|
Cranappleberry posted:Their intent might be to express frustration with the Biden administration continuing the US government's kowtowing to the fossil fuel industry and also the ineffectiveness of climate change policy in general. Not what actually happened, which was the correction I already provided. The US government is not a monolith, and the offshore drilling stay is not the only action the DoI is taking. This was part of the point of the story that the offshore drilling misrepresentation was already being deployed to shut down. Cranappleberry posted:Maybe they don't respect the rule of law or the powers of the court enforcing the algorithmic bureaucratic nightmare giving permits to destroy the earth. You could actually go into the details of any one of those sentences and we could discuss ways to address those specific elements of how these things operate- what functions or does not function in different jurisdictions, political targets and programs and policies. But instead it's a content-free rant. The demand that everyone else refuse to understand things at a greater level of detail than "the system is a machine", and embrace futility, does nothing to further discussion of anything. Cranappleberry posted:The effect might be that it "derails" discussion but the intended purpose might be to express very real frustration. Conversations spinning off into different threads is natural and information being posted and re-posted happens. I certainly didn't know about the courts enforcing permits for offshore drilling until it was posted. The effect is to prevent actual discussion in preference to "expressing frustration" grounded in its own ignorance. If you want to "express frustration", do it into a pillow, don't do it on a forum. Don't use it to dismiss and shut down discussion of current events and changes in policy- which, as a reminder, was how it was deployed: to derail discussion of an only tangentially related event. Not every discussion needs to become about someone's deliberately ignorant belief that everything is worthless. Cranappleberry posted:Not everyone follows the thread that closely or reads every article. You are absolutely expected to read the articles and sources that you post in the thread, and not misrepresent their contents and ignore corrections to spin conspiracy theories. That is what the user did, and what has happened, with the exact same claim, several times. Cranappleberry posted:Comparing people having emotional reactions is fine, except the emotional reaction to permits being given to offshore drilling is one that comes from a basis of solid fact- it will hurt the environment. Whereas people who are anti-vax are being conned. It's unfair to try to enforce some standard of belief in the system that many believe is broken (with plenty of evidence) in order to post in this thread, just as it's unfair to enforce a standard of knowledge. Selective presentation of evidence is just as misleading and just as deliberate. An equally solid fact is that the administration has undertaken a bunch of actions, some successful and some not, to change our environmental policies. It's also a solid fact that the administration did not somehow fake its attempt to stop the sale, and the white house cannot make administrative agencies just ignore court orders. Understanding the basics of how laws function is not the absurd strawman "believing in the system," as if the entirety of the government is a single entity we must take or leave; knowing things is not an endorsement of them, and opposing the status quo sure as poo poo doesn't justify or verify willful ignorance or conspiracy theories. You are prescribing a willful lack of understanding over how the law and government actually works, descriptively, over actual understanding or literacy in the subject. And yes, it is absolutely a way that people deceive others, and themselves. Antivax and other conspiracy theorists rely on the exact same mechanisms of futility and self-indulgent rage to propogate their beliefs. lovely environmental 501(c)s raise funds off of "fighting" and attacking every single administration and program rather than filing well-targeted comments or lawsuits. You know what doesn't help the environment? Demanding that every conversation pander to your frustration and ignorance.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 13:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
Yinlock posted:They basically made an example of Carter for daring to actually try to enact the good things he promised, it also ruffled a lot of careerists because he didn't go through the proper think-tank channels to do so(thus the accusations of "wanting to take credit" or whatever; careerists cannot see the benefits of the policy beyond how it affects their own careers and assume everyone else is similarly sociopathic) Yeah this. Anyone who is upset with what Lee Carter did or going “tsk tsk that isn’t the correct way” is telling on themselves. If one supports a bill then they’ll vote for it no matter how it is brought up. It’s why I assume liberals argue in bad faith because the amount of times “process” and “proper channels” get brought up as a cover is nauseating. lil poopendorfer posted:Lol yes, they were really putting up a tough fight but the courts are just FORCING them, they did everything they could Exactly. The courts made their ruling, let the courts enforce the leases. If my take made one gasp and cling to their pearls, they are part of the problem. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 13:12
