|
Should troll Fancy Pelosi be allowed to stay? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
160 | 32.92% |
| No |
|
326 | 67.08% |
| Total: | 486 votes | ||
|
evilweasel posted:that is not correct I'm sorry, do you think the big public works program where people were paid, went on strike and demanded better working conditions are an argument against this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/great-pyramid-tombs-slaves-egypt and https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1089/the-first-labor-strike-in-history/ Like at least choose Qin China if you want to go for that. Even then it's obvious that a lot of the information we are getting on these folks is from a somewhat "one sided" account. Every single "failed ducal rebellion" in history is usually someone deciding to make a grab for the big hat, or realising that they are getting ignored and aren't getting their own way. So they make up or find a decent reason for the rebellion and then try and get started on winning.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:How the hell did they come to this conclusion? By not actually looking at the evidence. "We didn't find any evidence supporting that claim. But I mean to be fair we didn't look for any to begin with."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:How the hell did they come to this conclusion? rule of law, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Speaking for myself as a one-man idiot, I think all of this Law Talk deserves its own thread. It's an interesting debate on several levels, but I think in this thread it's too much of a derail. I think a topic like it deserves its own dedicated thread since it is a broad category with a lot of potential ground to cover. I concur. We had a philosophy thread here ages ago. A catch-all for discussions on problems of the mind, ontology, justice, etc. Judakel fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I'm sorry, do you think the big public works program where people were paid, went on strike and demanded better working conditions are an argument against this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/great-pyramid-tombs-slaves-egypt and https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1089/the-first-labor-strike-in-history/ khufu directed the resources of the nation of egypt into piling rocks on top of rocks for twenty years his personal glory and benefit in the afterlife. as did his son and grandson. that is not a task carried out by a leader who leads by the consent of his high barons
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:How the hell did they come to this conclusion? probably wrote it under trump mixed with it probably was a chaotic shitshow like everything trump because trump and his team communicate worse then Lee and his staff at gettysberg.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:I vaguely recall the Obama administration announcing a stoppage on certain Marijuana prosecutions, which the Trump administration then reversed because Jeff Sessions is a big Reefer Madness guy. Sessions is a magical creature and his banishment ritual involves weed. he doesnt know the deets of the ritual therefore he takes the safe bet of trying to destroy all weed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I'm sorry, do you think the big public works program where people were paid, went on strike and demanded better working conditions are an argument against this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/great-pyramid-tombs-slaves-egypt and https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1089/the-first-labor-strike-in-history/ i believe they wernt slaves in egypt. most of the workers on the pyramids were skilled laborers and people just hired to do the grunt work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
it should also go without saying that a labor strike about 1500 years after the construction of the pyramids is not terribly relevant to the governmental structure that built the pyramids, especially when that labor strike is described as "the first labor strike in history" which rather suggests it was not a thing that had been routinely happening for 1,500 years
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it should also go without saying that a labor strike about 1500 years after the construction of the pyramids is not terribly relevant to the governmental structure that built the pyramids, especially when that labor strike is described as "the first labor strike in history" which rather suggests it was not a thing that had been routinely happening for 1,500 years i mean its a Pop history article. as much as a like history books even pop ones. most are super misleading or clickbaity. which sucks because i love micro history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:khufu directed the resources of the nation of egypt into piling rocks on top of rocks for twenty years his personal glory and benefit in the afterlife. as did his son and grandson. Imagine the following said by someone in 4000 years time about the remnants of the Ancient USA: "You cannot seriously tell me you think that the senate held any real power. Anyone with half a brain can see that someone who can commission a slave labour force to build a 'Washington Monument' to their ancestor/ general clearly doesn't have to listen to anyone else about what they are spending their time and resources on". Could you give me evidence that the Egyptian workforce was enslaved when they built the pyramids? Because the pyramids are so loving old we have very little surviving information from that time period. However, I think that anyone claiming that "supreme power was always vested in one individual" is buying into so so much of the framing of people who longed to be "king of the world, king of Asyria" etc. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Imagine the following said by someone in 4000 years time about the remnants of the Ancient USA: i'd like you to compare a picture of the washington monument to a picture of the great pyramid, as well as considering the literally over 4,000 years of technological advancement and population growth and the impact those two data points has on the relative amount of national wealth needed to create the monuments also, the washington monument was originally funded by private donations, but left half-finished for twenty years as a giant embarrassment until the senate and congress appropriated funds to finish it
