|
the actual Oxford speech is pretty clinical and textbook in advocating to raise up human rights, but the textbook nature of it is pretty much the flaw because it attempts to touch in dealing with the the invasion of the other that scares the nazis and how to handle it the major mistake Clinton is making is an attempt to deal with how to deal with the nazis in language that isnt just "gently caress off nazi" because engaging with them means they're already winning also by trying to not play the soundbite game as everyone in this country is really stupid and has no attention span edit: Ghost Leviathan posted:Hillary is really, really good at making terrible sound bites that render the otherwise reasonable content of the rest of the speech completely irrelevant to the intended audience. yeah goethe.cx posted:that's great, but her argument re immigration is fundamentally a capitulation to racists. i'm more sympathetic to hillary than a lot of people in D&D but the right-wing nativists aren't going to go away if more immigration restrictions are enacted, and it's ridiculous that she seems to think they will. even when she says good things, she just has no credibility in regard to them agreed, though this speech is threading the needle of trying to ensure civil rights for the disenfranchised and trying to kneecap the nativists and quite frankly it's basically mutually exclusive and she'd have been better off not talking about it as opposed to the economic messaging OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Nov 24, 2018 |
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Hillary is really, really good at making terrible sound bites that render the otherwise reasonable content of the rest of the speech completely irrelevant to the intended audience. also excellent at having a dedicated and highly numerous bipartisan corps of people that hate her for reasons that range from reasonable to nutso and will dredge up those sound bites on the off chance you were aware of the speech but didn't know about them BrandorKP posted:Lol, modest efficency (10%) gains in rather specfic wind conditions on certain ocean routes do not a replacement propulsion plant make. what would you say is the best-reasonable-case scenario for ocean freight? just straight up eating the necessity of some emissions from it and compensating elsewhere?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 06:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Wind is free. The world will not go back to waiting months for ships to cross oceans. It's nuclear or we starve.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:what would you say is the best-reasonable-case scenario for ocean freight? just straight up eating the necessity of some emissions from it and compensating elsewhere? In addition to transportation the vessels are also now basically the world's warehouses. There's no eliminating them without collapse. Nuclear is possible, but has some large barriers. There are possible efficency gains to be made (sails, scale (bigger is better), etc) but none are game changing. Everywhere else is easier to cut first. Ships are tremendously effecient already. Compared to the other modes the cost per ton per mile is much, much, lower. The other modes (road, rail and air) are a much better place to start. Where to hit on ships is things like sulfur and NOx. Ships burn some terrible poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
Skex posted:
God, the arrogant, ignorant, privilege of this statement. If you are crossing the street minding your business and you get hit by a car it really doesn't matter if you were hit because the driver was texting, drunk, or because they were your arch-nemesis hunting you down. You still got hit by a car. What you don't understand (because you have lived such a soft and easy life) is that Clinton's mistakes have dire consequences for people at the bottom of the totem pole. So no, there is no meaningful difference between malicious evil and banal misinformed evil. Intent is utterly irrelevant when your errors cost lives and destroy populations. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Nov 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 06:43
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:God, the arrogant, ignorant, privilege of this statement. If you are crossing the street minding your business and you get hit by a car it really doesn't matter if you were hit because the person was texting, drunk, or because they were your arch-nemesis hunting you down. You still got hit by a car. If intent is "utterly irrelevant", why does the legal system put so much weight on it when it comes to convicting and sentencing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
This is perfect https://mobile.twitter.com/JadidiJD/status/1066142017766461440
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:If intent is "utterly irrelevant", why does the legal system put so much weight on it when it comes to convicting and sentencing? "we do it this way so it must be the right way to do things" isn't much of an argument Besides, we're not a court of law. We're a bunch of people on the internet sorting politicians into good and bad piles, and the standards are a bit different
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:If intent is "utterly irrelevant", why does the legal system put so much weight on it when it comes to convicting and sentencing? Leadership is different than being a defendent in a criminal trial. Intent matters if you're looking to rehabilitate the person so that they might potentially contribute to society in the future. When a leader makes mistakes it doesn't really matter what their intention was. Especially when those mistakes have had as dire consequences and cost as many lives as Hillary Clinton's have. Edit: Also if we want to follow this criminal defendant metaphor a little further, then I would point out that Hillary Clinton has demonstrated a complete unwillingness to learn from her mistakes and has repeatedly publicly stated she intends to make the same mistakes again. If this were a trial the judge would throw the book at Hillary. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Nov 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If anyone needs some good news today: twitter banned intentional misgendering and 'deadnaming' people Christ, Glinner's going to go fuckin ballistic (As are an awful lot of other TERFs in the UK)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:00
