Op-ediots

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22870
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Jennifer » 09 Aug 2018, 20:21

Warren wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 19:35
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 14:03
Warren wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 11:24
I see no chance that the Dems will nominate anyone whose administration won't be more damaging than the current one.
Uh-huh. Are you still of the opinion Hillary would've been even worse than the president we've got now?
We are not at war, so yes 10,000 times better.
I don't know if shit like our proxy war (via our freedom-loving friends the Saudis) in Yemen is much of an improvement, though.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 12523
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Eric the .5b » 09 Aug 2018, 20:53

Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 20:21
Warren wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 19:35
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 14:03
Warren wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 11:24
I see no chance that the Dems will nominate anyone whose administration won't be more damaging than the current one.
Uh-huh. Are you still of the opinion Hillary would've been even worse than the president we've got now?
We are not at war, so yes 10,000 times better.
I don't know if shit like our proxy war (via our freedom-loving friends the Saudis) in Yemen is much of an improvement, though.
And last I checked, we were still militarily involved in Afghanistan and dropping airstrikes all around the MidEast, including in Operation Inherent Resolve against ISIL. We haven't stopped being at war since very early this century.

Now, HRC may have opened up new theatres of war or escalated the WOT; she certainly talked tough. But she was also always pretty chickenshit. So 10K times worse is pretty fucking dubious.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22870
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Jennifer » 09 Aug 2018, 20:58

Eric the .5b wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 20:53
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 20:21
Warren wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 19:35
Jennifer wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 14:03
Warren wrote:
09 Aug 2018, 11:24
I see no chance that the Dems will nominate anyone whose administration won't be more damaging than the current one.
Uh-huh. Are you still of the opinion Hillary would've been even worse than the president we've got now?
We are not at war, so yes 10,000 times better.
I don't know if shit like our proxy war (via our freedom-loving friends the Saudis) in Yemen is much of an improvement, though.
And last I checked, we were still militarily involved in Afghanistan and dropping airstrikes all around the MidEast, including in Operation Inherent Resolve against ISIL. We haven't stopped being at war since very early this century.

Now, HRC may have opened up new theatres of war or escalated the WOT; she certainly talked tough. But she was also always pretty chickenshit. So 10K times worse is pretty fucking dubious.
Plus, whatever bad things HIllary might have done, I'm pretty confident she would not have opened kiddie concentration camps or palled around with white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26486
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Op-ediots

Post by thoreau » 09 Aug 2018, 21:11

Support for the war in Yemen started as an Obama policy. Trump continues it. Clinton would have as well, though maybe she would have done some vaguely tough talk about human rights during some photo op, before making sure that the government continues to support the Saudis without doing much to remind the American people of it.

I think the reality is that US troops will be in Afghanistan for a very long time to come. No President wants to be the one to take the heat for "surrendering", or however the other party would spin it. By early 2020 there will be soldiers in Afghanistan who were born after 9/11. In 2021 there will be soldiers who joined up on 9/11 out of a sense of patriotic duty, did a 20-year stint, and are now retired on pensions and watching as the war continues.

Trump hasn't really pushed any of these ongoing conflicts much farther than Clinton would have, but he also hasn't done much better than she would have in those matters. He's more of the same on a day-to-day basis.

The problems with him and military involvement overseas are:

1) If things go from same-old-same-old to OH SHIT, he lacks the intelligence and negotiating ability to prevent things from getting worse. The government will only get through those things if whatever competent people he's still keeping around are able to talk him into letting them do their jobs. But his choice of Bolton as National Security Advisor is not reassuring.

2) He ditched the Iran deal, which will do nothing to encourage anyone to consider the US a good faith negotiator. Clinton would have kept the Iran nuclear deal in place. Maybe she would have talked tough at some point, if a poll showed that some swing state voter thought she was too much of an anti-American lefty (and I know Wisconsin voters who think that), but she would have kept the deal in place.

OTOH, to her discredit, Clinton supported removing Qaddafi after he gave up nukes. If the Republicans had the slightest sense about them they would have hammered her for THAT, not for Benghazi. But they don't have it in them to criticize somebody for fighting too much, only too little. At least Trump wouldn't have removed an egocentric despot with terrible taste in clothes and decor.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23197
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Op-ediots

Post by Mo » 10 Aug 2018, 03:28

By this definition we weren’t at war under Obama.

Also, Trump has backed Saudi aggression against Qatar.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 26486
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Op-ediots

Post by thoreau » 10 Aug 2018, 10:57

Mo wrote:By this definition we weren’t at war under Obama.

