US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[TheBlackBard]

The thought that this has anything to do with empathy or that somehow being in Japan is important to this argument is stupid. Half the people you're siding with aren't in your country, and more to the point, aren't even American. Did you think about that? Or did it slip your mind because you agree with them?

You again miss that this isn't even about human rights. No one is defending the bill. It is simply a matter of what the larger political process encompasses and what the bill actually changes. And this behavior on your part is exactly the type of irrational overreaction that the right rallies against. So you know, good job giving them an enemy that is as easy for them to pile up on as it is for the left to people who behave like glades or drewh.

1.) it isn't lost on me that people from other countries give a fuck, and they choose to without your trolling bullshit. So, again, not the point you think it is. You just basically pointed out that they care where you don't, for which I'm grateful. Differences in the past aside, I could never find ground to accuse TedEh or StevenC of putting jokes on a forum as more important than human rights.

2.) you already showed me that you take the side of the bully in the Israel/Palestine thread. You're a victim blamer, I already knew that, didn't have to remind me. Further, I find that there isn't a lot of weight of you bringing up Glades and DrewH as reminders of people who can't control their thoughts and emotions, even as grown men given you show the same flippancy as they do on certain issues.

 

[narad]

1.) it isn't lost on me that people from other countries give a fuck, and they choose to without your trolling bullshit. So, again, not the point you think it is. You just basically pointed out that they care where you don't, for which I'm grateful. Differences in the past aside, I could never find ground to accuse TedEh or StevenC of putting jokes on a forum as more important than human rights.

2.) you already showed me that you take the side of the bully in the Israel/Palestine thread. You're a victim blamer, I already knew that, didn't have to remind me. Further, I find that there isn't a lot of weight of you bringing up Glades and DrewH as reminders of people who can't control their thoughts and emotions, even as grown men given you show the same flippancy as they do on certain issues.

Seems kind of rambling BS.
a.) It seems illogical to say someone lacks empathy or is victim blaming a group of people that they don't believe will be affected by this bill. I'm not indifferent to their suffering -- I simply don't think the bill has any causal relationship with said suffering. You just assume causal links between things, things which are several political and practical steps away from even being a possibility. I'm a data-driven person -- show me these links. Show me where the harm is.

b.) No, we're not putting jokes on a forum as more important than human rights. You're on a forum. You're putting your posts about your own opinion of human rights issues on a forum above my jokes on a forum, which, eh, is not really super effective. You want to make change, go out and do it. Anything you do on SSO is completely meaningless apart from the value you place on interacting with forum members.

 

[TheBlackBard]

K boomer.

 

[DrewH]

So you know, good job giving them an enemy that is as easy for them to pile up on as it is for the left to people who behave like glades or drewh.

You know why the piling on doesn't bother me? Because you are an absolute phony and I'm not. You don't give a shit about anyone else in this world except whoever is in your inner circle. Same as me. I am just the one man enough to admit it, instead of putting on this bullshit act that you and the others here do.

I want to know how much you and the others here do for charity because that is the real tangible measure of whether you all are full of shit or not. The irony in this is I probably give more to charity and volunteer more for local causes than any of you do. Who would've thought...

 

[CanserDYI]

You know why the piling on doesn't bother me? Because you are an absolute phony and I'm not. You don't give a shit about anyone else in this world except whoever is in your inner circle. Same as me. I am just the one man enough to admit it, instead of putting on this bullshit act that you and the others here do.

I want to know how much you and the others here do for charity because that is the real tangible measure of whether you all are full of shit or not. The irony in this is I probably give more to charity and volunteer more for local causes than any of you do. Who would've thought...

Leftism is about compassion for the earth and those who inhabit it. And every policy I support, I support because I feel it will better off humanity in the long run.