|
|
|
It really is striking how terrified the right is of AOC. They're making GBS threads themselves harder than when Obama did just about anything, and she's just a first-term congressperson, not the president. I think she's great, but Christ, it's not like she was appointed to SCOTUS or can even run in 2020. They are boosting her visibility so much. When's the last time a junior congressperson got so much coverage?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DonnerKay/status/1066206830907535362 I'd love this POS to lose, but I doubt it will happen
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Leadership is different than being a defendent in a criminal trial. We care about intent in civil trials, too. quote:When a leader makes mistakes it doesn't really matter what their intention was. Especially when those mistakes have had as dire consequences and cost as many lives as Hillary Clinton's have. I don't buy it. While leaders are in a position such that the impacts of their actions are often multiplied, I think intent still matters. A great example of this is the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2. In a vacuum, they were horrible acts. In the larger context however, the intent of American leadership at the time was to prevent a much greater number of deaths that would have been the result of prolonged warfare and the invasion of Japan. Today we still debate if it was the right decision, but that debate would be very different if the intent had been to, say, subjugate and enslave the Japanese (just using that as an example of "evil" intent).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:We care about intent in civil trials, too. it is a great relief to the person you kill drunk driving that you did not intend to kill them wait, no, the opposite of that is the case
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:15
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:it is a great relief to the person you kill drunk driving that you did not intend to kill them Driving drunk is a form of criminal intent, but thanks for playing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:We care about intent in civil trials, too. 1. intent only matters in civil trials for the same reasons it matters in criminal trials--i.e., deterring further willful behavior. 2. that would only matter in our assessment of harry truman as a person. yes, if he'd bombed japan just because he really hated the japanese, that would make him a worse person, in a certain moral sense, than if he bombed them to avert a greater loss of life down the road. but that's cold comfort to the dead japanese civilians and their families. for politicians, voters ought to weigh an evil decision and an incompetent decision the same, because ultimately what matters to voters is how a politician's decision materially affects them, not what was in the politician's mind
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:https://twitter.com/DonnerKay/status/1066206830907535362 I doubt it too, but she's making an extremely game effort. Smeef posted:It really is striking how terrified the right is of AOC. They're making GBS threads themselves harder than when Obama did just about anything, and she's just a first-term congressperson, not the president. I think she's great, but Christ, it's not like she was appointed to SCOTUS or can even run in 2020. They are boosting her visibility so much. When's the last time a junior congressperson got so much coverage? It's truly incredible, especially because she has extremely powerful Millennial energy and every single time they take a shot at her, she leaps into loving orbit to slam a Chaos Dunk upon them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
Well I don't want to get your hopes up, but the black vote IS larger in Mississippi than it is in Alabama, a state Doug Jones basically only won because of black women (who he then threw under the bus)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
RandomBlue posted:Driving drunk is a form of criminal intent, but thanks for playing. again: a source of phenomenal relief to the fucker you kill not out of malice, but because giving a poo poo about other people was too much to worry about at the time. photos of the Egyptian and Honduran coups unrelated
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I think it's fairly telling that the people who were arguing against Condiv haven't responded to this post at all. Yes, truly the only possible explanation for why someone who was always polling behind, and who the dems told to give it up because he was polling behind and going to lose, lost is due to Democrats interfering and preventing him from winning like he was totally going to. Maybe you should work on accepting that you lost and not blaming every leftist loss on the eeeevil establishment. Then maybe you might lose slightly fewer times. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yes, truly the only possible explanation for why someone who was always polling behind, and who the dems told to give it up because he was polling behind and going to lose, lost is due to Democrats interfering and preventing him from winning like he was totally going to. while we have you here what's your stance on Abuela's decision to proclaim the Fourteen Words are the future of centrist politics (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:33
|
|
|
