Print

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

[smjjames]

First time I've EVER heard of the pico/nano gender wierdness.

Heres a real wtf, apparently the judicial branch page on the WH website got deleted. I'm erring on the side of sheer incompetence than actual malice here, but still, the heck?

[Strife26]

Trump is running the country like a business smjjames, and sometimes that means telling a department "you're fired." If you can do it via electronic means, that's even better.

[Reelya]

I never personally encountered any strong SJWisms in college, even in my interactions with the communication studies staff (who did have some of the weaker tendencies of it, in fairness), but I did once hear from someone else about an English instructor who opened her class with an aggressive speech about how she would broke no "mansplaining" from any of the male students in lecture or writing and would report violators for bigotry. So, dodged a bullet on not getting that class...

<applies gender based insult designed to invalidate opinions> => <accuses those who disagree of bigotry>
Yeah, good one.

I was thinking about the "manspreading" thing the other day btw. The narrative is that men sit aggressively and that women are too weak to ask them to scoot over, apparently. And then of course they make videos showing the problem, which basically consist of women physically assaulting the men in some cases. So it's an excuse to make videos of those people actively bullying random strangers, on the pretext of defending the fair seats from sexist sitting. Why not encourage women to speak up about it? Not once did they ever show a woman saying "excuse me, please scoot over k thx" because the men would almost certainly have gone "oh sorry, my bad" thus deflating the narrative of "hostile sitting". Encouraging women to speak up if they have a problem would truly empower women. But that goes against the narrative. The only really logically retort would be "women shouldn't have to ask, men should just get out of our way". but that in itself has a ton of issues.

[smjjames]

Kind of getting offtopic with the gender derail, just saying. I don't have a problem with the gender topic itself, but it IS a derail.

[Reelya]

You're getting stroppy because your nanogender side is coming out.

[Neonivek]

Mansplaining is typically used by more aggressive feminist sects as a method of keeping men from the conversation. It shouldn't be taken seriously at all! Nor should it be considered part of mainstream feminism or really be allowed to enter feminism period.

Kind of getting offtopic with the gender derail, just saying. I don't have a problem with the gender topic itself, but it IS a derail.

On topic. Trump is President.

Anyhow I am waiting to see what Trump will do full swing. I have a feeling gender will factor in at some point.

Ignoring the numerous either exaggerated or fake stories on Trump Induced violence (Not that it hasn't happened... so much that... well... How can we forget the person who beat herself up and then blamed Trump Supporters... Only to be found out later that yeah... she made it all up)

[Reelya]

Hmm, though any movement must distance themselves publicly from their worst elements if they want the claim "they don't represent us" to be taken seriously. With feminism, that's sort of been a mixed bag. ... Which I won't go into here (but it involves many pro-fem sites containing fact-sheet statisitcs which can be easily contradicted by checking reliable third-party data, data taken out of context or misleading framing of report conclusions to promote an activists specific agenda. This data distortion ultimately fails, because while it's an effective "call to arms", unreliable and pessimistically framed data prevents optimal strategies from being adopted and agreed on, and also prevents you from measuring real gains).

I would say that the Republicans should do that with the further alt-right conspiracy people, but it's so up in the air right now, since that faction is in fact now running the show. Normally you do call on a movement's leaders to distance themselves from the loons, but there's no daylight between the leaders and the loons at the moment.

[smjjames]

Pfft, they've been embracing the loons for decades now, which is how they got to this point, and there's no daylight between the leaders and the loons because the leader IS the loon.

[Frumple]

Trump is running the country like a business smjjames, and sometimes that means telling a department "you're fired." If you can do it via electronic means, that's even better.

Well, not like a business. More like a business ran by trump. These are different things. The former can have competence involved without outside interference.

If a business was going to fire the judiciary branch, the webpage would still be there and most of the country convinced it exists, but the totality of the branch would consist of one or two interns fending off calls and whoever's left finishing off their current project(s) before being let go. Any internal conflict would be unseen by the public and that enforced by NDAs, previous contracts would be fulfilled, cancellation clauses idly invoked on any maintenance or guarantee issues, and attempts at forming new contracts/orders/etc. quietly deflected until the potential customers (/ customer equivalents) finds an alternative and stops trying.

