The Good State of Offtopic

[Berzerker]

That is a pretty fascist thing to say.

He told you not to mess with his fascism

Obama was infinitely superior to Trump along every imaginable dimension.

Libya, Syria, drug war/mass incarceration victims, and the people spared death or harm because the responsible party was stopped at the border. I can imagine quite a few people who dont share your opinion.

I actually believe that the Republican Party is probably more dangerous on balance than the Nazis were because of global warming: to paraphrase Noam Chomsky, not even the Nazis wanted to destroy the basis of all of organized human society. Global warming is by far the greatest challenge ever to confront the species, and the Republican attitude toward global warming is: accelerate it! Make it worse! This will be regarded by future generations as a crime without historical parallel.

Virtually all of the world's fresh water is locked up in ice or underground and life does better during warm periods. Imagine how many people would starve if (when) other factors drove us into another ice age. Just about our only defense against such a nightmare are the GHGs we can pump into the atmosphere. The climate record shows we can turn freezing cold in a just a few years. Billions of people would starve, Soylent Green could become reality. Even 3-4 big volcanic blasts is enough to turn us chilly long enough for people to starve. The author of Frankenstein wrote it in Switzerland during the year without summer, that was one volcano.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This is kind of gross and a little troubling. There is philosophical room for skepticism about the fundamental assumptions of science, that isn't even mentioning the certainty of any scientific theory at any point in history, or the validity of a specific set of models on a specific issue.

Using "science" to push a political agenda, while longing for those who oppose this policy prescription based on "science" to be lynched in the streets. It sounds almost, I don't know what's the word, fascist?

You get used to his blood lust after a while, it's part of his charm. That and correctly identifying the 2 best days in the week.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is kind of gross and a little troubling. There is philosophical room for skepticism about the fundamental assumptions of science, that isn't even mentioning the certainty of any scientific theory at any point in history, or the validity of a specific set of models on a specific issue.

Using "science" to push a political agenda, while longing for those who oppose this policy prescription based on "science" to be lynched in the streets. It sounds almost, I don't know what's the word, fascist?

What do you imagine that climate change deniers are doing, if not this exact thing?

The morality of lynching the ruling class aside, we could string every one of them up from the nearest lamp-post, and the death toll would be a fraction of the destruction which man-made climate change has already wrought on the global South.

 

[Berzerker]

I thought they're denying the science

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Science is a hoax created by the Chinese government to slow down the US economy. It's [current_year] people, educate yourselves.

 

[cardgame]

This is a bit too loose for me. Fascists want one party and will use political violence to suppress opposition. Again, Republicans are on the right, so are fascists, of course you are going to find similar ideas. Police are not above the law in the minds of Republicans. They will error on the side of defending the policeman, but almost all of them are more than willing to admit policemen make a lot of mistakes, and if the evidence is there, they agree they must be held accountable. Hostility towards trade unions can be rooted in multiple political philosophies including libertarians.

Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio --- that's quite literally placing him above the law. Trump being the highest ranking member of the Republican party would suggest that police are above the law in the minds of Republicans. Joe Arpaio was not held accountable. More broadly, police unjustifiably kill dogs and people every single day and receive, as consequences for their actions, the long arm of the law a paid vacation. Okay, okay, I'm being unreasonable. Some of them receive legitimate punishment for their crimes, but not nearly to the extent of being 'under' the law as they should be.

Republicans are super into union-busting, but have they ever said a single bad word about police unions? Nothing springs to mind.

Republicans support many things that would disproportionately harm minorities. The way many on the far left imagine republicans think about minorities is simply false. They are generally not explicitly discriminatory in the way a true fascist would be. The things Richard Spencer is saying are not mainstream republican ideas.

If the ends are the same, do (perceived) differences in attitude really matter? Generically Republican ideas about minorities may not be on the same scale as Richard Spencer, but it's a spectrum, not an on/off switch, and they're still on that spectrum.

I don't understand the distinctions between being a committed fascist ideologue and be an actual existing fascist. Fascists are committed to fascist ideologies, if they aren't, then they aren't fascist. I'm not saying they have to identify as such, but their beliefs have to correspond with all necessary fascist tenets. You should be able to read a list of your tenets to them, without identifying them as fascist tenets, and they should say "Yes, I support those things". I'm certain that isn't the case for most republicans, even with the (IMO relaxed) criteria you used above.

