If This The End Of The United States?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-14-2021, 08:07 PM)Dill Wrote: Didn't think you were "attacking Millhouse."           

And I wasn't "defending his position."

Then your post wasn't well worded, but please continue. 

Quote:You were using it as a platform to "observe" how your "labelers," who thought Trumpism a real danger,

have now supposedly usurped your position--thereby retroactively validating your position as right all along.

I suppose if you were the cynical type you could see it that way.  I do know that I'm hearing the exact same arguments I posited used by those who used to decry them

Quote:But Millhouse is not an example of someone who labeled you and usurped your argument.  

Indeed, on this we completely agree.  Millhouse knows this too.

Quote:So far, there are no examples of anyone who has.  Just the claim to a "fascinating observation." 

Ohhh, you want me to name names.  And here I thought you were one for promoting less strife and more civility on this board.  How about this, if it doesn't apply to you don't assume it does.  Hopefully this will alleviate your obvious concerns in this regard.

[hollodero]

(01-14-2021, 07:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't say the vote didn't count.  I said it was framed incorrectly and an appeal to emotion.

Well... you do say it was framed incorrectly and you advocate for ignoring the result - or better, let the result be free of any actual consequence. This imho translates to the vote having no effect and therefore not really counting.
Like the ballots the US puts there in every presidential election, even though those results don't mean anything either.

(01-14-2021, 07:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't like appeals to emotion.  Puerto Rico is hardly a colony and hasn't been treated as such in quite some time.

I guess then you'd have to have an issue with every election or ballot measure ever occurring in the modern world. That's what usually happens at the forefront, an appeal to emotions of some sorts.

As for the colony thing, that is a case of definition. In Puerto Rico, there live people that can not vote or have their own representation in the government. For me, that already makes it a factual colony. Doesn't mean it has to be surrounded by grim stories of colonial oppression.
- Though not letting lawful citizens vote or have representation is, imho, a stark form of oppression still. It's gross, really. Didn't Americans revolt for, certainly amongst other things, that very reason?

(01-14-2021, 07:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think my issue with it is the utterly disingenuous reasons for pushing it at this time.

OK, I had the same issue with Brexit. Everything around that I felt was disingenuous, appealing to emotions and peppered with bad or false arguments.
Doesn't mean Brexit should not take place altogether. People voted for it, after all.

(01-14-2021, 07:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've mentioned before that my girlfriend is Puerto Rican and she doesn't care at all about statehood.  Most, if not all, of her family is the same way.

Many others, however, apparently do.

(01-14-2021, 07:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, I don't want to have to alter the flag, what a pain in the ass that will be.  

Well, then just have one Dakota. That should be more than sufficient anyways.
Though, of course, that would mean two less republican senators. And this to me seems to be amongst the strongest arguments often, while I do not say you are fueled by it: A state Puerto Rico would mean two democratic senators, and many non-liberals hate the move for this reason.
Which is just an awful reason to deny their wishes as expressed in multiple referendums now. (The thing with the flag, I do get that)

[Dill]

(01-14-2021, 08:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then your post wasn't well worded, but please continue. 

I suppose if you were the cynical type you could see it that way.  I do know that I'm hearing the exact same arguments I posited used by those who used to decry them

Indeed, on this we completely agree.  Millhouse knows this too.

Ohhh, you want me to name names.  And here I thought you were one for promoting less strife and more civility on this board.  How about this, if it doesn't apply to you don't assume it does.  Hopefully this will alleviate your obvious concerns in this regard.

Making doubtful claims about forum members/arguments without actually "naming" them has nothing to do with civility or "promoting less strife."

It is just making assertions without supporting them.

If you were in fact "hearing the exact same arguments [you] posited used by those who used to decry them" 

that would indeed be "fascinating" and likely of interest to other forum members. 

But you'd have to show and juxtapose the arguments in question though, or no one can really know what you are talking about.

[GMDino]

(01-14-2021, 09:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Making doubtful claims about forum members/arguments without actually "naming" them has nothing to do with civility or "promoting less strife."

It is just making assertions without supporting them.

If you were in fact "hearing the exact same arguments [you] posited used by those who used to decry them" 

that would indeed be "fascinating" and likely of interest to other forum members. 

But you'd have to show and juxtapose the arguments in question though, or no one can really know what you are talking about.

Dill if there is one thing I've learned from the GOP over the last week is when someone makes wild accusations that fly directly if the face of reality and facts it's best to just let them do whatever they want or they get angry and riot to try and make others make their fantasy a reality...and THEN we can't talk about the rioting because it might make them angry.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-14-2021, 09:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well... you do say it was framed incorrectly and you advocate for ignoring the result - or better, let the result be free of any actual consequence. This imho translates to the vote having no effect and therefore not really counting.
Like the ballots the US puts there in every presidential election, even though those results don't mean anything either.