Also, Trump has backed Saudi aggression against Qatar.
While probably being unaware of the large US military base in Qatar.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23197
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Mo » 21 Aug 2018, 19:17

Well, there’s always a bright side to getting convicted on 8 counts.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/21/fed ... nts-fraud/
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 14703
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Aresen » 21 Aug 2018, 19:44

Mo wrote:
21 Aug 2018, 19:17
Well, there’s always a bright side to getting convicted on 8 counts.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/21/fed ... nts-fraud/
Hey! 10 out of 18 isn't bad! He's batting .556!
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 23197
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Mo » 04 Sep 2018, 08:34

Dennis Prager trying to defend DeSantis has a phrase that can most generously be described as inartful and shows hints of a mask slipping. "This is normally a compliment, but it is now deemed racist when used to describe any black."

Hilariously, part of the problem is that Desantis practiced sounding non-sexist, but didn't have a chance to practice sounding not racist.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12999
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Highway » 04 Sep 2018, 09:43

I really love (hate) the argument of "Well, it used to be ok to say that, but now saying it makes me a racist." No, it's always been a racist thing to say. You just didn't have anyone with the guts to tell you it's a racist thing to say." And if they were honest with themselves, they'd admit that most of the time they are trying to be racist and denigrate someone for it. They just don't want to be called out for it.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22735
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Op-ediots

Post by JasonL » 04 Sep 2018, 09:55

I will say, to channel Kmele for a minute - we are in a 0% presumption of good faith or analysis of context environment. In that sense, there is a category of language that is now always racist that simply wasn't presumed to be such in previous times. Yes politicians should be aware of all this, but still. Old men be old men.

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12999
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Highway » 04 Sep 2018, 10:04

I'll agree that it's a 0% presumption of good faith, but I am done with the 'old people' part of the argument. "Old people" are now my parents. It's not people's grandparents that were born in 1904. It's Baby Boomers. What, are they thinking that Jim Crow was just fine, because that's what they grew up with? No. They should know better. And DeSantis is not even 40. He doesn't get some "grandpappy" excuse.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24803
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Warren » 04 Sep 2018, 10:07

Highway wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 09:43
I really love (hate) the argument of "Well, it used to be ok to say that, but now saying it makes me a racist." No, it's always been a racist thing to say. You just didn't have anyone with the guts to tell you it's a racist thing to say." And if they were honest with themselves, they'd admit that most of the time they are trying to be racist and denigrate someone for it. They just don't want to be called out for it.
Staaaaaahp. "Monkey this up" was not a racist turn of phrase until everything became racist.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22735
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Op-ediots

Post by JasonL » 04 Sep 2018, 10:08

I'm done with old people actually being racist and being excused on the basis of age. I'm not quite done with old people who aren't demonstrably racist in any way if comments are taken in context but who do not exhibit maximum wokeness in word choice.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24803
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Warren » 04 Sep 2018, 10:14

JasonL wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 10:08
I'm done with old people actually being racist and being excused on the basis of age. I'm not quite done with old people who aren't demonstrably racist in any way if comments are taken in context but who do not exhibit maximum wokeness in word choice.
+1
You don't have to be on Social Security to have "Don't monkey with that" and "Quit monkeying around" as part of your racist free vernacular.
The thought police keep finding new transgression practically on a daily basis. It's hard to keep up. (Damnit!)
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12999
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Highway » 04 Sep 2018, 10:17

Warren wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 10:07
Highway wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 09:43
I really love (hate) the argument of "Well, it used to be ok to say that, but now saying it makes me a racist." No, it's always been a racist thing to say. You just didn't have anyone with the guts to tell you it's a racist thing to say." And if they were honest with themselves, they'd admit that most of the time they are trying to be racist and denigrate someone for it. They just don't want to be called out for it.
Staaaaaahp. "Monkey this up" was not a racist turn of phrase until everything became racist.
Excepting particular black people as "articulate" always has been.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12999
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Highway » 04 Sep 2018, 10:24

I mean, this isn't Derek Daly coming to Indy from Ireland in 1983 saying "n***** in a woodpile", being told that that was out of bounds in the US and then immediately changing his behavior. That's a change in culture. This is people who've lived in this culture all their lives, in this country all their lives. And here, we're talking about politicians, and aren't they supposed to be more in tune with what they're supposed to say?
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24803
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Warren » 04 Sep 2018, 10:25

