Print

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

[smjjames]

No, his supporters would have gone 'Take him seriously not literally!' I don't recall Trump successfully out impossibling his opponents because they didn't try to.

Also, I've read that the New Green Deal that got leaked was a very rough draft that wasn't even close to being ready for release, so, it's not really the best example to use.

[Max™]

Around here, it's hated because it's from somewhere else, and having unified teaching standards in the US is vile and loathsome.

I've heard some people complain that it mandates too much in the way history is taught, which paints the southeast US in a less than stellar light, but I've heard the contrary too so I don't know what to believe.  I haven't really looked into it too deeply.

The southeast is *real* picky about how we are portrayed historically. I was taught the whole state's rights spiel.

They're really big on denying reality in the southeast, to the point that they paint Lee as some hero who actually wanted to abolish slavery when in fact he said it was probably for the best that black people were enslaved, at least until divine providence could lift them out of it, and that it was a shame that white people had to help them out by forcing them into slavery.

It's why you see people acting outraged about nazis with torches chanting around a statue of Lee because "white supremacists shouldn't tarnish his image" which was what again? Shitbag was a white supremacist, straight up, just because he didn't particularly care about jewish anything doesn't make it less vile.

Myself I came from a weird liberal enclave of Texas known as Dallas, which is so weird I was literally shocked to learn the state is a republican stronghold. I had my own weird sheltering though, as I was puzzled when I realized I had just assumed everyone took Texas History in school, like, what the fuck else would you learn instead?

[SalmonGod]

This says exactly what I felt in response to most criticisms of Bernie in 2016, but wasn't able to express as coherently.

And it may be the most important thing to understand about politics right now.

From the article: 'But I don’t want to be controversial, so let me make up a more sci-fi premise.
Let’s pretend there was a climate disaster that threatens extinction of life on the planet. '

@author: Nice sci-fictioning of Global Warming. And of course, later on it becomes obvious he's talking about Global Warming rather than something 'sci-fi'

Unfortunately, the author stops one step short of the trick.  The real trick isn't to ask how to get there before you've decided to go; the real trick is to act like that's a trick so that your opponents stop doing it and then when they end up trying something actually impossible you can dismiss them as unrealistic at your leisure.

Put another way, had Trump actually announced his plan in 2018 to put people on Mars by the end of his first term, we'd have laughed because that timefame is impossible (all ultracrepidarian techno-pissant declarations of supreme faith in NASA notwithstanding), and we can prove it's impossible by showing that the set of available solutions is empty. How we can get there defines where we can feasibly think about going or what has to change, and you need that feedback loop to lead effectively.

The greatest trick Republicans ever pulled was teaching liberals that good governance is bad leadership.

Trump's plan isn't comparable, because such a deadline would be something willingly chosen.  Arguably, it would be part of The Navigation, where The Compass would be just "getting to Mars".

What we have with the environment is the choice to attempt survival or not.  If we choose survival, there is a deadline built in to that choice.  We don't get to set that deadline ourselves.

Anyone who responds to the presentation of a desire to attempt survival along with a vague pointer in what direction survival lies by declaring movement in that direction unrealistic, without engaging any further discussion on how the goal of survival can realistically be achieved is not, the way I see it, contesting The Navigation.  They are contesting The Compass, but wouldn't dare own up to that on a matter such as this.

In other words, we can say that the goals outlined in the Green New Deal are unrealistic on the 10 year timeline is asks for.  But that may well be in essence saying that survival is impossible.  And if dismissal of the proposal is the only response, then it's also implying that there will be no attempt at all.  This has been my most generous view of our government's attitude towards the environment, with very few individual exceptions.

[Rolan7]

Spoiler: Lee/Civil War stuff (click to show/hide)

Around here, it's hated because it's from somewhere else, and having unified teaching standards in the US is vile and loathsome.

I've heard some people complain that it mandates too much in the way history is taught, which paints the southeast US in a less than stellar light, but I've heard the contrary too so I don't know what to believe.  I haven't really looked into it too deeply.

The southeast is *real* picky about how we are portrayed historically. I was taught the whole state's rights spiel.

