Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401
Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
2018-07-14, 9:44 PM #10161
Originally posted by Eversor:
I think the person to follow is Reihan Salam. He wrote a book with Ross Douthat back in 2008 which was very policy heavy which argued that the GOP needed to fundamentally change it's direction and reconcile some of its philosophical tenets to a more overtly activist approach. Salam identifies as a "Reformicon", which is a tiny, tiny movement within American conservatism, but Salam is also the intellectual muscle behind whatever Marco Rubio is doing behind the scenes as he considers waging a primary challenge against Trump in 2020. So I'd encourage you to take a peek at his book, or check out this video from 2008, with Douthat and Salam talking about their book:



It's one of the more promising, innovative and thoughtful intellectual schools within conservatism right now, but whether -- even in extraordinary circumstances -- it could become the dominant ideology of the GOP... I'm doubtful. In that vein, I'd add also that the book was written at a time before people really anticipated a radical realignment to the two parties, and I'd say that many of axes upon which that realignment will occur probably weren't those that Salam and Douthat imagined as being the most relevant in 2008.


The video doesn't talk about their stance so much, so I'll have to check out the book. Thanks for the reference, I'll try to read it here sometime in the next few months.
2018-07-14, 9:58 PM #10162
Originally posted by Reid:
I know, right? It's so weird how our elected officials create laws to address issues in our society.
Well... do they really? Sometimes?
2018-07-14, 10:04 PM #10163
lmao at this headline: "Sacha Baron Cohen Tricked Me Into Saying We Should Arm Preschool" https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-gop-rep-joe-walsh-sacha-baron-cohen-tricked-me-into-saying-some-pretty-stupid-stuff
2018-07-14, 10:05 PM #10164
Originally posted by Steven:
Everyone does this: right, left middling, Democrat, Republican, whatever. This is the nature of American politics (especially as of late). Always trying to capitalize on whatever tragedy or misfortune is at hand. Shooting? Ban machine guns and raise the gun purchase age. Border issues? Keep Families Together act. Opioid epidemic? Introduce a bill. Trump making deals with China? Introduce a bill. Prisons over-crowded? Pass a bill. This has been par for the course for at least thirty years. Sometimes they even introduce legislation so quickly and poorly prepared, they have to vote against their own legislation.




Sorry, dude. The rule of the day isn't capricious bill-passing, it's obstruction.
2018-07-14, 10:21 PM #10165
You can check congressional statistics going back to the 70s here:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics

Note that the total amount of proposed legislation has been declining, not increasing (down from 26k in the 1970s to 12k in Obama's last year). Percentage-wise, legislation is about as likely to get through the system as it has ever been, but congress doesn't seem to be doing the work anymore. Bills are more likely to fail in congress, and the presidential veto is essentially nonexistent.

Statistics seem to bear this out, the problem is the exact opposite of what you said Steven.
2018-07-15, 12:08 AM #10166
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Well... do they really? Sometimes?


yeah, those awful opportunists want to use the opioid epidemic to help people with addictions.. what partisan bull****!
2018-07-15, 12:28 AM #10167
I would argue that these stats are that way because for the last thirty years or so, legislation has been more and more reactionary and introduced/sponsored upon partisan lines (and obstructed upon partisan lines), and less and less cooperative, "legitimate" legislation.

And any way, my point wasn't necessarily about bills, but that all parties are trying to "exhaust the political attention" (as Jones put it) of their opponents with reactionary legislation, incendiary commentary, and other useless yet emotionally provocative or controversial filler.

[Example: the whole Stormy Daniels affair ****storm. Democrats and their cronies keep pushing the story to point out how bad Donald Trump is, and how we can't trust him, and omg he's such a POS, while Republicans and Co. enjoy pointing out how much time and money everyone is wasting on something that's not even illegal, doesn't affect his ability to do the job, and previous presidents have done similar or worse things while in office.

Meanwhile, no one does any work, the news channels have content for weeks, and both sides are trying to win a war of attrition and no one is gaining or losing ground.]
2018-07-15, 12:33 AM #10168
Originally posted by Reid:
yeah, those awful opportunists want to use the opioid epidemic to help people with addictions.. what partisan bull****!


