1761: "Blame"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
netsplit
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:34 am UTC
Location: Z̈̓̾̾̀̉ͬ̅ͯͪͬ̚͢͏̴̝̝̩̳͙͘a̷̧̰̥̯͎͍͍̻̮͔̭̰̗̺̩̐̀͛͐ͥ͐ͨ͆̀̉̐̌̅͑ͣ͟ͅľ̸̠̟̭̲̜̹̗͎͍̗̤͖̤͕̣̝̀̊̑ͯͬ͌̍ͬ͂ͤ͛̀̚g̍̅́ͮ̌̏ͣ́̀͏͍

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby netsplit » Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:13 pm UTC

Tallest Skil wrote:
netsplit wrote:If your family voted for Trump despite all the hateful things he says and does, they are deeply defective people, and you SHOULD be ashamed of them. What awful people they must be. Putin thanks them for their treason assistance too.


Learn what treason is. Then read Common Sense, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution. Then apologize.

He voted to give control of the US military to an idiot with Putin's hand right up his ass like some kind of Muppet. A hostile foreign power that gladly meddled in the election for his side. If you think Putin wants well for Americans you must be retarded.

He voted to torture gay people, to attack innocent Muslims, he voted against the first amendment, specifically against a free press, free speech, and also the 5th amendment due process. Where's his apology to the all he voted to harm?
from da craddle to da grave, geek life 4 eva
better show hardcore respect ya'll

JayDee wrote:"What is the difference between erotic and kinky? Erotic is using a feather. Kinky is using the whole Dinosaur."

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:20 pm UTC

netsplit wrote:
Tallest Skil wrote:Learn what treason is. Then read Common Sense, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution. Then apologize.

He voted to give control of the US military to an idiot with Putin's hand right up his ass like some kind of Muppet. A hostile foreign power that gladly meddled in the election for his side. If you think Putin wants well for Americans you must be retarded.

He voted to torture gay people, to attack innocent Muslims, he voted against the first amendment, specifically against a free press, free speech, and also the 5th amendment due process. Where's his apology to the all he voted to harm?
So like, I'm cool with the anger, but I think the language could be toned down from "ten" to maybe "six". Specifically, "treason" (if only because I think calling a vote "treason" is a big stretch) and "retarded" (if only because I think that it's pretty gross to use that word as an insult).
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:24 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:But I have to question how much the people who have been wielding American hegemony for as long as I remember value these liberal democratic values. In this regard there have been some policy changes when the presidency changes hands--trading torture for execution by drone, for example--but by and large they have been willing to act as if civil liberties are irrelevant (cf. Snowden leaks), behave as if regime change is a simple matter (cf. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria), selling military hardware to police departments for use against...the people, &c. It almost seems as if these values have been traded away for the sake of continuation of the hegemony...in which case, what's the point? It disgusts me.
That's understandable; it's an argument to reject both candidates. I am very open to this position.

If only rejecting both candidates had been a meaningful option. Instead those of us who did so were once again mere protest votes.

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:I do not think he would be allowed by the people who surround him and the people he trusts to start a war over a tweet.

I remember reading once about a night when Richard Nixon was drunk and decided to order the launching of the nukes at the Soviet Union. He was physically restrained by the White House staff.
You understand the problem there, though, right? The actual lesson of that anecdote, true or false? That we put ourselves in a position where the only thing standing between us and nuclear annihilation was the White House staff's ability to physically restrain the president.

We should not be in a situation like that. We should not put ourselves in a situation like that. And yet -- here we are.

We have been in this position since we started building a nuclear arsenal and ICBMs. Fortunately, he is a seventy year old man, so it shouldn't be too difficult to restrain him, no matter what his doctor says about him.

I like to imagine the frisson of terror that Truman must have felt on assuming the office and discovering the true reach and power of the presidency and everything that was at stake.

Soupspoon wrote:I'm gonna ask you to expand upon your thoughts on the following...
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:How many people would die if Ukraine joins NATO?

...especially as to who would be to blame for any such a result.

You know, to bring this topic more or less back to the original subject of blame.

Sure.

1. How would the US have reacted had Cuba joined the Warsaw Pact? The Cuban Missile Crisis was solved diplomatically, but had an argument on a submarine ended slightly differently, that wouldn't have been an option.

If Hillary Clinton and Vladimir Putin want to play chicken, I'd prefer if they did it the old-school way with cars instead of nuclear weapons.

2. If it ever came to the point where we were assigning blame for nuclear war, what purpose would it serve? Opinions on the subject would only change who we curse when there's nothing left to eat but each other.

But to answer your question seriously:

Vladimir Putin has, for at least a decade, been saying that it was expected in the Kremlin that US missile defense technology--the tech that we have been deploying in Russia's Near Abroad in order to protect our allies from "Iran"--would outpace their nuclear missile technology and render it completely obsolete by roughly 2020, which would force his regime "mathematically" to use their nuclear missiles before then, because the alternative is to lose. I suspect that the recent announcements of ICBMs capable of flying far faster than previous ones contained at least two messages: we are still very powerful, and that date of inevitability can probably be moved further into the future.

Perhaps he was bluffing, but there's no way to know for sure until he is put in that position. Does he fold, or does he follow through?

And what are the odds of following through if neighboring countries like Ukraine and Georgia are inducted into the anti-Russia alliance? Russia's most important naval base, Sevastopol IIRC, was part of Ukraine until recently. Had Russia not annexed Crimea, and had Ukraine joined NATO and the EU, what cards would Russia be holding? Would that be the point where the poker game turns into a shootout?

