Unfortunately, no, mods on forums keep an eye out for offensive posts of the highly emotional type - the more emotionally charged a post is, the greater the likelihood of being banned by the panel of mods. This, if nothing else, demonstrates that mods on many forums have it backwards. Instead of doing a Turing test and weeding out chat-bots, they're actually conducting a Reverse Turing Test and expelling real people from internet forums and retaining members that are unfeeling and machine-like.

What gives? — TheMadFool

Probably a dearth of bots and an embarrassment of riches when it comes to the other. Eliminating bots is not the mods' only problem.

Yes, I'm curious about this. In mathematics, academic institutions have a very powerful influence of what gets published in important journals. The reviewers are mostly faculty members or work in jobs that are roughly equivalent. — jgill

In principle it shouldn't matter, but I have often wondered how hard it is to publish without having some publication history with some affiliation, either academic or industrial, first.

Such incapacity or refusal to learn denounces, in the mind of the socialist, the voluntary and perverse debasement of intelligence to a subhuman level, the conscious abdication of that basic capacity for discerning which is the very condition of humanness in the human being. Being a socialist means refusing out of pride to take up the responsibilities of a human consciousness. — Rafaella Leon

I like skipping to the end to see how up becomes down. TL;DR version: socialists don't count as humans cuz they're dumb, and true humanity is thinking things like that.

The real smoking gun about prior planning seems to be Lauren Boebert, a congressperson who gave a tour of the Capitol to many of the insurrectionists on the 5th, who tweeted "today is 1776" the morning of the 6th before the insurrection began, and who was live-tweeting the movements of congresspeople within the Capitol during the insurrection. — Pfhorrest

Yeah, that's the twist in the tale. I had thought the insurrection well planned but just between nutters on right-wing social media and messaging platforms. But an inside job immediately raises the question of who else was involved in the planning.

Still... It remains to be proven that Trump was involved in that planning.

No way, he only pardons his loyal cronies. — praxis

Yes, the insurrectionists might have a little too much independent initiative for his liking.

It would be funny if he did pardon them, though.

"I cannot excuse the violent actions taken by those who invaded the Capitol."

"But you did."

He's way too much of a pussy (heh) to take such a risk. So I'll vote self-preservation. — Echarmion

He usually does, eventually. His principles last about as long as their utility, maybe a bit longer. (Just recalling how contrite-ish he was about Megyn Kelly calling him a misogynistic when he needed Fox approval.) He only has a few days to decide though which, while for an average human is a lot, for him can pass like a fleeting moment during one of his sulks.

Suppose two people were to equally believe that eating factory farmed animals is unethical yet one is economically disadvantaged and chooses to eat it anyway since alternatively raised animals is too expensive, would we judge the latter for being unethical? — avalon

A good and considerate point. :up: One could go further and ask: should people struggling to survive even care what farmers are doing?

Factory farming ought to be banned imo, as should the import of factory farming produce. This would remove the two-tier system that allows unethical food to be arbitrarily cheap and ethical food arbitrarily expensive. Supermarkets have shown themselves amply adept at driving down prices for consumers (an ethical problem in itself).

In the meantime, if you can, eat ethically sourced food, otherwise you are choosing to give money to animal abusers. If you cannot afford it, there is no ethical decision to be made*.

It is more complicated than that. We eat far more meat than we need to. Many people who can't afford a week's worth of organic meat for their family a week don't need to.

A great way to eat is direct from ethical farms, many of whom deliver great quality food for free at supermarket prices.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/16/us-capitol-rioters-donald-trump-pardons

Capitol insurrectionists are begging for pardons from Trump. Quandary: these are die-hard Trump fanatics, a dying breed, and Trump thrives on that sort of insane adoration; on the other hand, pardoning the insurrectionists is definitely comforting them, and will look bad in his impeachment trial.

Self-adoration or self-preservation: which will the pussy-grabber choose?