I'm less than certain, and one can certainly enable by tacit support, compliance, or simple silence without being a true believer. Since we're talking about fascism I hope it isn't invoking Godwin to remind that the Nazi Party was a minority in Germany when it took absolute power. The conservative party did not say "Yes, I support those things," but it did say "I don't mind."

edit to avoid double posting

Immigrants do not have an inherent race, by the way.

This is a nice, factual statement that, unfortunately, has no bearing on the political reality of immigration. Which, by the way, is inherently about race.

Also, to address a point raised earlier by a user whose name I cannot recall, illegal immigrants commit less crime than the native population, because, duh, they don't want to draw any attention to themselves and get deported. That they are here illegally does not mean that they are here to commit crime.

final edit: to make a comment on-topic I agree with OP or the first few pages of the thread in that OT is in a good place right now. It could be better, but it's been worse. Also, I believe the 'like' button to increase user engagement and sociability.

 

[Berzerker]

Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio --- that's quite literally placing him above the law.

The law allowed him to pardon Arpaio, he couldn't have done it without the law

 

[Synobun]

The law allowed him to pardon Arpaio, he couldn't have done it without the law

Please don't do this.

 

[Gori the Grey]

That and correctly identifying the 2 best days in the week.

Wait, he did this? Where'd I miss that? What are the two best days in the week?

 

[Berzerker]

Please don't do this.

cant help it, wrong is wrong

 

[Estebonrober]

Virtually all of the world's fresh water is locked up in ice or underground and life does better during warm periods. Imagine how many people would starve if (when) other factors drove us into another ice age. Just about our only defense against such a nightmare are the GHGs we can pump into the atmosphere. The climate record shows we can turn freezing cold in a just a few years. Billions of people would starve, Soylent Green could become reality. Even 3-4 big volcanic blasts is enough to turn us chilly long enough for people to starve. The author of Frankenstein wrote it in Switzerland during the year without summer, that was one volcano.

You understand that if this was the reality of the situation the consensus of scientists involved would agree with you.

Wait what is the reasons that 99% of climate scientists all agree on anthropogenic global warming? Some massive conspiracy of self interested grant winning spread across the entire plant's universities and institutes. Whenever your conspiracy theory requires more then about 10 people you are probably just lying to yourself. I thought by now you guys would start coming around to the reality. Islands are disappearing, glaciers are melting rapidly, (by the way its important that the fresh water melts spread throughout the year (I can;t even begin to explain to you how dumb that point you tried to make is))lakes and seas are drying up, and the amount of CO2 pumped out in the last 30 years has been almost double then the previous 150.

One volcano right? I always love that line, so take every smokestack across the planet. How many volcanoes do you think that equals at this point?

 

[Kaitzilla]

Only one solution to AGW has been proven to work.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...eople-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html

Genghis Khan the GREEN: Invader killed so many people that carbon levels plummeted

...
The Mongol leader, who established a vast empire between the 13th and 14th centuries, helped remove nearly 700million tons of carbon from the atmosphere, claims a new study.
The deaths of 40million people meant that large areas of cultivated land grew thick once again with trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
And, although his methods may be difficult for environmentalists to accept, ecologists believe it may be the first ever case of successful manmade global cooling.

He was talked into not killing all the Chinese to make grazing land for his horses after he had taxes explained to him.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio --- that's quite literally placing him above the law. Trump being the highest ranking member of the Republican party would suggest that police are above the law in the minds of Republicans.

Obama pardoned James Cartwight -- that's quite literally placing him above the law. Obama being the highest ranking member of the Democratic party at the time would suggest that military are above the law in the mind of Democrats. Q.E.D. #Logic

 

[Berzerker]

You understand that if this was the reality of the situation the consensus of scientists involved would agree with you.

Wait what is the reasons that 99% of climate scientists all agree on anthropogenic global warming? Some massive conspiracy of self interested grant winning spread across the entire plant's universities and institutes. Whenever your conspiracy theory requires more then about 10 people you are probably just lying to yourself. I thought by now you guys would start coming around to the reality. Islands are disappearing, glaciers are melting rapidly, (by the way its important that the fresh water melts spread throughout the year (I can;t even begin to explain to you how dumb that point you tried to make is))lakes and seas are drying up, and the amount of CO2 pumped out in the last 30 years has been almost double then the previous 150.