A President Clinton means that this is still possible within the next four years. A President Trump who is willing to back off some makes that far less likely (though what happens between us and China, I can't say). And who do you blame? The power which is attempting to preserve itself, or the power for whom There Must Be Only One? Why no both?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:33 pm UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:If only rejecting both candidates had been a meaningful option. Instead those of us who did so were once again mere protest votes.
Right, and I sympathize; we're talking about whether or not it's justifiable to vote for Hillary, though. I'm saying I think it's justifiable to not vote for either; it's really hard to justify voting for Trump.
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:We have been in this position since we started building a nuclear arsenal and ICBMs. Fortunately, he is a seventy year old man, so it shouldn't be too difficult to restrain him, no matter what his doctor says about him.
I think you might be missing my point?

If the only thing standing between Trump and that button is his staff, it's perfectly reasonable to vote for Hillary -- because there's a lot more standing between Hillary and that button (Hillary herself, for example).

I don't want the world's fate to be decided by a scuffle between the White House staff and the president, regardless of the odds. If that's even a thing that might happen, I'm going to vote for the other candidate.

And I'm not going to be happy with anyone who decided it was okay to vote for the guy who might get drunk and go for the button.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:45 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:If only rejecting both candidates had been a meaningful option. Instead those of us who did so were once again mere protest votes.
Right, and I sympathize; we're talking about whether or not it's justifiable to vote for Hillary, though. I'm saying I think it's justifiable to not vote for either; it's really hard to justify voting for Trump.
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:We have been in this position since we started building a nuclear arsenal and ICBMs. Fortunately, he is a seventy year old man, so it shouldn't be too difficult to restrain him, no matter what his doctor says about him.
I think you might be missing my point?

If the only thing standing between Trump and that button is his staff, it's perfectly reasonable to vote for Hillary -- because there's a lot more standing between Hillary and that button (Hillary herself, for example).

I don't want the world's fate to be decided by a scuffle between the White House staff and the president, regardless of the odds. If that's even a thing that might happen, I'm going to vote for the other candidate.

And I'm not going to be happy with anyone who decided it was okay to vote for the guy who might get drunk and go for the button.

I wasn't missing your point so much as getting away from mine. This worries me too. I hope he will, like most of his predecessors who have had the power, have too much sense to get drunk and order nuclear war. People who voted for him have more faith in him. I do consider rapprochement with Russia to be a good sign though.

netsplit wrote:He voted to give control of the US military to an idiot with Putin's hand right up his ass like some kind of Muppet. A hostile foreign power that gladly meddled in the election for his side. If you think Putin wants well for Americans you must be retarded.

He voted to torture gay people, to attack innocent Muslims, he voted against the first amendment, specifically against a free press, free speech, and also the 5th amendment due process. Where's his apology to the all he voted to harm?

You appear to be speaking of me. I did not vote for him. But still, since you appear to be speaking of me, I asked you a damn good question:

It was a virtual certainty that a Hillary Clinton administration would lead to causing violent anarchy in distant countries in order to enrich certain corporations. By the standards you have of Donald Trump's voters, what does that say about you as a person, if you voted for her?
Last edited by Sheikh al-Majaneen on Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:51 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby morriswalters » Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:48 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote: That's the same bullshit morriswalters was spouting in the N&A thread. Even if we couldn't do anything to prevent the inauguration (which is itself uncertain given the possibility of faithless electors, who presumably could be swayed by other things that happen between now and their vote), there is plenty of other things we can do other than politely waiting to see whether Trump is as dishonest as you hope. (And whether the extremists he's hired will suddenly decide to become moderates for no apparent reason.)
morriswalters is still pushing it. Faithless electors aren't going to bail you out and thinking otherwise is magical thinking. Consider the ramifications if they did. There isn't much trust in the system now. How much trust do you think there would be afterwords?

If you had gumption you could of course arm up and go to war. It has happened here before. But I don't see that as you. And you can certainly protest. But you didn't elect him and he owes you nothing in return. He doesn't need you to govern. And you don't have to guess about his Cabinet. It is about as expected. And the Democrats are paying the price for killing filibusters. Warren can yell about Sessions all she wants but Reid took away the tool that could have stopped him.

gd1
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby gd1 » Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:58 pm UTC

/notgramaticallycorrect

I think this is funny.

My opinion on it is that almost every facet of media everywhere railed to get Hillary elected instead of Trump, but more importantly a large amount of media effort caused a blackout of Sanders. Hillary is a scumbag (likely a murderer) and people voted for her to avoid Trump. Sanders on the other hand had people excited to vote for him. He had the same feel that Trump did of not being owned by wall street, but he wasn't crazy like Trump. Wall street however did not want Sanders to get in given his views. So now we pay the price, and we deserve it, every bit of it. And the people who voted for Hillary because they thought Sanders didn't have a chance are just icing on the cake. I voted for Hillary because Trump was worse, but I voted for Sanders initially.

For the bonus round: When I was caucusing in Nevada for Bernie, the website for determining voter zoning went down for several hours. It was incredibly convenient that several of the Bernie supporters left for work in that time while all the elderly Hillary supporters stayed. It was also very unfortunate that they couldn't be bothered to print out even 1 physical hard copy map in case this happened. Guess there wasn't enough money in the budget. It's this sort of slime and scummyness that got Trump elected, so I want all the people who were behind it to hang their heads in shame. We may never know who all of them are, but we can at least point at the news outlets who did a blackout of Sanders. And I believe in an afterlife, so I know they'll get what's coming to them on the day of judgement. I hope all the money they made for selling out their morals is a comfort for them as they burn in hell.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby azule » Sun Nov 20, 2016 3:04 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:You understand the problem there, though, right? The actual lesson of that anecdote, true or false? That we put ourselves in a position where the only thing standing between us and nuclear annihilation was the White House staff's ability to physically restrain the president.

