Hillary Clinton is a jackass privately. In fact, her jackassery is so private that you need a dubious tell-all book from a Secret Service agent to substantiate it.
Donald Trump is a jackass publicly. In fact, his jackassery is so public that you need to immediately describe it as an "elephant in the room".
The idea that this indicates that both candidates suffer from equally disqualifying character flaws is bananas. By your own admission, your favored candidate doesn't even have the basic common sense and impulse control to keep his tantrums behind closed doors.
Because if one is actually interested in choosing the best course of action, one is well-served by considering both costs and benefits. The fact that similarly bad arguments have been presented in other contexts doesn't change this.
Imagine a universe in which Clinton was fighting against a different Republican. Romney, Rubio, Walker, Perry. Is Clinton doing as well against this candidate in that universe as against Trump?
The answer seems to be a pretty obvious, "No," to me, because none of those candidates would have charted a course that makes it so difficult to run a general election campaign. Trump, wittingly or not, did a lot of things though the primary campaign that have made it much more difficult for him to compete with Hillary, including saying a ton of stupid shit and alienating the hell out of a lot of important people in his party.
Also, I think people perpetually underestimate Sanders' ability as a politician. I was a Hillbot from Day One, but he played a lot of cards perfectly.
Yes, because arguing that someone needs to be at least a '7' before you vote for them is ridiculous given the way our electoral system works. We don't have approval voting in this country.
My understanding of the impeachment process is that the decision to impeach, made by the House, is equivalent to an indictment, and the rejection of the impeachment by the Senate is equivalent to an acquittal. The evidence in favor "perjury" charge was so overwhelming that they couldn't even get every Republican Senator to vote for it.
Maybe my sarcasm detector is on the fritz, because I took @densityduck's comment to be in earnest, and I basically agree with it. If you want people to comply with the law, making it really easy to comply with the law will help.
As long as people act like assholes here, new users will likely conclude that this is an environment where it's OK to act like an asshole. That will turn off some commenters and attract others.
I dunno, sounds a bit like a forum-etiquette variation of Postel's Law. It sounds good in the abstract: everybody should try to be polite when they write stuff, and try to shrug off rudeness when they read stuff.
Like many other things that sound good in the abstract, I doubt it would be all that workable in practice.
I don't think of existential quantifications as trivially true, and even when you prove they are true, they often provide little practical information....
So what is the point you're trying to make? That people who wish to avoid being creepy would be well-served by assessing how attractive they are [1] and accounting for that in an as-yet unspecified way?
[1] Even though people are bad at that and there's no objective standard....
You may not be trying to do anything, but the author of the original piece is. She would like to have people (esp. men) act less creepily. I'm arguing that, given that goal, going into this dynamic around the attractiveness of the potential creeper is counterproductive for many reasons, including the one stated here.
OK, if you are trying to lay out guidelines to prevent people from being creepy, and the people listening to it are likely to overestimate their own attractiveness...
...Won't mentioning this dynamic around attractiveness be counterproductive?
I think, if you can look past the really crude CGI, that The Last Straighter holds up quite well. It's fast paced, the characters are appealing, and "What do we do now?!"/"We die!" is as great as it ever was.
Krull, on the other hand, turned out to be almost unbearably dull when I tried watching it again as an adult.
OK, so... I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get at here.
I also think you may be underestimating the extent to which attractive people can be creepy [1], because the privilege you describe means that the folks who are creeped out are reluctant to tell anyone or complain. Articulating clear guidelines about what behavior is creepy may actually serve to make things more, rather than less, fair in this situation.
[1] As in actually creeping someone out, not just acting in a way that might creep someone out if the person doing it were less attractive.
Sure, there's probably privilege there [1], but like many other forms of privilege, actually doing something about of it is actually a hard thing to figure out.
Also, gotta say, a lot of the involvement of privilege seems to involve letting stuff that's legit weird and sketchy slide because the guy [2] in question is good looking.
[1] Attractive people are privileged is not, I think, a particularly shocking argument.
[2] Women--even good-looking women--can be creepy as hell, but sexual pursuit culture [3] means this come up less frequently.
There are plaintiffs in a lot of these voter ID suits, you know. For example.
And yes, it's from the ACLU website, which is supporting the challenge to the WI ID law. Like I said, you may find the evidence unconvincing, but it's out there.
To the best of my knowledge, we have no evidence that IDs prevents, or even suppresses, legit voters from voting.
This is untrue. We have numerous people who have the legal right to vote, from various jurisdictions which have implemented voter ID requirements, bringing complaints because, for them, getting an acceptable ID is, at best, a serious obstacle to voting. We also have evidence that the North Carolina state legislature implemented a voter ID scheme as part of a system of "reforms" that was deliberately intended to suppress the African American vote.
You may not find the evidence conclusive, but the idea that it doesn't exist is just wrong.
Well, I obviously disagree: what he does (arguing very badly for unpopular positions and drawing harsh responses as a result) is functionally indistinguishable from trolling.
On “Gasp! A Trump Supporter!”
Hillary Clinton is a jackass privately. In fact, her jackassery is so private that you need a dubious tell-all book from a Secret Service agent to substantiate it.
Donald Trump is a jackass publicly. In fact, his jackassery is so public that you need to immediately describe it as an "elephant in the room".
The idea that this indicates that both candidates suffer from equally disqualifying character flaws is bananas. By your own admission, your favored candidate doesn't even have the basic common sense and impulse control to keep his tantrums behind closed doors.
