Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

That may be your personal judgement but other people may not share your personal judgement.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

... haven't you said the exact opposite? Pretty sure I've seen you ranting about the immorality of having kids, particularly more than one or two.

On the scale of human civilization and social responsibility, having too many children during the climate crisis is morally wrong. That's not something that should be weighed in the same context as the individual decision not to have children.

It cannot be reckoned in any meaningful way both because there are billions of us, and having children at all isn't right or wrong. When I discuss population control the presence and meaning of individual humans is erased, because the only conversation on that worth having is in terms of mass cultural norms and legal systems.

[Criptfeind]

That may be your personal judgement but other people may not share your personal judgement.

This conversation has been enlightening to this fact, so, thanks.

[nenjin]

So that's /thread then?

[Max™]

I think that polite agreement means it's /internet actually, wrap it up folks!

[mainiac]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_odpp4Bgfw&feature=youtu.be&t=14s

[Reelya]

The Donald only hires the best people to build stages. But "best" is a diminishing quality when you run all the established carpenters out of business by not paying them.

[smjjames]

If it had collapsed on Trump, we all know who he'd blame, HILLARY!

Russia gets it's election 'monitors' rejected, and yet they're baffled? heh, besides, they'd be breaking the law in several states if they tried to 'monitor' polling stations as foriegn 'monitors'.

I know other countries routinely send observers, but they're exactly that, observers. I don't think any foriegn government has ever sent diplomats to 'monitor' the polling stations in the US anyway.

[Reelya]

That's a clear double-standard, and it's a double-standard in the language used: we send "poll observers", whereas they send "poll monitors". That distinction is in English so it's clearly not a distinction that originated with the Russians.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'd accept monitors from France. Not from Russia. That's no more legitimate than US election monitors in Venezuela.

[Reelya]

I wasn't thinking of the Russians specifically, USA rejects outside observers from literally anywhere, while basically blowing a gasket if anyone was to bar their own observers.

The difference in how the media phrases it ("how dare they try and monitor our election. We merely want to observe theirs!") is a pretty interesting point. Which like I said is a distinction in English so it's fairly certain that distinction is occurring on our end, not theirs.

[Max™]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_odpp4Bgfw&feature=youtu.be&t=14s

I posted that a while back, I remain amused at the reporter being unable to even act surprised or care.

[Wolfhunter107]

That's a clear double-standard, and it's a double-standard in the language used: we send "poll observers", whereas they send "poll monitors". That distinction is in English so it's clearly not a distinction that originated with the Russians.

...No, it isn't. Our monitors are impartial and are sent to nations where it's likely that the elections are going to be rigged. On the other hand, it's pretty damn obvious that Russia is sending monitors for the sole purpose of disputing the legitimacy of the elections. That's a hell of a difference, by any metric.

[Reelya]

Uh yeah, impartial American observers. A long history of US-backed coups against elected governments in Latin America suggests that there's little basis for that. USA has solidly backed the Far Right for decades in Latin America and been involved with some pretty dodgy poll-related stuff. "Impartial" really requires you to not be taking sides in politics. America very clearly takes sides, it's not a thing you guys even try and pretend to hide.

Maybe they magically started being impartial during the Obama administration, mainly because Obama has tended to butt out of Latin politics. Up until GW Bush however, there was a lot of side-taking, very little evidence of impartiality. Up until 2008, USA backed the far-right to the hilt. e.g. in 2008 the neo-fascist government in Colombia was basically setting up the pretexts to invade two of their neighboring democratic nations, and the US Congress and Bush administration were basically cheerleaders for a war (on the Colombian side) which would have destabilized the entire region. It was only Brazil stepping in that prevented that war. So much for impartial America keeping stability.

[smjjames]

I wasn't thinking of the Russians specifically, USA rejects outside observers from literally anywhere, while basically blowing a gasket if anyone was to bar their own observers.

I don't know where you're getting that from, we allow observers all the time, they just can't interact with the pollsters.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/russia-monitoring-election-pr-stunt-state-230091

Hell, we even invited some from the OSCE to come observe: http://www.osce.org/pc/227531?download=true (link just opens a PDF, doesn't actually download anything)

What we're objecting at are poll site monitors from Russia specifically, which is totally different from being an observer.