We should not be in a situation like that. We should not put ourselves in a situation like that. And yet -- here we are.

Yep. I hear comparisons like "well, Nixon did the same or worse"... Hey, didn't that guy resign to avoid impeachment? This is the kind of guy to avoid not the kind to make us feel better that we have another of which in the wings (West, specifically).

gd1 wrote:I think this is funny.

[...] So now we pay the price, and we deserve it, every bit of it. And the people who voted for Hillary because they thought Sanders didn't have a chance are just icing on the cake. I voted for Hillary because Trump was worse, but I voted for Sanders initially.

[...] I hope all the money they made for selling out their morals is a comfort for them as they burn in hell.

Sentence/paragraph 1... Good start. Not.

Paragraph 2... How do WE deserve it? The system should "deserve" it and be dismantled, but not the American people. We deserve better choices for president. Maybe a better modified constitution. Not sure what but not a shitty president. *fingers crossed that he's the better than Nixon*

Part 2.... So you're good with voting for Hillary because you previously voted for Bernie? I guess you're perfect. Thanks for your commitment. It really helped. /sarcasm

Paragraph 3... You could just stay within the confines of society, like laws. I think it's rude to say that just as people would be upset if you wished rape upon them. *shrug*
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:05 am UTC

Spaceman_Spiff wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:
It will not "be okay to torture LGBT people until they say they're cishet".
Women will not "be forced to hold funerals for their miscarriages".
There will not be "a Muslim registry".
He never said they would. The things you think you were responding to there weren't predictions, they were statements of known fact.
If those things don't actually happen, then you should question how factual those things were, how you "knew" them, and why you were worrying so much about them.
How factual what things were? I never predicted those things would happen, as Copper Bezel correctly noted. I brought those up to explain why I shouldn't need to make and wait to test specific predictions. Conversion therapy and a registry are things the candidates have advocated in the past. Whether or not those specific things happen or increase (because conversion therapy already happens), giving power to people who want them is likely to make things worse for the targeted groups of people, was my point.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Nov 20, 2016 7:40 am UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:A President Clinton means that this is still possible within the next four years. A President Trump who is willing to back off some makes that far less likely (though what happens between us and China, I can't say).
If this is a situation where one side backing off to another creates a stable position, then how does that relate to not accepting Russia backing off to create a stable situation in the face of Western solidifcation of power? It's a dynamic game. Entrench your forward line, to deter a push by the dominant other power, yes, but the Ukraine is not Russia's forward line to entrench any more, at least theoretically.

Your point on Cuba is interesting, but Cuba is more relevent to Turkey (as indeed was the whole point of equivalence) in the nuclear-tipped missile stakes. Ukraine disarmed itself of nukes in order to be deemed not a threat, nor legitimately threatenable, by its former master and was looking towards alliance with the club that could reinforce the status quo, not to sign up as a forward staging base for aggression towards the east. But the operational practices of Moscow resulted in both 'official' (Crimea) and unofficial (Donbass, etc) territory grabs. I'm not saying that there should not have been an anticipation of the possibility of Russian aggression, but in the modern world territories are no longer supposed to be a matter of conquest (US/NATO presence in various places are not there to claim territory on behalf of the home nation(s), and in an ideal world would be withdrawn from freely). Territorial changes ought to be freely and non-coercively arranged by their original populations, and that we're not yet too good at arranging such changes (the Sudans, the Kurdish territories, the Koreas, Kuril Islands, etc) without either (un)civil conflict or massively overpowered diplomatic effort (a static tussle with a hoped-or bare minimum of shin-kicking!) doesn't mean that we can't try. The US has had its past moments (Panama, etc) and it has the potential to be hawkish, still, but fingers burnt and public opinion (normally far less incited and guided than by Russia's authoritarian Spin Machine) temper any such inclination. Unlike the Old Enemy which is clearly not averse to strategic interventions of a greater significant effect.

And who do you blame? The power which is attempting to preserve itself, or the power for whom There Must Be Only One? Why no both?
Who is the Power For Whom There Must Be Only One? If you're saying that there will be a United States Of Everywhere, based upon Washington, then I think you're well off the mark. If you're talking about Western Values (e.g. Capitalism) then I think that's one of the powers that thretens (somewhat more benignly than other worldwide movements I could mention, even if there are also 'victims' of it) but it isn't linked to NATO, per se. Right now, no nations are conceiving "there must be only one"ness (not that they'd complain too much if theirs was the One that ended up Only, but domination/supremacy is far from an achievable goal for most sane minds in that position) and we have to look to the likes of those striving for the Global Caliphate to find a 'state' announcing such an absurd goal.

The power trying to preserve itself is not even Russia, but Putin, arguably. Even if it gets to the point where Russia joins NATO, an unlikely goal for anyone to have in mind, Russia will still maintain sovereignty with all else equal. The losers would only be whatever political forces would have to be deposed or turned for this to happen. And their fears are not primarily of Rusdia falling to NATO, they have more immediate fears upon which NATO is just a distraction that they wouldn't care to tackle head on but (as per a chess grandmaster) do wish to threaten advancing pawns so long as they are able to do so in the face of the marauding bishops and knights mostly on the other half of the board.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Nov 20, 2016 7:43 am UTC

gd1 wrote:Hillary is a scumbag (likely a murderer)
[citation needed]

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby ps.02 » Sun Nov 20, 2016 9:48 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:And the Democrats are paying the price for killing filibusters.