Highway wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 10:17
Warren wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 10:07
Highway wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 09:43
I really love (hate) the argument of "Well, it used to be ok to say that, but now saying it makes me a racist." No, it's always been a racist thing to say. You just didn't have anyone with the guts to tell you it's a racist thing to say." And if they were honest with themselves, they'd admit that most of the time they are trying to be racist and denigrate someone for it. They just don't want to be called out for it.
Staaaaaahp. "Monkey this up" was not a racist turn of phrase until everything became racist.
Excepting particular black people as "articulate" always has been.
Even there you're in a grey area (damnit!). It was never a coded derogatory term. It was only racist in the "You're very articulate for a half ape man" sense. It use to be possible to declare a black person "articulate" the same way you would a white person.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24803
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Warren » 04 Sep 2018, 10:30

Highway wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 10:24
I mean, this isn't Derek Daly coming to Indy from Ireland in 1983 saying "n***** in a woodpile", being told that that was out of bounds in the US and then immediately changing his behavior. That's a change in culture. This is people who've lived in this culture all their lives, in this country all their lives. And here, we're talking about politicians, and aren't they supposed to be more in tune with what they're supposed to say?
Because the culture is changing at an unprecedented pace. And that change is being driven by self appointed thought police.
I remember when second wave feminism changed 'chairman' to 'chairperson' it was awkward for a bit but we soon all got with the program. When some wanted to change it to 'person hole cover', there was a collective eye roll. We now live in an era of micro aggression and privilege and there is seemingly no imagined offense that is unworthy of taking up pitchforks and torches for.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12999
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Highway » 04 Sep 2018, 10:38

Warren wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 10:25
Highway wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 10:17
Warren wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 10:07
Highway wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 09:43
I really love (hate) the argument of "Well, it used to be ok to say that, but now saying it makes me a racist." No, it's always been a racist thing to say. You just didn't have anyone with the guts to tell you it's a racist thing to say." And if they were honest with themselves, they'd admit that most of the time they are trying to be racist and denigrate someone for it. They just don't want to be called out for it.
Staaaaaahp. "Monkey this up" was not a racist turn of phrase until everything became racist.
Excepting particular black people as "articulate" always has been.
Even there you're in a grey area (damnit!). It was never a coded derogatory term. It was only racist in the "You're very articulate for a half ape man" sense. It use to be possible to declare a black person "articulate" the same way you would a white person.
I know in my whole life it's been a coded derogatory racist phrase, because nobody made a point of saying it about white people. This ain't new, at least to me.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22735
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Op-ediots

Post by JasonL » 04 Sep 2018, 10:41

So if I say "I miss the most recent president in no small part because he was articulate" I'm a monster?

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 24803
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Warren » 04 Sep 2018, 10:42

Highway wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 10:38
Warren wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 10:25
Highway wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 10:17
Warren wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 10:07
Highway wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 09:43
I really love (hate) the argument of "Well, it used to be ok to say that, but now saying it makes me a racist." No, it's always been a racist thing to say. You just didn't have anyone with the guts to tell you it's a racist thing to say." And if they were honest with themselves, they'd admit that most of the time they are trying to be racist and denigrate someone for it. They just don't want to be called out for it.
Staaaaaahp. "Monkey this up" was not a racist turn of phrase until everything became racist.
Excepting particular black people as "articulate" always has been.
Even there you're in a grey area (damnit!). It was never a coded derogatory term. It was only racist in the "You're very articulate for a half ape man" sense. It use to be possible to declare a black person "articulate" the same way you would a white person.
I know in my whole life it's been a coded derogatory racist phrase, because nobody made a point of saying it about white people. This ain't new, at least to me.
I can assure you that in the suburbs of the Mid West where I grew up, people most often made a point of saying it about white people. Mostly on account of black people being such a small minority.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22735
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Op-ediots

Post by JasonL » 04 Sep 2018, 10:42

IOW - just because some people used it as loaded racist language your whole life doesn't mean the presumption was in place that everyone who made any reference to it was presumed to be racist for your whole life. That's the change.

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 11585
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Ellie » 04 Sep 2018, 10:48

Yeah, I've heard "monkey that up" in lots and lots of contexts and never about a black person.
"NB stands for nota bene do not @ me" - nicole

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12999
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Op-ediots

Post by Highway » 04 Sep 2018, 10:59

Ellie wrote:
04 Sep 2018, 10:48
Yeah, I've heard "monkey that up" in lots and lots of contexts and never about a black person.
I didn't think that one was intentional, it was just ridiculous and stupid. That's the kind of thing that someone who's trying to be a politician should have a better handle on. I mean, Howard Cosell got in trouble for that in the 80s.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests