|
some plague rats posted:To lighten the mood, I was reading one of the bad threads and I ran across this extremely darkly funny excerpt from Yesterday's Man: While that is an entertaining anecdote, please stick to current events.
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Oh yeah it’s a loving problem with a horrifying history. I think back, would I have fought for this person to swim if they had been on my team, yes. But is the decision being made by governing body the one that is fair to the competitors as a group, yes. Interestingly, women have an advantage over men in marathon swimming, but not regular swimming events. As far as I know marathon swimming is the only physical sport where women's performance exceeds men's, but I'm not at all certain.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 05:33
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:So? It's not inconceivable that the Olympics would ban certain medical interventions. We have the case where they attempted that with Oscar Pistorius due to his amputated legs, or the fact that they don't allow anyone on the heart medicine trimetazidine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 06:01
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Pistorius was literally using an assistive device, albeit to overcome a disability. Trimetazidine is banned because it’s a performance enhancing drug that people who don’t need it take to get an edge. That’s only a valid comparison if there’s a concern that people will go through a male puberty to get a similar edge. Yes, I wasn't comparing it to male puberty or any trans issue, I was comparing it to your example of them not banning someone for an advantageous intervention on club foot, to show that they may very well do that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 06:19
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I don't understand how either of these posts are about electoralism. They're both about what the Democratic legislators can or can not do. Does "electoralism" cover elected officials even outside of elections? Indeed. I suppose it's because electoralism, or rather its absence, is being used as some sort of synecdoche for illegal or outside-the-norm actions by government officials. Not because of any equivalency between that and direct action, but because both are advocated by the same groups and ideologies, or because both are outside of the law. But either way it does appear to be imprecise language. As for "electoralism chat" being forbidden in this thread, I'm hesitant to do that because anything that's directly relevant to news being posted ought to be fair game. Having limits on how you can discuss the matter of the thread is, well, not productive to discussion. On the other hand, the value, or lack thereof, of electoralism is something that's already been debated at length in this thread, and it often feels like users are just picking scabs when it comes to the topic rather than trying earnestly to learn something from each other. So all in all I would prefer just to enforce the rules as written, ensuring that arguments which happen over electoralism involve fresh material, and are at least tangentially related to the thread topic. Which in many cases would be talking in specific terms about what actions could be taken as a reaction to whatever the news is, and then simply determining whether they're illegal, legal, or questionably legal, and leaving it at that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2022 04:23
|
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:So uh, if this thread isn’t for discussing the single largest current event in the last 50 years of US history and the ramifications to the party that is currently in power, what is this thread for? I'm afraid there may be a misunderstanding. I don't think it ought not to be discussed here. Though you can also discuss it in the SCOTUS thread which may have more a focus on the court's history and get more in-depth.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2022 06:43
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:I feel like it would be hard to throw a Big Mac with such small hands. It would just come apart. *Struggling to maintain my composure.* ... indeed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I'm pretty certain that the combination of tiny hands and the extra frictional co-efficient of a sesame seed bun compared to a regular one means that there's a very high chance that a perfect spiral was achieved, and the big mac in question hit the wall like it lobbed by a 5 star QB recruit. The plate was obviously thrown immediate after, as a statement against the wasted nature of such a beautiful sight 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
That would be the opposite of learned helplessness.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:She spent her whole career sucking up to rich racists and throwing minorities in jail to assure said racists she was on their side, and as such has hit the highest level of favor a minority can reach in the eyes of the white elite: barely tolerated Where has she implied certainty that she'll be president?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 07:02