Steven's post shifted my idea to a somewhat more positive conception of what legislators do. I don't think (say) introducing bills banning same-sex marriage in order to create legislative hills for Democrats to die on counts as "legislating in the public interest".

That said, I don't know if that's how Congress works: I doubt it's really just a zero sum game, where either political party can gain leverage over the other by introducing legislation they'd dislike. A better description of how they legislate might be that congresspeople introduce bills simply to tell their constituents that they did (even when it has no chance of passing).
2018-07-15, 12:36 AM #10169
This is true. A lot of times congressmen will talk about how they "fought in Congress for" whatever, but on CSPAN, you can see they're talking to an empty room and will accomplish absolutely nothing, but it's technically on record.
2018-07-15, 12:37 AM #10170
Perhaps my point was more that such spectacular legislative battles over hot-button issues tend to generate more interest from the voting public (whether or not this motivates congresspeople to introduce bills as partisan weapons, I don't know).
2018-07-15, 12:38 AM #10171
Originally posted by Steven:
This is true. A lot of time congressman will talk about now they "fought in Congress for" whatever, but on CSPAN, you can see they're talking to an empty room and will accomplish absolutely nothing, but it's technically on record.


Ron Paul did this a lot. Almost none of his bills passed, lol
2018-07-15, 12:47 AM #10172
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Note that the total amount of proposed legislation has been declining, not increasing (down from 26k in the 1970s to 12k in Obama's last year).


Could have something to do with Reagan's obsession with decreasing the output of the Federal Register by a third, to prove that he was cutting "governmental red tape".

i.e., obstruction = freedom from government overreach. Thanks, Ronnie!
2018-07-15, 12:50 AM #10173
It's crazy how people are against the very idea of laws themselves.

Well, maybe not too surprising. I think it might have to do with why people are also against taxes: because their memories of having interacted with the government, in either case, are not pleasant ones. Either they are being told to follow a regulation, or being asked to calculate the taxes they pay. So the naive conclusion is: get rid of the regulations and the taxes!
2018-07-15, 12:57 AM #10174
Originally posted by Reid:
The video doesn't talk about their stance so much, so I'll have to check out the book. Thanks for the reference, I'll try to read it here sometime in the next few months.


You can also read Salam's writing in Slate and National Review.
former entrepreneur
2018-07-15, 4:26 AM #10175
Originally posted by Eversor:
But: it's "offensive" now if you acknowledge that the interests of certain minority groups aren't harmonious, and they actually compete with each other.


Yeah... no. Nobody in my circles thinks it's offensive to state that certain groups aren't harmonious, even in the online circles. I'd be hard pressed to find someone who's offended by the idea that a group of people linked only by their struggles can contain people with various different opinions that don't necessarily agree with each other.

It is however insulting to insinuate that we're all easily offended at the slightest criticism or provocation and that you think we're too emotional to notice obvious facts like that. It's a condescending statement and an obvious thinly veiled jab at PC culture.
2018-07-15, 4:27 AM #10176
Originally posted by Reid:
At least personally, I haven't commented on the pick because I know little about Kavanaugh. People are saying he's more moderate, which is good. Some people were also saying the sky is falling, which it isn't. When I'm talking about the Koch brothers subverting the courts, this goes much beyond just the SCOTUS nomination.


Eh, for you the sky might not be falling, but a lot of my friends just lost a Supreme Court Justice that swayed important rulings that granted them rights. And he was just replaced with someone who supports "religious freedom", which is a red flag if I've ever seen one.

They've been in a panic for a while with the way the Government has been handling their rights. When doctors can use "religious freedom" to deny treatment to patients seeking important/emergency medical care and the Government stands back and condones it and even protects it by law, seemingly against your very right to exist, wouldn't you feel like the sky was falling?
2018-07-15, 5:05 AM #10177
Originally posted by Xzero:
It is however insulting to insinuate that we're all easily offended at the slightest criticism or provocation and that you think we're too emotional to notice obvious facts like that. It's a condescending statement and an obvious thinly veiled jab at PC culture.