All I can say is, good thing we all agreed a couple of years ago, amidst the howls of protest from Congress, that it was a good idea to let the President decide immigration issues by executive order. We did all say that, right?

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Copper Bezel » Sun Nov 20, 2016 1:04 pm UTC

I don't think anyone was happy with that solution.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby morriswalters » Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:12 pm UTC

ps.02 wrote:
morriswalters wrote:And the Democrats are paying the price for killing filibusters.

All I can say is, good thing we all agreed a couple of years ago, amidst the howls of protest from Congress, that it was a good idea to let the President decide immigration issues by executive order. We did all say that, right?
Well Congress will get to act now.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Nov 20, 2016 3:41 pm UTC

Trump supporters continue to see no irony in their complaints that people are being mean to them.

The Guardian wrote:Trump voters sure are sensitive lately. They’re upset that the cast of the hit play Hamilton made a statement to vice-president elect A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe, and that the audience booed him. They’re displeased that their vote is costing them relationships with family and friends. And for some reason not entirely clear to me, they’re unhappy with Starbucks and decided to demonstrate as much by … buying lots of coffee at Starbucks.

The same people who wear shirts that read “fuck your feelings,” and rail against “political correctness” seem to believe that there should be no social consequences for their vote. I keep hearing calls for empathy and healing, civility and polite discourse. As if supporting a man who would fill his administration with white nationalists and misogynists is something to simply agree to disagree on.

Absolutely not. You don’t get to vote for a person who brags about sexual assault and expect that the women in your life will just shrug their shoulders. You don’t get to play the victim when people de-friend you on Facebook, as if being disliked for supporting a bigot is somehow worse than the suffering that marginalized people will endure under Trump. And you certainly do not get to enjoy a performance by people of color and those in the LGBT community without remark or protest when you enact policies and stoke hatred that put those very people’s lives in danger.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Liri » Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:07 pm UTC

There's a very relevant HONY that was just posted today.

Humans of New York wrote:I feel homeless. Like this isn’t the place that I thought it was. I feel like I don’t understand where I am. Where we all are. Last week students started chanting ‘build the wall’ in the lunchroom of a local middle school. Some of the Hispanic children started crying. If you’re the principal-- how are you supposed to stop that behavior? If the president can behave in a certain way, how are you supposed to tell a child that it’s unacceptable? How does that hold up? It breaks my heart. I’ve had friends reach out to me. They’ve told me: ‘I understand the reasons that you’re upset. But those aren’t the reasons I voted for him.’ And I’m just starting to understand that. I’m realizing that a lot of people wanted change more than they wanted kids not to cry. We all have our own code of ethics. My bottom line happened to be tolerance. Their bottom line was abortion. Or the Supreme Court. I guess we all have the right to choose our own bottom line.


Edit: Note that I think we all have the right to be absolutely not-okay with other people's 'bottom line'.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby morriswalters » Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:39 pm UTC

Liri wrote:There's a very relevant HONY that was just posted today.
[troll]Facebook, bah![/troll]

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sun Nov 20, 2016 9:03 pm UTC

Liri wrote:There's a very relevant HONY that was just posted today.

Humans of New York wrote:I feel homeless. Like this isn’t the place that I thought it was. I feel like I don’t understand where I am. Where we all are. Last week students started chanting ‘build the wall’ in the lunchroom of a local middle school. Some of the Hispanic children started crying. If you’re the principal-- how are you supposed to stop that behavior? If the president can behave in a certain way, how are you supposed to tell a child that it’s unacceptable? How does that hold up? It breaks my heart. I’ve had friends reach out to me. They’ve told me: ‘I understand the reasons that you’re upset. But those aren’t the reasons I voted for him.’ And I’m just starting to understand that. I’m realizing that a lot of people wanted change more than they wanted kids not to cry. We all have our own code of ethics. My bottom line happened to be tolerance. Their bottom line was abortion. Or the Supreme Court. I guess we all have the right to choose our own bottom line.


Edit: Note that I think we all have the right to be absolutely not-okay with other people's 'bottom line'.

Interesting how so many people mention they, or other people, voted for Trump because they wanted change. But a lot of them don't seem to explain what kind of change they want, or how they expect Trump to get them there.

Some people want the steel industry to return, some people want to protect embryos and foetuses. While I think the former is selfish when considering the costs of the complete Trump-package to others and I don't really get the latter emotionally, I do understand where they're coming from and how they could expect Trump to make it happen. I also get that most of the people that voted primarily for their believe in cis-male-white-christian-heterosexual-supremacy mostly stay silent about that (even if their children don't seem to understand). But do those other people just want "something different"? Regardless of what they'll get?

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Liri » Sun Nov 20, 2016 9:52 pm UTC

"Change" is really just a dog-whistle to mean whatever the listener wants it to mean. And that's the great thing about it. The person calling for Change doesn't even have to know how his/her supporters will interpret it, which can be willful ignorance when it comes to white nationalists supporting you.

"I just said Change! How was I to know they wanted to Change back the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments?!"

"I'll still take their votes though."
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:14 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:If this is a situation where one side backing off to another creates a stable position, then how does that relate to not accepting Russia backing off to create a stable situation in the face of Western solidifcation of power? It's a dynamic game. Entrench your forward line, to deter a push by the dominant other power, yes, but the Ukraine is not Russia's forward line to entrench any more, at least theoretically.