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I'm of the opinion that you need a person like Huey Long who is willing to do morally questionable things in the advancement of a leftist ideology. I do not think politics is fair or moral and is strictly about power at any costs and thus requires a degree of corruption and strong personalities to carry the whole movement forward. There never would've been a Bolshevik takeover of Russia without Lenin's single-minded and relentless pursuit of political power. We need a guy like that here, who has the salesmanship skills to steal many of the people we ideologically despise right here in this thread. Because the ancestors of those same people were out there agitating for labor rights and new deal era policies during the depression and then we lost them in the 1970s to Reagan. Do you mean that we need someone like that here in the thread, or the type of people you're talking about are here in the thread?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
To clarify something last night, you can post paywall bypasses in D&D, and I would go so far as to encourage doing so if necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's a terrible poll question, it'd be hard for it to be more designed to generate that result. Lol, I honestly can't remember any polls with more leading wording. At least from one that isn't a naked marketing exercise. This is a real university.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
Thank you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:I guess I just don't understand, beyond lol Republicans are evil lol, how a law can be passed in a given state that makes a supposed crime committed in another state prosecutable in the "home" state. If I live in South Dakota, and drive to North Dakota to rob a store, how can South Dakota prosecute me for anything? States can't prosecute you for anything, but there is legal precedent in Texas for allowing civil litigation on the issue, and anti-abortion lawmakers are pursuing a strategy to introduce this in other parts of the country. The Biden justice department has warned states that it would fight these laws for violating the interstate commerce clause, however. Full details here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion-state-lines/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:But why would the GOP ever agree to such a thing? We have a pretty long and storied history of the GOP playing Lucy with the football with Dems whose brain damage is so severe that they're still running the playbook on Bill Clinton's Third Way politics. What are some historical examples of this comparable to the current situation?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
As a reminder, when discussing presidential candidates, please keep the material interesting. That is to say, avoid unsupported expressions of your feelings on them and stick to facts about them or original arguments for why they would or would not be a good choice. This isn't directed at anyone in particular.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This is common knowledge. Are you not old enough to know that fiscal conservatives have been using christian extremists for decades, trying to throw them the bare minimum number of bones to keep voting? Well they finally lost control. Hawley recently commented that the alliance of convenience was over and they were in control now There certainly is some tension between those two parts of the coalition. I find it easier to see with Catholics than fundamentalists, as the former, despite being culturally conservative on topics such as abortion, also has ethics of care for the poor, workers being able to make enough to support a family, and opposition to war (or really just in favor of Just War, but that is anti-war by American standards). However, whether the Dobbs v. Jackson decision will damage this alliance is not clear cut. As easily as the narrative you describe, one could also say that the Christians have more reason to stay with the neoliberals now that they've proven they can provide what's desired.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:This is a bullshit probe. "Stale argument" is a bad reason to probe someone who is correct. There's no fresh argument to make because the Dems haven't changed their operating procedures in the past decade. They've done this since my first votes in 2008, they're doing it now, and there's no reason to think they won't do it in the future. It doesn't matter whether they were correct or not. If you don't believe there are any points to be made about a certain subject that everyone reading hasn't heard before, then it would be better not to make any.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 02:59
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Surely claiming that the Democrats don't actually have control of the Senate because of Manchin and Sinema is equally stale. Yes, I wouldn't like to see that either. cat botherer posted:So that rule must only apply to leftists then, because I see the same centrist arguments repeated here a lot, with no probes. Please report them if that is the case.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:No, it’s not as good of a forum when everyone is probed. Then please refrain from complaining that they are not probed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:What is the proper behavior if someone makes an argument that would be normally refuted by making a stale point? Should we just let it stand uncontested or what I've allowed that before as long as the refutation is direct and robust.