2020 US Election (Part One)

[El_Machinae]

Mainstream English desperately needs the "y'all"

 

[Sommerswerd]

People who employ a symbol don't really get to pick and choose the meaning it is interpreted with.

True, but they can and do choose what the symbol means to them. Then we fight over the disconnect between what you (the royal you) say the symbol subjectively means to you versus what you know damn well that it means to me (the royal me).

That's part of where the tension comes from. For example, I can't be bothered with renouncing the General Lee from Dukes of Hazard, because I loved that car as a child. In fact, the rebel flag on the roof is part of what makes it cool.

I won't derail into desonstructing the symbolism of the show, but the point is, because of that, I can appreciate that guy might not be too keen on renouncing a symbol that he's had the feelsies for since childhood, that was on his favorite tee-shirt as a kid, or a tatoo on his favorite uncles arm... or whatever. There's folks who have the feelsies of it being their team logo of sorts, all mixed in, to various degrees, with the other stuff it symbolizes and it can be hard for a person to mentally separate it all. Especially if they live in a community where its not even necessary to.

 

[Farm Boy]

Mainstream English desperately needs the "y'all"

But then our teeth will fall out while we're fornicatin' our sisters.

 

[Sommerswerd]

mmmmmmm… fornication...

On a related note... Iron Mike Tyson, had about the best delivery of the word "fornicate" I've ever heard.

 

[Takhisis]

No, this you cannot do. "The royal we" already has a meaning. It's the phrase on which you modeled your imbecilic "royal you." You (the thick-headed singular you) can't then go use that phraseological atrocity as the model for the back-formation of a second phraseological atrocity that would usurp the meaning of the original phrase.

Your points about the Confederate flag are your usual sound-mindedness, when you're talking about nearly anything but royal+pronoun (or Star Wars).

Unsurprisingly, I disagree. I (not the royal I) can do whatever I want phraseologically, and you (the not royal you as well as the royal you) can't stop me

I fart in your general direction. Now go away or I shall be forced to taunt you a second time.

Unsurprisingly, I partially disagree with both of you. Gori is right about everything except Star Wars.
Sommerswerd, for his crimes against the English language, shall be sentenced to a full presidential term of living under President Donald Trump, including time already served, to be extended upon review by no more than a further one presidential period of four years. There is no right to appeal except of the sex- type.

Case adjourned.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Wait, that means all the rest of the I's (the plural I's) get punished right alongside him (the singular him) for his (the singular his) singular crimes against the language?

That hardly seems fair.

Gori is right about everything except Star Wars.

That, time will tell.

 

[Takhisis]

There is a full stop after ‘Star Wars’, so clearly the punishment applies

Sommerswerd subject
for his crimes against the English language, adverbial adjunct stating cause
shall be sentenced main verb phrase​

‘Sommerswerd’ is the subject of ‘shall be sentenced to a full presidential term…

Nothing that a little syntactic analysis doesn't clear up.

Of course, if you want to get out of the U.S. of A. then it is not within the purview of this self-appointed court to furnish you with the means to do so.

 

[El_Machinae]

Unsurprisingly, I partially disagree with both of you. Gori is right about everything except Star Wars.
Sommerswerd, for his crimes against the English language, shall be sentenced to a full presidential term of living under President Donald Trump, including time already served, to be extended upon review by no more than a further one presidential period of four years. There is no right to appeal except of the sex- type.

Case adjourned.

Hmmmn, Trump 2020 means Trump 2024, you realize.

 

[Traitorfish]

Can you explain why the Confederate flag and the swastika aren't basically the same thing anyway?

The swastika has considerably less plausible deniability. A Confederate flag may, in the right context, simply be a thoughtless piece of Southern kitsch. A swastika, at best, indicates an intention to offend and disgust. We might believe that someone displaying a Confederate flag simply doesn't appreciate the connotations; we would extent the same benefit of the doubt to some displaying a swastika.

Of course, in some ways that makes the Confederate flag more insidious, because those who use it as a racist symbol can hide behind those who use it as a merely romantic symbol, and indeed convince that latter group to defend a usage of the symbol they wouldn't otherwise condone. It's not quite a dog whistle, because everyone is aware of the racist usage, but the waters are muddied enough that proving that any given usage is an example of such can be difficult to prove, at least to the satisfaction of those who would privately prefer it not to be proven.

 

[Takhisis]

Hmmmn, Trump 2020 means Trump 2024, you realize.

This democratically self-appointed court refuses to accede to your tequest for review on such flimsy arguments.

The swastika has considerably less plausible deniability. A Confederate flag may, in the right context, simply be a thoughtless piece of Southern kitsch. A swastika, at best, indicates an intention to offend and disgust. We might believe that someone displaying a Confederate flag simply doesn't appreciate the connotations; we would extent the same benefit of the doubt to some displaying a swastika.

Of course, in some ways that makes the Confederate flag more insidious, because those who use it as a racist symbol can hide behind those who use it as a merely romantic symbol, and indeed convince that latter group to defend a usage of the symbol they wouldn't otherwise condone. It's not quite a dog whistle, because everyone is aware of the racist usage, but the waters are muddied enough that proving that any given usage is an example of such can be difficult to prove, at least to the satisfaction of those who would privately prefer it not to be proven.