From Russia's perspective, what does losing look like? The 90s were not good years there. We should have done a much better job helping Russia get on its feet again after the collapse of the Soviet Union but instead for ideological reasons we made a huge mess of it, with the country trading one ruling class for the oligarchs and the mafia. IIRC there was even talk at some point of the country being divided, with an independent Siberia and far east. Partially for these reasons, and partially because of propaganda afterwards...well, in Russian, the word for "shit" is "dermo", and there is little distance between the words "demokratia" and "dermocratia" (insert -рь-). You might be suspicious of liberalism too if it came with a heaping pile of "my money won't buy anything and the mafia's coming for their protection money and my grandmother is selling my grandfather's war medals to get by" (and I still saw a little of that last one when I was in Moscow in 2005).

I don't know how much this...hagiography is to be believed, but if it shows his true underlying motivation for his regime's actions through the years (and I think it does), it might be possible that he would accept the end of his regime if it was replaced by another which maintained stability within Russia and took care of Russians (in the nationality sense, not the ethnic sense).

If the end of the regime looked like a repeat of the 90s--or worse, Russia west of the Urals joining NATO, the rest of the country completely fracturing into multiple independent states--this is getting away from your point and mine. What I'm trying to say is that Russia is not in a strong position, and the last 25 years look like every bit of ground Russia has given up is permanently lost. We do not want Putin to think that he is on the verge of losing everything, especially losing like that.

For whatever it's worth, I've read somewhere--I forget where--that this man is Putin's most likely successor.

Your point on Cuba is interesting, but Cuba is more relevent to Turkey (as indeed was the whole point of equivalence) in the nuclear-tipped missile stakes. Ukraine disarmed itself of nukes in order to be deemed not a threat, nor legitimately threatenable, by its former master and was looking towards alliance with the club that could reinforce the status quo, not to sign up as a forward staging base for aggression towards the east. But the operational practices of Moscow resulted in both 'official' (Crimea) and unofficial (Donbass, etc) territory grabs. I'm not saying that there should not have been an anticipation of the possibility of Russian aggression, but in the modern world territories are no longer supposed to be a matter of conquest (US/NATO presence in various places are not there to claim territory on behalf of the home nation(s), and in an ideal world would be withdrawn from freely). Territorial changes ought to be freely and non-coercively arranged by their original populations, and that we're not yet too good at arranging such changes (the Sudans, the Kurdish territories, the Koreas, Kuril Islands, etc) without either (un)civil conflict or massively overpowered diplomatic effort (a static tussle with a hoped-or bare minimum of shin-kicking!) doesn't mean that we can't try. The US has had its past moments (Panama, etc) and it has the potential to be hawkish, still, but fingers burnt and public opinion (normally far less incited and guided than by Russia's authoritarian Spin Machine) temper any such inclination. Unlike the Old Enemy which is clearly not averse to strategic interventions of a greater significant effect.


I don't know much about what is going on in Ukraine and Crimea because basically all information coming out of there is a lie from one side or another. I've said before that the situation in Crimea and Donbass is more analogous to Alsace-Lorraine a century ago than to Sudetenland or Gdansk in the 30s. Putin is not Hitler, United Russia is not the Nazi Party, and as much of a mess as East Ukraine probably is, I'd put money on the assertion that it doesn't approach the nastiness and horror of the Eastern Front in WW2. Sevastopol has Russia's most important naval base, and it was leased from Ukraine every ten years. If it looked like Ukraine was going to join NATO and/or the EU, which it sorta did a few years ago, what would have happened with Sevastopol? So I see why this conflict is happening.

Who is the Power For Whom There Must Be Only One? If you're saying that there will be a United States Of Everywhere, based upon Washington, then I think you're well off the mark. If you're talking about Western Values (e.g. Capitalism) then I think that's one of the powers that thretens (somewhat more benignly than other worldwide movements I could mention, even if there are also 'victims' of it) but it isn't linked to NATO, per se. Right now, no nations are conceiving "there must be only one"ness (not that they'd complain too much if theirs was the One that ended up Only, but domination/supremacy is far from an achievable goal for most sane minds in that position) and we have to look to the likes of those striving for the Global Caliphate to find a 'state' announcing such an absurd goal.

All of this is starting to make my head hurt, so I'll leave off with this:

I didn't mean United States of Everywhere; it's more about "the world is our sandbox and nobody else must be allowed to play in it". But there would still be China.

And thus begins the setup to the universe of Firefly.

Tova
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:44 am UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Tova » Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:59 pm UTC

Get into my head, Randall.

Just kidding, but seriously, I have no idea what this comic is about.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby addams » Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:00 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:EDIT: Since I'm not exposed to the whole US election thing as much as the locals are: is this comic almost definitely still about the election? I initially interpreted it as being about things like war, rape, oppression etc. in general.

Yes. It is about those things.
And; Blame.

I'm so sorry. Once the Thread begins, the comic is ...
We are a stunned, disappointed and frightened people.

Root Cause Analysis is useful and we need some. (We have none.)
We should be finding a way of NEVER making That mistake, again.
What we are doing is Blame. We are so easily led. Blame comes so easy.

Zylon wrote:Oh good, Randall's being smug and preachy again. Always hilarious.
I hardly ever say, "Fuck You." anymore.

gmalivuk wrote:
Stargazer71 wrote:The fact that the only people who are going to see it are those who were formerly his or her friends.
How do you know that's a fact?

(California Girl Accent)
Yeah,.. like..., totally.
The NSA and HomeLand will see it.
Spoiler:
(Show them your nipple, Alice.)


Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:I have little faith in him being a good president, but he will probably not be as bad as he is made out to be. The only thing I'm really worried about with him in there is climate change.
Huh? I find some comfort in that sentence.