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Hey, remember when Trump had a bunch of protestors teargassed so he could do a photo op in front of a church? The report summary doesn't seem particularly insane to me. Some of the key bits seem to be witness testimony, so I guess eg the park police leader could be lying, but his quoted testimony of "lol it was a total shitshow and they didn't inform us the president was coming until he was basically there" isn't really a lie that makes the president and Barr look GOOD. Nor does it benefit the park police guy much afaict.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
what is even being argued by this derail. at one point it was about whether or not 'rule of law' is a concept one ought to pay heed to, but now it seems to be arguing something about the nature of absolute monarchs? like what actually is the meat of the disagreement regarding monarchs/whoever sits atop the hierarchy
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i'd like you to compare a picture of the washington monument to a picture of the great pyramid, as well as considering the literally over 4,000 years of technological advancement and population growth and the impact those two data points has on the relative amount of national wealth needed to create the monuments Mate, what are you talking about? I tried to make a funny point about how people might see things 4,000 years down the line and you decided to go "look at a picture"? We don't have much to tell us how supreme the pharaohs were, we don't have much to tell us the internal politicking of most ancient states or, heck, most "pre-modern era" states. But judging by what we have and accepting the big monuments built as a sole source of truth seems to be a bit credulous. A big flaming stink posted:what is even being argued by this derail. Sorry, to clarify: Most "absolute" rulers, especially ancient era ones, are never actually absolute. Most often the simple fact of not being present means that they have to rely a whole lot more on local groups to police each other/ prevent things. This means that local magnates have always had a degree of freedom from centralised power. There always are various attempts to curtail this, but it seems to be a fact of life. The reason this is relevant is that I think it goes a bit against the idea that "despotism" is only prevented by the rule of law. I would disagree as "despotism" is not just prevented by laws, but by local power blocs and other, less noble ideals. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:what is even being argued by this derail. also the "rule of law" can degrade instantly, quickly or slowly or anywhere in between. It can have injustice baked in. Enforcing that injustice is also wrong even though its the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
Temporarily embarrassed pharaohs
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
In a rare move, Biden has done something I'm pretty sure no one in this thread will argue about being good or not:https://twitter.com/Sarah_Boxer/status/1402737905836171266
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
Judakel posted:It is correct to say that despots are evil and oppressive, per common use, and it is incorrect to say that anything that goes against liberalism is despotic. The utility of the rule of law falls apart in situations such as these, where said laws are oppressive, and thus opposing them and overriding them is not tyrannical. The notion that there is a contradiction in rejecting liberalism, but also embracing the definition of despot that "liberalism created" is a wonderful performance of mental gymnastics. Even Marxists view despots unfavorably, and Marxism is meant to counter liberalism, yet it is also simultaneously built upon it. You tried a ridiculous rhetorical maneuver here. You've correctly surmised that even from a Marxist framework despotic behavior is considered bad, but instead of that making you question whether it's a good idea you've decided that despotism is bad, therefore your ideas can't be considered despotism, because if they were they'd be bad. And you've redefined the word on this basis. edit: Also you're making a classic arguement for enlightened despotism in your attempt to say that's not what you're describing. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Sorry, to clarify: Most "absolute" rulers, especially ancient era ones, are never actually absolute. Most often the simple fact of not being present means that they have to rely a whole lot more on local groups to police each other/ prevent things. Needing others to carry out your orders because you can't do it personally yourself does not mean that the person is not an absolute ruler. You have no clue what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nickriccardi/status/1402740525128581122?s=21 Years of performative garment rending over this and it’s just....over