One volcano right? I always love that line, so take every smokestack across the planet. How many volcanoes do you think that equals at this point?

It was one volcano... Well, maybe two, but Tambora was the big blast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

Volcanoes pour dust and ash into the atmosphere blocking sunlight, our GHGs are 'cleaner', ie effective at trapping solar radiation. Where did I say global warming isn't happening?

Only one solution to AGW has been proven to work.

He was talked into not killing all the Chinese to make grazing land for his horses after he had taxes explained to him.

The killing spree he began might have led to the demise of the Mongol empire too, the climate change made it colder in Eurasia. I've read the plague and discovery of the new world allowed for the growth of carbon sinks cooling the climate. If this is true it wont take much CO2 to warm us up.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I would like to address the issue of Mary leaving not as a moderator, but as a fellow forum member. For those of you incapable of making that distinction, I will spell it out clearly: My position does not constitute any endorsement of the forum's moderators or staff, nor does it reflect the position of the forum's administration. I am speaking as a private citizen. [/disclaimer]

Well, that bolded part was rude.

If you're not speaking as a moderator, why are you speaking? It's not like you were super-involved in the thread as either a mod or 'private citizen.' (yes, I did a search of your posts) So I'm curious.

Mary's decision to leave was her own, and the circumstances of her leaving were primarily brought on by no one other than Mary herself. She was not "run out" of OT. She chose to leave. While I agree with some of her sentiments in the "Game" thread, I feel that her position was unnecessarily combative. She joined the thread and began making misandrist (yes, it's a real word and is commonly used in psychiatric circles) comments as well as some logical feminist comments. However, when challenged on these comments by people simply wishing to debate the issue, her response seemed to be to label them as "toxic" and ignore the people wishing to debate the points that she raised. She has said on another forum that she placed numerous people from that thread on her ignore list as they were too toxic to engage.

Fortunately for certain individuals the trolling rules here don't apply to other forums, since calling people by derogatory nicknames isn't allowed here (but apparently it's just fine over there).

Since you're speaking as a private citizen, perhaps it might be good to remember that discussing the ignore list is forbidden (here, not there).

As to my saying she was basically run out of OT, that's how it looks to me. She was dogpiled in that thread and shouldn't have been. Is it any wonder that she felt unwelcome, that certain individuals were 'toxic' and that she no longer wanted to be part of a toxic environment? Just because people choose to leave a place where they were targeted, that doesn't mean the targeting didn't happen.

To those suggesting that she was bullied, I disagree. There was an honest attempt at debate from many people and it was either ignored or shouted down, which is highly unfortunate. It could have been a lively, meaningful conversation, but it just devolved into a one sided affair with people challenging Mary's points with no counter argument.

Wrong. That was a dogpile worthy of the forum where Mary came from before joining CFC (which is not a compliment, as dogpiles on that site can be vicious). That was a situation that I'd never have thought could happen here, but I was obviously wrong. The difference is that there the targeted people are allowed to defend themselves without risking an infraction.

You don't get to decide how Mary felt about that situation. She's made it very clear elsewhere, and yes, she stated that she felt bullied. It looked like bullying to me, and I say that even though I don't agree with everything she said.

That being said, I don't blame Mary for leaving if that was her perception of events, but I think that she must accept some of the blame for the circumstances. She is a valuable member of OT and I hope that she comes back. However, I think that she has to realize that if she wants to say something controversial, she must be prepared to back it up, the same as the rest of us have to do. Debate is two sided, and I'm afraid that that is not what happened here.

Funny, I saw two sides. But to some people, the opposite side is no side at all. As to whether she comes back, posts like this one, dismissing how she felt, are not helpful in inducing a person to come back for more targeting.

I suppose that there might have been a bit of that, but by and large (what I got out of the thread, anyway) was people having a difference of opinion and trying to engage, and Mary simply ignored them. I'm trying to look at it from both sides here and both sides are not blameless.

Is it a matter of what she said, how she said it, or both?