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:In what way was Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!'s post insufficiently direct and robust? It wasn't a refutation of the idea that Sinema and Manchin don't vote with the Dems enough to get progressive legislation passed - just as pointing out Sinema and Manchin, in turn, is not a refutation of the idea that Democrats control all three branches of government. They're rhetorical points that go past each other and I'm tired of seeing this argument. It's actually a good example of why the rule exists. cat botherer posted:I’m complaining about the discrepancy and the amount. I don’t want more probing, so I’m not going to report a quarter of the posts ITT. For whatever reason, leftists get probed a lot more than centrists, which discourages these points of view. I don’t want to make it worse by reporting people constantly myself. I wonder if this high school debate clube vibe has something to do with a former sub-forum of D&D getting more than twice the readership that this one does. If there is a discrepancy in the amount, it would likely be caused by the fact that there are more leftists in this area of D&D than centrists. I don't factor in ideology that way when handling reports, and I encourage my other mods not to do so either. The only possible bias is that because I consume leftist media more than centrist media, I'm more likely to recognize common leftist arguments and find them tiresome. Please PM me for further discussion on this topic, as I feel we're close to exhausting it and getting in the way of the thread's purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 04:17
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I'm sure I speak for the D&D mods when I say that if you remove all the federal agents, russian bots, and proudy boys cosplaying as leftists D&D has something like 5x as many real users. I highly doubt that is why. One should also remove Bernie Bros, Dean Screamers, Jesse Jackoffs, and Roosevelt Ruffians.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
Papercut posted:There's no reason to expect an equal number of probes between whoever you perceive as "leftists" and "centrists" in a thread, and even assuming that the "leftists" do get probed more, there are tons of possible fair reasons for that (e.g. there are more of them in general, their arguments are bad, the way they present their arguments is stupid/counterproductive/rude, etc). Gumball Gumption posted:If anything I just see it as a sign that mods are not proactive enough. Stale arguments are a great reason to probe people here but it's also obvious that if your stale argument doesn't offend anyone it gets by because it wasn't reported. So you can easily get away with a lot of boring and pointless white noise about how politics make you feel as long as none of those feelings are too strong. People should also eat a probe for making a boring post like that when we have many places for boring posts and only one place like D&D for serious discussions. If anything we would benefit from more proactive mods who feel the freedom to kick out any and all white noise posting, not just the angry ones which do tend to lean left here. Son of Thunderbeast posted:I think that if the rules were robust enough and set up right, it really shouldn't matter who's doing the probing, and an equal number of probes would be dealt to all "sides" (if we must frame it that way). The current set of rules is definitely a strong move in the right direction, but (from the sidelines) there is a noticeable lopsidedness. I think the rules should be treated as a living document under periodic revision, and every so often issues can be identified, evaluated, and then addressed via addendums to the rules, whether that's by revising existing ones, adding new ones, or removing deprecated ones. Examples and precedent-setting posts can be linked to for the sake of illustration, which would enhance the accessibility and ease of understanding to anyone referencing them, which should reduce overall friction. The rules can be revisited every so often, whatever period the mods decide would be best, until an equilibrium is achieved. That's my two cents anyhow. Agreed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 06:25
|
|
|
Trazz posted:Which is why it should be followed up with severance("I'm not going to be around you if you're gonna be like that") Gumball Gumption posted:"So you're telling me I've annoyed you so much you'll gently caress off and let me be a racist piece of poo poo with no push back? Works for me, see ya" This topic has already been covered extensively in its own thread, which both of you posted in.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
Trazz posted:Yeah but you might notice that topic is currently locked Yes, because it had ceased to be fruitful in offering new ideas, and the current conversation doesn't appear to be contradicting this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
Trazz posted:I was unaware that "offering new ideas" was a criteria, I thought it was a thread to talk about our own personal experiences with such matters, and in light of RvW being overturned I'm sure we'll hear lots of new stories about people cutting off friends and relatives because of that as well\ Sharing personal experiences wasn't the specific purpose. It was about the topic in general. Please PM me if you'd like to discuss this further.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