Y'really gotta' remember trump was pretty terrible at business, by just about every metric save inheritance. What actions he may imply represent good business practices, are generally not actually good business practices. Or business practices at all, often enough, unless you count confidence tricks as a business.

... basically, please don't tar businesses with that jackass's brush. Some of them may deserve it, but many of them at least has technical competence in their hands even if their ethical qualities are lacking, and if nothing else expertise of that nature deserves enough respect it doesn't deserve that.

[Reelya]

Trump should run this like a business. Any state which doesn't return a profit should be sold off to venture capitalists. These are the top 10 net takers of federal dollars:

10. Missouri
9. West Virginia
8. Kentucky
7. South Dakota
6. Montana
5. Tennessee
4. Louisiana
3. Alabama
2. New Mexico
1. Mississippi

The NATO logic really needs to apply to states here. How about we allow other states to buy chunks of these states? If you're a net taker, then a net giver state is allowed to purchase chunks of land from you in a forced sale. Even better, combine the Dakotas. You don't need two. Then you can bring in Puerto Rico as the 50th state. And think of all the commerce from updating atlasses.

[Radio Controlled]

Man, if things keep going south at this rate you guys are gonna hit Mexico, and right now that'd just get awkward.

[Reelya]

To be honest if they keep going south as far as Panama then those areas would get a boost.

Many of those tiny nations have massive inequality and a highly corrupt "ruler" class whom are mostly related to one another (family ties going back to the colonial days). .e.g. one time I was reading some stuff about Guatemala, population 15 million, and they have 10 million people below the poverty line (the percentage below the poverty line is actually increasing rapidly). Out of remaining, only a small number are middle/upper class who have good jobs, and most of them can trace their family back to just under a dozen old-money colonial "families" and I've heard who you're related to is basically how you get a job. So it's got a very "small town vibe" but in all the bad ways.

~~~

[PTTG??]

While it is easy to assume that Trump is incompetent -- and believe me, he certainly puts forth the image -- but twice now his opponents have underestimated him to their peril.

It verges on the conspiratorial, but what if Trump knows what he's doing? Or, if not Trump, Bannon? That this chaos is the ends, or perhaps a means to some future manipulation? To draw a parallel, a student who gets 45% on a test clearly didn't study; a student who gets exactly 0% clearly worked very hard indeed.

With this (again, unsupported) assumption, what would the goal be in creating the chaos?

A few options come to mind:

- An immediate controversy to drive liberals out of the woodwork in the government. Those that oppose the administration might hide until a more opportune time, while this large controversy will cause them to rise up at this time of the administration's choosing.

- An attack on the integrity of the United States. Perhaps Bannon or others believes that he cannot bring about his fascist agenda so long as the institutions of the US are healthy (which, I should hope, is true). Weakening these institutions by causing them to fight among themselves (such as turning state reps against state police) cracks the foundations of government, giving the roots of fascism space to grow.

-A Producers-style intended flop. Perhaps Trump intends to fail in such a way that his own agenda is served. Heck, he may have doubled-down on gold and shorted dollars and intends to crash the economy; this would explain his failure to release his taxes.

- Earnest idealism. I suppose it should not be ignored that Trump/Bannon very well might believe -- or have chosen to represent people who believe -- that Islam is a threat and that his ban is morally justified. If this directive comes from Bannon, this would explain his position on the NSC.

These are only four of a multitude of potentials from one assumption. The core of this, however, is a warning: We must be cautious not to underestimate Bannon and his lackeys.

[Phmcw]

Or Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do for the reason he listed?

Banning temporary citizens from a series of hotbed of Islamic terrorism until they rework their admission criteria is rather logical. Giving priority to Christians, clearly more at risks, makes perfect sense.

Mexico is one step away from a civil war and cannot control its own border (due to US own war on Drug but that's another issue) so making sure that the US keep it under control makes sense. Trump seems to also favor a Keynesian approach, so a big boost in public spending that goes in great part to American workers makes sense too. And his departure from neo-liberal free trade mondilisation makes sense economically (and is being praised by the unions).

I think he's heading for a string of easy and hard hitting victories there. Thawing the relations with Russia is also great, and they have a clearly huge potential for growth, especially since climate change may be profitable to them...

[Strife26]

As a fraction of total recent terror attacks, it's likely undefined. Besides, we all know that the intelligence apparatus stops ████████ every ███████ at a cost of a mere █████████ with the only laws violated ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ and ██████████.