Then I remember, Trump will Not be running things.
Some people you and I do not know Will Be!
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:
He's already walked back on the denial of entry to Muslims. But as I said above...at this point there's not much left to do but put hope in his dishonesty and see what he does if the electoral college confirms him. Hopefully he walks back on climate change as well; the future is wide open and horrifyingly full of possibility.
there's not much left to do but put hope in his dishonesty!
(waaa!) I can't play the blame game.
I'm, just, too stunned, again.
The Great Hippo wrote:
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:But at this point it is out of our hands and there's not much to do but put some hope in his dishonesty.
You realize that we're in a pretty fucked up place when the only way you can defend voting for someone is by claiming he's so dishonest he won't do any of the terrible things he said he'd do, right?

Like, I don't even know how to begin untangling that Gordian knot.
oh, Hippo...
I am so sorry you are needed to spend your talents this way.
I'm, just, so sorry.

Somewhere, Peace and Friendship (better than Facebook) between the US and Russia came up.
umm...Yes. That does seem like a pretty good idea, to me.
(don't yell at me! I've known honorable, educated, house broken Russians.)

I'd like to have friendly, culturally diverse relationships with some
of those strange white people that live so far away.

...oh...
I don't know how much this...hagiography is to be believed, but if it shows his true underlying motivation for his regime's actions through the years (and I think it does), it might be possible that he would accept the end of his regime if it was replaced by another which maintained stability within Russia and took care of Russians (in the nationality sense, not the ethnic sense).
There are so many stories to tell.
We listen and tell stories that touch us.

The story I heard:
Spoiler:
One story tells of a riot moving in the streets of St. Petersburg or Moscow.
(not good at geography and Time has dulled the details) It was Mobs blowing off steam.

One large group of "The People" were destroying public buildings with no rhyme or reason.
That Mob HAD to be stopped or steered in a different direction!

They were moving directly toward one of the last samples of SmallPox.
If SmallPox got 'out', it might be Bad.

Brave men, men whose names we will never know, were not chatting on the phone.
Those brave, well trained men were thinking on their feet and acting without tools.

They steered that Mob down another street, sacrificing other buildings.

That was a long Time ago.
SmallPox stayed in its SmallPox Box.

I breathed a sigh of relief.

Don't Open.
Blame Inside.
Spoiler:
This whole thing is Fucked Up.
That Election was Rigged,

We can take the Rigging or take the Violence.

Destruction of Post Offices and Schools, Bridges and other Infrastructure,
Shootings and Bloodshed, the Slowing or Stopping of Social Security Checks and Food Stamps for losers.
The Orange Man Threatened us with UnCivil Action on our own soil. His Supporters seemed willing.

We've been Fucked and we'll take it.
Like Pussies!


To our community members from far away;
Please be patient with us.
This has been difficult.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

The Devils Engineer
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:44 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby The Devils Engineer » Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:25 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote: Also, you kind of are defending voting for him, in that you're arguing that people who voted for him can still be perfectly decent human beings.


I'm kind of curious. Are you in any ways actually interested in understanding why people voted for Trump or do you just wish to paint them all with the nomenclature that they are "bad/immoral/ignorant" people? My apologies, but you couldn't be farther from the truth. Are some of them White Supremacists, homophobes, racist, etc.? Yes, but that is a small portion of the vast majority of decent people who voted for Trump.

And if you really wish to work for a world where Mr. Trump and people like him are not in power, you really need to get past your anger and understand the issues that helped win him the election. The argument that "Trump is a horrible person and shouldn't be elected" was pushed by Hillary. That argument didn't work for her and quite frankly is not working for you right now either.

And No, I did not vote for him. And yes, I don't exactly like him being President elect. But I understand a little bit of the electorate that won him the White House. I'd recommend that you understand them too.

The Devil's Engineer
“When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.”
“The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.”

― Mark Twain

Farabor
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:46 am UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Farabor » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:22 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Alice and Bob are nominally friends. Alice is always a super nice person who doesn't do anything to attack or hurt people. Bob thus far hasn't really done much of exceptional note against Alice, so Alice, nice person that she is, is friendly with Bob. Then one day Bob reveals himself to be a jackass who does something that seriously threatens Alice's wellbeing, knowing full well that it will do so. Alice no longer wants to be friends with Bob. Bob complains that he has absolutely no problem remaining friends with Alice, he's got no problem with her at all, so why does she have to be such a bitch and break off their friendship just over some little disagreement?

The moral of the story is: just because you find a certain group of people tolerable enough to be friends with, doesn't mean that you are tolerable enough for them to want to be friends back.


Wait, no, it was really Eve's fault all along, wasn't it?

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:37 pm UTC

Farabor wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Alice and Bob are nominally friends. Alice is always a super nice person who doesn't do anything to attack or hurt people. Bob thus far hasn't really done much of exceptional note against Alice, so Alice, nice person that she is, is friendly with Bob. Then one day Bob reveals himself to be a jackass who does something that seriously threatens Alice's wellbeing, knowing full well that it will do so. Alice no longer wants to be friends with Bob. Bob complains that he has absolutely no problem remaining friends with Alice, he's got no problem with her at all, so why does she have to be such a bitch and break off their friendship just over some little disagreement?

The moral of the story is: just because you find a certain group of people tolerable enough to be friends with, doesn't mean that you are tolerable enough for them to want to be friends back.


Wait, no, it was really Eve's fault all along, wasn't it?

Eve was elected by promising she would oppress people like Alice?

