Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:35 am UTC

Yeah, threatening various kinds of violence, including state violence, can sometimes have the desired effect.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:51 am UTC

Anyway back to Trump

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... story.html

With the certainty that the incoming Democratic House majority will go after his tax returns and investigate his actions, and the likelihood of additional indictments by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Trump has retreated into a cocoon of bitterness and resentment, according to multiple administration sources.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:07 am UTC

Woo. I'm actually slightly interested in the returns, only so I can laugh at just how little Trump is actually worth. I don't want to use foul language, but remember how there was (and still is) the extremely racist term "<n-word> rich" to describe someone who lives a lavish lifestyle they can't afford (which ironically has the exact opposite meaning of the actually not-racist-origin "<n-wordsound>-rdly")? I propose that we adopt "Trump-rich" or something similar to replace it.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:09 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:i really don't want to continue this conversation but i feel compelled to.
I'm sorry you're dealing with a lot of frustrating stuff going on RL, and I certainly understand how that can spill over into the discussion here (I cannot even count the number of times I've posted with anger here because of something unrelated that I'm dealing with outside of this space). Maybe it's best to sleep on some of this? It's not like the posts won't be here tomorrow, or the next day; there's no rush to form an opinion or respond immediately (though I understand that sometimes, it feels very much otherwise).

Anyway, you threw out a lot of stuff here, and I'm not sure I can address it all? This is probably not the right place to address it in its totality. I'll just point out a few brief things:
Spoiler:
Pfhorrest wrote:A better analogy is someone draws a dong on your face while you're asleep, in some ink that's as difficult to remove or cover up as paint is on a house. It's just a drawing of a dong in either case, what's the harm in that? (that's rhetorical) I agree 100% that there is more harm in it being on your face than on your house, but not that there is zero harm in it being on your house, or that doing absolutely nothing in response to that is an acceptable thing to ask of someone.
The examples you give (painting a dong on someone's face, slashing tires, stalking someone at night, groping) are bad for reasons that have nothing to do with property rights, and don't address the gap in our disagreement -- that I don't accept property as an extension of my person. I am not my house; an attack on my house is not an attack on me.

The only thing that makes defacing a wall that I own 'bad' is that it violates my property rights, and as an anarchist, I don't really care that much about property rights except in so much as they serve much more important rights (like a right to privacy or bodily autonomy).
Pfhorrest wrote:But they're not harmless, and neither is defacing your house, though defacing your house is less harmful than either of those. I'm not trying to die on this dong-on-your-house hill, but that was the example that was given, and it's still a part of the general principle of doing something to someone's stuff -- the stuff that they use, their possessions or personal property even if not their private property as some anarchosocialists like to make a distinction, one that doesn't matter to me here but the point is it's not about capitalist ownership -- is still an attack on them.
What makes the slashed tires bad is that it is an implicit threat ("I have a knife and I'm willing to use it") in addition to potentially damaging a tool you require to achieve capital (the difference between breaking a blacksmith's anvil versus painting a dong on it; the latter is annoying, but the former means the blacksmith may actually starve). The creeper in your bedroom is also an implicit threat, and violates your right to privacy (and not to be creeped on). Indeed, the trespassing is almost circumstantial; your decision to trespass on my property is no where near as important as your decision to sneak into my room and watch me sleep.
Pfhorrest wrote:You should do as little as possible to undo the harm and prevent further harm, but you should do something or else you are just saying that what was done was fine and deserves no redress. There absolutely should be low-violence means available, but if all of those means get taken off the table by the other side of the conflict, then they are escalating the conflict. If it gets escalated to police involvement, they did that by taking all the more reasonable means of resolution off the table. If the ultimatum you give someone is "shut up and take it, unless you wanna call the pigs", don't be surprised if they call the pigs!
But sometimes it's okay to lose. Especially when the only way to win is violence!