The vote was non-binding, so ignoring it, or not, is irrelevant.  So essentially you are correct.

Quote:I guess then you'd have to have an issue with every election or ballot measure ever occurring in the modern world. That's what usually happens at the forefront, an appeal to emotions of some sorts.

On this I cannot agree.  Appeals to emotion are, thankfully, not currently the norm.  Present facts, cite statistics.  While I agree that framing your opponent as "bad" because of "X" can be viewed as an appeal to emotion I tend to use the term when discussing votes based on ideas and not people.  When a person is involved the interpretation of said person will always color the votes of some/many.

Quote:As for the colony thing, that is a case of definition. In Puerto Rico, there live people that can not vote or have their own representation in the government. For me, that already makes it a factual colony. Doesn't mean it has to be surrounded by grim stories of colonial oppression.
- Though not letting lawful citizens vote or have representation is, imho, a stark form of oppression still. It's gross, really. Didn't Americans revolt for, certainly amongst other things, that very reason?

This is not entirely true.  They can vote, in some instances and for some things.  Also, all Puerto Ricans are US citizens, so they can vote wherever they reside. As far as the colony argument, I fear we are approaching the dreaded semantic argument, so I will leave it at your making a solid point that I don't fully agree with.

Quote:OK, I had the same issue with Brexit. Everything around that I felt was disingenuous, appealing to emotions and peppered with bad or false arguments.
Doesn't mean Brexit should not take place altogether. People voted for it, after all.

I am pleased to hear you say that, as many people tried to discount the vote along those lines.  The most nauseating, and oft repeated, was that "X" percentage of leave voters would be dead in "X" years so they wouldn't be around to deal with the consequences.

Quote:Many others, however, apparently do.

For sure.

Quote:Well, then just have one Dakota. That should be more than sufficient anyways.

Why not three Dakotas? 

Quote:Though, of course, that would mean two less republican senators. And this to me seems to be amongst the strongest arguments often, while I do not say you are fueled by it: A state Puerto Rico would mean two democratic senators, and many non-liberals hate the move for this reason.

Actually, I predict the Hispanic vote will swing heavily GOP within the next four to eight years.  The only real issue keeping Hispanics voting Dem is immigration.  Aside form that they tend to lean heavily towards culturally conservative and anti-socialism, especially as socialism has been a disaster in Central and South America.

Quote:Which is just an awful reason to deny their wishes as expressed in multiple referendums now. (The thing with the flag, I do get that)

But you do get why I dislike the push for it now and by whom?  As for the flag, thank you for conceding that point.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-14-2021, 09:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Making doubtful claims about forum members/arguments without actually "naming" them has nothing to do with civility or "promoting less strife."

It is just making assertions without supporting them.

Well then, simply use your own two eyes and decide if the point has any validity or not.  I have faith that you are capable in this regard.

Quote:If you were in fact "hearing the exact same arguments [you] posited used by those who used to decry them" 

that would indeed be "fascinating" and likely of interest to other forum members. 

I have no doubt.  Thankfully, I give the rest of our brethren the same faith I give to you.

Quote:But you'd have to show and juxtapose the arguments in question though, or no one can really know what you are talking about.

Do I?  So far no one else appears to have expressed any confusion except for you.  Maybe you're not the arbiter for everyone's understanding that you appear to think you are?

[hollodero]

(01-14-2021, 09:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The vote was non-binding, so ignoring it, or not, is irrelevant.  So essentially you are correct.

Sure, quite apparently it was. Nevertheless, the will of the people should be clear - at least clear enough to warrant a more binding vote on that.

(01-14-2021, 09:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On this I cannot agree.  Appeals to emotion are, thankfully, not currently the norm.

You have witnessed the same presidential election, right? I know there are several rational factors in play and many rational people going with facts and all that in their decision, sure. But the broadest of appeals, to each base, was an emotional one.
Eg. nothing Trump said to his voters was factual in any way, shape or form. I admit he is a special case, but the appeal to emotion is neither new nor happening on a fringe level. That is the way I saw all of your (and our) elections; people appeal to fears, resentments, hopes and dreams - seldom to truths, facts and figures.

(01-14-2021, 09:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is not entirely true.  They can vote, in some instances and for some things.  Also, all Puerto Ricans are US citizens, so they can vote wherever they reside.

...except when they reside in Puerto Rico. Then their vote lands in one of those mockery ballots. At least for president and for Congress, and if they have no say and no representation there, then I feel they do not have the fundamental right to vote - even if they can vote on some special topics.

(01-14-2021, 09:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am pleased to hear you say that, as many people tried to discount the vote along those lines.  The most nauseating, and oft repeated, was that "X" percentage of leave voters would be dead in "X" years so they wouldn't be around to deal with the consequences.