And in doing so, aside from the rational pressure of your actual arguments against those beliefs, apply social and emotional pressure discouraging people from holding them. Both the person you're arguing against, but also, and perhaps more importantly, any undecided observers. — Pfhorrest

For the latter, yes. The former... I wouldn't hold my breath. Or waste it, for that matter. I understand what you're saying and the same thought occurred to me. In a closed group, what is "wrong" is largely conditioned by what is unacceptable: that's why we have shame.

But this isn't a closed group or anything like it. What we see is tendrils encroaching from a long way away, an expansion from crazytown into more thoughtful, open-minded territory precisely because it is more thoughtful and open-minded. The dumb arguments that we see here pass for profundity elsewhere. Nothing happens if you snip those tendrils except that , with luck, they die here. Elsewhere they carry on.

Btw there are rational people who are just plain wrong. One of my best friends used to be a racist and a homophobe. Difference was he wanted to examine his beliefs and have those conversations. There was always a part of him that knew he was better than his upbringing, so he reached out. He didn't deny facts, never stood by a hypocritical position*, and wasn't illogical. The basic human decency I often speak of was obviously there beneath a veneer of bad culture. It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference. He didn't have a chip on his shoulder, for starters.

*I convinced him that homosexuality could be beautiful by inviting him to examine his own positive views on lesbian and anal porn. Look, I never said this was highbrow... it worked, that's all I'm saying.

I think what Isaac is trying to say is that you are very unlikely to change someone's mind in a non-professional conversation (like an internet forum) just by making what you think are good arguments. If you want to change people's minds, you need to first figure out what context they formed their opinion in in the first place, and then try to give them a new context in which they can then come to new conclusions. — Echarmion

Which doesn't work either. It's trivial to get a racist, for instance, to agree that such and such a deed or situation is regrettable: you'll see that here. Iirc I got NOS to agree that BLM aren't entirely unjustified pretty easily. Then they go to bed, go to that great reset button in the land of nighty-night, and come back reiterating the same shit as the day before. That's the problem with highly emotive irrational beliefs.

The purpose of engaging with someone with irrational and hateful beliefs is not to benefit them, in my opinion, but to leave no expression of such a belief unchallenged and unnamed.

There is no oppressed and marginalized people anywhere on the planet. There is news and articles about fictional realities, incentivized by a previously unclear (in objectivity) but powerful group. There is also no and never have been on the planet racism or movements of civil rights. Inner city poverty had been caused by the speaking and using of improper language, but today differences in earnings are being reconciled. — eduardo

My sarcasm detector is screwed. Genuinely took this as sarcasm. Read on, apparently not.

Can you reconcile the proposed historical absence of racism with apparently fundamentally racist historical events like the Holocaust?

based on various data sources, it is clear that covid is only a real threat to the elderly and those with underlying conditions (and in fact the elderly who succumb generally ALSO have an underlying condition). In fact it looks like 99% of deaths are among the elderly and/or those with underlying conditions. — dazed

Let's work that through. If only 4,000 Americans had died of Covid but they were all young (< 60) and had no pre-existing conditions, would Covid be a real threat?

If 400,000 Americans had died of Covid but only 1% deaths were of young, healthy people, is Covid less of a threat?

Because I have dibs! — StreetlightX

The only thing in my way... :rofl: Watch your back.

I'll be happy to have a reasonable discussion with you. — Harry Hindu

I'll be happy to take Emily Blunt for my wife, doesn't mean I can feasibly do it.

Yes it was. Also, no it wasn't. — Harry Hindu

Look, it doesn't matter much to me whether you want to come across as a liar or an idiot, so interpreting my statements as contrary ones is your call. Either way, all you're demonstrating is that you're not worth engaging with which you've over-established already.

You didn't have to. It is implied in what you wrote. — Harry Hindu

No, it wasn't. Also, you quoted the text and it was perfectly explicit. It didn't require your layer of your bullshit interpretation.