If I absolutely, obstinately refuse to stop my kid from painting dongs on your house -- if the only way you can stop me from doing this is through violence -- it's not as if violence is your only recourse, here. You can just accept that my kid is going to paint dongs on your house and plan accordingly. It sucks! It's annoying as heck! You shouldn't have to do it! But it's not as if I'm forcing you to be violent, and your decision to pursue violence over something as trivial as dongs on a wall is your decision, not mine.

There are circumstances where you honestly do have little to no choice but to escalate (or suffer violence yourself!). But this situation isn't one of them. It's okay to lose, here. Heck, I don't know; paint dongs on their house in response. The point is that however this scenario ends, "and then things got violent" shouldn't be it. There's no reason or excuse why a story about a kid painting dongs on your house ought to end up with that kid being dead -- and claiming "they left me no choice!" is absolutely no excuse.
Phforrest wrote:And I'm not calling specifically for state intervention here, and I would greatly prefer if there was a non-state force to appeal to. But if the other side keeps escalating the conflict eventually one of two things is going to happen, either the stronger of the two sides will physically beat or kill the other (or else credibly threaten them with that until they cave), or some kind of social institution will eventually step in and resolve the conflict. And if no non-state social institution exists or will help, and there's a state police force there who will, that's where it's going to end up. And that's unfortunate, but the fault for that is on the party who keeps escalating the conflict, instead of just, say, fixing the harm their kid did and withholding privileges from the kid in punishment, when asked nicely, like reasonable adults.
It's extremely weird to me how you're framing this; it's like you think that we can't just decide "Okay, fuck it, I'll just paint the dongs over every time it happens". There's a very weird authoritarian slant here; like you can't accept the idea that maybe enforcing a law isn't actually worth it sometimes.

Sometimes, you're better off just letting a crime happen than actually trying to stop the crime.
Phforrest wrote:You seem to think that believing in any kind of property rights constitutes capitalism, and therefore not anarchism. I agree that anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist, but not that property rights alone constitute capitalism. Capitalism is something above and beyond just some people owning some things; it's specific classes of people owning (or not owning) things in a specific way, where the things that most people use are owned by a tiny subset of people, who are not themselves using them; where most people don't own any of their stuff, and a tiny subset owns everyone else's stuff. People can still own things and have socialism, so long as somehow or another it's the people who use the things that own them. Someone else owning my home is capitalism, like someone else owning my body is slavery; me owning my own home is just the rightful way of things, just like me owning my own body.
I definitely don't believe that believing in property rights constitutes capitalism! I only criticized the idea that property is an extension of personhood -- that is intrinsically capitalist. The idea that my house is an extension of my identity; that to deface my property is to deface me.

That notion is extremely capitalistic, and extremely anti-anarchistic. It's also a kind of property right, but not the only kind of property right (there are plenty of models of property rights that don't rely on property as an extension of the self!).
Phforrest wrote:When you say don't call the police on the spraypainting kid even if there's no other social structure for redressing the kid's violence (yes, it is violence, deal with it), you're basically doing that -- you're either letting the kid get away with it, or letting the homeowner get away with his own deterrence against the kid, or letting the kid's parents get away with their retaliation for that, or wherever the conflict stops, you're letting that be the de facto "justice", without actually attending to the question of whether or not it's really just.
I mean, as someone who has had people trying to legitimately stab me to death, I disagree wholeheartedly that defacing property is intrinsically violent. I've had my car defaced, and it never even occurred to me that I had experienced anything comparable to someone trying put a knife through my eye. I think it's strange -- possibly even rude? -- to insist that someone who's property has been defaced has, in some sense, experienced violence. I'm not really sure how to respond to this, otherwise.

Phforrest wrote:An anecdote:

...