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Why is belief in the efficacy of electoral politics a prereq to discuss current events? That's a weird demand to make The problem is asymmetry- you can ask the electoral side what their plan is, and they can kinda have to answer for their beliefs. However, the anti-electoral side cannot actually discuss their ideas and plans on a 10-dollar internet forum and thusly, any attempt to get at their position is 'baiting someone into getting banned'. It is a fundamental asymmetry that is poisonous to discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 13:26
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The problem is asymmetry- you can ask the electoral side what their plan is, and they can kinda have to answer for their beliefs. However, the anti-electoral side cannot actually discuss their ideas and plans on a 10-dollar internet forum and thusly, any attempt to get at their position is 'baiting someone into getting banned'. It is a fundamental asymmetry that is poisonous to discussion. Good point, but they can discuss some of them. Strikes, protests, activism*. Personally I think "it's likely there's no electoral solution for america" is a baseline for whether somebody is, uh, really paying attention. *I assume they'd discuss the actual plans when they meet in person 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 14:22
|
|
|
papa horny michael posted:Biden still has an entire term, not to even mention another four years afterwards. This doesn't matter much. He'll do some executive orders that'll likely get tied up in courts for most of his term but little to nothing has a chance of making it through Congress now much less after the mid terms. Which the D's are virtually guaranteed to lose both houses in barring some sort've miracle. Also Biden barely squeaked out a win in 2020. Assuming he'll win again by default, after 4yr of a disappointing admin, is very optimistic at this point. I know its frustrating as all hell to think its possible at this point but Trump has a very good chance of winning in 2024. And the electoral map in 2024 is extremely bad for D's in Congress. It virtually guarantees they lose seats short of a massive blue wave election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Yeah this. Anyone who is upset with what Lee Carter did or going “tsk tsk that isn’t the correct way” is telling on themselves. If one supports a bill then they’ll vote for it no matter how it is brought up. It’s why I assume liberals argue in bad faith because the amount of times “process” and “proper channels” get brought up as a cover is nauseating. Yea their reasoning behind them voting no despite claiming that they totally, definitely wanted to vote yes, reminds me of the kind of person that says they want to hang out with you but are always busy when you ask, never taking the initiative, etc. At some point you just gotta accept that their actions are saying more than their words ever will!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
You mean like people posting about how hospital emergency rooms are filled up with ivermectin overdoses? Or that ivermectin causes infertility in men who take it? People post stuff like this in this forum, in these threads. It's misinformation and rarely do they self-correct or dive deeper into the subject matter. You could help to educate people instead of presuming everyone who disagrees or has a different perspective is acting in bad faith. You could post potential solutions or more details instead of misunderstanding my post entirely by conflating people's very real frustrations with me purportedly strawmanning knowing the intricacies of how government works with believing in it. If people think the government is broken, even if they don't know every little detail, they still think that. If they get those details and it still appears to them that the government is unable to translate the soundbites, the promises, into actual, significant results then they'd be right. There is no test of knowledge to post here. People can share their knowledge if they wish. You are not the arbiter of what gets posted and it's not your job to call out what needs to be here or doesn't, unless you're sharing your perspective in the feedback thread. It's not only not your job, it's bad form to attempt to moderate the content of other people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:You mean like people posting about how hospital emergency rooms are filled up with