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:43 pm UTC

addams wrote:
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:
He's already walked back on the denial of entry to Muslims. But as I said above...at this point there's not much left to do but put hope in his dishonesty and see what he does if the electoral college confirms him. Hopefully he walks back on climate change as well; the future is wide open and horrifyingly full of possibility.
there's not much left to do but put hope in his dishonesty!
(waaa!) I can't play the blame game.
I'm, just, too stunned, again.

Yeah. But I am completely open to suggestions.

One interesting suggestion, from the same guy who brought us You Are Still Crying Wolf, is that, because of the promise to not hire lobbyists into white house staffer positions, there are suddenly going to be a lot of wide-open spots in the Trump administration, and that people interested in minimizing the potential harm of the Trump administration should apply.

There's some ambiguity there. In a brief and unsatisfying discussion with some people who read SSC, the responses tended to concentrate around the following points:
1. It would be dishonest.
2. Why would you want to make the Trump administration more effective?
3. sound and fury, signifying something, but accomplishing nothing

My answer to the first problem is simple--it isn't dishonest if you do not hide your intentions. Dishonesty would only be an issue if anyone with the intention of minimizing the harm of the Trump administration, rather than maximising their goals, was turned away. With honesty about intentions, it wouldn't be about being some fifth column, it would be about attempting to hold Trump to his promise to be a president for all Americans, the promise from his victory speech.

With regard to point two...barring the unexpected, we have a Trump administration for the next four years (I don't expect him to run again). I'm sure there are multiple possible avenues for minimizing the damage that will be done. This may be one of them.

Three is pointless virtue signalling, and experience is showing that is not really worth a response.

My question is, how much influence do White House staff members have on how policy is determined and followed through? Are staffers expected to just do as they are told, or is there some genuine power here? I don't know these things and there's only so much time to look into these things.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby addams » Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:18 am UTC

John Steinbeck 's words seem to fit, somehow.
No. Not my favorite line.
Once more, the world was spinning in well greased grooves.

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/8 ... annery-row

AHHH!
The Other Quote!
“It has always seemed strange to me...The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.”

― John Steinbeck, Cannery Row
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby azule » Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:02 am UTC

addams wrote:
Zylon wrote:Oh good, Randall's being smug and preachy again. Always hilarious.
I hardly ever say, "Fuck You." anymore.

I agreed with Zylon. Not so much that I even noticed until it was pointed out. If this was the peachy free speech comic I'd have agreed sooner. This one was non-offensive because I don't use Facebook and I do agree with the feeling that causes the "need" to blame. But, it turns out that it was preachy and also not exactly what I'd call funny (or even clever). I liked it because of the discussion it would spawn..... Talking with each other about the scary changes at foot might be helpful.... or it might not.
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

keethrax
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:01 pm UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby keethrax » Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:18 pm UTC

Wee Red Bird wrote:In Scotland, we had a referendum on Scottish independence.
Then we had a vote for Brexit.
I said no to both.
But, according to people on Facebook, I'm in the wrong and the one to blame for all the trouble we were going to get anyway no matter what the result was.
My friend list is now considerably shorter and I rarely venture there these days.


Out of curiosity, if the order of the votes were reversed, would that have changed your vote? In other words, would knowing the result of the Brexit vote changed your vote on the Independence vote? If I were in your shoes it would not have largely because I think that a vote for Scottish Independence was likely to lead nowhere regardless of the outcome as I think the independence effort would stagnate if it ever got as far as a real attempt to work out the practicalities. And if it's not going to work, I'd just as soon spend the effort elsewhere.

However, with the reactions to the Brexit vote, I've wondered if that would have been an encouragement to vote yes on Scottish Independence. I apologize for putting you on the spot.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby orthogon » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:19 pm UTC

Obviously I can't speak for WRB, but the idea that Brexit has materially changed the situation with regard to Scottish independence is very much on the agenda. A second independence referendum is definitely being talked about.

Edit: initialisation fail
Last edited by orthogon on Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:40 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:24 pm UTC

Maybe California and Scotland can go off into an ocean somewhere and hang out together.

Hawaii can come too.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby azule » Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:18 pm UTC

Are you trying to get rid of us? ;) :P
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:35 pm UTC

Not sure who "us" is for you, but for me it's California. Scotland is cool, I wouldn't mind hanging out with them over at Hawaii's place.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Wee Red Bird
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:50 am UTC
Location: In a tree

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby Wee Red Bird » Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:21 am UTC

keethrax wrote:
Wee Red Bird wrote:In Scotland, we had a referendum on Scottish independence.
Then we had a vote for Brexit.
I said no to both.
But, according to people on Facebook, I'm in the wrong and the one to blame for all the trouble we were going to get anyway no matter what the result was.
My friend list is now considerably shorter and I rarely venture there these days.


Out of curiosity, if the order of the votes were reversed, would that have changed your vote? In other words, would knowing the result of the Brexit vote changed your vote on the Independence vote? If I were in your shoes it would not have largely because I think that a vote for Scottish Independence was likely to lead nowhere regardless of the outcome as I think the independence effort would stagnate if it ever got as far as a real attempt to work out the practicalities. And if it's not going to work, I'd just as soon spend the effort elsewhere.

However, with the reactions to the Brexit vote, I've wondered if that would have been an encouragement to vote yes on Scottish Independence. I apologize for putting you on the spot.


The Brexit may not happen. No one really wants it. Sort of the Emperor's new clothes, but when someone in charge admits the guy is naked, everyone else will deny it and try to score points from them. There was a half hearted attempt to by-pass a vote in parliament, which is needed to start the exit process. But the worry is many will vote for it to spite their party leaders.

