is plainly contradicted by some basic facts about how this shutdown has affected federal workers and those who depend on federal functions. Not gonna defend his phrasing, but I think people are hung up on the hyperbole instead of addressing the issue. Not sure if he edited this post after I read it, but don't recall the jab being there when I did. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21783 Posts
On January 03 2019 07:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Seems clear he's talking about the political implications not whether fed workers are going to feel like poor Americans for a couple weeks and the trouble that causes for people. On January 01 2019 10:22 Introvert wrote: I meant as a broader political issue. That being said, government shutdowns have been happening on and off for over 30 years, by now if you go into the federal workforce you should be aware that it is something you will deal with multiple times throughout your career. Most of them are short and don't hurt that much anyways. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
Is that not accurate? Do these workers have it worse than a typical citizen working for poverty wages? If it's not worse than making poverty wages I'd say "don't hurt that much" is a fair assessment. That said you can bring it to my Blog because we're venturing away from feedback. | ||
| ||