It's more than a thinly veiled jab. I think "PC culture" is unfortunate in many ways. I'm not going to claim that it has done nothing to promote acceptance amongst marginalized groups, because it has done much to that effect. But, at the same time, I think "PC culture" has generally been destructive and divisive, with many of its basic premises being disconnected from reality. It's the triumph of a rigid narrative over openness to new and changing facts and exceptions, and it's actually done more to promote racial stratification (by intensifying racial consciousness) than to undermine it. It's deeply illiberal.

But... come on, you're simultaneously claiming that it's insulting for me to say that you're easily offended, when, at the same time, you claim I've condescended to you (i.e., that I've insulted you), when I haven't actually said any of the things you've accused me of saying (e.g., that "you all" -- whoever that's supposed to be -- "are all easily offended," for instance).
former entrepreneur
2018-07-15, 6:00 AM #10178
Originally posted by Eversor:
But... come on, you're simultaneously claiming that it's insulting for me to say that you're easily offended, when, at the same time, you claim I've condescended to you (i.e., that I've insulted you), when I haven't actually said any of the things you've accused me of saying (e.g., that "you all" -- whoever that's supposed to be -- "are all easily offended," for instance).


I never said I was insulted. I said the statement can be insulting. There's a distinct difference.

I also haven't accused you of saying anything, I pointed out that this:
Originally posted by Eversor:
But: it's "offensive" now if you acknowledge that the interests of certain minority groups aren't harmonious, and they actually compete with each other.


which are your exact words, particularly the use of quotations around "offensive", typically suggests that the groups in question are overly emotional and too sensitive and should "calm down". It's the "snowflake" statement without explicitly stating it.

I don't particularly care if that was you're intent or not. When you repeat right-wing talking points, I'll see right-wing talking points.
2018-07-15, 6:37 AM #10179
Well, this became a meta-discussion quickly, so we're kind of getting into the weeds here, but:

Originally posted by Xzero:
I also haven't accused you of saying anything


You did actually. You said this:

Originally posted by Xzero:
It is however insulting to insinuate that we're all easily offended at the slightest criticism or provocation and that you think we're too emotional to notice obvious facts like that.


Note the text in bold, where you're claiming directly that I think something that I don't.

Originally posted by Xzero:
which are your exact words, particularly the use of quotations around "offensive", typically suggests that the groups in question are overly emotional and too sensitive and should "calm down". It's the "snowflake" statement without explicitly stating it.


Maybe that's what you inferred from what I said, but my intended meaning was that there are efforts by some to police speech by claiming that certain ideas or expressions are beyond the pale. I wasn't asserting anything about anyone's emotions.

Originally posted by Xzero:
I don't particularly care if that was you're intent or not. When you repeat right-wing talking points, I'll see right-wing talking points.


And I don't particularly care if you think I'm reciting "right-wing" talking points -- I think that's your loss that you'd think that anything outside of whatever the left's narrow orthodoxies are in 2018 must be morally degenerate. If anything, this sort of rhetoric only goes to show how dogmatic, inflexible, and -- frankly -- extremist the identity left has become.
former entrepreneur
2018-07-15, 7:15 AM #10180
Originally posted by Eversor:
And I don't particularly care if you think I'm reciting "right-wing" talking points -- I think that's your loss that you'd think that anything outside of whatever the left's narrow orthodoxies are in 2018 must be morally degenerate. If anything, this sort of rhetoric only goes to show how dogmatic, inflexible, and -- frankly -- extremist the identity left has become.


yawn
2018-07-15, 7:47 AM #10181
Originally posted by Reid:
yawn


¯\_(ツ)_/¯
former entrepreneur
2018-07-15, 10:05 AM #10182
Ah, the yawn. The laziest, passive aggressive way to make Not An Argument.
2018-07-15, 10:06 AM #10183
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Ah, the yawn. The laziest, passive aggressive way to make Not An Argument.


Right?
former entrepreneur
2018-07-15, 10:14 AM #10184
Second only to the "meh"
2018-07-15, 10:23 AM #10185
Originally posted by Steven:
Second only to the "meh"


meh, yawn is better.
2018-07-15, 10:37 AM #10186
Originally posted by Jon`C:
meh, yawn is better.


yawn, meh yawns mehter
former entrepreneur
2018-07-15, 10:38 AM #10187
Yikes
2018-07-15, 10:39 AM #10188
Marklar
2018-07-15, 10:42 AM #10189
squanch
former entrepreneur
2018-07-15, 11:04 AM #10190
oooo.... kay... *rolls eyes*
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■
enshu
2018-07-15, 1:28 PM #10191
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Ah, the yawn. The laziest, passive aggressive way to make Not An Argument.


Not a little ironic that the Not An Argument meme is sourced from a right wing cult leader to pretty much always promote "argument" in a bad faith way.
2018-07-15, 1:33 PM #10192
Originally posted by Reid:
Not a little ironic that the Not An Argument meme is sourced from a right wing cult leader to pretty much always promote "argument" in a bad faith way.


It's a good thing the left has trademarked the yawn meme then or else you'd be in big trouble
former entrepreneur
2018-07-15, 1:37 PM #10193
Originally posted by Reid:
Not a little ironic that the Not An Argument meme is sourced from a right wing cult leader to pretty much always promote "argument" in a bad faith way.
How is yawning ever in good faith?
2018-07-15, 1:50 PM #10194


Who will the snark the snarkers?

In the past few days, there've been several things I've come across that have reminded of that Jacob Siegel article I posted a week ago (or whenever it was), and this is one of them. The increasingly dominant style of conversation on the internet, which is characterized by sarcasm, mockery and irony, is ideologically neutral by itself, but it can be made to serve nearly any ideology -- and it does.

As this video shows, that same derisive style can even be used to make fun of people whose currency is derisiveness (namely, liberal comedy news shows). But what happens when you do that? Does it hold people accountable? Does it contain any *real* element of criticism? Or is it nothing more than a self-satisfied expression of superiority, that manages to tear something down without even going so far as identifying something that is wrong with the thing that it mocks?
former entrepreneur
2018-07-15, 1:54 PM #10195
And that's why I stopped watching Bill Maher during this administration. There are only so many salacious jokes a comedian can crack before it begins to dawn on the viewer that for all the smugness, nobody cared. (Ditto for the Daily Show in the Bush years.)
2018-07-15, 2:01 PM #10196
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
How is yawning ever in good faith?


Not every ****ty post needs a serious reply, mate.
2018-07-15, 2:01 PM #10197
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
And that's why I stopped watching Bill Maher during this administration. There are only so many salacious jokes a comedian can crack before it begins to dawn on the viewer that for all the smugness, nobody cared. (Ditto for the Daily Show in the Bush years.)


The real question is why begin watching Bill Maher at all?
2018-07-15, 2:04 PM #10198
Originally posted by Eversor:


Who will the snark the snarkers?

In the past few days, there've been several things I've come across that have reminded of that Jacob Siegel article I posted a week ago (or whenever it was), and this is one of them. The increasingly dominant style of conversation on the internet, which is characterized by sarcasm, mockery and irony, is ideologically neutral by itself, but it can be made to serve nearly any ideology -- and it does.

As this video shows, that same derisive style can even be used to make fun of people whose currency is derisiveness (namely, liberal comedy news shows). But what happens when you do that? Does it hold people accountable? Does it contain any *real* element of criticism? Or is it nothing more than a self-satisfied expression of superiority, that manages to tear something down without even going so far as identifying something that is wrong with the thing that it mocks?


Just to make that a little more concrete: Wolfe has identified that there's a formula to the way in which comedy news shows address news stories. And she mocks it, and everything about her tone implies that take herself to be exposing these comedy news shows as frauds. But... what's actually wrong with there being a formula to these shows? Does she ever really say? No: she's only made fun of them, in a way that might make you believe by the end that she's been incisive and has debunked them, when in fact she's done nothing of the sort.
former entrepreneur
2018-07-15, 2:05 PM #10199
Originally posted by Reid:
Not every ****ty post needs a serious reply, mate.


Certainly an instance where no reply would've been better than a rude one.
former entrepreneur
2018-07-15, 2:11 PM #10200
My takeaway from this discussion is that if you don't want a meta-discussion that is full of rudeness and aggression, then you probably shouldn't be rude in the first place. And yes, yawning is incredibly rude.
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

↑ Up to the top!