I raised $14k to build a well in South Sudan when I was 19. I also helped start a homeless shelter/DIY punk venue/vegan free kitchen and fed homeless people and gave them a cot to sleep on while we hosted hardcore shows. I volunteer for local community gardens and joined a local Food Not Bombs and Foreclosure Defense League not much after. I could say a ton more but this isn't about cool points in my Antifa badge book (totally real thing by the way, join the club, er I mean 'resistance' ), I'm just not sure what DrewH is saying saying that leftists don't care about anyone else...

 

[narad]

You know why the piling on doesn't bother me? Because you are an absolute phony and I'm not. You don't give a shit about anyone else in this world except whoever is in your inner circle. Same as me. I am just the one man enough to admit it, instead of putting on this bullshit act that you and the others here do.

I want to know how much you and the others here do for charity because that is the real tangible measure of whether you all are full of shit or not. The irony in this is I probably give more to charity and volunteer more for local causes than any of you do. Who would've thought...

I'm sensing contradictory points here. ~"I don't care, but even still, I do more things because I care than any of you"~

And yea, I teach at university 15 hours a week on top of my regular job. It's not literally charity, but it's a big sacrifice to get that much time together to help the next generation, and compared to my normal salary + tax on top of it, it might as well be for free. That's just what I do now to give back. Who knows what when I'm your age.

But actually, that has very little to do with being a phony. I support policies that level the playing field. You can talk about charity as much as you want, but whatever you do is an infinitesimally small drop in the bucket compared to the effect of policy change. So pretty much just misdirection on your part. But very in character for someone who puts anecdotal evidence about general statistics to then value their own soup kitchen work more than a sweeping national policy change.

 

[DrewH]

I'm sensing contradictory points here. ~"I don't care, but even still, I do more things because I care than any of you"~

And yea, I teach at university 15 hours a week on top of my regular job. It's not literally charity, but it's a big sacrifice to get that much time together to help the next generation, and compared to my normal salary + tax on top of it, it might as well be for free. That's just what I do now to give back. Who knows what when I'm your age.

But actually, that has very little to do with being a phony. I support policies that level the playing field. You can talk about charity as much as you want, but whatever you do is an infinitesimally small drop in the bucket compared to the effect of policy change. So pretty much just misdirection on your part. But very in character for someone who puts anecdotal evidence about general statistics to then value their own soup kitchen work more than a sweeping national policy change.

You teach university for extra spending money. Stop making it out to be what it's not. Again, you just being phony again.

Anyone can say they support something like policy change. It's very easy to do that. Requires no work. How about put the work in and then talk? Your little teaching gig that you are being paid for doesn't count. If you were doing it for free, fair enough. BUT, maybe come back to the states and do it where it matters. How about tutoring city kids who are in 6th grade and read at a 1st grade level? You are really claiming your big charitable contribution to society is teaching university students and being paid for it? You fucking clown. Do something that actually matters for the less fortunate that you so claim to care so much about.

I'll repeat, I'm the one who really doesn't care all that much about people, but I do a hell of a lot more for them and I don't get paid for it. You fucking hypocrite. You claim to be the one who wants to fix society. YOU are the problem with society.

 

[narad]

You teach university for extra spending money. Stop making it out to be what it's not. Again, you just being phony again.

Lol... hmm... get paid peanuts at university, or consult at make literally 12x more per hour? It's not free, but it's still a huge economic cost for me personally.

Anyone can say they support something like policy change. It's very easy to do that. Requires no work. How about put the work in and then talk?

You put in the work by voting. That is the work. I didn't have to work for Biden to enact student loan reform... I simply voted. Then the loans were forgiven. Yay.

Your little teaching gig that you are being paid for doesn't count. If you were doing it for free, fair enough. BUT, maybe come back to the states and do it where it matters. How about tutoring city kids who are in 6th grade and read at a 1st grade level? You are really claiming your big charitable contribution to society is teaching university students and being paid for it? You fucking clown. Do something that actually matters for the less fortunate that you so claim to care so much about.