People aren't equal. It's a fact of life.
Why try to sugarcoat this with politically correct notions that do nothing but set vulnerable people up for failure?

I don't advocate any particular political or social system. I am opposed to the politically correct pretenses of equality which just add insult to injury. — baker

What adds insult to injury is telling someone born without your advantages that their failures are because they are not your equal.

There was a psychological experiment some years back. Pairs of people playing against each other at Monopoly. At the start, a coin was tossed. Whoever won the coin toss was given twice as much money as their opponent at the start, could roll twice as many die each go, and received twice as much when they passed Go (which they did twice as often).

As such, the winner of the coin toss won Monopoly. The winner played more aggressively, was ruder, gloated frequently, and consistently overestimated their skill.

When asked how they won the game, not a single player mentioned the coin toss. Each believed they'd won because they were the better player.

People who benefit from systematic inequality point the finger at the disadvantaged and insist they are intrinsically lesser than the advantaged. It's unfortunately a quirk of psychology that being born privileged turns you into a jerk.

The page is curved and not fully visible, but the heading is titled “[illegible] taken immediately to save the [illegible] constitution".

[Criminal action must be] and [Trump administration from the] respectively.

I'm guessing.

Tolerating it leads to, well, you've seen what just happened. — Baden

It’s just one with very obvious cons — like, for example, what just happened. — Pfhorrest

What? What just happened? Did I miss a thing?

I’d say even that should be “tolerated” to the extent that that means taking it as an idea about which we can discuss the pros and cons. — Pfhorrest

Absolutely. I'd say that about almost anything. But propagandising is not discussion. I think questioning e.g. whether the Holocaust happened, i.e. disguising propaganda as debate, likewise.

There was an initially interesting thread on fascism recently, actually.

You are simply ignoring the concept of "criminal negligence". — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it came to my mind too, but I just don't think you can negligently incite an insurrection. You can negligently kill someone or damage their property, but the concept of accidentally starting a coup and being held culpable for it is a non-starter.

OED, incite: "urge or stir up". Where is there a mention of the need to intend the specific action resulting from the urging or stirring up? — Metaphysician Undercover

The need is in the impeachment article. Trump definitely stirred up division, paranoia, resentment, a false sense of injustice. Just not an insurrection in particular, at least based on what I know. I think it would be a struggle even to demonstrated that he incited a riot. Caused one, yes, but incitement is active.

The outcome could be completely accidental, unforeseeable, and even improbable, as is often the case in manslaughter for example. — Metaphysician Undercover

And that's the thing: there is nothing to which incitement of insurrection is the equivalent of that manslaughter is to murder.

I also just don't think this is something we would want to generalise. Trump is a special case and it feels like it's worth taking him down if possible. But I can see Trump's conviction, if he is convicted, being used by the right as an excuse to persecute organisers of peaceful protests should a riot break out. The same sorts of arguments you're using against Trump would apply.

Once I couldn't get my weed whacker to start and I threw my shoulder out yanking on the rope. It pissed me off so I threw it into the creek. As I watched it spinning through the air, sailing over the fence, I thought to myself, there must have been a better way to deal with it. — Hanover

I love this image :rofl:

I think that's a false representation. There is nothing intrinsic to the concept of "incite", which necessitates that the person who incites must intend the specific action which is incited. — Metaphysician Undercover

Seems pretty consistent with the dictionary definition to me:

incite
to encourage someone to do or feel something unpleasant or violent:
She incited racial hatred by distributing anti-Semitic leaflets.
[ + to infinitive ] She was expelled for inciting her classmates to rebel against their teachers.
They denied inciting the crowd to violence. — Cambridge

Trump is guilty of inciting, because he clearly intended for his followers to take action, in the form of some sort of protestation. — Metaphysician Undercover

But protest is not insurrection.

All that is necessary is to show criminal intent. — Metaphysician Undercover

Showing criminal intent is showing intent to commit that crime. The crime in question is incitement of insurrection, not whipping up a protest. If you cannot show intent to invite insurrection, you cannot ethically convict.