I'm surprised that you, as one of the women members here who has mentioned having had to deal with at least one abusive parent (as Mary, Aimee, and I have had to do), would not recognize that there are some issues when it's next to impossible to regurgitate abstract reports rather than look at the situation through your own personal experiences.

I've been able to get past a lot of the patriarchal, men-know-everything crap I was taught growing up, since my teenage rebellion years involved getting involved in the community and working in the theatre where I learned that things don't work that way in other families and groups. I've since learned the difference between 'some' and 'all'. That's why I've been able to stay here even through most of the worst times (have taken a break now and then and I feel another one may be coming up).

The only thing certain is that ot is by now an old people's forum.
Even takhi must be nearing 30 and i remember when he was 15...

Don't knock the seniors' discounts when they come along. Some people get offended, but in my case some of them aren't offered because I don't look old enough for them (some businesses and service providers start offering them to people at age 50 or 55, and I'll be 56 on my next birthday).

 

[cardgame]

Obama pardoned James Cartwight -- that's quite literally placing him above the law. Obama being the highest ranking member of the Democratic party at the time would suggest that military are above the law in the mind of Democrats. Q.E.D. #Logic

Arpaio is exceptional because his crime was literally contempt of the law - he placed his own self above the law and then was pardoned for it. That's a condoning even more than it is a pardon.

Also, context: there is nothing special, politically, about James Cartwight or the military in general in the mind of (most) Democrats. He was probably pardoned because of his 40 years of service and his rank. The same cannot be said of Arpaio, especially when he was pardoned so quickly - even before being sentenced. IIRC, and it's been a while and I don't know where I picked this information up from, but the tradition is for presidents to pardon during their last year, not as an immediate reaction to current events - especially not such small fries as a county sheriff.

 

[Kyriakos]

@Valka D'Ur i didnt know Mary left. I liked her. Say hello to her from me

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Well, that bolded part was rude.

If you're not speaking as a moderator, why are you speaking? It's not like you were super-involved in the thread as either a mod or 'private citizen.' (yes, I did a search of your posts) So I'm curious.


Fortunately for certain individuals the trolling rules here don't apply to other forums, since calling people by derogatory nicknames isn't allowed here (but apparently it's just fine over there).

Since you're speaking as a private citizen, perhaps it might be good to remember that discussing the ignore list is forbidden (here, not there).

As to my saying she was basically run out of OT, that's how it looks to me. She was dogpiled in that thread and shouldn't have been. Is it any wonder that she felt unwelcome, that certain individuals were 'toxic' and that she no longer wanted to be part of a toxic environment? Just because people choose to leave a place where they were targeted, that doesn't mean the targeting didn't happen.


Wrong. That was a dogpile worthy of the forum where Mary came from before joining CFC (which is not a compliment, as dogpiles on that site can be vicious). That was a situation that I'd never have thought could happen here, but I was obviously wrong. The difference is that there the targeted people are allowed to defend themselves without risking an infraction.

You don't get to decide how Mary felt about that situation. She's made it very clear elsewhere, and yes, she stated that she felt bullied. It looked like bullying to me, and I say that even though I don't agree with everything she said.


Funny, I saw two sides. But to some people, the opposite side is no side at all. As to whether she comes back, posts like this one, dismissing how she felt, are not helpful in inducing a person to come back for more targeting.


Is it a matter of what she said, how she said it, or both?

I'm surprised that you, as one of the women members here who has mentioned having had to deal with at least one abusive parent (as Mary, Aimee, and I have had to do), would not recognize that there are some issues when it's next to impossible to regurgitate abstract reports rather than look at the situation through your own personal experiences.

I was going to address this, but it's late and I'm tired, and frankly it isn't worth the effort. Suffice it to say that I stand by what I said. You obviously don't agree, so we'll leave it at that.

 

[cardgame]

I lost track of that thread, but I am reminded of a co-ed I had in college who went out for dinner with a friend and I, initialized a light political argument (I cannot remember the precise topic) and couldn't handle our (restrained!) rebuttals to her position and burst into tears.

 

[Kyriakos]

That people try to put others down in a web forum is something pretty ridiculous. I can only see it having a point among teens, but others are just garbage imo if they do that.
It's a stupid forum; if you dont like someone ignore them and move on.