Clown Car V: 2020 version!

[Sommerswerd]

You'd have had to been listening for it in fleeting on the background of an open mic. It wasn't repeated and no, getting bullied by the principle over a social nicety can **** off along with all the reasonable hens. Pain is their jam.

First of all, there's no way you said anything that their kids haven't heard in every freaking Marvel movie they've ever seen... Second, you're right that they are just looking for something to grouse about... everybody knows that online school is going to pickup some occasional real life happening in the background... complaining to the principal about it is just malice for its own sake.

Forgiveness is the wrong word, then.

I disagree. You can still forgive someone even if you liked them beforehand. Its just alot easier to forgive the folks you like, obviously.

 

[Farm Boy]

They're the kids from high school that wanted people to kill themselves for kicks, all grown up and pecking away like the righteous hens they are.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Sounds about right.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You cannot forgive something you do not mind. You cannot find inappropriate something you do not mind.

I agree in the first instance, but not in the second. I can certainly recognize that a joke for example is inappropriate, but still find it funny, and simultaneously acknowledge the inappropriateness of it while also acknowledging that I still found it funny as hell.

 

[Samson]

Massive Cheeting of course.

@Samson it seems to me that we will (or maybe already have) reached a point where people have become pretty acclimated to the lack of privacy our society has created and consequently desensitized to a lot of the results. Trump's election, and unshakeable popularity appears to be a pretty good example of this. All the endless cringey stuff he did and said, all the stuff that was dredged up over the course of the campaign and his Presidency, and you kept hearing "this would end the career of any normal politician"... but I think that maybe no... maybe we as a society are just about past that stage. People just don't gaf anymore. They don't care about what you got caught doing or saying on tape, they don't care about what you posted on the internet 5 years ago, or yesterday FTM... they don't care about this or that thing you did 20 years ago. If they like you, they like you, and they aren't going to be talked out of it by people that are opposed to you.

As people become more accustomed to the idea that the internet makes everything last forever, and there is access to unlimited information, real and fake... they settle into the notion that everyone has something on them that some opponent is going to dig up (or fabricate) at some point. So if you are willing to abandon the people you like based on that, while the people on the other "side" stick by their favourites... then all you do is create a lopsided situation where you lose all your heroes, while the other guy gets to keep all his... because he was willing to handwave, dare I say, "forgive" the flaws, misdeeds, gaffes, bad-statements, etc., while you were not. I don't know if I would call it "forgiveness" exactly, but that seems to be as good a word for it as any... so maybe. Or maybe you can call it "prisoners dilemma" or "partisanship" or "double standards" or "hypocrisy"... whatever you call it, the result is the same. "Forgiveness" sounds nicer, but in the end, it seems that we pretty much "forgive" the folks we like, and "cancel" the ones we don't... but the liking and not liking comes first, rather than after.

I guess this is addressing the "who will be able to run for election in 20 years" question. It is hopeful, but quite possible. There are of course all the other downsides of having your life documented online, and this may not actually happen if enough people manage to contain their online identity.

I am very into forgiving, and there are very few things I would not forgive if the forgivee apologised in the Catholic sense. However the groups you are expecting to forgive are not well known for it. We have covered the public, but there is also the police, google, ICE, terrorists, ex's, the list goes on.

 

[Farm Boy]

I agree in the first instance, but not in the second. I can certainly recognize that a joke for example is inappropriate, but still find it funny, and simultaneously acknowledge the inappropriateness of it while also acknowledging that I still found it funny as hell.

To use the "that's different" insult, can you really tolerate as appropriate the horse****er with a happy, healthy family if you think horse****ing is fine and dandy on its own? Or is it just something you agree with being ok and predictable at that point? I'm not bent on the specific word "appropriate."

 

[Sommerswerd]

To use the "that's different" insult, can you really tolerate as appropriate the horse****er with a happy, healthy family if you think horse****ing is fine and dandy on its own? Or is it just something you agree with being ok and predictable at that point? I'm not bent on the specific word "appropriate."

Another example, I can see someone dressed in an outfit that I find inappropriate under the circumstances, but still not mind that they wore it.

As for horse-boi... I certainly don't think horse-humping is fine and dandy, I'm pretty sure its illegal and defined as animal abuse to say the least ... although depending on who is on the receiving end of what it may be a victimless crime... but even putting that aside, no we probably shouldn't be sexing our horses, but I'm not going to refuse to say good morning to someone over it. As an aside... owning a horse seems like such an over-the-top luxury to me... I actually can't think of a single person that I am on a first name basis with who owns a horse... I know its different with farms, but still... those things must eat like... well... a horse.

