No, it isn’t — Mikie

How so?

I don't think that's a particularly interesting scenario. Of course people react differently to different things. — flannel jesus

Not a big fan of diversity, it seems

This is why Republicans are the most dangerous party in history. — Mikie

That's over the top.

Communists throughout the past century have an outstanding track record of perpetrating obscene amounts of state sponsored murder against their own citizens, with astounding consistency and efficiency. The republican leadership is manned by too many moldy turds to ever see it murder its own citizens as effectively as Communists have done.

And when the vote was challenged, not a single mainstream media outlet wanted the ratings bonanza of turning it into a scandal. No court would hear it. But the same courts were eager to elevate a guided tour of the Capitol building as something akin to the storming of the Bastille. — yebiga

Interesting comparison, minus: the Bastille is lame in comparison to tha Capitol Building

who gets to decides who we get to censor? Can I have that job?

ok, i won't mention anything that contradicts the narrative you are trying to push.

I'm not interested in whataboutism — flannel jesus

Except when you give a whatabout:

it paints a picture of culpability. If it's not his legal responsibility, it's his moral responsibility. The fact that he watched it on TV , with numerous people begging him to call his supporters off, and revised to do so for 3 hours - if it's not a crime, it is at the very least an instance of moral neglect of his duties. And it does make it look like he wanted it to happen, which supports the case that he incited it, which is very likely a crime — flannel jesus

Hypocrite cretin

it paints a picture of culpability. If it's not his legal responsibility, it's his moral responsibility. The fact that he watched it on TV , with numerous people begging him to call his supporters off, and revised to do so for 3 hours - if it's not a crime, it is at the very least an instance of moral neglect of his duties. And it does make it look like he wanted it to happen, which supports the case that he incited it, which is very likely a crime — flannel jesus

We are, of course, speaking extemporaneously, so I will say that is a long story to implicate him for sedition. There are equal presidential crimes that have a much more direct line, like bush and iraq war, or obama and nsa spy program.

filtrated — javi2541997

That is a fine term

You might argue that he didn't want what happened at January 6 to happen, but he certainly didn't even do the bare minimum to stop it. Not so much as a tweet — flannel jesus

Does he have a legal obligation to do anything about it?

thanks :starstruck:

You agree with me in admitting that the press will manipulate us one side or the other. — javi2541997

The purpose of the modern press is to propagandize us, not inform us. No?

to tell the truth, my philosohical method is to apply the facetious to the presuppositions of my interlocutor, whom I take full responsibility for - in the endeavor of honestly and criticallly questioning one's own presuppositions.

I hope you are talking ironically.

It is a fact that Trump was already sentenced by the media — javi2541997

I always hope my facetiousness communicates in text.

That is nothing new. Plenty of people are demonized by the media apriori, which stirs public opinion prior to due process. What's wrong with that? :wink:

Imagine, just the 6 states that will decide the vote — yebiga

That is a problem that no one ever talks about. Even canpaign finance reform has been discussed. But I can understand your distress. Despite that, their is much valid argument contradicting your claim.

It is clear that the Public is easily manipulated by its media. — yebiga

Isn't that a good thing, after all, the media always tells the truth and is looking out for the best interests of the people?

what you have done there is worse than anything that will come from climate change. :grimace:

I don’t even like the US constitution. — NOS4A2

May I ask, why?

Now, even run-of-the-mill rainstorms are causing regular flooding in the city.

Residents are striving to stay in their water-damaged homes, while community planners are tasked with fortifying the city from future flooding -- not just from powerful hurricanes, but from everyday rainstorms that are now causing more nuisance flooding than in years past. — jorndoe

I was in Pensacola prior to 2020. It was a total shithole. Most of the buildings buildings were run down, and the roads and bridges looked like they hadn't been maintained for decades. I didn't take a close look, but one could assume the stormwater drains were also in a long state of disrepair. It makes complete sense that Pensacola would be having such problems with its third world infrastructure.