ivermectin overdoses? Or that ivermectin causes infertility in men who take it? I love how your example is some poo poo no one's talked about for ages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:You mean like people posting about how hospital emergency rooms are filled up with ivermectin overdoses? Or that ivermectin causes infertility in men who take it? And when they keep doing it, especially in contradiction of their own sources, they are supposed to be at least probated. It's explicitly been against the rules for a long time now. To ignore it is to allow it to be normalized and propogated further. Cranappleberry posted:You could help to educate people instead of presuming everyone who disagrees or has a different perspective is acting in bad faith. You could post potential solutions or more details... I have posted several thousand words of information about pseudoscience, and media literacy, and am working up a comparative post on multiple books about the antivaxx movement, already promoted in the OP of the covid thread, right now. But I recognize that all of that work is meaningless if people can just poo poo on it by misrepresenting the subject. Requiring good faith to respond to people who are openly participating to "express their frustration" rather than communicate means that the people not interested in discussion control the scope of discussion. Cranappleberry posted:...instead of misunderstanding my post entirely by conflating people's very real frustrations with me purportedly strawmanning knowing the intricacies of how government works with believing in it. This is what you said: Cranappleberry posted:It's unfair to try to enforce some standard of belief in the system that many believe is broken (with plenty of evidence) in order to post in this thread, just as it's unfair to enforce a standard of knowledge. So, yes, you are directly conflating my supposedly "enforcing a standard of belief in 'the system'" with actually knowing things; because the underlying claim was based in denying facts. Cranappleberry posted:If people think the government is broken, even if they don't know every little detail, they still think that. If they get those details and it still appears to them that the government is unable to translate the soundbites, the promises, into actual, significant results then they'd be right. Except, again, they explicitly do not, by misrepresenting the sources they cite, and by transitioning into unfalsifiable conspiracy theories when corrected. Cranappleberry posted:There is no test of knowledge to post here. People can share their knowledge if they wish. You are not the arbiter of what gets posted and it's not your job to call out what needs to be here or doesn't, unless you're sharing your perspective in the feedback thread. It's not only not your job, it's bad form to attempt to moderate the content of other people. There is, explicitly stated in the rules, a standard of what is posted here, and it is not in favor of lying about cited sources, or reverting to conspiracy theories when corrected, or defending the same specifically fact-opposed conspiratorial mindset because it privileges "emotional reations" over the explicit educational purpose of the subforum. You don't have to have knowledge about something to post, but you sure as poo poo aren't supposed to be able to use your ignorance as a cudgel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
The dems won't do jack 🎵 Trump's going to come back 🎵 But at least the blue team played by the rules🎵 (Played! By the rules 🎵) (OH-oh-oh) (Played by the ru-^HUUUUUles!🎵)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:The amount of land leased out is proportional to the amount of leases requested. The current round of new leases was approved in 2017 and goes to 2022 . So long as the paperwork is in order basically any lease must be granted. This isn't individual haggling, it a bureaucratic permits office. Its driven by a formula, and with a current injunction they also can't alter that without getting slapped by the court again for constructively working around an injunction. At this point its basically a huge stupid computer program. The executive order was to say the number of sales will be zero. The court said that stopping now would harm several states, and so authority to make that change must be established in court before action can be taken. Now you can read 3 judicial tacks into this, as injunctions usually signal a judge thinks a case has merits. What happens if they simply don't do it? Generate a ton of pointless paperwork (liberals are quite good at this), come up with fake reasons to stall the sales, find ways to complicate the actions required to follow through on the leases, fire everyone involved, force the courts to issue more rulings that no one follows, literally get arrested or fined in order to prevent further climate damage? They're not pretty solutions, but we're talking about an existential crisis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 15:49
|
|
.