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Needing others to carry out your orders because you can't do it personally yourself does not mean that the person is not an absolute ruler. You have no clue what you're talking about. Did I say this? You can't be present to make sure that, say, the local satrap is doing his job. It means you have to rely on him to be doing this "properly" and you also know that if you piss him off too much he could raise an army and maybe even win. So you come to an understanding with him in order to make sure you are respected, your satrap knows his place, and you don't have to worry too much about going round to personally stamp your approval everywhere. You have to make sure that your satrap is the right person for the job, if you send him to the wrong place the locals might end up liking him more than you (in which case they become dangerous as rebels) or too little (in which case you end up with a rebellion and no tax income for a while). I mean one of the most fascinating ways an early medieval ruler got around this was to do what some of the early Carolingian kings did in what would become the Holy Roman Empire. They would have the traditional "monarch progress" around each individual area of the empire and basically make it very obvious that they expected to see that things were going fine as an attempt to stamp their own power onto the people they ruled. I always rather liked the idea of the king traveling around and making sure to visit every so often so that people wouldn't forget who he was, and I also kind of like it because it pushes back against the idea that people should have to go to the center of power in order to present themselves. Functionally every ancient state existed in a series of larger and smaller power blocs kind of pushing and testing each others limits. To a greater or lesser extent this was defined more by "tradition" than the direct rule of law that we have come to expect in the modern world. However I would personally say that a lot of the world is much closer to power bloc maneuvering than otherwise. We should, of course, endeavor to make the world a better place so that it does not need to be, but in a lot of cases that is a very hard thing to do. A cool example of the "tradition" getting chucked out of the window in a none European setting is during the so called "Three Kingdoms" period in China. Cao Cao was content to set himself up as "in charge of the Han empire", because people had been doing this for a while now. Making sure that their family was powerful, that they were really in charge and that there was very little chance of anything going on at court, meant that he was content to allow the Han dynasty to continue. It took his son to essentially decide "nah, let's make De Facto, De Jure, shall we?" to kick things off and end the idea of the Han ever returning to power. Thank you though! Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Millions have already perished under your precious rule of law. What exactly is the definition you are using for this? Are you just saying that if two things exist at once they have a 1:1 relationship? Because the exact same logic applies to: "Millions have already perished under your precious fluoridated water." "Millions have already perished under your precious organized sports." "Millions have already perished under your precious civil rights act." "Millions have already perished under your precious organized society." and "Millions have already perished under your precious domestication of the common dog."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:And the "progressive" Democrats are in charge now. Biden's a what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
I think any ruler, absolute or otherwise, needs to have certain stakeholders on their side. If you're the ruler in a society that say "King/Pharaoh/Cesar is the absolute ruler" but the majority of the nobility hates you, the majority of the merchant class (if it exists) hates you, the majority of the religious leaders hate you, the generals hate you, and a majority of the commoners hate you, there's a good chance you'll be deposed. Without like, actual literal superpowers, you'll always need to make sure some people are pleased with what you're doing or at least not overly pissed off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
How many people perished under anarchy We can average both out over time under each and decide which is preferable
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/nickriccardi/status/1402740525128581122?s=21 i mean they probably already found some other place they can make easier money at either in canada or some red state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Nevada dems sure are reacting to leftward movement with grace and aplomb https://twitter.com/KillGoldfish/status/1402706396035137538?s=20 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Did I say this? You can't be present to make sure that, say, the local satrap is doing his job. It means you have to rely on him to be doing this "properly" and you also know that if you piss him off too much he could raise an army and maybe even win. So you come to an understanding with him in order to make sure you are respected, your satrap knows his place, and you don't have to worry too much about going round to personally stamp your approval everywhere. You have to make sure that your satrap is the right person for the job, if you send him to the wrong place the locals might end up liking him more than you (in which case they become dangerous as rebels) or too little (in which case you end up with a rebellion and no tax income for a while). I'm actually going to jump in and say Josef is correct about this specific thing, absolutism is a "modern" development if our timeline includes Pharaohs. Rulers simply didn't exercise the same level of control that we typically think of when we think of a national government; mostly because the realities of the world made it impossible. That said absolutism is pretty much irrelevant to what was being discussed and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