That damn covid scam! It's still killing people! Not as many as it used to tho. It doesn't really rate much higher than flu these days. I'm taking a break from this forum for a while. Thanks for the discussion. :smile: — frank

I wish you well :blush:

I'm not really sure what accounts for that belief that those in leadership positions are perpetrating a giant fraud. I mean, when they give massive tax breaks to the rich, it's wide out in the open. They aren't trying to hide it. They don't have to. — frank

You can't think of anything?

Regardless...those in leadership positions did not hide their covid scam. They publicly censored and rebuked anyone who opposed, right out in the open, for everyone to see. Also, the massive transfers of wealth, as well as the outright dismissal of constitutional law, were in no way concealed from anyone. No...they didn't have too hide much, they stirred up such hysteria with the mindless mob, and It took care of nearly all would be dissidents that could have otherwise proved troublesome to the agenda of our outstanding leadership. A round of applause for the amazing job they did, are doing, and will probably continue to do.

I wonder how many of those (in US), who have been bought and sold over the covid policy, were opposed to the Iraq War back in 2003? My guess...not one.

It happened everywhere in the US. We talk to each other, you know. :razz: — frank

You didn't talk to everyone. And I imagine, given the hyper-sensorship and public stigma towards anyone who might have opposed the official narrative, it would have been practically impossible to talk to everyone.

You locked down to try to slow the spread so the hospital system wouldn't be more overloaded than it was.

Without the lockdowns, you would have gone outside in the morning to see what the people in 1918 saw: dead people laying in their yards. — frank

That's the excuse they used on us all. But that wasn't the case in the hospitals in my area, which is what made the blanket policy so dumbfounded.

All spin, no substance. That's our world! — frank

We all maxed, vasked, and locked down, what else can we be expected to do?

You remember public frenzy, I remember the dying old man who doesn't believe it when people tell he has covid. I think his words were: "You just hear so many different things", or something like that. He's dead. — frank

I suppose the covid policy that we were all forced to comply with did him no good.

A large number of people actually did die from COVID-19. Is that the part you didn't believe? Or what? — frank

That is believable. Imagine how many more would have died if it weren't for the masking, vaxing and distancing. :chin:

The thing that I don't buy is the policy that was enforced worldwide was the best option we had. I'm also suspicious of how hard it was pushed into a frenzy amongst the multitudes, the unreasonable suspension of constitutional rights, and the hyper-censorship involved in propagating the official covid narrative, not to mention those who benefited greatly (politically and economically) from that very covid policy. It reminded me a lot of the anti muslim extremist fervor that predominated US following 9-11, which allowed it to be dragged into a prolonged war based on a lie. Or did that not occur?

(As an aside, you may entertain whatever view you like; around here you'll have to justify them unless you just want to talk about yourself.) — jorndoe

Ok :wink:

Activism (and possibly alarmism) can be a bona fides reaction, with scientific justification, and moral guts. — jorndoe

Sure, alarmist reaction to scientific data can be genuine. But, it is not necessary to the truth of the science itself. The science should be able to explain things in its own terms, and does not need an alarmist interpretation or an appeal to emotion in order to reify it.

When governments can no longer be seen as honest brokers of information it puts a bomb underneath the narratives concerning a wide variety of social and political issues. That's why people are getting so cramped about it. — Tzeentch

Exactly. My entire political orientation has been completely revolutionized in the past 3 years because of exactly this. It is interesting to see how the left and right are constantly worked into irreconcilable conflict over these "official narratives", while the "brokers" sit back and consolidate more power and wealth into their own hands.

climate activism (even alarmism perhaps) can be bona fides scientifically justified. Morally likewise. What of denialism/contrarianism then? — jorndoe

Alarmism contributes nothing to scientific "bona fides". It is dead weight. Or is that a critical part of the scientific process that I have been missing?