|
Discendo Vox posted:And when they keep doing it, especially in contradiction of their own sources, they are supposed to be at least probated. It's explicitly been against the rules for a long time now. To ignore it is to allow it to be normalized and propogated further. I think there is a gap here that is difficult to breach and I’ll try and be as succinct as possible; but there is a tendency among certain types of experts who are posters, think lawyers and profs, where they have been inculcated into a profession that abhors taking a moral stand, at least in a professional context. Lawyers will defend literally anybody and anything; it has to be that way, because that’s how the system works. Profs cannot appear to show bias. But SA is neither a courtroom nor a classroom, so in the end, long-winded technical explanations of how were wrong and the Biden admin, or say “the government” writ large HAS to do these terrible things, well, we don’t give a poo poo. It’s still wrong to do them. We are still angry about it, and we know from our experience that the system makes any excuse for what money wants to happen. If it was bad money to drill, they wouldn’t drill. As it’s good money to drill, our contention is that the system will not and cannot restrain that. It feels like we know how power works, and you were taught wrong and either due to professional or ideological blind spots, or because you’re in a profession where all you do is swim in the architectures of power you cannot even see them anymore; it doesn’t matter, because in the end you and our lawyerly posters come in here to in the end justify the mechanics of an unjustifiable system. It feels very myopic, as though you believe the rules apply the same to everyone, or if they don’t there’s some reason you don’t mention it. It just feels like posting about selling kids for money. The sales guy keeps going on about profits and kid-based industries booming? And we keep going “ok but you’re selling loving kids?!?!” And the response is always this snooty/angry “it’s perfectly legal to sell kids” as if we give a gently caress about the legality You can have all the facts and still be defending or at least explaining without taking any kind of stance on abhorrent behavior and it does you no favors, and in general gives the vibe that the status quo is working great for you, which makes people for whom it’s not very, very suspicious Edit: Perfect example! Yesterday you posted about ideal ways to contact your congressperson. Then I responded to your post with a comment (and evidence) that despite the method or tone, rich people are gonna get their way, so if you’re not rich temper your expectations. And you got really pissed and told me to gently caress off! That feels like you just get mad when people comment on the real-world outcomes of the perfectly friction-free political system full of spherical actors you so often seem to describe. Why get mad because somebody accurately describes power relations? selec fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
Look, yes there's several posters who are clearly always posting in bad faith. But if posting about them was the solution to getting mods to do their job it'd have been handled years ago. Just ignore and move on. It's like expecting cops to enforce the actual law, it's not going to happen. It's quite amazing how much damage Trump managed/continues to cause just through the use of judicial appointments. You need to elect Democrats for decades to get anything done, and then it only takes one Republican term to start undoing all of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's also a solid fact that the administration did not somehow fake its attempt to stop the sale, and the white house cannot make administrative agencies just ignore court orders. I got to watch administrative agencies ignore congressional subpoenas at will with only occasional repercussion. I'm happy to admit that the current administration is less able to get things done, apparently, but it isn't that the act isn't possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Lee Carter pushed that vote because if it passed he'd get to claim he was a big hero who saved Right To Work Elimination from The Party Establishment, and if it went down he'd get to claim the Party Establishment was a corrupt anti-progressive machine despite all the progressive laws it passed that session. It was ENTIRELY about trying to inject leftist outrage into his effort to win the gubernatorial primary. It was baby's first palace intrigue, and people rightfully didn't fall for it and put the blame where it belonged, on him for being a self-centered dumbass. The man is a grifter. No, it’s the fault of the Democrats who didn’t vote for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:Is it entirely untrue then? I thought that it broke down along the lines of things like, people like the concept of M4A, but when you inform them they wouldn't have their current insurance, it triggered serious loss aversion and people turned on it really fast. I know push polling is also quite effective, but I thought that this one was legit because the changes to the medical system's structure made people extremely uneasy. I can imagine it being a very effective cudgel for the people who claim that we can't do anything and never should, so maybe I just got suckered by the propaganda here. It's true that people can be cautious towards change, as you can see in that poll, but you can absolutely push back against that in significant ways, as evident from how little a net change was produced when considering both positive and negative narratives. We also have recent real-world examples in Black Lives Matter, Medicare For All, Fracking, and ACB that these numbers can be improved when normalized over years, or touted/defended by authority figures. Neurolimal posted:A reminder of where BLM was in 2016 and today. It's a part of why we had a year+ of democrats from Biden to Clyburn to Obama immediately dumping on Defund the Police, for example. It's not something they want normalized, and they missed the boat to do so on M4A and BLM.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