Criminal law is designed so that ignorance cannot be used as a defense, because this would allow the criminal who is a proficient liar to walk free, under the pretense of ignorance. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ignorance of the law is no defense because it is a national's responsibility to know the laws of his or her country. But ignorance that one's actions would lead to someone else being inspired to commit crimes is a perfectly reasonable defense, and the one Trump's people will employ. "How could he know that calling for a march to support the objectors would lead to a violent insurrection?"

Indeed, how could he? Because that was his plan all along? Yeah right. Because he should have thought of it and taken it seriously as a possible consequence? If it can be shown that the outcome was a likely one, maybe. Problem there is if you go down that route you'll have genuine first amendment violations. You shouldn't start protests against racist, murderous police because a riot is a likely consequence.

I notice among my age peers (40+) that they're trying to downsize on all the social networks, phone time etc. anyway. I suspect for kids growing up with this the novelty will wear off even sooner. — Benkei

Interestingly, as my 70-year old former lefty mother has become increasingly right-wing, she's embraced social media more and more.

That's a mighty fine line to draw, between "incite" and "inspire". — Metaphysician Undercover

Not at all. If I incite someone, that's a teleological action on my part, irrespective of its consequences. If I inspire someone, that's an interpretation on their part.

The inciteful, or inspirational (however you want to say it) activity was the false pretense of a stolen election. And that had been going on for months, so there was preparations made for the event. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, and I think that'll have to be the crux of the matter: Did Donald do what Donald did in order to set up a violent insurrection by his supporters in the Capitol? And the answer ought to be that this cannot be established, further is unlikely to be the case.

Trump thrives on attention and adoration. He lives for it. He's a moron and a narcissist, which 100% explains his actions. He lost an election to a corpse, so he has to rationalise that both for himself and his millions of cult followers. So naturally it was a fraudulent election.

The impeachment is floating a very different version of Trump, one who is blessed with understanding of others and the cunning to use this to deliberately guide his mob into violent insurrection without ever explicitly stating that this is what he wants: Trump as master manipulator, shadowy Bond villain, astute strategist and a man of subtle means. That isn't Trump. He has none of those qualities. And yet if we wish to convict him on the impeachment charges, in the absence of an overt call to arms, we have to pretend that is what Trump is.

Incitement is what Rudy did: "trial by combat".

If you live in a racist society, you're a racist. Duh! — Harry Hindu

That is not what I wrote.

RIPPER 2024

So, are you ready to demonstrate either that it was not this claim, made by the president, which incited the violence, or, that the claim was not a false pretense? Until you do, you're just blowing smoke, and the president is obviously guilty of inciting the violence. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have to separate the President inspiring an insurrection from him inciting one. I don't think his rally speech is solid evidence. The insurrectionists turned up armed and prepared. People had ordered weaponry and armour online for the event, and had organised on platforms like WhatsApp and Parler.

Brett was also considered, a member from two years back who increased his activity markedly just before being banned. — Banno

I think the influx has brought latent/suppressed qualities out in a few people.

They can act as they see fit, but they won't have my business. — counterpunch

Good luck avoiding sites that don't run on AWS.

So after about a week of collecting results, with a sample size of 35, it looks like the forum leans:

- pretty strongly libertarian
- moderately egalitarian, and
- slightly progressive;

and slightly more than half of respondents identify as "left", while both/neither options (most neither) come in second, and only a minority identify as "right". — Pfhorrest

No, you couldn't find that out, it's too vague :P

I am surprised that 9% chose "maximum hierarchy". I'm intrigued by this.

I'd stick to Umberto Eco's 14 points for using that word. — Banno

Someone posted a list of from a study of common fascist characteristics more from the supporter's point of view and now I can't find the damn thing, but in short: believing that your party has some kind of destiny; believing there is a dark but unevidenced conspiracy at play thwarting that destiny; believing that the same justifies any action, no matter how illegal or immoral, which is where counterpunch comes in.