Oh yeah that was laughable.
Just for the record, I did have an issue with people having to vote on a Brexit deal whose terms were yet to be determined and close to impossible to correctly predict. And I thought this fact would have warranted a second vote. So there's that.

(01-14-2021, 09:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How about three Dakotas

Canada is your third Dakota anyways.

(01-14-2021, 09:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, I predict the Hispanic vote will swing heavily GOP within the next four to eight years.  The only real issue keeping Hispanics voting Dem is immigration.  Aside form that they tend to lean heavily towards culturally conservative and anti-socialism, especially as socialism has been a disaster in Central and South America.

I'd predict the same thing, based on your points and also that many hispanics seem to be quite religious and the GOP is somehow the religion party, that many seem to have an entrepreneurial spirit and hence rather prefer conservative economic ideas, and that the democrats seem to be overly pandering to one special minority that is not them.
But if they really swing to the GOP, that imho is dependent which forces win the battle over this party. If it's the Trump wing (as I believe), then I don't dare predict said swing. If it's some kind of back to pre-Trump times, as you seem to believe, then yeah sure.

But that would open yet another bigger debate, as do your remarks towards socialism... and I will for now refrain from that :)

Many conservatives, however, condemned the Puerto Rico statehood push as some kind of liberal ploy to increase their power. Which, to be fair, it probably is.

(01-14-2021, 09:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But you do get why I dislike the push for it now and by whom?  As for the flag, thank you for conceding that point.  

I guess I do, yeah.
It's just, no matter how it came to pass, I feel it's still the right and democratic thing to do.

[NATI BENGALS]

If we had Parler rules I wouldnt be banned for what I want to say really really bad.

Can we add a new rank for the boards?

Terrorist Apologist

or something along those lines. Something as nice as possible but reflects reality

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-15-2021, 07:31 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: If we had Parler rules I wouldnt be banned for what I want to say really really bad.

Can we add a new rank for the boards?

Terrorist Apologist

or something along those lines. Something as nice as possible but reflects reality

I'd be all for this if we can also add "SJW Douchebag" as a rank.  

BTW, there's literally two people defending the Capitol Hill protest, one is no surprise at all and the other is very possibly an alter.

[Au165]

(01-15-2021, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd be all for this if we can also add "SJW Douchebag" as a rank.  

BTW, there's literally two people defending the Capitol Hill protest, one is no surprise at all and the other is very possibly an alter.

You are the second person, one in rep note, who believes the one is an alt. I wonder if the mods have looked at ip records to crosscheck? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-15-2021, 12:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: You are the second person, one in rep note, who believes the one is an alt. I wonder if the mods have looked at ip records to crosscheck? 

It's just odd that a poster who has never posted in P&R has chosen this moment to jump in.  Especially one so politically active that they'd join the Capitol Hill "protest".  It doesn't pass the smell test, at all.  As for checking IP's, a VPN makes that useless.  

[Au165]

(01-15-2021, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's just odd that a poster who has never posted in P&R has chosen this moment to jump in.  Especially one so politically active that they'd join the Capitol Hill "protest".  It doesn't pass the smell test, at all.  As for checking IP's, a VPN makes that useless.  

It does at the board level, although you'd be surprised how little forethought people put into trolling. Just as an FYI for people though, not saying anyone plans on doing anything illegal, but VPN's do very little for protecting your identity against federal level policing agencies. 

[*Nately120*]

(01-15-2021, 12:50 PM)Au165 Wrote: It does at the board level, although you'd be surprised how little forethought people put into trolling. Just as an FYI for people though, not saying anyone plans on doing anything illegal, but VPN's do very little for protecting your identity against federal level policing agencies. 

Not talking about this board or anyone on it, but the raid on the capitol and people gleefully taking photos and videos of themselves committing crimes indicates that they don't consider what they are doing a crime, rather it is something to be proud of and/or the right thing to do.

[Au165]

(01-15-2021, 01:00 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Not talking about this board or anyone on it, but the raid on the capitol and people gleefully taking photos and videos of themselves committing crimes indicates that they don't consider what they are doing a crime, rather it is something to be proud of and/or the right thing to do.

Sure. Those kinds of people wouldn't bother, those kinds of people sent pictures of their licenses to Parler who is backed financially by the same people who founded Cambridge Analytica so they are pretty dang stupid. That said, many use VPN's for other things, and to be fair most law enforcement agencies can see you use them but don't care enough to find out why for things like illegal streaming, downloads, etc. Where they get interested in things is crimes like terrorism, treason, etc. I just hear people refer to VPN's as a magic bullet to be anonymous which isn't the case really.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-15-2021, 01:04 PM)Au165 Wrote: Sure. Those kinds of people wouldn't bother, those kinds of people sent pictures of their licenses to Parler who is backed financially by the same people who founded Cambridge Analytica so they are pretty dang stupid. That said, many use VPN's for other things, and to be fair most law enforcement agencies can see you use them but don't care enough to find out why for things like illegal streaming, downloads, etc. Where they get interested in things is crimes like terrorism, treason, etc. I just hear people refer to VPN's as a magic bullet to be anonymous which isn't the case really.