lil poopendorfer posted:Shut up and stop backseat modding you dweeb. I know things get pretty casual on the weekends by design and request but the old standards still apply in the matter of attacking people. Consider this the final warning for all time for all here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
selec posted:I think there is a gap here that is difficult to breach and I’ll try and be as succinct as possible; but there is a tendency among certain types of experts who are posters, think lawyers and profs, where they have been inculcated into a profession that abhors taking a moral stand, at least in a professional context. Lawyers will defend literally anybody and anything; it has to be that way, because that’s how the system works. Profs cannot appear to show bias. No, because the people with actual subject matter experience and credentials understand factually what is happening, and you are demanding that your ignorance is superior to their knowledge, because of what you feel is true. Because it lets you shut everyone else and all other discussion down. We are not rationalizing anything, because again, we understand the distinction between descriptively explaining how systems operate, for good or ill, and endorsing every part of the entire government apparatus. Explaining and understanding something is not justifying it. Conversely, the government is not a monolith, and deliberately refusing to address the distinctions, the specifics, the processes of these situations does not make you a canny observer, it makes you powerless to understand or address it. It may feel like you know how either power or government works, but it is transparent by your repeated and proud statement that you do not care about the facts, that you don't actually care about the specifics of how these things happen, because hearing explanations makes you feel bad - and as a result, you also don't care about how they can be addressed. The only thing you can do with your "insight" into power is shut down any factual discussion of how it operates. You need facts to not matter, for progress to be impossible, and discussion to be futile to preserve the sanctity of your ignorance. selec posted:It just feels like posting about selling kids for money. The sales guy keeps going on about profits and kid-based industries booming? And we keep going “ok but you’re selling loving kids?!?!” And the response is always this snooty/angry “it’s perfectly legal to sell kids” as if we give a gently caress about the legality I am not posting about the extractive industry booming or profits or profiting from the extractive industry. In this example, you're shouting down the people who are explaining the details of how the kid-selling industry is getting away with it, and why the entire government is not unified in a kid-selling conspiracy. selec posted:You can have all the facts and still be defending or at least explaining without taking any kind of stance on abhorrent behavior and it does you no favors, and in general gives the vibe that the status quo is working great for you, which makes people for whom it’s not very, very suspicious I appreciate the loving backhanded attack that you just have to slip in. selec posted:Perfect example! Yesterday you posted about ideal ways to contact your congressperson. Then I responded to your post with a comment (and evidence) that despite the method or tone, rich people are gonna get their way, so if you’re not rich temper your expectations. And you got really pissed and told me to gently caress off! That feels like you just get mad when people comment on the real-world outcomes of the perfectly friction-free political system full of spherical actors you so often seem to describe. Why get mad because somebody accurately describes power relations? No. I, who actually worked in a Congressional office and handled constituent contacts, and at least one other user with some similar form of actual experience, described how members of Congress actually respond to and process constituent contacts and you posted a blog post linking an unrelated study that makes an overbroad assertion about the form of government based on a methodologically suspect correlation of policy outcomes. You did this to claim that contacting members of congress was futile and shouting "into an unresponsive void", something not even the linked article supports. You responded to informed effort by shutting the discussion down with an unrelated and unsupported attack based on the futility of any action. Bel Shazar posted:I got to watch administrative agencies ignore congressional subpoenas at will with only occasional repercussion. I'm happy to admit that the current administration is less able to get things done, apparently, but it isn't that the act isn't possible. Past the top levels and depending on agency structure, the white house has less direct control over routine actions of administrative agencies where they're separately following congressional mandates. Congress goes to court and gets a court order when they actually want to enforce a subpoena on an administrative agency; even this doesn't work if the non-appointed staff can find loopholes. For example, FDA's still periodically trying increasingly strained interpretations to assert some degree of authority over certain drug marketing practices after, at this point, more than a decade of contrary federal caselaw. I can explain how that caselaw happened; a right wing legal group removed FDA authority over offlabeling using a combination of first amendment and administrative law cases. I can write effortposts on this subject and the ramifications of it, and explain why FDA can't regulate the relevant offlabel drug promotions. Explaining how and why those cases transpired, and why FDA is stuck, does not mean I am justifying or agreeing with that right wing legal group. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The problem is asymmetry- you can ask the electoral side what their plan is, and they can kinda have to answer for their beliefs. However, the anti-electoral side cannot actually discuss their ideas and plans on a 10-dollar internet forum and thusly, any attempt to get at their position is 'baiting someone into getting banned'. It is a fundamental asymmetry that is poisonous to discussion. I disagree with this. I don't vote but I'm also not out advocating for bombing pipelines or whatever, you can still focus on even traditional stuff or just find a hobby niche to hunker down in to wait out the roaring storm of global fascism. There's a lot of space in between Ushanka Rambo and Smiling NGO GOTV Person
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, because the people with actual subject matter experience and credentials understand factually what is happening, and you are demanding that your ignorance is superior to their knowledge, because of what you feel is true. Because it lets you shut everyone else and all other discussion down. We are not rationalizing anything, because again, we understand the distinction between descriptively explaining how systems operate, for good or ill, and endorsing every part of the entire government apparatus. Explaining and understanding something is not justifying it. Conversely, the government is not a monolith, and deliberately refusing to address the distinctions, the specifics, the processes of these situations does not make you a canny observer, it makes you powerless to understand or address it. This is basically why me and several of my friends stopped posting here nearly as much, not because of Vox but because of what he's describing there's a concerted effort here to post bullshit sources and dismiss any attempts of people to educate themselves, you can lie and day all Dems are the same and are all secretly aligned on every matter does make it true it just causes pointless slapfights. You get in more trouble for pointing out lies here then posting them and that's the real problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I disagree with this. I don't vote but I'm also not out advocating for bombing pipelines or whatever, you can still focus on even traditional stuff or just find a hobby niche to hunker down in to wait out the roaring storm of global fascism. There's a lot of space in between Ushanka Rambo and Smiling NGO GOTV Person Reminder, as has been pointed out before, it's illegal to even maintain a garden with a few neighbors in some open space in some localities in the United States. Thankfully that's not the case for me (Thank you Governor DeSantis!) and my neighbors and I have year round access to fresh stuff like peppers and lemongrass and ginger and all sorts of delightful aromatics and roots but it's a privilege I have that I can post publicly about self sustainability and not fear the cops coming to trash our garden. (eta: or the legal fiefdom that is an Association or landlord trying to evict you or a local municipality fee-ing your garden out of existence) Lib and let die fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
BRJohnson posted:Personally I think "it's likely there's no electoral solution for america" is a baseline for whether somebody is, uh, really paying attention. Personally, I think that way of thinking functions as a convenient excuse for lazy people to sit smugly on the sidelines and consider inaction to be somehow virtuous or high minded. It's an excuse to stop paying attention and to stop trying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
I think that any time this sort of thing comes up, where the Biden administration is doing something bad, or not stopping something bad from happening, but there's a procedural reason for why, it would be helpful if the people defending it could ask themselves this simple question: "Would I be actively defending this if Trump was still president?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
Posting about "ought"s, when you want to post about "is"s, is neither shutting nor shouting you down or you still wouldn't be here posting multiple paragraphs about how everyone is silencing you. Not saying this to attack anyone but to say that we should be able to have both of these conversations at the same time without getting mad at each other. I don't think electoralism works. Calling me lazy seems like a dodge to not engage the issue. It's also been repeatedly discussed that there are other things we encourage people doing so it seems like you're not actually bothering to take in other people's posts about the issue. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
How are u posted:Personally, I think that way of thinking functions as a convenient excuse for lazy people to sit smugly on the sidelines and consider inaction to be somehow virtuous or high minded. It's an excuse to stop paying attention and to stop trying. So is the inevitability of death, but it doesn't make it any less true. Plus America is already full of lazy smug people uninterested in doing the work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