Love Eco though. The Prague Cemetery is woefully underrated.

A very telling answer from you. — ssu

I don't aim to be obscure, so... thanks!

Ok but in a sense it could just always be elitist, it's just a matter of how much elitism we're talking. — BitconnectCarlos

By definition an elite can't be all that inclusive. It can't, for instance, simply be a large minority.

Irrespective, I am very comfortable in salary and savings and feel lucky to just bought a house again. The equivalent of me in 10 years with my financial status adjusted for inflation will not afford it. Me twenty years ago on a starter's salary and a few grand in the bank bought a house effortlessly. So the issue is that home ownership is becoming increasingly elitist, however large you allow an elite to be.

The housing market is always going to price out some part of the population, it's just a matter of how big that part it. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, that is the matter. When home ownership becomes elitist, that's a problem.

Yet I was referring to Trump here. — ssu

Yes, I dig that you're drawing me into a different point. But it has so little to do with mine that it can't stand as a refutation of it. Violent insurrectionists wanting to overthrow democracy to install an unelected populist figure ticks a large number of fascist boxes.

How terrible insurrectionists would be those violently protesting the events then? — ssu

Sorry, do you mean the the insurrectionists who do exist who attempted to overthrow democracy, or some hypothetical insurrectionists who attempt to reinstate it? If the former, very. If the latter, not at all. America is a constitutionally democratic country. A fascist dictatorship would be an internal enemy.

But what do you have against homeowners building equity in their property and gaining wealth through that? — BitconnectCarlos

I've already said: it prices the next generation out of the housing market.

Considering that the role racism played in how tabloids treated Megan had some evidence for it, it shouldn't've been dismissed outright, and certainly not in Fox's hyperbolic and posturing tone. — fdrake

Certainly not by Fox full stop. His privilege goes so far beyond his whiteness that his touted authority on ground level Britain ("the most tolerant lovely country in Europe") is quite ridiculous. I'm quite sure Fox's upbringing was lovely and tolerant. And white as snow. But that says nothing about Britain.

So is the solution to ban renting? Does that really make a lot of sense? You know that renting out part of the house can also make paying off a mortgage easier. — BitconnectCarlos

No, the solution to a problem is not always to ban it. I don't actually think there is a solution, not one that reverses the damage anyway. Either we price most people out of the housing market to be exploited by landlords charging exorbitant rents, or we act to reverse the housing price rise and effectively sink the value of private property. It's lose-lose, which is why it should have been regulated ages ago.

Effectively making housing an investment opportunity meant naturally drawing those with capital to snap it up in large quantities and drive up its price. Housing should not be about making money: it's a basic necessity.

I don't think that above makes him a fascist. Note the "if". — ssu

I do. Note the conclusions, and therefore his evaluation of the "if".

And note that those that have accused others of a fraud have been the leadership of the US administration itself. — ssu

This is a substitution error. The subject was not people accusing other people of fraud, baseless or otherwise. The subject was violent insurrectionists attacking and killing police with the intent to attack and kill lawmakers.

Its not wrong that if you question the existence of white privilege you get called a racist. That was the point of what you quoted. Your reply simply doesn't address what I said, but that is expected from you. — Harry Hindu

Try reading it properly:

Who and when on these forums have generalized whites by using terms like, "white privilege"? Lots of people in this forum. And when you disagree with them and point out the weak points of their argument, they call you a "racist".
— Harry Hindu

Well either it is advantageous to be white in which case generally white people are privileged in that respect, or racism doesn't manifest itself statistically. Since racism is statistically manifest, it is generally advantageous to be white. — Kenosha Kid

In short, either white privilege is real and denying it is denying its victims, or white privilege isn't real in which case we should see no evidence of it. Not sure how you're missing the connection here. If I live in a racist society, and I am advantaged by that, and I refute the existence of that racism, I am protecting a racist society, therefore am racist.