It matters here. Do you know what effective altruism is? My skillset is better served teaching students to be future technology leaders here where we as a nation slip further behind in these areas every year, from once leading the world, to not even making top 10 lists. How do we take care of a growing aged population, with high longevity, when we've had a decreasing population for decades and lack the infrastructure and cheap labor that is typically used to do this effectively? I try to make tiny steps towards solving big problems. That is the most effective way to apply my skillset.

It's great for people to teach math at some inner city school. You have to find the way to give back that works best given your specific situation. I'm not a great high school math teacher. I'm good at other things that are beneficial to the world. But it's funny you would mention education because probably the entire backbone of how education works in American will change to utilize advances from my field, and that is why we need to keep producing talented students.

Work smart.

 

[DrewH]

Lol... hmm... get paid peanuts at university, or consult at make literally 12x more per hour? It's not free, but it's still a huge economic cost for me personally.


You put in the work by voting. That is the work. I didn't have to work for Biden to enact student loan reform... I simply voted. Then the loans were forgiven. Yay.



It matters here. Do you know what effective altruism is? My skillset is better served teaching students to be future technology leaders here where we as a nation slip further behind in these areas every year, from once leading the world, to not even making top 10 lists. How do we take care of a growing aged population, with high longevity, when we've had a decreasing population for decades and lack the infrastructure and cheap labor that is typically used to do this effectively? I try to make tiny steps towards solving big problems. That is the most effective way to apply my skillset.

It's great for people to teach math at some inner city school. You have to find the way to give back that works best given your specific situation. I'm not a great high school math teacher. I'm good at other things that are beneficial to the world. But it's funny you would mention education because probably the entire backbone of how education works in American will change to utilize advances from my field, and that is why we need to keep producing talented students.

Work smart.

There is no way you can apply your skill set to helping actual folks who are less fortunate? I'm not sensing a lot of misfortune in university students who can obviously afford to be there and probably have very good income potential afterwards if they are going to be future tech leaders.

You are a US citizen right? This is a US politics forum. Seems like you are more interested in the welfare of the Japanese than this country. Where do your loyalties lie? Because you can't have it both ways. You are educating students who will be competing with the US on a global level.

 

[narad]

There is no way you can apply your skill set to helping actual folks who are less fortunate? I'm not sensing a lot of misfortune in university students who can obviously afford to be there and probably have very good income potential afterwards if they are going to be future tech leaders.

You are a US citizen right? This is a US politics forum. Seems like you are more interested in the welfare of the Japanese than this country. Where do your loyalties lie? Because you can't have it both ways. You are educating students who will be competing with the US on a global level.

lol, I don't have national loyalties. It's not fucking 1945 and this is the fourth continent I've lived on by now. I care about general welfare of people. I'm in Japan -- the people I help are primarily Japanese. The US absolutely decimates Japan in my field... there's not competition there. We're just trying to maintain basic competency in new technologies in a country where you still have fax most of your important documents.

You're taking this discussion to some very weird places.

 

[DrewH]

lol, I don't have national loyalties. It's not fucking 1945 and this is the fourth continent I've lived on by now. I care about general welfare of people. I'm in Japan -- the people I help are primarily Japanese. The US absolutely decimates Japan in my field... there's not competition there. We're just trying to maintain basic competency in new technologies in a country where you still have fax most of your important documents.

You're taking this discussion to some very weird places.

Very fair to point out someone who is as active on a US politics forum as you are but are more interested in the welfare of the Japanese people. How long have you been out of the US? You talk passionately about policy for a country you probably haven't even lived in for a long time nor even give a shit about. That I do have issue with.

 

[Moongrum]

Narad is a japanese psypop

Beware of his trickery

 

[narad]

Very fair to point out someone who is as active on a US politics forum as you are but are more interested in the welfare of the Japanese people. How long have you been out of the US? You talk passionately about policy for a country you probably haven't even lived in for a long time nor even give a shit about. That I do have issue with.