Smeef posted:It really is striking how terrified the right is of AOC. They're making GBS threads themselves harder than when Obama did just about anything, and she's just a first-term congressperson, not the president. I think she's great, but Christ, it's not like she was appointed to SCOTUS or can even run in 2020. They are boosting her visibility so much. When's the last time a junior congressperson got so much coverage? They want a new Clinton. Again just wanr to repeat that non regressives have to push back everywhere and all the time to make sure these poo poo seeds dont gernminate at wall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:<-------------------- OMG! After 15 years, the curse of that awful avatar is finally lifted! it's funny because I also did this for 4th of july to replace no-av/newbie av people and somebody got this one and as far as i can tell they don't really post  edit: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:43
|
|
|
Lol https://twitter.com/manateejay/status/1065984895963418624?s=21 I don’t actually know who that is tho
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:I doubt it too, but she's making an extremely game effort. The point isn't that they're obsessed. It's to muddy the waters and taint the things she's for by association down the line. The point is to sling enough poo poo that people treat her the same way that most low information or outright stupid people do when it comes to Hillary, Obama, Bernie, etc, etc after multiple consecutive years of corrupt corporate interests running smear campaigns from behind our politicians and media voices. This is also why Fox keeps harping on about "radical" things (like Fox consistently claims) like a living wage that lets you not die in the gutter, health care that won't bankrupt the average person, etc, etc. If you've read up on how the ACA was handled PR wise then you'll also note that the ACA went through a similar process (Remember the death panels bullshit?) during the attempts to get put into law and after it went into effect. It's just that a nation wide policy is harder to gently caress with in terms of disinformation campaigns since everyone can see how it works. Hence why so many Republican politicians were confused at the various town halls full of pissed off geriatrics that didn't want to lose it once they realized what it was. And also why they just stopped showing up and started having right wing media types like Fox and Limbaugh hammer even harder that people shouldn't shouldn't want any sort of healthcare. All while plowing ahead with repeal attempts and sabotaging pieces of it once they realized they couldn't easily con their base on that point. The idea is that when she has to deal with the next election people will either vote against their own interests because of a multi-year haze of bullshit that has them saying "Huh, but there's something untrustworthy about her!" from a multitude of Edit: poo poo, this is exactly the same trick the same sort of people would pull on climate change scientists for about 50 years now. In fact, going off climate change's history of fighting a never ending line up of corrupt denialists it isn't even as far as things can escalate. From what I vaguely recall of my history at one point the Republicans were at one point threatening to lock up some of the most prominent scientists in the field at the time for daring to tell the truth about how bad things were going to get during a congressional investigation. This was then used years down the line by some denialists to justify how crazy and corrupt the climate change scientists trying to fix things were once those events had faded from the public consciousness and progress was starting to be made to hopefully fix the issue in the future. Archonex fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Nov 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Lol The creator of McAfee antivirus who's turned super libertarian militia nutso in the face of various murder and fraud charges.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Artificial trees are devices made out of extreme carbon-phillic materials and storage tanks to wick away co2 from the air and store it in tanks. Like condensed trees, if I'm understanding it correctly. That’s silly. Ships can run on biofuels (granted, there’s good ones and bad ones) or even a variety of energy-carriers manufactured using renewable electricity, including synthetic natural gas, synthetic hydrocarbons (I.e., power to liquids), hydrogen or ammonia. Plus, battery technology is bound to improve a lot by 2050. There’s already several small (~2,000 tonne) battery-electric cargo ships. Rednik fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Nov 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 07:56
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Lol He ran to be the nominee of the Libertarian Party in 2016. He also moved to Belize so he could do bath salts without big government getting in his way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Lol  Wow he took that idea of "Hey, I have black friends, I can talk like this now" and loving ran with it, didn't he?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:
Tarantino did it first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 08:01
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:same speech Remember when people were saying Hillary would never ever run again? Good times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 08:02