That said, I certainly can think of plenty of examples where folks expressed displeasure, discomfort, irritation, offense, disgust, etc., with something that their politician of choice said or did, but then express an intention to vote for and/or support them anyway. I guess you could call that forgiveness.

 

[Farm Boy]

It wasn't as much of one in the 80s. Poor people still had grass patches that weren't really tillable, old sheds that weren't commercially valuable, and the animal rightists hadn't shut down the only horse processor for end-of-life livestock meaning it all had to be shipped to Mexico. Then the veterinary care standards came in and you're right. The people who demand things be legal determined horses are a luxury and the poors should not have them, much less **** them. Plenty of victims, just not of "crime" to be sure.

I know the people who lobbied for that. The head guy runs an animal shelter and makes about 200,000 a year off his nonprofit. He begs labor off women who make 20 grand a year. Predictable sort of human waste, that.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I guess this is addressing the "who will be able to run for election in 20 years" question. It is hopeful, but quite possible. There are of course all the other downsides of having your life documented online, and this may not actually happen if enough people manage to contain their online identity.

I am very into forgiving, and there are very few things I would not forgive if the forgivee apologised in the Catholic sense. However the groups you are expecting to forgive are not well known for it. We have covered the public, but there is also the police, google, ICE, terrorists, ex's, the list goes on.

I guess my feeling is that we are approaching a point where if a person is running for office and they have some compromising/offensive stuff they said, did, etc., online and/or on audio recording or video... people's attitude will be "So what? No big deal. Its the same for everybody." It will start to become a non-factor because everyone will have such a substantial online history with tons of compromising/embarrassing stuff.

In fact, I can foresee a full pendulum swing, whereby not having compromising stuff about you online and/or not having a large enough online history/presence will actually hurt you politically, because you will seem inauthentic. People will find it hard to see a politician as relatable if they don't have some online pictures of them drunk at some party like everyone else, or a long facebook history like everyone else. People will be mistrustful of people with no internet profile, because they will feel like you are hiding something, or that you are a politico-bot that has been groomed from birth to rule, with all your media carefully curated to be "perfect"... and people resent that.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Atlantic City to auction off demolition of former Trump casino

A casino formerly owned by Donald Trump is set to be demolished, and you can push the button for the right price.

The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City went bankrupt and shut in 2014. Now, the city is auctioning off the chance to dynamite it for charity.

The property was one of three Trump-branded casinos that once formed the centrepiece of the world-famous resort city nicknamed "America's playground".

But as revenues plummeted, Mr Trump cut his losses and his ties with the city.

City officials have called several times for the idle building to be torn down after chunks of the crumbling landmark repeatedly broke off and fell onto surrounding streets.

A bidding process that began on Thursday will determine who gets the right to count down and hit the button that will raze the 39-floor casino.

Proceeds from the auction will fund the local chapter of the Boys & Girls Club of America, a youth development organisation.

"I want to raise at least a million dollars and I think we can accomplish that," said Atlantic City Mayor Marty Small Sr, in a press conference.

The mayor said his office has already been "bombarded" with phone calls about the auction, from Arkansas to Canada.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55357512

 

[Sommerswerd]

The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City went bankrupt and shut in 2014. Now, the city is auctioning off the chance to dynamite it for charity.

The property was one of three Trump-branded casinos that once formed the centrepiece of the world-famous resort city nicknamed "America's playground".

But as revenues plummeted, Mr Trump cut his losses and his ties with the city.

City officials have called several times for the idle building to be torn down after chunks of the crumbling landmark repeatedly broke off and fell onto surrounding streets.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55357512

Absolutely perfect metaphor.

In related news, Trump is pissed at McConell for finally saying that Biden is the President-elect. And its a small thing at this point, but he is once again lying, exaggerating how many supporters he has. Trump keeps claiming that he got 75 million votes, when it would be more accurate to say he got 74 million, or even "over 74 million" (74,222,593 as of today)... but even on a little thing like that he can't resist the urge to lie and exaggerate his crowd size.

 

[Samson]

the animal rightists hadn't shut down the only horse processor for end-of-life livestock meaning it all had to be shipped to Mexico. Then the veterinary care standards came in and you're right.