There is talk of a second indy ref, but doubt they will give three options of "yes", "no" and "yes, but only if Brexit happens, otherwise no". I'd be tempted by that third option.

GalFisk
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 3:26 pm UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby GalFisk » Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:27 am UTC

Not everyone who votes for evil is evil or intends to be, but calling them evil pushes them further in that direction. Only if you preserve the emotional connection to them do you have power to sway them. If you sever the connection as punishment, you throw away your best, perhaps only, tool.
I'm very liberal, but our rhethoric that those who think different are per definition bad people is very counterproductive. What will help the world more than anything is to enable and promote healthy emotional attachments. Those whose needs for this are fulfilled will naturally tend towards being helpful, positive and altruistic.
Those whose needs are unfulfilled may express the bully personality (there are many other possible outcomes also). This fascinating hour-long lecture describes the psychology behind the bully, why they feel and act as they do, and how to help them away from that behavior: https://youtu.be/q7mznfMI1T4

rmsgrey
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:58 pm UTC

Wee Red Bird wrote:The Brexit may not happen. No one really wants it. Sort of the Emperor's new clothes, but when someone in charge admits the guy is naked, everyone else will deny it and try to score points from them. There was a half hearted attempt to by-pass a vote in parliament, which is needed to start the exit process. But the worry is many will vote for it to spite their party leaders.

There is talk of a second indy ref, but doubt they will give three options of "yes", "no" and "yes, but only if Brexit happens, otherwise no". I'd be tempted by that third option.


A lot of people hope that Brexit won't happen, but there's no real way to avoid it - the consequences of overriding the referendum result would be worse than the consequences of Brexit, both for the individuals involved, and for the country as a whole...

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26519
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Nov 25, 2016 11:59 pm UTC

The Devils Engineer wrote:
gmalivuk wrote: Also, you kind of are defending voting for him, in that you're arguing that people who voted for him can still be perfectly decent human beings.


I'm kind of curious. Are you in any ways actually interested in understanding why people voted for Trump or do you just wish to paint them all with the nomenclature that they are "bad/immoral/ignorant" people? My apologies, but you couldn't be farther from the truth. Are some of them White Supremacists, homophobes, racist, etc.? Yes, but that is a small portion of the vast majority of decent people who voted for Trump.


Hi.

I'm from an area of lots of Trump supporters. I now live in a left-leaning city, which according to the surrounding areas is a town of hedonistic homosexuality.

Or at least to some of them.

Your point is that only a small portion of Trump supporters are terrible people.

You're wrong.

The majority are terrible people. Oh, sure, they go to church every week and know the Christian laws, they don't do drugs and many of them have issues with alcohol. They don't use racial slurs or speak ill of others (except in the most guarded of circumstances, and even some merely say "if you can't say anything nice..." and stop speaking)

But they still, honestly and truely, believe kinds should stick with kinds. That "they" have their own part of town and are genuinely happier there, despite the low property values. They do things like insist minorities get harsher treatment that stays on permanent records, then 30 years later wonder why they never got a good job and are obviously "just lazy"

These are not good people.

These are people poisoned by their leaders.

These are not good people. They just think they are because you have to dig a little to find the evil within.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

gd1
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby gd1 » Sun Nov 27, 2016 12:37 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
The Devils Engineer wrote:
gmalivuk wrote: Also, you kind of are defending voting for him, in that you're arguing that people who voted for him can still be perfectly decent human beings.


I'm kind of curious. Are you in any ways actually interested in understanding why people voted for Trump or do you just wish to paint them all with the nomenclature that they are "bad/immoral/ignorant" people? My apologies, but you couldn't be farther from the truth. Are some of them White Supremacists, homophobes, racist, etc.? Yes, but that is a small portion of the vast majority of decent people who voted for Trump.


Hi.

I'm from an area of lots of Trump supporters. I now live in a left-leaning city, which according to the surrounding areas is a town of hedonistic homosexuality.

Or at least to some of them.

Your point is that only a small portion of Trump supporters are terrible people.

You're wrong.

The majority are terrible people. Oh, sure, they go to church every week and know the Christian laws, they don't do drugs and many of them have issues with alcohol. They don't use racial slurs or speak ill of others (except in the most guarded of circumstances, and even some merely say "if you can't say anything nice..." and stop speaking)

But they still, honestly and truely, believe kinds should stick with kinds. That "they" have their own part of town and are genuinely happier there, despite the low property values. They do things like insist minorities get harsher treatment that stays on permanent records, then 30 years later wonder why they never got a good job and are obviously "just lazy"

These are not good people.

These are people poisoned by their leaders.

These are not good people. They just think they are because you have to dig a little to find the evil within.


I don't think painting everyone with that same brush is fair. They may have voted for him based on potential economic benefit. Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to misinformation.

Ooh, quote time:

"Tact is verbal minesweeper."
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Nov 27, 2016 1:06 am UTC

Racism (and misogyny and ableism and Islamophobia) may not have been the reason they voted for him, but they all saw those things and they all decided they were okay enough with those things to vote for him anyway.

As I've said before (which came from someone else originally), if you choose a racist solution to your problems, that's racist.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

gd1
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Postby gd1 » Sun Nov 27, 2016 1:42 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Racism (and misogyny and ableism and Islamophobia) may not have been the reason they voted for him, but they all saw those things and they all decided they were okay enough with those things to vote for him anyway.

As I've said before (which came from someone else originally), if you choose a racist solution to your problems, that's racist.


It may have appeared to be a choice between a solution to problems that's racist and no solution to problems that isn't.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests