|
gurragadon posted:I think it's pretty important to get the writing or video or whatever out into the public though. Half of these "manifestos" are total nonsense, and the public deserves to know why their family, friends and neighbors are dying. Why? Apart from satisfying morbid curiosity, there's no value in the unfiltered thoughts of some crazed rando being blasted all over the news, least of all for the folks who just lost a family member in an act of senseless violence. To be clear, I'm not saying that the results of an investigation into their motives shouldn't be public, but that's wildly different than just "ctrl-c/ctrl-v"-ing some insane person's diary onto the nightly news.
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
gurragadon posted:Because people deserve information, and people who read these manifestos deserve to be rightfully upset that there loved one's died for such pointless reasons. They don't have to read them if they don't want to, but they should be able to easily. The reasons are obviously pointless. None of us need to read someone's journal to know that their reasons for killing a bunch of kids are pointless. And more importantly, releasing info like that just serves to reinforce the power fantasies of the next person to walk into a school and start shooting because (among many other, equally insane reasons) they see it as their way to be heard.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
Mizaq posted:What the gently caress is this poo poo? My grandpa ate well-done steak with ketchup. I did for my childhood as well. I bet lots of Gen X with grandparents that grew up during the depression or as farmers also did. He was very cautious of food-borne illnesses in undercooked meat. I don’t think attacking Trump on his eating steak or McDonalds is going to get any traction, plus it makes you look like some elite rear end in a top hat punching down. Who cares about the McDonalds, but joking about folks who order steak well done has been going on for longer than either of us has been alive. That's the whole point: It's a joke. It's funny that a guy worth a billion dollars goes to a restaurant and asks them to ruin a steak that costs more than I spend on food in a month. Let's not recast ribeyes and porterhouses as the food of the people just so we can make some wild "elitist" argument.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Hey, thanks for calling out the steak stuff MPF (and thanks for the mea culpa Gandhi), because stuff like that is so common that I barely take notice of it, which is a problem in and of itself, and also the first step towards actively playing into it. There is literally no cheap way to eat steak and it costs the same whether you take it raw or burnt to a crisp. Calling it elitism to make jokes about the correct level of doneness (medium rare) for a luxury food item does not even make sense.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Florida's legislature finally got around to repealing the law that would require elected officials in Florida to resign if they run for another office. That’s a bit surprising. I guess I gave a bit too much credibility to the rumors that the legislature was growing tired of him so blatantly using the governorship as a springboard to a national campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2023 21:07
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:The Democratic party establishment will never allow her to become the nominee, and even if she somehow made it to the general, the US electorate would never willingly choose a woman for president, so pick a more "realistic" option from your slate of milquetoast white men, please. A woman has already run as the Democratic Party’s nominee and won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. Obviously that’s not winning under the current system, but to see that happen less than a decade ago and then declare with absolute certainty that a woman would never win is absolutely bizarre.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2023 13:49
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Now, maybe there's something like a political war, but that war follows very specific rules. The main rule is "how much power you have is determined by how many votes you get." Hard disagree. The main rule is "how much power you have is determined by whose votes you get and how effectively you bend state apparatuses to maintain that power." Republicans have no problem understanding this. When Scalia died, they stole a Supreme Court seat. When Scott Walker lost the governorship to a democrat in Wisconsin, they held a lame duck session to reduce the power of the governor. When an abortion pill threatened their control over women, a judge acted way outside their purview to ban it. When republicans were one vote short of a supermajority in the NC state house, they convinced a democrat to defy the will of the voters who elected her and switch parties. It's a story playing out all over the country at every level of government.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:They were able to do this because people voted for them. If people hadn't voted for them they couldn't have done it. That's not the argument you were making. You specifically said that the amount of power you have is determined by the number of votes you get. Well a plurality of voters pulled a lever for the man who was constitutionally empowered to fill the vacant supreme court seat. If anything, the point you're making here supports my argument, which is that power is determined largely by whose votes you get, like the votes of people in states where nobody lives, which inexplicably grants the residents of those states a greater voice. Meanwhile, acting like the decisions of political appointees (such as certain judges or heads of state agencies) are not policy decisions is absolutely bizarre. This is what I was talking about when I said that holding power involves bending state apparatuses to your will. The choices of political appointees in charge of federal, state, and local agencies influence an absolutely massive amount of the day to day lives of citizens living within those areas, and oftentimes these decisions or directives are harder to revert than the "big decisions" being made in legislatures because of the combined effects of brain drain, neglected infrastructure, and lack of access.