I don't really see why a court order justifies the supposedly environmentalist party selling more of the Gulf for oil extraction, when it's perfectly legal for them to pass legislation to appoint more justices at any time to reverse the order, or if that's too impolite just pass legislation to end the sales. The government doesn't have to sell any oil rights to anyone. E: It is also kind of weird to see complaints that it's allowed to discuss the futility of electoralism coming from the same people telling me that voting makes zero difference because the Supreme Court is locked in for another 40 years and will ensure the planet is destroyed for profit regardless of what interchangeable figurehead we put in the Oval Office with our vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Not believing in electoralism is not synonymous with not caring or giving up. Just means a change in where you focus that attention. Me, I started feeding and helping others get ged. I'm doing this because I no longer expect the needed help yo come and people are hungry now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I think that any time this sort of thing comes up, where the Biden administration is doing something bad, or not stopping something bad from happening, but there's a procedural reason for why, it would be helpful if the people defending it could ask themselves this simple question: Who's defending what in this situation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
It's implicitly a defense of Biden going along with the court order to explain how "gosh there's just nothing else he can do" when there are very obviously all sorts of creative bullshit he could do. We've been through this before. It'll be called Trumpian to do the right thing in a creatively legal way. But the most obvious explanation is that Biden isn't particularly concerned about doing the right thing here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
We just saw Biden and Pelosi pull out every trick in the book to whip the CPC to agree to give up on climate change legislation and the rest of the BBB, everything up to forcing them to vote on a moment's notice with a big media spotlight and all Biden's surrogates out demonizing them for "blocking the president's agenda", so I don't really buy that there's nothing he can do to stop the sales, they can be stopped by legislation at any time and he obviously has the power to whip votes for legislation that he wants. Hey wait a minute VitalSigns posted:Biden and Pelosi pull out every trick in the book to whip the CPC to agree to give up on climate change legislation hm I'm starting to get a clue why he's acting like all he can do is throw up his hands and go "gosh Judge Beer said no, sorry kids earth hosed" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I think that any time this sort of thing comes up, where the Biden administration is doing something bad, or not stopping something bad from happening, but there's a procedural reason for why, it would be helpful if the people defending it could ask themselves this simple question: "Procedural reasons" prevented Trump from doing a lot of heinous bullshit, so it cuts both ways. A system designed to do good slowly is also designed to do evil slowly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:A system designed to do good slowly is also designed to do evil slowly. *looks at literally all of American history* Are you sure?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, because the people with actual subject matter experience and credentials understand factually what is happening, and you are demanding that your ignorance is superior to their knowledge, because of what you feel is true. Because it lets you shut everyone else and all other discussion down. We are not rationalizing anything, because again, we understand the distinction between descriptively explaining how systems operate, for good or ill, and endorsing every part of the entire government apparatus. Explaining and understanding something is not justifying it. Conversely, the government is not a monolith, and deliberately refusing to address the distinctions, the specifics, the processes of these situations does not make you a canny observer, it makes you powerless to understand or address it. Discendo Vox posted:It may feel like you know how either power or government works, but it is transparent by your repeated and proud statement that you do not care about the facts, that you don't actually care about the specifics of how these things happen, because hearing explanations makes you feel bad - and as a result, you also don't care about how they can be addressed. The only thing you can do with your "insight" into power is shut down any factual discussion of how it operates. You need facts to not matter, for progress to be impossible, and discussion to be futile to preserve the sanctity of your ignorance. You are sort of right here, I don't care about how the system justifies its own brutality and failings. I have given up having faith that those justifications have any consistent meaning or that the system demands consistency in how these justifications are applied, because it's patently obvious that's not so. We see it everywhere; the system is not fair, and yet somehow there's always somebody coming out of the woodwork to tell us it's working as intended, that this awful thing you're witnessing? It makes sense. Where you're really, really wrong is saying that I don't care or know about how these things can be addressed. They can! But not in any of the ways you are trained to understand or explain. Electoralism is not going to save the planet, solidarity and upheaval are, if anything will. quote:No. I, who actually worked in a Congressional office and handled constituent contacts, and at least one other user with some similar form of actual experience, described how members of Congress actually respond to and process constituent contacts and you posted a blog post linking an unrelated study that makes an overbroad assertion about the form of government based on a methodologically suspect correlation of policy outcomes. You did this to claim that contacting members of congress was futile and shouting "into an unresponsive void", something not even the linked article supports. You responded to informed effort by shutting the discussion down with an unrelated and unsupported attack based on the futility of any action. Here's the real meat I'm interested in: back that poo poo up. Please get into what