Bootleg Trunks posted:Nevada dems sure are reacting to leftward movement with grace and aplomb Following in the proud tradition of state parties being utter poo poo shows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Bootleg Trunks posted:Nevada dems sure are reacting to leftward movement with grace and aplomb Cool! Now we just need to have both bishops excommunicate each other!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 23:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That said absolutism is pretty much irrelevant to what was being discussed and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. I sort of brought up the idea that our modern conception of "absolute" monarchs could be argued to be a renaissance era concept. People then said "But the pharaohs!" and I wanted to disagree. I'll stop now as this is clearly proving to be a distraction, but this was nice and I'm sorry if I am being daft. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You've correctly surmised that even from a Marxist framework despotic behavior is considered bad, but instead of that making you question whether it's a good idea you've decided that despotism is bad, therefore your ideas can't be considered despotism, because if they were they'd be bad. No, I correctly surmised that your attempt to point out a "contradiction" was facile. Marxists believe despots are undesirable because they are by definition evil and not concerned with justice. I've merely used the word as it is widely used and defined, where it often appears in the context of being tyrannical - even in Merriam-Websters. And no, I did not make a classic argument for enlightened despotism in my attempt to say that's not what I am describing, because that would not be despotic by definition. Your continued failure to figure out this very simple point is hilarious. Edit: And just to be clear, you believe despotic behavior is evil and that Joe Biden letting any of that slide is despotic behavior even if it arguably isn't evil? And you hold these contradictions in your head despite believing other people are engaging in contradictory behavior? Judakel fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
Nevada Dems moving the seat of power across the state from where all their voters are for the express purpose of making sure all the losers keep the power and money seems like a bold play. Let's see how it works out for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Nevada Dems moving the seat of power across the state from where all their voters are for the express purpose of making sure all the losers keep the power and money seems like a bold play. Let's see how it works out for them. it helps when their goal is not winning
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Nevada Dems moving the seat of power across the state from where all their voters are for the express purpose of making sure all the losers keep the power and money seems like a bold play. Let's see how it works out for them. It is a weird "spite your nose" move that is going to hurt the people doing it. The actual practical effect of this is minimal to nothing for national politics - these same people already quit and weren't going to be doing anything with NV Dems anyway + 90% of campaign money and organization is done by the individual candidates (who are all incumbents already and NV only has 4 Congressional districts and 1 is a super heavy R Gerrymander). It's mostly just a hilariously petty tantrum. The DNC still only recognizes the Nevada Democratic Party as the only official state party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MatthewFoldi/status/1402683523115458560 So, if the best they can do to scare people about increasing wages is a 4% increase in the prices on the Chipotle menu, well I dunno if you can exactly campaign on it Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's mostly just a hilariously petty tantrum. State party politics in a nutshell
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i mean they probably already found some other place they can make easier money at either in canada or some red state. I can't help but think back to the Black Gold episode of Knowing Better on Youtube. He did a really good deep dive into the particulars of the petrol industry and one thing I came away with is that without the fact that they can essentially write off their first 20% (it may be more) of operations tax free...they'd simply fall apart. Like the math for them just does not work properly anymore without these huge structural legal advantages that they've had for over a century.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It is a weird "spite your nose" move that is going to hurt the people doing it. Gonna have to start doing card checks at the door for meetings to see if the person is Democratic Party of Nevada or The Nevada Democratic Party. Donors given a paragraph long explainer to ensure they send their money to a PO box in trump country but not to worry about it or ask questions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It is a weird "spite your nose" move that is going to hurt the people doing it. doesnt this tweet contradict that? https://twitter.com/RoryDoesPhonics/status/1402456873677168643 am i misreading, or is it saying that the national dems are going to be bypassing the state party for the rival one?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 23:17
|
|