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Yeah and I am really, really regretting not putting in the clause "with some caveats" like I was considering. I thought it was obvious. Oh well. Except it's not true "with some caveats," it is demonstrably false for all the reasons I pointed out and plenty more. The fact that there is a relationship between votes and power does not mean it's accurate to describe them as directly related.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:It's not "demonstrably false," it's just that it's a gaussian function and not a binary one. If everybody gets half, pretty much nothing happens. For every bit more than half each side gets, they accomplish a bit more of their goals. If you get 33% of the vote, you're not getting any of what you want. If you get 66%, you're getting everything you want. In between those, there's a spectrum. There's no way to avoid votes, and the offices those votes afford you, affecting your ability to make policy. Popular vote totals were 1,350,083 votes for Republicans, and 1,124,962 votes for Democrats. Obviously there were some third party votes but I'm not going to run the county by county totals again at this moment so I'm referencing Wikipedia. In percentage terms, 53.6% for Republicans, and 44.6% for Democrats. Despite this, the makeup of the Wisconsin State Assembly is 64 Republican seats, and 35 Democratic seats. In percentage terms, 64.6% and 34.3% respectively. The WisDems actually lost 3 seats despite performing slightly better than 2020. That's not even the worst example in recent memory. Democratic voters delivered in Wisconsin in 2018, making up 53% of the state assembly votes, yet only receiving 36 seats out of a total of 99. Someone is bound to tell me how it's not a completely fair comparison because of the effects that districting has on voter motivation, and so I'll reiterate my point: power is determined by whose votes you get and how you use the structures of the state to entrench that power. Wisconsin is just a particularly egregious example. More importantly, this isn't even getting into the lasting impact that political appointees can have on government agencies, which, contrary to your claims here, do have a significant impact on policy even with thin majorities or divided governments. Mellow Seas posted:Hmm. We might be having a semantic argument here. The key word there is "directly" as in a direct relationship.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Power is a function of votes, that does not mean that function is f{x}=y. I have posted multiple specific examples of power being wielded not just in accordance with "the system," but to actively alter the processes and institutions of government in order to entrench that power. I would say that any understanding of power that doesn't account for those is, at best, oversimplified, and more likely just wrong. If you want to call that obvious, fine, but the person I replied to argued me on each of those points so that probably suggests it isn't. Baronash fucked around with this message at 18:18 on May 19, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The original point being made is that more votes are necessary to have the power needed to enact things we want. No, the original point being made was this: Mellow Seas posted:The main rule is "how much power you have is determined by how many votes you get." Baronash posted:power is determined by whose votes you get and how you use the structures of the state to entrench that power.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2023 18:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It depends. To give an extreme example, if the Dems were getting 90% of the votes and the GOP was only getting 10% of the votes, it would be extremely difficult to structure things to grant the GOP a majority, and doing so would almost certainly provoke a significant blowback that wouldn't necessarily be confined to just electoral politics. Correct. As I said previously, there's a relationship between votes and power. I just find it important to actually understand that relationship rather than oversimplifying it into an axiom that has no practical use. Jarmak posted:You've selectively edited that quote to only contain a small part of the original statement:. I didn't selectively edit anything. If someone if going to declare something "the main rule" then that statement should probably stand on its own.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
Let's go ahead and say that the full variety of opinions on Joe Biden's swimming preferences have been expressed and move on, please.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2023 02:11
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Is this a warning about discussing the Reade story at all, or just about the nude swimming thing? Just the swimming thing, which I think it is fair to say wasn't headed in anything approaching an interesting direction.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2023 03:36
|
|
|
It is abundantly clear that nobody is earnestly interested in discussing current events regarding Tara Reade except as a segue to her earlier allegations. I don't care what you believe in your heart of hearts, but we're not going to use CE to litigate the believability of sexual assault allegations.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2023 14:09
|
|
|
I'm pretty surprised by the lack of any consideration in that NYT article to the possibility that different people within an age cohort are voting in the two elections they focused on. Is it an 18% shift in the political opinions of specific voters, or partially/entirely a shift in who is voting and who is sitting it out.ex post facho posted:https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1664333235143188486 I'm not able to find an explanation for how this passed with a simple majority. Is anyone more familiar with the process who could explain that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2023 00:03