So was I wrong to involve the police when I could have just killed a couple of people myself and been done with it without police involvement?
I don't think you were wrong to call the police, and I'm sorry you went through all that. I don't see the connection between this and a kid insistently painting dongs on your house, though.

idonno
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:39 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Woo. I'm actually slightly interested in the returns, only so I can laugh at just how little Trump is actually worth.
It is my understanding that they can get the returns and review them privately but that it is a felony to just reveal anything learned from them. They can vote to make them public but it took 4 months to put together a report on Richard Nixon's and I have to believe that Trump's are significantly more complicated. Also, there is no way he isn't going to do everything in his power to challenge that. It is entirely possible that the Rs could get control back before anything becomes public.

Also, on the challenge front, while I think there is probable cause with Trump, the power for the house to get access to all the financial info in anyone's tax returns certainly seems to step over the line on the fourth amendment to me.

Kit.
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Kit. » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:32 am UTC

natraj wrote:
Kit. wrote:I'd say their numbers are about 100% of the human population. The number of hypocrites that think that they are not is not much smaller.


im really sorry you have such a negative view of the world, but it's not actually born out by how humans behave.

I am sorry that you see a realistic view on the world as "negative". And yes, it follows from how Homo sapiens actually behave.

natraj wrote:certainly it's in the best interest of those who already have power to convince us that, without the threat of constant violence to stem it, everyone would act like it's lord of the flies/the purge and go about raping and killing. in actual situations where regular current social structure has broken down (you see this after disaster, frequently) the vast majority of people don't turn to violence and mutual aid rises.

That's a straw man. Most humans mostly behave as trained, and "the best interests" of social animals are often mutual (otherwise they wouldn't be social).

It has nothing to do with people being "not" intrinsically violent or "not" intrinsically hypocritical.

natraj wrote:it's hard, of course, to isolate this right now from the overall pressures of the world we live in, so it's not like this is Hard Scientific Data since we can't really study how people would behave in modern day america if our entire society was built from the ground up not to expect state violence as a "protective" or law enforcement measure.

There is no "Hard Scientific Data" on practically impossible, that's true.

We can study the lives of Native Americans before the "state violence", though. From what we know, there were more violence, not less.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:48 am UTC

What we know of the native Americans is actually quite limited. When the Spanish arrived, they brought over smallpox and plague and malaria. All at once. The mass sudden deaths wasnt just fewer people, but civilizations themselves collapsed. Imagine living in a town with just a couple of farmers, a couple of beekeepers, a couple of fletchers, etc. Plague doesnt kill half of each profession, no its random, and the result is your town is missing all of its rope makers but you still have all your attorneys. By the time the non-Iberians arrived in the Americas, the societies had already collapsed.

Kit.
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Kit. » Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:09 am UTC

Those were state societes. The Spanish didn't really do well in the areas with stateless societies (and didn't try hard).

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:53 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Phforrest wrote:And yes, spraypainting someone's house is a kind of attack, if a very small one.
Vandalizing property is not an attack.
Kinda depends whether they do a badly-drawn penis, sign their initials, write KKK, draw a burning cross, write "Juden raus," draw a noose, write "Kiddie-fiddler," or draw a Nazi flag, doesn't it?

Can't this conversation be moved to its own thread? It's several pages long and Trump being a racist, authoritarian arsehole isn't really a strong enough connection to keep it about Trump's presidency.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:31 am UTC

Six hours ago, I already addressed the point you just made, about the kind of vandalism being relevant, so if you actually wanted this topic to move elsewhere, you could have just slipped that post entirely.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Kit.
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Kit. » Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:40 am UTC

Returning to Trump presidency: as Mueller currently is not reporting to any person qualifying as a principal officer, does it mean that Mueller cannot legally indict anyone now?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:29 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:I am sorry that you see a realistic view on the world as "negative". And yes, it follows from how Homo sapiens actually behave.
It doesn't. This isn't a realistic view. Humans are cooperative, complex social animals; violence toward humans is not our default setting. This is why soldiers need to be acclimated to violence in order to regularly perform it, and why PTSD is a thing: We simply aren't wired to engage in regular, repeated acts of violence. You have to train us to do it.