Don't care what you have issues with man lol

 

[DrewH]

Don't care what you have issues with man lol

lol... come on. That's the best you could come up with? How about come back to the states and use that substantial brain of yours to help the people HERE that you are so concerned about.

I have nothing against Japanese people. Great culture. I've enjoyed reading a good amount of material of history of Japan. Very fascinating. I hope to visit someday probably when I retire. BUT, I'm a US citizen and I care about THIS country. If I were to train people in my field, it would be US citizens here. Not people halfway around the world.

 

[Randy]

lol... come on. That's the best you could come up with? How about come back to the states and use that substantial brain of yours to help the people HERE that you are so concerned about.

I have nothing against Japanese people. Great culture. I've enjoyed reading a good amount of material of history of Japan. Very fascinating. I hope to visit someday probably when I retire. BUT, I'm a US citizen and I care about THIS country. If I were to train people in my field, it would be US citizens here. Not people halfway around the world.

Proud American here but I'd happily lend my services to the country more likely to develop a Gundam.

 

[narad]

lol... come on. That's the best you could come up with? How about come back to the states and use that substantial brain of yours to help the people HERE that you are so concerned about.

I have nothing against Japanese people. Great culture. I've enjoyed reading a good amount of material of history of Japan. Very fascinating. I hope to visit someday probably when I retire. BUT, I'm a US citizen and I care about THIS country. If I were to train people in my field, it would be US citizens here. Not people halfway around the world.

Again, it doesn't make sense. I don't really care about helping 1,000 Americans more than 1,000 Japanese. They're just people. And bay area, new york, etc., plenty of people with my skillset there (and making shitloads more than I make here). Japan, not so much.

I'm suggesting bringing a bottle of water to a man in the desert, you are suggesting I bring it to a guy in the middle of a hotel buffet, because you think the hotel is really great.

 

[TedEH]

No one is defending the bill

I'm going to ignore all the DrewH nonsense for now and get back to this one. IMO refusing to acknowledge the groundwork a bill like this is trying to establish reads to me like defending the bill. It's the "kids will be kids" or "boys will be boys" of legal language. Whether it appears to be ineffectual at the moment is secondary to the fact that it's being attempted in the first place. Being ineffectual now doesn't mean that it will continue to be ineffectual the next time someone passes something like that.

I care less about the idea that this bill will or won't literally remove access to health care than I do setting the precedent in anyone's mind that it's ok to include language with that goal in a bill in the first place, even as a symbolic move. I hate to say it, but this is the stuff the right is good at. The right knows how to play the long game, and some on the left don't want to admit they're playing any game at all. But if you don't play, you lose by default. It's a catch-22, and it's lame, but it's how it is.

It's not about this bill succeeding at the goal, it's about allowing a slow erosion of the barriers (legal and mental) to this kind of thing by letting all the small "ineffectual" things pass right up until either the political climate changes or some bigger more important change comes along that suddenly makes the groundwork relevant. Did we not just witness this happen with Roe/Wade? People were convinced that this was something set in stone, right up until it wasn't anymore and it had very real consequences for people.

 

[Glades]

I'm going to ignore all the DrewH nonsense for now and get back to this one. IMO refusing to acknowledge the groundwork a bill like this is trying to establish reads to me like defending the bill. It's the "kids will be kids" or "boys will be boys" of legal language. Whether it appears to be ineffectual at the moment is secondary to the fact that it's being attempted in the first place. Being ineffectual now doesn't mean that it will continue to be ineffectual the next time someone passes something like that.

I care less about the idea that this bill will or won't literally remove access to health care than I do setting the precedent in anyone's mind that it's ok to include language with that goal in a bill in the first place, even as a symbolic move. I hate to say it, but this is the stuff the right is good at. The right knows how to play the long game, and some on the left don't want to admit they're playing any game at all. But if you don't play, you lose by default. It's a catch-22, and it's lame, but it's how it is.

