|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Don't victim blame. Man, are you really mocking the concept of Victim Blaming?
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:40 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The better analogy would actually be your friend who barrows your car and leaves it unlocked in the mall parking garage overnight with the keys in the ignition. After promising over and over again that they're the most secure car-borrower in the world, refusing to share details of their "secure car borrowing program" except to say it is "secure" and also they were going to borrow your car exclusively so your buddy can snoop around inside and then tell anyone who wants to pay how much your buddy thinks you're worth based on the insides of your car. Also your buddy runs a side business where they will drive you around for cash since your car got stolen. Also your buddy did this to millions of people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Instead of teaching corporations how to protect themselves from hackers, we need to teach hackers not to hack. Instead of teaching people not to respond to obvious trolls, we have to ban leon trotsky 2012
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Ice to meet you Mr. Trotsky, may I axe you a question?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Man, are you really mocking the concept of Victim Blaming? I'm mocking Equifax's legal defense of "We were the victims! How did this happen? How can you prosecute us in this trying time? We've been through a lot recently!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:i mean, the man's not wrong, it's a good way to reduce your carbon footprint, but good ways to reduce your carbon footprint are not small in number I wasn't saying he was wrong about reducing your footprint by not eating meat. I am saying he is wrong to suggest you are a hypocrite if you eat meat but also think we need to do more about climate change. More than being wrong, it comes across like he think he is better than everyone who eats meat. Yes, if EVERYONE decided to become vegetarian, it would reduce emissions. But that will never loving happen so pretending that you personally going vegetarian is making any sort of impact just sounds like self-flagellation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:Instead of teaching people not to respond to obvious trolls, we have to ban leon trotsky 2012  Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I'm mocking Equifax's legal defense of "We were the victims! How did this happen? How can you prosecute us in this trying time? We've been through a lot recently!" Swing and a miss, dipshit. Just post like a person, no lovely gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
See, this is why I had that bit in the Trump Thread OP warning about Leon's fakeposting.
A Shitty Reporter fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:
I literally posted that after an article about how Equifax had a patch for the breach two months in advance, but didn't reboot their computer to apply it and were crying that the FTC investigating them was unfair because they were the victims. I guess we can mandate sarcasm tags on all posts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I guess we can mandate good writing. FTFY
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
A lovely Reporter posted:See, this is why I had that bit in the Trump Thread OP warning about Leon's fakeposting. Bring back the original OP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
A lovely Reporter posted:See, this is why I had that bit in the OP warming about Leon's fakeposting. Leon can learn through pain in this thread Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Bring back the original OP. Pfff RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:All true, but at this point, we're nowhere near being able to actually tell people, "We're going to eliminate the private insurance market and take away the plans that you like." We do need to figure out how to sell that aspect of a single-payer system effectively, but for now, there's a Republican majority in Congress, a particularly loony Republican sitting in the Oval Office, etc, etc. I don't think anyone's jumping the gun by pledging support for a symbolic single payer bill that's not going to pass. Yea definitely, I'm not saying we shouldn't be endorsing this. I think it's great so many Dems are on board, as for once it seems we are having a serious conversation about Single payer in the Democratic party. And Bernie deserves all kinds of credit for it. But as discussions continue, I do think it's important legitimate concerns be raised so we can ensure passage once Dems actually have a chance to do so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
MrSargent posted:I wasn't saying he was wrong about reducing your footprint by not eating meat. I am saying he is wrong to suggest you are a hypocrite if you eat meat but also think we need to do more about climate change. More than being wrong, it comes across like he think he is better than everyone who eats meat. Yes, if EVERYONE decided to become vegetarian, it would reduce emissions. But that will never loving happen so pretending that you personally going vegetarian is making any sort of impact just sounds like self-flagellation. The thing here is that going vegetarian is one of the easiest ways to reduce your carbon footprint. The reality is there needs to be a reckoning with how westerners live their lives and how they are in no way sustainable. We just cannot live how we do now and expect it to turn out okay, lifestyles and technology need to fundamentally change. And to be clear here, I think everyone is guilty of using too many resources in some way. But I think we're also blameless in a way - our patterns of consumption have more to do with our culture than ourselves. It turns out eating less meat (or even better, no meat) is actually pretty simple! And it actually can help westerners make less carbon emissions. So if you believe that global warming is real and agree with the premise that collective action can help curb climate change, then the question is why not start with meat consumption?