And even then, it can still fuck us up.
Kit. wrote:Returning to Trump presidency: as Mueller currently is not reporting to any person qualifying as a principal officer, does it mean that Mueller cannot legally indict anyone now?
As I understand it, Mueller is free to indict anyone he pleases in the pursuit of his investigation. He asked Rosenstein for permission, but this was less "I don't have the authority" and more "I should let my boss know who I'm about to indict and make sure he's okay with it".

EDIT: Pardon; let me rephrase: Rosenstein can veto his indictments, but Mueller is free to issue those indictments in the first place.

Kit.
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Kit. » Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:55 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Kit. wrote:I am sorry that you see a realistic view on the world as "negative". And yes, it follows from how Homo sapiens actually behave.
It doesn't. This isn't a realistic view. Humans are cooperative, complex social animals; violence toward humans is not our default setting. This is why soldiers need to be acclimated to violence in order to regularly perform it, and why PTSD is a thing: We simply aren't wired to engage in regular, repeated acts of violence. You have to train us to do it.

Humans are more complex than you think. Violence is not a "setting", but a tool, and almost every kid is perfectly capable of using this tool without any training - when not afraid of the consequences.

You are suggesting that repeated deadly violence needs training. But even if humans have an innate mechanism that limits repeated deadly violence, it's not the only form of violence, and even not the only form of deadly violence.

The Great Hippo wrote:
Kit. wrote:Returning to Trump presidency: as Mueller currently is not reporting to any person qualifying as a principal officer, does it mean that Mueller cannot legally indict anyone now?
As I understand it, Mueller is free to indict anyone he pleases in the pursuit of his investigation. He asked Rosenstein for permission, but this was less "I don't have the authority" and more "I should let my boss know who I'm about to indict and make sure he's okay with it".

EDIT: Pardon; let me rephrase: Rosenstein can veto his indictments, but Mueller is free to issue those indictments in the first place.

My understanding is that everyone in DoJ who has a right to indict needs to be a principal officer or have a principal officer somewhere up in the chain of command. The legitimacy of Whitaker as a principal officer is questionable.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:40 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:Humans are more complex than you think. Violence is not a "setting", but a tool, and almost every kid is perfectly capable of using this tool without any training - when not afraid of the consequences.
If this were true, then we would expect the majority of children to torture animals for the sake of curiosity and personal gratification up until they were threatened for doing so. But this doesn't happen; you don't need to teach most children to refrain from torturing stray cats they find. Have you ever encountered a dog while alone on the street? Did you stomp its skull just to hear the crunch? Why not? Was it out of fear of punishment? I suspect not! You probably didn't do it because you're averse to hurting a dog without sufficient cause. But why is that?

Well, part of it is because we come hard-wired to sympathize with things that we can relate to ourselves -- and we don't want to do violence to things related to us. This is why you need to train soldiers to dehumanize the enemy. Similarly, horses need to be trained to not panic at the sight or smell of blood (heck, they need to be specially trained just to be willing to trample). Mind you, you can still perform violence; it just requires extenuating circumstances (fear or anger tend to be the big ones).

But the reason we don't do violence really has very little to do with being threatened with reprisal. Indeed, the places with the lowest rates of violent crime typically have extremely forgiving sentences (outside of one or two exceptions -- coughcoughSingaporecough). An atmosphere of fear doesn't mitigate violence; it contributes to it.
Kit. wrote:You are suggesting that repeated deadly violence needs training. But even if humans have an innate mechanism that limits repeated deadly violence, it's not the only form of violence, and even not the only form of deadly violence.
I don't think that contradicts what I'm saying, though? I'm saying that we're predisposed to not be violent to each other; violence is something that occurs because of extenuating circumstances. Once violent action gets traction, it can start a feedback loop that creates more of whatever caused it to occur in the first place -- for example, we're more likely to engage in violence when we're being victimized by violence, or are afraid of violence.