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:2. that would only matter in our assessment of harry truman as a person. yes, if he'd bombed japan just because he really hated the japanese, that would make him a worse person, in a certain moral sense, than if he bombed them to avert a greater loss of life down the road. but that's cold comfort to the dead japanese civilians and their families. for politicians, voters ought to weigh an evil decision and an incompetent decision the same, because ultimately what matters to voters is how a politician's decision materially affects them, not what was in the politician's mind But that is precisely why intent is extremely relevant: if the US had not nuked Japan, there would have been a much larger number of dead japanese civilians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:"we do it this way so it must be the right way to do things" isn't much of an argument I've always felt these need to figure out who is bad vs good extremely bizarre and pointless, especially when it is extended to historical figures like dead presidents. goethe.cx posted:2. that would only matter in our assessment of harry truman as a person. yes, if he'd bombed japan just because he really hated the japanese, that would make him a worse person, in a certain moral sense, than if he bombed them to avert a greater loss of life down the road. but that's cold comfort to the dead japanese civilians and their families. for politicians, voters ought to weigh an evil decision and an incompetent decision the same, because ultimately what matters to voters is how a politician's decision materially affects them, not what was in the politician's mind The problem comes from distinguishing incompetent behavior from behavior that was correct to the best of our knowledge --but wrong anyway and produced bad outcomes. Someone who exhibits patterns of reckless and dangerous behavior, or willful ignorance of good conduct, is going to produce worse decisions than someone without those traits. For example I would not hold it against someone who accidentally poisoned their child because the pharmacist gave them the wrong medicine, as we can not reasonably expect normal people to be able to prevent such accidents. If however they poisoned their kids by giving them colloidial silver or other quackery I would, because anyone can reasonably be expected to know better. We can make one of those silly polysci squares going from competent/incompetent, and good intentions/bad intentions pre: COMPETENT
|
|
|
GOOD INTENTIONS <--------------|------------> BAD INTENTIONS
|
|
|
INCOMPETENT
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 08:10
|
|
|
"Wanted to preserve party unity" doesn't count as good intentions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 09:24
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:He ran to be the nominee of the Libertarian Party in 2016. He also moved to Belize so he could do bath salts without big government getting in his way. The dude is so off his rocker that I don’t think it’s even fair to crazy libertarians to lump him with them. He makes Randy Quaid seem like Spock and probably doesn’t know what planet he’s on. If he weren’t rich he’d be institutionalized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 10:13
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:1. intent only matters in civil trials for the same reasons it matters in criminal trials--i.e., deterring further willful behavior. The dropping of the atomic bombs had nothing to do with preserving life. It had to do with prestige. After pearl harbour the US had to have unconditional surrender from Japan and only the atom bombs could deliver that. The alternative would have been signing a peace treaty with them. The bombs were dropped solely because the US could not let Japan get away with a peace treaty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 10:15
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:If they won't accept you for how you really are then gently caress 'em. You don't need anyone else's approval but you know all this already. I know on some level it still hurts though so I just wanted to post this in a lame attempt at support and empathy. TyroneGoldstein posted:gently caress, that sucks.  I’m used to it by now. They largely live in Central America and I hardly ever saw them anyway, but they’re real important to my parents. I was never close to them, with the exception of I guess a US-based cousin. Still feel bad that I can’t see my grandma anymore, but hey - maybe if I was more impressive or more well-adjusted, I’d be allowed to see them. Which is funny, cause I heavily resemble my aunts and grandmothers more than my immediate family.Thanks tho, guys. /o/
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 10:15
|
|
I would boggle about a person's own parents not siding with them over something like this, but your story is dismaying and common.
|
Katt posted:The dropping of the atomic bombs had nothing to do with preserving life. It had to do with prestige. After pearl harbour the US had to have unconditional surrender from Japan and only the atom bombs could deliver that. The alternative would have been signing a peace treaty with them. It's pretty depressing, if not surprising, that people are still trying to justify the greatest war crime in human history as the most humane choice. A country nuked civilians. Twice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 10:55
|
|
|
Skex posted:It's not telling of poo poo, it's a stupid argument that is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Democratic party operates.  Fulchrum posted:Yes, truly the only possible explanation for why someone who was always polling behind, and who the dems told to give it up because he was polling behind and going to lose, lost is due to Democrats interfering and preventing him from winning like he was totally going to. you know aoc was behind in the polling until she won her primary right? quote:It was less than three weeks until Primary Day and, on first blush, the poll that Representative Joseph Crowley had been shown by his team of advisers was encouraging: He led his upstart rival, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, by 36 percentage points. guess she should've just been forced out of the race by the party cause crowley was gonna win Condiv fucked around with this message at 11:23 on Nov 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 11:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
1glitch0 posted:It's pretty depressing, if not surprising, that people are still trying to justify the greatest war crime in human history as the most humane choice. A country nuked civilians. Twice. What makes it worse than the firebombing of Tokyo?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 11:10
|
|