They're really big on denying reality in the southeast, to the point that they paint Lee as some hero who actually wanted to abolish slavery when in fact he said it was probably for the best that black people were enslaved, at least until divine providence could lift them out of it, and that it was a shame that white people had to help them out by forcing them into slavery.

It's why you see people acting outraged about nazis with torches chanting around a statue of Lee because "white supremacists shouldn't tarnish his image" which was what again? Shitbag was a white supremacist, straight up, just because he didn't particularly care about jewish anything doesn't make it less vile.

Myself I came from a weird liberal enclave of Texas known as Dallas, which is so weird I was literally shocked to learn the state is a republican stronghold. I had my own weird sheltering though, as I was puzzled when I realized I had just assumed everyone took Texas History in school, like, what the fuck else would you learn instead?

I was taught that Lee hated to fight against the Union, and only did so because his state rebelled.  When he saw defeat was inevitable (and that Sherman was burning capitals) he surrendered despite people begging him to lead a guerilla war.

The thing about that narrative is that it glorifies reunification as much as it does Lee.  It explains why the best strategist of the conflict would be on the wrong side of history, and doesn't give him to the racists as a hero.

A lot of people were racist shitbags back then, and for many decades after.  It's good that Lincoln freed the slaves - in uncontrolled territory, well into the war.

[smjjames]

This says exactly what I felt in response to most criticisms of Bernie in 2016, but wasn't able to express as coherently.

And it may be the most important thing to understand about politics right now.

From the article: 'But I don’t want to be controversial, so let me make up a more sci-fi premise.
Let’s pretend there was a climate disaster that threatens extinction of life on the planet. '

@author: Nice sci-fictioning of Global Warming. And of course, later on it becomes obvious he's talking about Global Warming rather than something 'sci-fi'

Unfortunately, the author stops one step short of the trick.  The real trick isn't to ask how to get there before you've decided to go; the real trick is to act like that's a trick so that your opponents stop doing it and then when they end up trying something actually impossible you can dismiss them as unrealistic at your leisure.

Put another way, had Trump actually announced his plan in 2018 to put people on Mars by the end of his first term, we'd have laughed because that timefame is impossible (all ultracrepidarian techno-pissant declarations of supreme faith in NASA notwithstanding), and we can prove it's impossible by showing that the set of available solutions is empty. How we can get there defines where we can feasibly think about going or what has to change, and you need that feedback loop to lead effectively.

The greatest trick Republicans ever pulled was teaching liberals that good governance is bad leadership.

Trump's plan isn't comparable, because such a deadline would be something willingly chosen.  Arguably, it would be part of The Navigation, where The Compass would be just "getting to Mars".

What we have with the environment is the choice to attempt survival or not.  If we choose survival, there is a deadline built in to that choice.  We don't get to set that deadline ourselves.

Anyone who responds to the presentation of a desire to attempt survival along with a vague pointer in what direction survival lies by declaring movement in that direction unrealistic, without engaging any further discussion on how the goal of survival can realistically be achieved is not, the way I see it, contesting The Navigation.  They are contesting The Compass, but wouldn't dare own up to that on a matter such as this.

It's also getting to the point where it would be easier and more expeditious to prepare for and adapt to global warming. I don't mean abandon reduction efforts completely, they should be done where it can be.

Part of the problem is that we're pretty bad at long term planning, or rather, said long term planning is all too easily disrupted.

In other words, we can say that the goals outlined in the Green New Deal are unrealistic on the 10 year timeline is asks for.  But that may well be in essence saying that survival is impossible.  And if dismissal of the proposal is the only response, then it's also implying that there will be no attempt at all.  This has been my most generous view of our government's attitude towards the environment, with very few individual exceptions.

What do you call what Obama tried to do then?

[Max™]

Spoiler: Lee/Civil War stuff (click to show/hide)

Around here, it's hated because it's from somewhere else, and having unified teaching standards in the US is vile and loathsome.

I've heard some people complain that it mandates too much in the way history is taught, which paints the southeast US in a less than stellar light, but I've heard the contrary too so I don't know what to believe.  I haven't really looked into it too deeply.