One of my bugbears is that Blair introduced regulations to make slaughterhouses more welfare friendly. In the next few years the number of major slaughterhouses in the UK went from about 50 to about 5. I believe that the additional travel time for animals to slaughter far outweighs any improvement within slaughterhouses, in the amount of suffering the animal experiences. They may have not been great before, but they were some of the best in the world.

 

[Sommerswerd]

One of my bugbears is that Blair introduced regulations to make slaughterhouses more welfare friendly. In the next few years the number of major slaughterhouses in the UK went from about 50 to about 5. I believe that the additional travel time for animals to slaughter far outweighs any improvement within slaughterhouses, in the amount of suffering the animal experiences. They may have not been great before, but they were some of the best in the world.

The whole concept of the "humane" treatment of animals that we are simultaneously, imprisoning, overfeeding to point of morbid obesity, injecting with chemicals and god knows what else, all to finally, literally decapitate, dismember, burn and then consume their flesh is a little surreal.

Kinda reminds me of "clean coal". I mean i get it, but its still a head scratcher.

 

[cardgame]

The whole concept of the "humane" treatment of animals that we are simultaneously, imprisoning, overfeeding to point of morbid obesity, injecting with chemicals and god knows what else, all to finally, literally decapitate, dismember, burn and then consume their flesh is a little surreal.

Lab grown meat already exists, it's just grown outside the lab

 

[Samson]

The whole concept of the "humane" treatment of animals that we are simultaneously, imprisoning, overfeeding to point of morbid obesity, injecting with chemicals and god knows what else, all to finally, literally decapitate, dismember, burn and then consume their flesh is a little surreal.

Kinda reminds me of "clean coal". I mean i get it, but its still a head scratcher.

These are difficult questions. They are ones you need to confront if you want to assess the morality of eating meat, and using medicine. Much the same as when using electricity.

 

[El_Machinae]

They're not terrifically difficult questions, honestly, given that we can distinguish between which meat consumption is done for survival and health and which is done for pleasure. There are spectrums of meat consumption where there are difficult questions, but that's only a minority of our consumption. What makes the questions 'hard' is that we dgaf about invisible suffering if it means we can be hedonistic.

Sometimes I think about starting a company (or at least building the website thereof) where the business treats dogs like we pay people to treat pigs.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Sometimes I think about starting a company (or at least building the website thereof) where the business treats dogs like we pay people to treat pigs.

Do it! Include fake videos and talking heads about how humane it all is. It would certainly attract attention and generate conversation in its comment sections.

 

[Samson]

They're not terrifically difficult questions, honestly, given that we can distinguish between which meat consumption is done for survival and health and which is done for pleasure. There are spectrums of meat consumption where there are difficult questions, but that's only a minority of our consumption. What makes the questions 'hard' is that we dgaf about invisible suffering if it means we can be hedonistic.

Sometimes I think about starting a company (or at least building the website thereof) where the business treats dogs like we pay people to treat pigs.

If you are talking about calories extracted by animals because that is the most efficient way to use land, then great, we should be doing that. A lot of this is ruminants though, and they belch. That is 0.1% of meat consumption?

The most environmentally friendly meat production is poultry production, which can turn about 2.2 Kg of human edible food into 1 Kg of poultry. That is their food conversion efficiency.

The most difficult question I have is how much pork to eat. I believe they are the most intelligent domesticated species, and suffer horrific conditions. Their food conversion efficiency is ~4, worse than poultry but far better than any ruminant. They are also really tasty and widely available. I will always go for turkey over pork, but I eat pork.

[EDIT]So I reread your post, and if your point is that no meat consumption is justifiable then I cannot argue. Probably a lot better than running a car though.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, people don't give a **** about the ethical considerations. People weren't raising the horses for production, they had horses as pets and exercise livestock. That got shut down because the horse fetishist bouge decided they're too pretty and handsome to own unless you can pay certified and accredited rent extraction and they didn't want to think about using the animal products when it was time. It was, and is, naked classism. No wearing of the purple for you, peasant, or we'll smack your dick. And the world still has our local flavor of them in it. It's a shame.

 

[El_Machinae]

So I reread your post, and if your point is that no meat consumption is justifiable then I cannot argue.

Not that 'no' meat consumption is justified. We live in a world where it's impossible to be perfectly good, and animals bear that cost too. But that there is A LOT of meat consumption that cannot be justified. And they're very different categories, practically speaking