|
|
|
e: Whoops, wrong article
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:So I think there’s another side to the “science vs belief” coin, where positions that start out reasonable and fact-based can become inflexible and dogmatic. For example, studies have shown that most gender dysphoria in children abates with the onset of puberty. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to wonder if that means gd can be a natural phase or side effect of development, and if so, are puberty blockers the right course of action. In a (lowercase l) liberal environment, that discussion shouldn’t be considered trans-phobic. Well, let's see what the study you mislabelled as coming from the NIH had to say: quote:The most commonly used guidelines for the treatment of GD in children and adolescents are those of The Endocrine Society and the Standard of Care from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health,31 which are based on the so-called Dutch Model protocols published and practiced at the Amsterdam Gender Clinic in the Netherlands.32 According to your own source, you're making a false equivalency between prepubertal GD and treatment options designated for after the onset of puberty.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2023 02:53
|
|
|
the_steve posted:I'm honestly surprised that -nomics hasn't long taken its place alongside -Gate as "political phrasing that has been run into the loving ground and mashed into a fine paste" Probably at least partially because it doesn’t append as well as “-gate.” Imagine trying to say “Bushnomics” seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I'm sure they would have no problem going "The law that says very clearly the secretary of education has this power doesn't mean it because [insert bad rationale here]" Help me out. Is your argument that, in your view, the Supreme Court would toss any legal justification for student loan forgiveness, but the fact that they tossed the one Biden put forward is evidence that he wanted them to toss it? "It would be overturned regardless of the legal arguments used" doesn't square with "Biden used a specific legal argument in order to get it overturned by the SC"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:A reporter saying his sources in the administration are telling him the administration wanted this weak case tossed is the evidence that the administration wanted this weak case tossed. That's not what he's saying. Main Painframe actually explained that pretty well in the part of their post that you must have accidentally cut out when you responded to them: Main Paineframe posted:That's not quite what he's saying. He's saying that the executive doing it unilaterally was likely to be tossed by the courts, so administration officials that opposed it weren't inclined to push as hard against it because they figured it would die in the courts no matter what legal justification was used.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I actually did go back and read the article and Yglesias does seem to think the president has this authority: Again, you're using the fact that someone, somewhere was able to write up a legal justification for forgiveness through one legal avenue as proof that it would have prevailed, despite you yourself disagreeing with that idea. More importantly, the specific issues that his legal experts raised were ones of standing. In effect, they were arguing that nobody would have standing to sue because nobody would be a harmed party. That obviously is not the case, because the same supposed "harm" would have come to the same plaintiffs as this case.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:He didn't say at all that the anti-forgiveness people didn't fight it. He says "undecided officials" were swayed by the "high likelihood of this getting tossed out in court". It being a dead-end in court is the pivotal reason that undecided officials went with the pro side. This very likely outcome was the fulcrum point for them going forward with it in the first place. I think you are reading quite heavily into a couple sentence offhand tweet when a revelation like “Biden’s administration actually wanted the whole thing to fail” would be front page news. You still haven’t actually addressed the question I asked earlier. If you don’t think the Supreme Court would have accepted any argument, then why is the administration’s choice of argument proof that they desired that the whole thing collapse?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:No, he seems to just defer to people with law degrees who tell him it will work. PostNouveau posted:Yes, it is very unfortunate that he has the sources on this one. I think him being a dipshit is a big part of the reason why he's not going to write a story saying "Hey the administration threw this case" even though it's what his sources say. He doesn't see the impact.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I'm not making a legal argument using Yglesias. I'm saying he has sources who say the administration threw this case on purpose. That's not a legal argument at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Undecided officials were clearly the critical element because the likely failure helped the proponents win the intra-administration battle by nudging them. This was the pivot point on which the policy path was decided, according to these sources. I'd also appreciate that if you're going to continue to use "Matt's lawyer friends said it would work" as the bedrock of your argument, that you actually engage with this rather than repeatedly ignore it: Baronash posted:There are people with law degrees at literally every quadrant of this issue, including ones on the Supreme Court who wrote dissents on this case. That is not, in itself, the proof you seem to think it is. Additionally, as I already posted, the lawyers he consulted said its success hinged on their belief that there wouldn't be plaintiffs who would have ground to sue, which is demonstrably false given that most of the same plaintiffs in this case would have been able to sue under the alternative forgiveness scheme.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:It says it helped proponents win the battle. It's the only thing he notes about his sources say about the battle in the administration. We can keep junking up the thread, but it's not my fault you don't like what his sources are saying about the administration's decision-making. PostNouveau posted:I'm only talking about Matt's lawyer friends in relation to what Matt thinks. I don't really care what they think, only that he accepts their opinions. PostNouveau posted:Biden cut a deal during the debt ceiling talks to end the repayment pause in October. Unclear if that's set legislatively or if he's just going to honor the agreement to keep his word to the GOP.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 19:08