But in general? All things being equal? We're not comfortable committing acts of violence. Heck, this makes sense. Evolution-wise, humans cooperating nonviolently will succeed more often than humans trying to kill each other. Civilization is built on the very notion that violence should only be deployed under extremely narrow circumstances.

We only become comfortable with violence when we've taken extraordinary pains to disconnect ourselves from the targets of that violence (and we admittedly put a lot of effort into this -- culturally and individually).
Kit. wrote:My understanding is that everyone in DoJ who has a right to indict needs to be a principal officer or have a principal officer somewhere up in the chain of command. The legitimacy of Whitaker as a principal officer is questionable.
I presume that part of what makes a special prosecutor special is that they're allowed to indict on their own. I can't find a direct source for this, but I managed to wrangle up this article, which mentions Rod Rosenstein's right to veto Mueller's indictments (which implies Mueller has the right to indict without Rosenstein's permission, which Rosenstein can then proceed to veto).

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7517
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:58 pm UTC

Have you ever encountered a dog while alone on the street? Did you stomp its skull just to hear the crunch? Why not?

The crunch is much less satisfying then you might think. And they are a pain to catch and hold during the stomping. No of course not that would be horrible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:05 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Have you ever encountered a dog while alone on the street? Did you stomp its skull just to hear the crunch? Why not?

The crunch is much less satisfying then you might think. And they are a pain to catch and hold during the stomping. No of course not that would be horrible.

Is it a cute dog? Or is it a black mean dog, with a crazed look in it's eyes, which makes me feel in fear for my life?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:56 pm UTC

As if none of you used to fry ants with a magnifying glass or catch fireflies in jars...

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:21 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:If I absolutely, obstinately refuse to stop my kid from painting dongs on your house [...] it's not as if I'm forcing you to be violent [...] Sometimes, you're better off just letting a crime happen than actually trying to stop the crime.
Sometimes, but that wouldn't be one of them.

First of all, repainting a house is upwards of five thousand dollars, and you pretty much have to do the whole house if the result isn't going to look like patchwork.

Second, it might be a swastika instead of a dong, and whether or not that makes a difference is for the victim to say.

Third, those that would vandalize are already pushing limits. They are (even literally - that's what "marking" is) claiming territory. If you cede, they'll know that they pwn that house and its occupants, and can push further. With no pushback, the next limit might be this is where they'll get drunk, shoot up, or deal. And if there's no pushback, they've pwnd even more, and the limits keep shrinking, until you have basically acknowledged them as the Alpha, and by doing so, accepted their behavior as your own. The actual path of course will differ situation to situation, but that's what pushing limits is.

This is what Trump is doing, both metaphorically and concretely. Everything he does, from not showing his tax returns to lying about crowd sizes to physically pushing diplomats aside to massing 5000 fully armed military troops against the several hundred bedraggled and hungry asylum seekers, to claiming he could pardon himself, to claiming he could essentially annul the 14th amendment by executive order... the list goes on. Each thing he succeeds in (or even fails at!) makes it easier for him to push the boundaries again, ultimately remaking the entire Republican Party in his image. We are in grave danger of becoming a repressive authoritative dictatorship because of it.

You have to start fighting these things when they are small, because they cannot be easily defeated when they become a way of life.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:45 pm UTC

@ucim: I've painted houses (I was actually raised by a professional painter, and often painted alongside him!), so I can tell you point #1 is simply wrong; what you end up doing depends a lot on the circumstances (I've never seen a case where you literally have to paint an entire house to cover up a little graffiti). In fact, you might not need to paint anything at all! Also, point #2 is something that's already been addressed multiple times in this thread.

As for point #3, your argument here amounts to "but if you don't punish them, that makes you their bitch". You even use "Alpha" unironically. I don't feel like this is a point that needs to be legitimately addressed -- if anything, it's the pro-Trump perspective.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:04 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:As for point #3, your argument here amounts to "but if you don't punish them, that makes you their bitch".
Punishment isn't necessary, successful pushback however, is. And yes. Accepting bad behavior from bad actors invites more.