The southeast is *real* picky about how we are portrayed historically. I was taught the whole state's rights spiel.

They're really big on denying reality in the southeast, to the point that they paint Lee as some hero who actually wanted to abolish slavery when in fact he said it was probably for the best that black people were enslaved, at least until divine providence could lift them out of it, and that it was a shame that white people had to help them out by forcing them into slavery.

It's why you see people acting outraged about nazis with torches chanting around a statue of Lee because "white supremacists shouldn't tarnish his image" which was what again? Shitbag was a white supremacist, straight up, just because he didn't particularly care about jewish anything doesn't make it less vile.

Myself I came from a weird liberal enclave of Texas known as Dallas, which is so weird I was literally shocked to learn the state is a republican stronghold. I had my own weird sheltering though, as I was puzzled when I realized I had just assumed everyone took Texas History in school, like, what the fuck else would you learn instead?

I was taught that Lee hated to fight against the Union, and only did so because his state rebelled.  When he saw defeat was inevitable (and that Sherman was burning capitals) he surrendered despite people begging him to lead a guerilla war.

The thing about that narrative is that it glorifies reunification as much as it does Lee.  It explains why the best strategist of the conflict would be on the wrong side of history, and doesn't give him to the racists as a hero.

A lot of people were racist shitbags back then, and for many decades after.  It's good that Lincoln freed the slaves - in uncontrolled territory, well into the war.

Spoiler: Yeah, but even strategist is... (click to show/hide)

...exceptionally generous, you don't wage a land war with a more populous and heavily industrial neighbor if you have any sort of strategy in mind, he may have been tactically skilled at winning battles as a field officer, but generals always fuck up bad.

[SalmonGod]

What do you call what Obama tried to do then?

I need to brush up on his track record to form a decent response to this, because I know my opinion here is unpopular and I need to be better able to back it up...

I know he's credited with a lot of stuff.  But from what I recall, it's all small steps.  Nothing sufficient.  Nothing that rises to the occasion.  And he never acted as a leader (a Compass) in any attempt to impassion our national culture or our government to take sufficient action, which is what we need more than anything.  The one counter-point I'd expect to be brought up to that is the Paris Agreement.  But even that only settled on attempting to limit warming to an amount that scientists warn will be excruciatingly painful for the world, and only maybe just enough to prevent collapse of civilization.  And as important as climate change is, I resent the exclusive focus on it.  Because there are other environmental issues that are just as severe.  So even if he showed some leadership on climate change, that wouldn't mean showing leadership on addressing the collapse of the environment as a whole issue.

The things that stand out to me most in my memory when I think of Obama in relation to the environment...

His inaction on the pipelines.  I've pointed out before the situation with the Standing Rock, where state police forces were conscripted as corporate private military to enforce an invasion on native american sovereign land in violation of international treaty.  This is a big fucking deal in regards to more than just the environment.  And I watched an Obama speech where someone from the crowd asked him to make a statement on it.  His response could be summed up as "umm... well... yeah... I like Native Americans".  And just before the end of his 2nd term, he finally decides to weakly put a halt on the development that is immediately undone as soon as he's out of office.

And then there's the mostly now forgotten TransCanada Pipeline, which was also hotly contested as it was in progress throughout the majority of Obama's time as president.  Which as far as I'm aware, he completely ignored.  (Edit for Correction:  I was thinking of Keystone XL, which is owned by TransCanada)

These were flagship struggles in environmentalist circles.  He may have done things regarding the environment, but in my opinion, ignoring flagship struggles on an issue flies in the face of being considered leadership on an issue.

And I'm super salty about his response to Deepwater Horizon.  He shut down offshore drilling for a while.  And then a while later (after the event had sunk beneath the surface of political consciousness?), opened up more waters to offshore drilling than were available before the disaster.

[sluissa]

If there's one thing I've learned in travelling around, it's that racism, bigotry, and shit attitudes exist everywhere. From Florida straight up north across the border to Canada. Out west to the Rockies and across the pond to Europe.