I am still of the opinion that espousing ‘American values’ and espousing the symbology of the state created to secede from the United States of America because they disagreed with the anti-slavery morality of it is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Tristan_C]

lets see, going by the Bill of Rights I'd think those values include religious freedom, speech, press, association and assembly, self defense (guns), freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, respect for property, trial by jury of peers, no excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments.

@Timsup2nothin argued here that all of these values were already the law of the land as of 1215. The constitution was just a rephrasing. Would that everyone was so in awe of King John's barons. We'd be a nobler race.

How did these get established as American values (or even the American values, if you make that kind of claim on their behalf)?.

Regarding my laundry list, "freedom, competition, individualism, and regard for the founding documents." These have persistently driven events and human behavior here. Also they are a consensus reality; i.e., they are obsessed-over as American values by so many that it ends up being true. Even leftists who do not share these values recognize and understand the process. Their strategic behavior in news, schools, and entertainment attacking these values specifically, and taking every opportunity to denigrate the constitution like Tim and @Lexicus did, with the goal of pushing some different consensus reality, indicates this clearly. With all that fun going on in the background, it's hypocritical to paint me as a sanctimonious arbiter of truth. I'm not a leftist.

Americans also held values in the colonial era that were already considered western ideas, or were even more widespread phenomena than that. It would be ethnocentric to claim them as American.

Do you find it ironic that a society would have this set of values, since at least two of them (competition and individualism) and possibly even the third (based on how we define it (I think freedom might turn out to be as messy a blob as Marxism)) are values that drive people apart from one another? I know full well that America has made a good go of it as a nation with competition and individualism as prominent values. So maybe we'll just conclude that American has been successful, ironically, despite the fact that some of its chief values are more atomizing rather than communitarian. But do you see any irony here?

Yeah, I see the irony that anti-social ideas birthed a powerful society.

It goes to show that ideas and societies are complex. While the US is an exceptional place, I do not subscribe to "exceptionalist" thinking that Americans have developed a one-size-fits-all approach to life. The health and human services in Nordic countries are not one-size-fits-all, either.

 

[Takhisis]

…it's hypocritical to paint me as a sanctimonious arbiter of truth. I'm not a leftist.

You argue for ‘consensus reality’ which is dangerously close to ‘alternative facts’ territory if it doesn't overlap outright, and then you posit this little gem: that leftists are, by definition (that of one single person), sanctimonious arbiters of truth.

Quaint.

 

[Lexicus]

The swastika has considerably less plausible deniability.

True, though this fact is probably more reflective of the terrible state of history education in the US and the proliferation of Lost Cause nonsense than anything else.

 

[Farm Boy]

it is a contradiction in terms.

Welcome to America.

 

[Gori the Grey]

it's hypocritical to paint me as a sanctimonious arbiter of truth.

Slow down, man. I'm leveling no such accusation. Thank you for answering my questions straightforwardly. I'll work on the follow-ups I want to ask you, based on what you've said here.

 

[Tristan_C]

Quaint.

It was a quip. I was quipped at.

Slow down, man. I'm leveling no such accusation. Thank you for answering my questions straightforwardly. I'll work on the follow-ups I want to ask you, based on what you've said here.

I meant to say that I appreciated your level-headed posts, too, but it's more fun to make quips so I didn't get around to working it in.

 

[Lexicus]

Their strategic behavior in news, schools, and entertainment attacking these values specifically, and taking every opportunity to denigrate the constitution like Tim and @Lexicus did, with the goal of pushing some different consensus reality, indicates this clearly.

Am I to understand from this little sideswipe that your "regard for the founding documents" includes those parts of the Constitution that condone slavery and the slave trade?

 

[Takhisis]

It was a quip. I was quipped at.

Oh, so I was laughing but for the wrong reasons. I see.

 

[onejayhawk]

Oh, so I was laughing but for the wrong reasons. I see.

More like at the wrong person.

Now that the Clown Car is mostly loaded, things have gotten a bit stale. One holdout is the VP. 538 did a story on Biden's potential impact or lack of it.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-happens-if-biden-doesnt-run-or-flops/

Biden either chooses not to run or — a more likely scenario at this point — runs but isn’t a great candidate. The latter scenario is entirely possible. It happened in 1988, when Biden dropped out of the presidential race amid accusations of plagiarism, and in 2008, when he didn’t win a single delegate.

Which candidates might benefit from Biden flaming out? The Change Research poll suggests that the answer is “basically all of them” — from those on the left (Sanders, Warren) to those closer to the center (Booker, O’Rourke). Men would benefit (Buttigieg, Sanders), but also women (Harris, Warren). The other candidates have every reason to be wary of a Biden run — he would almost certainly enter the race as the polling front-runner.​

Democrats have a long history of pulling down frontrunners. Is Biden that guy? If he is, who is the real horse to ride?

J

 

[Takhisis]

More like at the wrong person.

Don't worry, you're laughable too, onejayhawk.