It's not a pro-Trump perspective. It's the Trump method. And it works.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:07 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
Have you ever encountered a dog while alone on the street? Did you stomp its skull just to hear the crunch? Why not?

The crunch is much less satisfying then you might think. And they are a pain to catch and hold during the stomping. No of course not that would be horrible.

Is it a cute dog? Or is it a black mean dog, with a crazed look in it's eyes, which makes me feel in fear for my life?
It's a brightly colored multi-hued dog that may or may not be stuffed full of candy.

Okay I might actually be thinking of a piñata. At least I hope it was a piñata. Candy can be pink, slimy, and wet -- right?
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6328
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:15 pm UTC

Candy slime is a thing.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3726
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:00 pm UTC

I just now read maybe three cumulative pages'-worth overwhelmingly of no-one budging in an "immovable object leaning against another immovable object" so-called-discussion. And that was just the fall-put from the prior bits of 'discussion' that remains unresolved. I haven't got coloured-text to my name, and I see that coloured-text people were in there (I sort of phased out, rather than committing to memory which side everyone was on - was it one person against everyone else or less imbalanced?) but I'd just like to register my own POV that I think it's reached the point where I can't see any more possible merit in the conversation that seems to have hit an asymptote of usefulness already. You're just wasting graph-paper trying to draw the line out longer.

(IMO. YMMV. IANAL . E&OE, T&Cs Apply. HTH, HAND. But carry on if you must. Maybe I'm wrong about the value of the conversation. I'm no paladin of posting myself. Unless I am, in that way paladins are annoying.)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:08 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:I just now read maybe three cumulative pages'-worth overwhelmingly of no-one budging in an "immovable object leaning against another immovable object" so-called-discussion. And that was just the fall-put from the prior bits of 'discussion' that remains unresolved. I haven't got coloured-text to my name, and I see that coloured-text people were in there (I sort of phased out, rather than committing to memory which side everyone was on - was it one person against everyone else or less imbalanced?) but I'd just like to register my own POV that I think it's reached the point where I can't see any more possible merit in the conversation that seems to have hit an asymptote of usefulness already. You're just wasting graph-paper trying to draw the line out longer.
I suspect you could make this post in nearly any thread in any forum at any time anywhere on the internet and it would have a pretty decent shot at coming off as relevant? Regardless, it seems to have mostly quieted down now -- and I don't think there's much to get out of a post-mortem review.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5007
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:50 pm UTC

Yeah I'm pretty happy to just let this shitfire die. Jose said the last of what I had any inclination of saying already, and even managed to bring it back on topic to Trump, so I think that's the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3726
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:44 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I suspect you could make this post in nearly any thread in any forum at any time anywhere on the internet and it would have a pretty decent shot at coming off as relevant?

Maybe, and I'm sure I've not got clean hands myself.
Spoiler:
But this one was particularly getting on my wick. Not people saying things I disagreed with, which is inevitable and not even a sign that I'm right myself, but people I 'know' as not being your base trolls (give or take forgivable quirks) who are regular contributors of non-negative note and yet…

And I nearly posted it 24 hours earlier during a spate of argument that I'd hoped was ending. If it naturally stopped about the time I did post then I'm happy. Without claiming credit. I'll take it either way.

Mostly, though, I'd like to say sorry for being 'holier than thou' on this, I just snapped under various stresses. Mostly not even forum-based, which is usually a happy little place of (hopefully) intellectual satisfaction.


I also apologise, BTW, for the bold text. It was supposed to be italics, but I obviously missed the correct formatting button (it happens often enough, must be the way I tilt the pad of my finger over that usual area of the touch-screen) and I didn't catch it and manually edit it from b to i in both tags like I usually do when I notice what I did. It was supposed to be emphasised, but not strong, to draw the eyes yet without bashing them with a baseball bat like it did.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:15 am UTC

It's fine; I didn't take your post as negative or hostile -- just as an expression of bafflement.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:43 pm UTC

Recently had surgery. Foudn that "where the skin's been prepped" above and below the dressing was orange, like Trump.