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I've already responded to this, you're just trashing up the thread to be obstinate at this point. That tweet supports my statement right before it "He did this because they knew it wouldn't survive a court challenge." It absolutely does not. All that tweet supports is "some administration officials thought forgiveness would fail." Everything else you've posted is just vibes, made clear by posts like this: PostNouveau posted:I'd actually guess Biden was the undecided one swayed by the fact that the court would strike it down. It's ultimately his call after all, so it's hard to see how undecided people below him matter all that much.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Then why didn’t the last fascist president? He did.They tried to justify it by claiming the need to "protect federal buildings," but CBP was brought in because of DHS' loyalty to Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2023 14:38
|
|
|
haveblue posted:This is a bit of a change of strategy for the studios, who were previously on board with a plan to "allow things to drag on until union members start losing their apartments and losing their houses" (this is a direct quote from an anonymous studio executive). Maybe having a famous biker gang leader responding with "there's a lotta ways to lose your house" made them decide that's not a path to go all the way down. If starving them out was truly their strategy and not just a threat, there wouldn't have been any reason to state it publicly. I'm of the mind that it has taken them so long to come back to the table because the AMPTP is a really big tent and your Netflixes and your Lionsgates probably have wildly different pain points and areas they're willing to compromise on.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The full court filing includes 37 pages of posts where he plans out how he will assassinate Alvin Bragg and Leticia Wright
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2023 15:02
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:hmmm, people are seeing an awful lot of sneaky flying objects in the airspace between israel and iran and over korea I would be interested to see how much this heatmap of reported sightings would align with a heatmap of flight paths of US military aircraft. Like, are we just seeing where our planes fly the most, or are there actually concentrations of these sightings in certain locations? Baronash fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Sep 1, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The FDA has determined that one of the most common over the counter cold, allergy, and decongestant treatments does not work. This could result in many of the most popular over the counter decongestant and cold treatment varieties being pulled from shelves and shaking up the market for cold and sinus medication. I would have thought this would be obvious to anyone who had ever tried it. Y’all were arguing over astrology while folks were peddling serious bullshit like “phenylephrine actually works.”
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2023 21:39
|
|
|
Seriously, if you have been suffering with these sugar pills, go to a pharmacist and pick up real pseudoephedrine to have it on hand for your next cold. It’s going to blow your mind.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
Morrow posted:The fundamental issue is lack of housing supply. You can regulate the supply of housing all you want, but you're rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. The article from that tweet (or at least the non-paywalled portion of it) has a number of nice graphs of the relevant census data, and I think does a good job of dispelling the notion that there is a large supply of otherwise rentable housing that is being kept unoccupied for reasons that an occupancy tax would be likely to fix. Seems like the data more or less shows that, nationwide, places sit vacant for a few weeks between owners/tenants, and that vacancy rate gets even lower in well-populated and desirable areas.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
If folks are going to relitigate Bush v. Gore here, I'd ask that you at least do it without just shitposting back and forth.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2023 16:36
|
|
|
Strategically there is also the hope that any speaker candidate will see what happened to McCarthy and might be willing to enter a power sharing agreement with Democrats in order to shore up support against the nutjob wing of their own party.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
Wanted to highlight a current event in case folks don't typically venture out of their bookmarks. The latest D&D feedback thread is currently open here. Definitely interested in whatever you folks have to say, and Koos has a couple of specific topics he thought might be relevant in the second post in the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:They don't need to go turn on CNN. They can just scroll to the next video, and watch a clip of Anderson Cooper downplaying it. We do this on SA all the time, where we post clips of cable news. If someone’s exposure to a particular news source is 1 minute snippets created by whoever happens to pop up in their feed, then they are in no way in a position to be assessing the credibility of those sources. What a bizarre argument.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2023 17:48
|
|