is methodologically suspect about that, because that study, and a lot of just "looking at the state of the country" would seem to indicate what everybody takes for granted is true: society works for the rich, and if you're poor you get scraps if you get anything, and that's how the government operates. What's wrong about that? Please dig in here, this is where I think your academic training could be of some actual use to myself and other angry leftists. Is that study wrong? Do poor people actually get their policy wishlist and we just like...don't see it? And can you see, and I say this in utterly good faith, that your experience in a congressional office doesn't have the veneer of expertise you think it does, or maybe it does but in addition to that it, to people who have found themselves defending jobs and systems they later look back on with shame, that you're doing some justification of the years and effort you spent? Because, and I do not intend this as an insult, it does sound like a CEO defending high CEO wages. selec fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Not believing in electoralism is not synonymous with not caring or giving up. Just means a change in where you focus that attention. Me, I started feeding and helping others get ged. I'm doing this because I no longer expect the needed help yo come and people are hungry now. Yea. I have no faith in electoralism (at least at the federal level. Sometimes good things can happen locally but it takes an obscene amount of work) but it's lovely to think that people who don't believe in it don't want things to get better. Many of them just believe that change has to come from other avenues besides going to the polls. e: heck, in fact, helping out locally is the opposite of lazy, compared to what it takes to perform a single action every 2 or 4 years Srice fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
Srice posted:Yea. I have no faith in electoralism (at least at the federal level. Sometimes good things can happen locally but it takes an obscene amount of work) but it's lovely to think that people who don't believe in it don't want things to get better. Many of them just believe that change has to come from other avenues besides going to the polls. The problem is people who don't believe in it using it as an excuse those shut down and shout out people trying to squeeze whatever food they can put of a broken system or even trying to understand what's happening. If you don't think it's worth discussing politics because it doesn't matter or whatever why even post here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:50
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:using it as an excuse those shut down and shout out people Post some examples of this? It's come up a couple of times and it feels like that "I'm being silenced" cartoon
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:"Procedural reasons" prevented Trump from doing a lot of heinous bullshit, so it cuts both ways. Even if this was true, a system that does an equal amount of good and evil would still be an extremely bad system. But it's clearly not, the system allows for far more evil than good, regardless of how quickly it happens. A single senator from West Virginia can stop a Democratic majority from passing a very good and popular spending plan, but the defense budget gets passed and raised without even a hint of fuss. Trump managed to do a whole lot of horrible poo poo by simply saying "try and stop me", and for whatever reason all the people who should have stopped him were unable or unwilling to. Trump flaunted the rules and laws to do a lot of bad things, and people rightfully rejected him for it. Unfortunately the response from the Dems who replaced him seems to be "well we'll start following the rules now".
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:The problem is people who don't believe in it using it as an excuse those shut down and shout out people trying to squeeze whatever food they can put of a broken system or even trying to understand what's happening. If you don't think it's worth discussing politics because it doesn't matter or whatever why even post here? Politics is a lot more than voting, I see a lot of people expressing frustration or that they've given up on a ballot's ability to deliver them succor but I've not really seen any "therefore I am going to lay down in a ditch and die" Lots of people are active locally or rediscovering victory gardens and the like, it's a much deeper part of what drives a lot of people than an election is. I dont doubt there are some nihilists around but well...they arent posting here like you said lol, barring someone doing deep cover for god knows what reason
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:The problem is people who don't believe in it using it as an excuse those shut down and shout out people trying to squeeze whatever food they can put of a broken system or even trying to understand what's happening. If you don't think it's worth discussing politics because it doesn't matter or whatever why even post here? There are more ways to engage with politics than just going to the voting booth every few years to push a button, simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
Covid 19 was/is the worst pandemic of our lifetimes that caused all kinds of ripple effects, including people going hungry and being evicted from their homes. During this crisis, the system was unwilling and unable to feed and house these people. We all remember the infamous 'bread line' pictures. Some of that can be attributed to a failed steak salesman being in charge and not giving a gently caress, but why would a good system ever put people in that position regardless of who was in charge? What good is a government or a system that can't even care for people during the worst crisis of our lives?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 18:00
|
|