Trazz posted:I don't have PMs I've queued platinum for you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I'm thinking it's more likely that her sexuality would come into play under a Dem president but maybe not under a GOP president, and the Russians took that into account. Our civilian prison system doesn't use penal colonies, as far as I know. It could be argued that our military detention system does, depending on what you would consider a colony, and whether you consider exclusive use for detention a necessity, but it could, for example, apply to Guantanamo Bay.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:There's also Hunter's phone list with his dad listed as Pedo Peter alongside his stepmom (Biden's deep cover nic was Peter Henderson, after a Clancy character) but that's gotta be a 4chan 'shop, right? RIGHT? Is there evidence of this besides a 4chan post?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This is going to really tarnish the good name of noted non-rapist non-racist Joe Biden. Polls conducted in May of 2020 indicated that either 45% or 68% of voters don't believe Joe Biden is a rapist, so there is at least some room for his reputation to be damaged in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I would also guess that there is a solid 20% (possibly more) of irredeemable chuds who instinctively answer yes to any question of "Do you think (Democrat_Name) is guilty of (Horrible_Felony)". There does seem to be a strong political allegiance effect, as Republicans believed Reade at a higher rate than Democrats despite not being the party, erm, known for believing such allegations.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:As much evidence for it as that of the content of the post to which I was replying: Yours was reported and that one wasn't. I also wasn't familiar with this news story and didn't know what "iCloud" referred to. Thank you for clarifying.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Do reports link back to posts in order to give them context? Or does a reported post stand alone as singular text without context? There is a link to the context, but in the report the post appears by itself. In this case, your clarification helped me understand the context, because I didn't realize Mr. Trotsky was talking about the same thing as you, and the exact nature of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Thanks for the clarification; maybe it'd be a good idea for mods to click through for context in case overzealous reporting banks on their not doing so. We do try, and in cases where the context doesn't make sense to us or we lack the time to go through all of it we err on the side of taking no action rather than taking potentially incorrect action.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:Galaxy brain legal question: is there anything besides decorum that prevents the President from going, "Actually, I think Marbury v Madison was decided wrongly and therefore judicial review doesn't exist."? It's not in the Constitution and exists only because the SC says it does. As the SC drifts further from public opinion it seems like it would be easier and easier to do. In the future, it may be helpful to search a thread to see if your question has been asked and answered.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2022 06:27
|
|
|
RandomUserString posted:During his campaign for the Presidency, Biden campaigned on his experience in the Senate and as Vice-President in the Obama administration, and promised that he would be able to get support from "three, four or five Republicans". To be very precise, he didn't say he himself would persuade the Republican senators, but that they would have an "epiphany" after Trump left, perhaps due to a lack of Trump's "vindictiveness" toward those who displeased him. He was still wrong or lying of course. To answer your question, if there are 2 senators who regularly fail to vote with the Democrats, and 52-53 Senators were Democrats, there would be no magic necessary for Democrats to be able to pass legislation. However, this does assume that the new Democratic senators elected were not similar to Manchin and Sinema. If we assume, based on the Senate's current makeup that Democrats have a 2/50 chance of being like Manchin and Sinema, then the probability of neither of the new senators being like them would be 92%. some plague rats posted:My personal take is that you can combine the two options and form (iii) Biden, who has been getting his wallet inspected by the GOP since BEFORE his brain turned to soup, honestly believed he could get republicans on side because he genuinely doesn't seem to realise that the presidency would put him in a position where they want different things than he does. It may be a case for Hanlon's razor, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2022 06:40
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Ah, sorry, I didn't realize you meant only leftist voters when you stated "And that will make the Democrats themselves a harder sell to voters in future elections". Thank you for elaborating on that. Please refrain from making a loaded statement like this. The confusion currently occurring between yourself and Willa is the exact reason precise language and arguments are prized.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:We see this all the time though, which is that especially on the right, the window continually shifts to the right in what discourse is acceptable, and Trump is behind on things like the vaccines which the GOP is strongly 100% against. But Trump likes to tout his claims that he is the reason that they exist (which is bullshit but he does this all the time). A correction: the GOP is not strongly 100% against vaccines. A majority of Republican voters are vaccinated. However a majority of Republicans (though not 100%) do oppose vaccine mandates, according to the most recent polling I could find. The national GOP platform doesn't mention anything about vaccines or mandates.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2022 22:30
|
|