Speculation: he slathers on the Dettol every morning, out of generic germophobia or because he wants to save the surgical team some time when he inevitably gets shot by a lesbian Muslim African anchor baby on benefits.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

ijuin
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ijuin » Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:45 pm UTC

I’d go with the germophobia idea—he’s already showing paranoia similar to the later days of Howard Hughes.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:56 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:I’d go with the germophobia idea—he’s already showing paranoia similar to the later days of Howard Hughes.

It's not tanning products? Do you have citations?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 19, 2018 5:12 am UTC

Ok, serious question. What activities would a forestry service normally do that could actually prevent fires?

Context: Trump talking out of his ass regarding what California should've done to prevent forest fires. At this point I'm half expecting him to say that it's Silicon Valley's fault for not having created a zombie-cyborg Smokey the Bear in time.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Nov 19, 2018 5:17 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Ok, serious question. What activities would a forestry service normally do that could actually prevent fires?

Context: Trump talking out of his ass regarding what California should've done to prevent forest fires. At this point I'm half expecting him to say that it's Silicon Valley's fault for not having created a zombie-cyborg Smokey the Bear in time.

More cutting, more burning. Maybe put up a fight/permit to prevent sprawl into forest zones. Also most fires are started by humans, so maybe some enforcement/campaigning to reduce that. Forestry budgets are pretty tight, they really should increase those, cuz of the unending fires.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5007
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Nov 19, 2018 5:47 am UTC

It’s mostly federally managed forests that are the problem anyway so it’s the fault of people under Trump’s command, not the CA govt, in any case.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6328
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:23 am UTC

I hear that in Finland the government forces children to rake the forests if they misbehave.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Mon Nov 19, 2018 9:01 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Ok, serious question. What activities would a forestry service normally do that could actually prevent fires?
Putting all the gays, blacks and lefties under house arrest, according to this guy:

Image
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

gd1
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Mon Nov 19, 2018 9:42 am UTC

Authoritarianism: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Last one of the year.... :( ... Now is the winter of our discontent.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Mon Nov 19, 2018 5:46 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:It’s mostly federally managed forests that are the problem anyway so it’s the fault of people under Trump’s command, not the CA govt, in any case.


I think the complaints of mismanagement are all part of the Trump Administration's agenda to promote the idea that public lands would be better managed by private companies.

And oh, look, by an amazing coincidence, earlier this month it got easier for the federal government to sell public lands in California!
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go ... 54635.html

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:04 pm UTC

In fairness, clearcut forests rarely burn down...

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:52 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:In fairness, clearcut forests rarely burn down...

Yeah, but when was the last time a plane crash in a forest killed 3000 people?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

cphite
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Mon Nov 19, 2018 7:31 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Ok, serious question. What activities would a forestry service normally do that could actually prevent fires?

Context: Trump talking out of his ass regarding what California should've done to prevent forest fires. At this point I'm half expecting him to say that it's Silicon Valley's fault for not having created a zombie-cyborg Smokey the Bear in time.


As per usual, Trump is barely understanding and thus over-simplifying the thing he's talking about. You cannot prevent fires with a rake.

It would be beneficial to do some cutting and brush removal in the forests, especially near areas where people camp, along highways, and along power lines. It would also be good to do some controlled burns in order to create buffers, to hinder the spread of wildfires.

These activities can be very expensive - but they tend to be less expensive than letting fires grow out of control, and given that we're seeing out of control fires every year, they're arguably worth the cost. And cost aside, they're definitely better than seeing people lose their homes and their lives to wildfires.

The other part that Trump seems to have missed is that the majority of forest that needs this preventative maintenance is on federal land - so any preventatives like this would be their responsibility.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ElWanderer and 63 guests