It's not about this bill succeeding at the goal, it's about allowing a slow erosion of the barriers (legal and mental) to this kind of thing by letting all the small "ineffectual" things pass right up until either the political climate changes or some bigger more important change comes along that suddenly makes the groundwork relevant. Did we not just witness this happen with Roe/Wade? People were convinced that this was something set in stone, right up until it wasn't anymore and it had very real consequences for people.

Aren’t you Canadian?

 

[DrewH]

Aren’t you Canadian?

Yeah. The irony of those that don't live in the US thinking they know what's better for the US than those that DO live in the US. The arrogance. They think I'm the one with an ego. I'm not the one thinking I know what is best for Japan or Canada.

 

[narad]

I'm going to ignore all the DrewH nonsense for now and get back to this one. IMO refusing to acknowledge the groundwork a bill like this is trying to establish reads to me like defending the bill. It's the "kids will be kids" or "boys will be boys" of legal language. Whether it appears to be ineffectual at the moment is secondary to the fact that it's being attempted in the first place. Being ineffectual now doesn't mean that it will continue to be ineffectual the next time someone passes something like that.

I don't agree. Someone who defends a bill would be someone who would not vote against the bill. Given the opportunity, I would. I just don't think it is going to matter in the end. Are you up to date on the age verification technologies debates? That's a whole other shitstorm waiting at the very end of this unlikely process that would probably enrage the right as well. Not a single one of those systems has a reasonably broad coverage and non-invasive method for verification.

I care less about the idea that this bill will or won't literally remove access to health care than I do setting the precedent in anyone's mind that it's ok to include language with that goal in a bill in the first place, even as a symbolic move.

Bills have vague language. It's not like it's a new thing. It's incentivized to be as vague as possible, and the courts are there to rein in the scope of the bills. I mean, we could go back through dozens of bills passed at the state level this year, and find tons of ridiculous outcomes that could occur within the margins of interpretation.

It's also not a strictly american thing. You have the same sort of bills with the same sorts of wording in other nations. So they must be pro-pedo bills, too, right? There is enough at face value in this bill that is just pure conservative legal wants that it doesn't really need any speculation about underlying loopholes to outcomes that don't even matter. You've got a pedo dad, and you think this bill is going to stop you from gaining access to the particular internet sites to understand that you are abused? Who is giving you the internet access in the first place? It is just a completely illogical bird's nest. This speculation requires some big brother-esque future world where everyone is authenticated before they even access basic internet. It's ludicrous.

Did we not just witness this happen with Roe/Wade? People were convinced that this was something set in stone, right up until it wasn't anymore and it had very real consequences for people.

Roe is an entirely different situation. Roe shouldn't have really existed in the first place. That isn't the appropriate place for the judiciary to make such sweeping changes. Had actual legislation covering similar territory as Roe been properly passed in the interim, this would not be a problem now. And had it just been done that way in the first place, it wouldn't have been a supreme court ruling that stripped these rights away from people. It was done improperly in the beginning and now we pay the price for it.

You're right in holding up Roe as an example of playing the right playing the long game, but it's also not a secretive thing. We grilled ACB about Roe during her vetting and she ways playing coy then and it was clear what was going to happen. And people knew the local courts were getting packed with a conservative leaning. But you know, if all the representation winds up being of one political leaning, because the people of the other political leaning weren't engaged, then that's kind of on them. And what now? You want to shout that the bill is bad? Doesn't matter. You want to vote that the bill is bad? Too late. You have to rely on higher courts now, which in my prediction will still easily shoot this down, probably for the actual content of the bill and not even needing to discuss these more speculative aspects. But it is a reminder that these local political positions matter. If we had a chain of crazies in all the courts up from Florida to the supreme, that could spell trouble. But then you've got bigger problems than this bill -- you've just opened floodgates.