I've seen the same shit everywhere that I see at home, so how about you all get off your podiums and high horses and just let it be. Even if you had a point you're not fixing anything by telling people they're dumb and wrong. You're just making enemies and reinforcing a divide that's been there way too long for no reason.

As for Bernie, I supported him last time, but as bad as it sounds, I just think age is an issue. I was hesitant about his age last time, but I also hated that Trump and Clinton would have been some the oldest presidents ever elected. Trump is, for that matter, the oldest president at inauguration.

I do hope he at least manages to keep the health care message on people's minds, if nothing else. That said there's nobody out there I really WANT to support at the moment either. Just hoping for a reasonably sane alternative to Trump.

[Trekkin]

I've seen the same shit everywhere that I see at home, so how about you all get off your podiums and high horses and just let it be.

How about you give me back the friends and colleagues they've harassed, assaulted, raped and/or killed for being brown or LGBT or female or Jewish first.

[Rolan7]

The enemies have gotten clever, and have us shooting at shadows.

[Trekkin]

The enemies have gotten clever, and have us shooting at shadows.

Why not? It's where they hide.

More accurately, the dumb, wrong bigots of the world love to use "can't we all just let it be" and "this isn't the time/place for this discussion" and so forth as ways to silence discussion of their dumb, wrong bigotry. When we delineate spaces where discussion of bigotry is unacceptable, we tacitly create spaces where bigotry is welcome, if only quietly. We probably don't want to do that.

[sluissa]

I'm going to avoid assuming you're labeling me a dumb bigot.

The point is though that with aggressive discussions like this you put people on the defensive, even when they might otherwise agree with you. I grew up disliking living in the south, partially because external images and reputation put upon us by outside.. It took travelling to other places to realize that nowhere else is really all that much better. Some places might get certain aspects better, but big picture, it's all the same.

I would still hesitate to recommend anyone live here, but I'm fine with it. Even with that modest endorsement, when you start broadstroking the south as "horrible racist bigots that can't let go of the past" it puts people like me on the defensive. I start having to take positions I normally wouldn't because you're attacking my home with god damned lies.

If there's one thing I've learned growing up with the sorts of racist bigots you like to percieve everyone in the south as being, it's that you simply can't argue them down. You can't attack them. It just makes them plant their feet harder. You can call out instances you see. That's fine. I've done my share of telling people off when they said something over the line. But there's a big difference between calling out an action as racist, and labeling a person, seemingly immutably, as a racist. What's the point in trying to change if nobody's ever going to give you the credit for it?

[Rolan7]

You mean Trekkin?  They were *defending* the South.

We're being played.

[Trekkin]

You mean Trekkin?  They were *defending* the South.

We're being played.

That wasn't defending the South, that was pointing out that the classic narrative EDIT: (actually, both narratives) of the Civil War are stupid.

[thompson]

I'm going to avoid assuming you're labeling me a dumb bigot.

The point is though that with aggressive discussions like this you put people on the defensive, even when they might otherwise agree with you. I grew up disliking living in the south, partially because external images and reputation put upon us by outside.. It took travelling to other places to realize that nowhere else is really all that much better. Some places might get certain aspects better, but big picture, it's all the same.

I would still hesitate to recommend anyone live here, but I'm fine with it. Even with that modest endorsement, when you start broadstroking the south as "horrible racist bigots that can't let go of the past" it puts people like me on the defensive. I start having to take positions I normally wouldn't because you're attacking my home with god damned lies.

If there's one thing I've learned growing up with the sorts of racist bigots you like to percieve everyone in the south as being, it's that you simply can't argue them down. You can't attack them. It just makes them plant their feet harder. You can call out instances you see. That's fine. I've done my share of telling people off when they said something over the line. But there's a big difference between calling out an action as racist, and labeling a person, seemingly immutably, as a racist. What's the point in trying to change if nobody's ever going to give you the credit for it?

And this is of course precisely why Trump is president right now. Everyone knows he's an asshole, but he's the only guy who isn't calling the working class "deplorable". So that there is no confusion, I am supporting the point sluissa is making. I come from the south as well, albeit much, much further south.