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Yea definitely, I'm not saying we shouldn't be endorsing this. I think it's great so many Dems are on board, as for once it seems we are having a serious conversation about Single payer in the Democratic party. And Bernie deserves all kinds of credit for it. But as discussions continue, I do think it's important legitimate concerns be raised so we can ensure passage once Dems actually have a chance to do so. Indeed. I expect smart people are working on it. I'm glad I'm not one of them, because holy poo poo I am bad with numbers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:But as discussions continue, I do think it's important legitimate concerns be raised so we can ensure passage once Dems actually have a chance to do so. That time will never come. We will likely get a constitutional convention called by the GOP long before the Democrats get to 60 seats in the senate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Indeed. I expect smart people are working on it. I'm glad I'm not one of them, because holy poo poo I am bad with numbers. There are. But as New Republic and Vox have reported, the democratic/progressive think tanks are lagging far behind in seriously investing in researching and coming up with and analyzing single payer policies. Hopefully this puts a fire under them to put more energy and resources into it. theblackw0lf fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:That time will never come. We will likely get a constitutional convention called by the GOP long before the Democrats get to 60 seats in the senate. I thought it was expected the Democrats would be getting rid of the Senate filibuster at the next available opportunity. Is this mistaken? Otherwise you're probably correct.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Eeyo posted:why not start with meat consumption? This also hits on:
Even without 'Environment,' altered diets are worthwhile. Effort here is well spent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Eeyo posted:the question is why not start with meat consumption? the question is if anyone can really hold themselves morally superior for choosing to do thing while living in a capitalist society which ruins the environment in many different ways it's like, ok, go vegan, but if you still have a kid and live in a tract home and drive a car and buy a new phone every couple of years then you're just engaging in token reduction of consumption for moral effect even the people who ride bikes and live in tiny apartments downtown and practice radical freeganism could still stand to tone it back. it's a never ending slippery slope when you start moralizing about how your participation with the capitalist system is more moral than someone else's and how if everyone made the choices you find personally acceptable the world would be a better place
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/908399135354744832
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
BREAKING: BAD MAN DOES MORE BAD THINGS
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Facebook allowed people to advertise to the demographic group of 'Jew Haters'quote:Until this week, when we asked Facebook about it, the world’s largest social network enabled advertisers to direct their pitches to the news feeds of almost 2,300 people who expressed interest in the topics of “Jew hater,” “How to burn jews,” or, “History of ‘why jews ruin the world.’” Facebook ads are the wild west of propaganda proliferation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:Facebook allowed people to advertise to the demographic group of 'Jew Haters' This is the same company that previously let you racially red line your housing ads (in violation of federal law) https://twitter.com/derekwillis/status/791979616609198080
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:That time will never come. We will likely get a constitutional convention called by the GOP long before the Democrats get to 60 seats in the senate. Pretty sure you understand neither how conventions work nor how the Senate works We had a short lived supermajority in two thousand loving eight
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Don't victim blame. a suit made of peoples' social security cards
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:There are. But as New Republic and Vox have reported, the democratic/progressive think tanks are lagging far behind in seriously investing in researching and coming up with and analyzing single payer policies. Hopefully this puts a fire under them to put more energy and resources into it. Related to this, the CBO will likely be scoring Sanders' bill, Sen. Barrasso just requested that they do so. I don't know how long it'll take, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I thought it was expected the Democrats would be getting rid of the Senate filibuster at the next available opportunity. Is this mistaken? I don't see this being advantageous. After all, the filibuster just saved Obamacare. Anything they pass with 50 votes will just be repealed as soon as the Republicans get 50.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Pretty sure you understand neither how conventions work nor how the Senate works And it will never happen again in our lifetimes (short of some party realignment). The Democrats will likely pick up some seats in the house in 2018 and lose some senate seats. Even if Trump is ousted in 2020, there will likely be a Republican house and senate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I don't see this being advantageous. After all, the filibuster just saved Obamacare. Anything they pass with 50 votes will just be repealed as soon as the Republicans get 50. The filibuster did not save the ACA. It's indirectly doing a few other things but they only needed 50 for repeal because they burned a reconciliation bill. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Dems killed the filibuster because by design it's of more value to the party with a large contingent of people who want nothing to change and it's been clear since the death of Ted Kennedy that the Senate GOP are not acting in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:Related to this, the CBO will likely be scoring Sanders' bill, Sen. Barrasso just requested that they do so. I don't know how long it'll take, though. That would be difficult to score, since according to the bill HHS determines the budget. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/908428396845203457