In my view, denial/contrarianism is sometimes justified when alarmism becomes the main defense for an argument that cannot convince on its own merit.

It didn’t originate with Marcuse. You made that up. Which proves my point about denialist imbeciles. — Mikie

Who else was talking like this prior to 1964?

Modern man’s despoliation of the environment is global in scope, like his imperialism [...] Today human parasitism disrupts more than the atmosphere, climate, water resources, soil, flora, and fauna of a region; it upsets virtually all the basic cycles of nature and threatens to undermine the stability of the environment on a worldwide scale. (Marcuse 1964) — Marcuse 1964

Accounts of this kind can be repeated for virtually every part of the biosphere. Pages can be written on the immense losses of productive soil that occur annually in almost every continent of the earth; on the extensive loss of tree cover in areas vulnerable to erosion; on lethal air pollution episodes in major urban areas; on the worldwide distribution of toxic agents, such as radioactive isotopes and lead; on the chemicalization of man’s immediate environment [...] Pieced together like bits of a jigsaw puzzle, these affronts to the environment form a pattern of destruction that has no precedent in man’s long history on the earth. — Marcuse 1964

Marcuse's ideas about the environment were embedded within his broader critique of capitalist societies. While he did not focus exclusively on environmental issues, his work contributed to discussions about the relationship between society and the environment. 
.
He viewed the capitalist tendency to turn everything, including nature, into commodities for profit as contributing to environmental problems, and was critical of a consumerist culture that contributed to the generation of pollution and the excessive consumption of resources.

And, athough he was not an environmentalist in the conventional sense, Marcuse believed that achieving greater social justice would require a fundamental transformation of the existing social and economic order, and that such a transformation would have positive implications for rectifying environmental destruction.

Yea but Cassandra was right. — frank

I think her older brother is theboy who cried wolf

— and getting away with knowing nothing. — Mikie

Like being a radical climate change activist without knowing that the notion of "sustainability" originated with Marcuse?

And remember we talked about the potential shutdown of the AMOC. That would essentially destroy western Europe. — frank

Now, a new study finds the collapse of the current, which is known as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, or AMOC, could happen far sooner than scientists have previously thought, possibly within a few decades, as a result of human-caused global warming.

"Could"? "Possibly"? Just another example of that alarmist reporting feeding into the official narrative. Let's all freak out and fall in lock step with the doomsayers. "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!"

Doomsaying is probably on par with flattery as the most pathetically overused gimick in human history.

—a valid theory—reveals that the charge is often used simply against information that they do not like. — NOS4A2

You fucking idiot, with your skeptical conspiracies. You can go to hell for not going along!

official truth — NOS4A2

You mean to say: "official narrative": the bastion of conspiracy theorists.

Incidentally, ↪Mikie brought up Sortition, which seems a neat idea, sort of. — jorndoe

well, in democracy, government is part of voters (or in voters' employ if you like). — jorndoe

My preconception is that government always stands against the people, even a democratic one. And although a government might arise from time to time that genuinely serves the people, this is the rare exception. All government in all cases inevitably defaults to tyranny (attributable to human nature in relation to power, in addition to advents in thought and technology).
The big questions are: how do those benevolent governments arise, and how are they preserved?

I think the constitutional republic has demonstrated great potential that warrants further exploration before we abandon it for sortism. I am very cautious about direct democracy, which sortismm appeals to on face value. How many weak souls would bow to public pressure before standing on personal principle? Not many? Maybe?

your preconceived notion of bad government. — Benkei

And then there are preconceptions of good government. Is it possible to remain impartial and open minded, and observe which descrpition fits best? Or, regardless of our best efforts, do preconceptions always warp into biased conclusions? I wonder?

I believe it has already happened in some enclaves. — Janus

It is an oppressed and marginalized demographic

Will they be called "humananas", "hananas", or "bahumans", or "bahanas" ? — Agree-to-Disagree

Homo sapiarnadisiaca