I was in the midst of typing how this can be avoided and then wondered why I'd be sharing tips on how to circumvent law enforcement.  

[Au165]

(01-15-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was in the midst of typing how this can be avoided and then wondered why I'd be sharing tips on how to circumvent law enforcement.  

The general issue with VPN's is the NSA can launch man the middle attacks from many VPN's backward. They then cross-check the back-end IP data to the front end that is readily accessible. Things like tor browser can help but there are some that believe the NSA has such advanced machine learning algorithms at this point they can actually break the encryption.

[Tiger Teeth]

(01-15-2021, 01:21 PM)Au165 Wrote: The general issue with VPN's is the NSA can launch man the middle attacks from many VPN's backward. They then cross-check the back-end IP data to the front end that is readily accessible. Things like tor browser can help but there are some that believe the NSA has such advanced machine learning algorithms at this point they can actually break the encryption.

Other than occasionally checking an adult website, why would someone use all that technology to hide something?  Either way, I'm getting prepared, he has inside knowledge.  Alt or not.

[Dill]

(01-14-2021, 09:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well then, simply use your own two eyes and decide if the point has any validity or not.  I have faith that you are capable in this regard.

I have no doubt.  Thankfully, I give the rest of our brethren the same faith I give to you.

Do I?  So far no one else appears to have expressed any confusion except for you.  Maybe you're not the arbiter for everyone's understanding that you appear to think you are?

I pointed out that after getting the Trump threat wrong again and again,

and challenging those "labelers" who got it right,

you've just revised your forum record into a story of how you've somehow been right all along about the Trump threat,

and those unspecified labelers have now validated your story by "usurping" your argument.

When asked for examples of usurped arguments--anything to validate your claims--you offer only personal Parthian shots.

I'm content letting the matter lie now, if no examples are forthcoming.

[Au165]

(01-15-2021, 02:46 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: Other than occasionally checking an adult website, why would someone use all that technology to hide something?  Either way, I'm getting prepared, he has inside knowledge.  Alt or not.

Lot's of drug dealers use it for "online shopping", some use it to hire hitmen, sex trafficking is common, basically crimes that have moved digitally now.

[Dill]

(01-14-2021, 09:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Dill if there is one thing I've learned from the GOP over the last week is when someone makes wild accusations that fly directly if the face of reality and facts it's best to just let them do whatever they want or they get angry and riot to try and make others make their fantasy a reality...and THEN we can't talk about the rioting because it might make them angry.  

My attention to SSF's post was motivated more by a general interest in the logic of historical revision than immediate political events, though those events are what brought it out in this case.
 
There is a type of revisionism which takes form rather like a Moebius strip, as what the revisionist previously opposed is suddenly flipped into confirmation and agreement.
 
E.g., we’re all taught that during the civil rights era, there were civil rights advocates like MLK, John Lewis, and Elijah Cummings battling public racists like Bull Connor and George Wallace.
 
But MLK identified a third very important group we rarely hear about in public discourse—the “white moderate.” These were people who claimed to deplore racism and abhor racists, but whenever there were civil rights protests, like those in ’63 Birmingham, they always attacked the protestors, not the racists. That baffled King. The weight of these moderates could have tipped the balance in favor of civil rights in many southern communities obviating federal intervention. But these people who claimed to be against racism seemed only capable of attacking people who actually fought racism.
 
This group, with leaders like Goldwater and National Review founder William Buckley, became the nucleus of the post war conservative movement. They forced out the public racists as toxic to conservatism, on the one hand, but on the other regarded civil rights icons like MLK as Communist tools, and the greater threat and opposed civil rights legislation.
 
Barely a generation later, by the ‘90s, conservative Republicans writing for the National Review were recasting MLK as a “conservative” who’d been affirming conservative principles all along. Because they judged according to character and not race, CONSERVATIVES were the true heirs of MLK, not those who continued to fight systemic racism and white privilege. Following the conservative response to MLK then, is rather like following one side of a Moebius strip, and figuring out exactly where it flipped into the other side.
 
Normally, this kind of revision requires at least a generation. But the current political juncture is an ideological as much as political crisis, and may be forcing rapid revision. That’s why I would dispute claims that our institutions have somehow survived and held. We don’t know that they have yet, since millions of people still believe the election was stolen, and cannot revise that belief without calling into question their own judgment and their most trusted sources of political authority. That means tremendous pressure to find explanations for events which do not invalidate the latter.