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:And it will never happen again in our lifetimes (short of some party realignment). The Democrats will likely pick up some seats in the house in 2018 and lose some senate seats. Even if Trump is ousted in 2020, there will likely be a Republican house and senate. We've got long lifetimes and boomers are on the way out, you're being hyperbolic or deliberately weaseling on that last clause I wouldn't bet a lot of money on 2020, but I wouldn't bet my life savings against Dem majorities in both either Haven't looked at the supermajority math but I'd think more along the lines of mid to late 20s for that if I had to guess a good shot
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Is there any online tool that lets me see how much revenue we'd raise by adding some new progressive tax brackets (I'm thinking 50% on income over 1m, 70% on income over 5m)? All of the budget calculators I've found online have been with the goal of "eliminating the debt" and have had really modest tax increase options. Like, "add 2% to the capital gains rate!" kind of stuff. I'm curious what we could pay for if we just went to basically pre-Reagan tax rates. Edit: Actually the 70% bracket kicked in at 100kish in 1979, or the equivalent of 400kish today. The same group of people currently at 39%. So even what I suggest above is a huge tax cut from the post war through Reagan period. Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:And it will never happen again in our lifetimes (short of some party realignment). The Democrats will likely pick up some seats in the house in 2018 and lose some senate seats. Even if Trump is ousted in 2020, there will likely be a Republican house and senate. Said Democrats in 2004, and Republicans in 2008. We're doomed forever!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:the question is if anyone can really hold themselves morally superior for choosing to do thing while living in a capitalist society which ruins the environment in many different ways Can people feel morally superior for supporting leftist policies? If they can, then vegans (or less-meat-eaters) can also feel morally superior. I get that western consumption culture is amoral and I agree. But isn't departure from that morally superior? I'd rather have a planet with a copy of every human except they don't eat meat than the one we have now. I'd also like a planet where every human doesn't eat meat, consumes less stuff, drives less, and uses renewable energies. We should also guilt them into doing the other things and then they will be even more morally superior.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:There are. But as New Republic and Vox have reported, the democratic/progressive think tanks are lagging far behind in seriously investing in researching and coming up with and analyzing single payer policies. Hopefully this puts a fire under them to put more energy and resources into it. That would be nice, although this is what concerns me about the dominance of centrist Democrats over progressive think tanks. While I don't think Neera Tanden is a particularly bad person or is any more mendacious than your average political figure, I can't say I have much faith in someone like her doing justice to Sanders' vision.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This is the same company that previously let you racially red line your housing ads (in violation of federal law) And either until recently or still white men are an actively protected class by facebook moderation while black children or women are not 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Eeyo posted:Can people feel morally superior for supporting leftist policies? If they can, then vegans (or less-meat-eaters) can also feel morally superior. I get that western consumption culture is amoral and I agree. But isn't departure from that morally superior? you're not really departing from it if you eat less/no meat and say "i'm doing this for the environment". you're constructing a false departure so you can justify your choices as morally better than other people's choices. yes, you're having an incredibly tiny impact on AGW via your personal choices but it's nothing to grandstand or shame others over when you personally could be doing so much more
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
UberJew posted:And either until recently or still white men are an actively protected class by facebook moderation while black children or women are not That doesn't mean exactly what you think it does, IIRC. It was about combinations of descriptors and whether they are broad enough to be moderated for, i.e. "black children" isn't but "black men" would be, "female drivers" is a double subset but "all women" wouldn't be, etc. And they worded it in an intentionally tricksy way to make a point during training. At least this is my understanding of it. If I'm wrong about that please do correct me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:40 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:you're not really departing from it if you eat less/no meat and say "i'm doing this for the environment". you're constructing a false departure so you can justify your choices as morally better than other people's choices. yes, you're having an incredibly tiny impact on AGW via your personal choices but it's nothing to grandstand or shame others over when you personally could be doing so much more I think the point is which moral acts escape that issue? If you're effectively saying "don't feel morally superior for the good acts you take" that's very different from saying "this category of good acts shouldn't make you morally superior because of the systemic nature of the problem." The former is a fairly common belief about morality and the second seems to apply as much to acts of anti-capitalism as acts of anti-emissions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:49
|
|