"
Because if one is actually interested in choosing the best course of action, one is well-served by considering both costs and benefits. The fact that similarly bad arguments have been presented in other contexts doesn't change this.
"
Imagine a universe in which Clinton was fighting against a different Republican. Romney, Rubio, Walker, Perry. Is Clinton doing as well against this candidate in that universe as against Trump?
The answer seems to be a pretty obvious, "No," to me, because none of those candidates would have charted a course that makes it so difficult to run a general election campaign. Trump, wittingly or not, did a lot of things though the primary campaign that have made it much more difficult for him to compete with Hillary, including saying a ton of stupid shit and alienating the hell out of a lot of important people in his party.
Also, I think people perpetually underestimate Sanders' ability as a politician. I was a Hillbot from Day One, but he played a lot of cards perfectly.
"
Yes, because arguing that someone needs to be at least a '7' before you vote for them is ridiculous given the way our electoral system works. We don't have approval voting in this country.
"
My understanding of the impeachment process is that the decision to impeach, made by the House, is equivalent to an indictment, and the rejection of the impeachment by the Senate is equivalent to an acquittal. The evidence in favor "perjury" charge was so overwhelming that they couldn't even get every Republican Senator to vote for it.
"
How is that at all relevant to the question of whether she's a better candidate than Donald Trump?
"
Maybe my sarcasm detector is on the fritz, because I took @densityduck's comment to be in earnest, and I basically agree with it. If you want people to comply with the law, making it really easy to comply with the law will help.
On “Not An Ordinary Time”
As long as people act like assholes here, new users will likely conclude that this is an environment where it's OK to act like an asshole. That will turn off some commenters and attract others.
"
I dunno, sounds a bit like a forum-etiquette variation of Postel's Law. It sounds good in the abstract: everybody should try to be polite when they write stuff, and try to shrug off rudeness when they read stuff.
Like many other things that sound good in the abstract, I doubt it would be all that workable in practice.
On “Morning Ed: Olympics {2016.08.22.M}”
I wouldn't expect better from a site that is pretty explicitly by and for antiabortion activists.
On “Linky Friday #180: The Liberal Arts”
I don't think of existential quantifications as trivially true, and even when you prove they are true, they often provide little practical information....
"
Editing out every part that isn't spoof futuristic infotainment or Dougie Houser in a Gestapo uniform also helps.
"
So what is the point you're trying to make? That people who wish to avoid being creepy would be well-served by assessing how attractive they are [1] and accounting for that in an as-yet unspecified way?
[1] Even though people are bad at that and there's no objective standard....
"
You may not be trying to do anything, but the author of the original piece is. She would like to have people (esp. men) act less creepily. I'm arguing that, given that goal, going into this dynamic around the attractiveness of the potential creeper is counterproductive for many reasons, including the one stated here.
"
OK, if you are trying to lay out guidelines to prevent people from being creepy, and the people listening to it are likely to overestimate their own attractiveness...
...Won't mentioning this dynamic around attractiveness be counterproductive?
"
I think, if you can look past the really crude CGI, that The Last Straighter holds up quite well. It's fast paced, the characters are appealing, and "What do we do now?!"/"We die!" is as great as it ever was.
Krull, on the other hand, turned out to be almost unbearably dull when I tried watching it again as an adult.
"
OK, so... I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get at here.
I also think you may be underestimating the extent to which attractive people can be creepy [1], because the privilege you describe means that the folks who are creeped out are reluctant to tell anyone or complain. Articulating clear guidelines about what behavior is creepy may actually serve to make things more, rather than less, fair in this situation.
[1] As in actually creeping someone out, not just acting in a way that might creep someone out if the person doing it were less attractive.
"
Sure, there's probably privilege there [1], but like many other forms of privilege, actually doing something about of it is actually a hard thing to figure out.
Also, gotta say, a lot of the involvement of privilege seems to involve letting stuff that's legit weird and sketchy slide because the guy [2] in question is good looking.
[1] Attractive people are privileged is not, I think, a particularly shocking argument.
[2] Women--even good-looking women--can be creepy as hell, but sexual pursuit culture [3] means this come up less frequently.
[3] Shout-out to @veronica-d for this term.
On “What the Trump/Khan Debate Really Says About America”
There are plaintiffs in a lot of these voter ID suits, you know. For example.
And yes, it's from the ACLU website, which is supporting the challenge to the WI ID law. Like I said, you may find the evidence unconvincing, but it's out there.
"
To the best of my knowledge, we have no evidence that IDs prevents, or even suppresses, legit voters from voting.
This is untrue. We have numerous people who have the legal right to vote, from various jurisdictions which have implemented voter ID requirements, bringing complaints because, for them, getting an acceptable ID is, at best, a serious obstacle to voting. We also have evidence that the North Carolina state legislature implemented a voter ID scheme as part of a system of "reforms" that was deliberately intended to suppress the African American vote.
You may not find the evidence conclusive, but the idea that it doesn't exist is just wrong.
On “Morning Ed: United States {2016.08.18.Th}”
Yes. What's your point?
"
Well, I obviously disagree: what he does (arguing very badly for unpopular positions and drawing harsh responses as a result) is functionally indistinguishable from trolling.
"
Seriously, why do we even have that Amendment?
[Imagine the table-flipping emoji I don't know how to type here.]
"
Could someone please explain to me how @notme's persistent habit of deliberate obtuseness and selective illiteracy is not "being an asshole"?
I'll take it as read that I'm being an asshole by calling his behavior out like this.
"
Denial of what? A causal mechanism that absolutely must exist because Scary Muslims?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.