Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Pyrtolin

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9
Once you have cameras in place recording police activity the general public is going to be full of people who watch them regularly.
You mean like happened in Chicago?

Wait, no. Activists has to come out and force the tapes to be released and reviewed, then press the matter until action was taken.

When we get to the point where people are reviewing them regularly then we will absolutely have a wider base to push for accountability, but if no one pushes, nothing happens, and it's going to take pushing to get the system for everything to be reviewed to be build. The police department isn't going to do it without pressure.

Without pressure, they put the cameras on toss the videos into a box where no one ever sees them, and nothing happens. That's why there are people out there pushing to make sure that we don't follow the standard routing of implementing a small improvement, declaring the issue fixed, then never really using the tools and eventually putting them on a shelf somewhere because not enough people are paying attention anymore.

General Comments / Re: A question about unfair taxes
« on: March 18, 2016, 11:23:38 AM »
"Fair" is,. more or less a fantasy concept, mostly used to justify selfishness. Federal taxes should be about maintaining economic health, not fairness. Someone who's poor or even someone who's only moderately wealthy, does more good by spending money than by paying it in taxes, so it's economically damaging to tax them. Someone who's extremely wealthy can do a large amount of damage (with no actual net benefit) by bidding up prices against other peopel who are similarly extremely wealthy. (If one ultra rich person pays another $1million for a parcel of land or $10million for it, there is no net change in the amount of land, however the rent they charge for use of that land will be 10x higher in the later case) In both cases they get the same amount of land, no change in actual wealth, but in the cases where taxes control the amount they spend, prices on everything else down-stream from that purchase are lower, benefitting everyone else and allowing for more overall production of wealth.

This holds true even if the other $9million there gets invested in producing more things so that it doesn't get taxed. In fact that's the more ideal situation than actually collecting the tax, and what the deduction structure should be set to encourage. Spend $10million making stuff for everyone? No taxes. Try to spend $10million jacking up everyone's rent? Lots of taxes. At the Federal level, that's really the only point of taxing in the first place, since state and local levels can take care of taxing for revenue and to encourage baseline monetary utility.

  The federal government should be smaller and spend less, and the States should get their revenue primarily from progressive rather than regressive tax structures (but the total should still be less).
That's why I suggest that state and local taxes be fully refundable. A progressive, fully refundable Federal tax would be an open invitation to states to jump in and tax on a progressive basis in line with their needs, while not changing the total rates at all, just choosing how much to salvage from the Federal shredder.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: March 18, 2016, 11:07:57 AM »
The whole point of the requirement is to require the tapes be made available.  I think your "issue" is pretty fake, but I'll go on record saying I support making the tapes available.  It shouldn't take activism to do it, in fact, the far more powerful and effective way to do it, is to have court's disallow officer testimony where they fail to produce the tapes.
Sure, but that's not going to happen unless, can you guess? People advocate for it and get it to happen.

If you're looking at the extremists that we've been discussing then not so much other than at flash points.
Which is convenient, because anyone that advocates for something that you don't want to happen can be dismissed by calling them an extremist. The should just sit down shut up, and file a polite formal complaint that you can toss in the trash after saying that you'll take their point of view under advisement.

Activists only get loud and "extreme" once it's clear that the system is dismissing them. If you don't want this kind of flash points to emerge, then you should be more supportive of them and help push for change before they become necessary, not sit around trying to shout them down for doing what it takes to get things done long after more polite measures have failed.30, 40, 50 60 years? How long are they supposed to sit quietly and hope that the system might start working right so as not to annoy you by being loud enough that you can't keep ignoring the problems?

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: March 18, 2016, 10:58:33 AM »
I would rather go for a President who has the right ideas (Bernie) and can get things done (Hillary), but no one in this year's race measures up all on their own.
And the point made above is that the evidence shows taht, in his own way, Bernie does have a track record of getting things done. It's a very subtle track record, because he doesn't fuss about having his name on the top line, but he actually has shown himself quite capable in a way that's very compatible with the President's nominal power in relationship to Congress. It's a difference of style, not necessarily capability.

They are a solution to the problem of police getting away with murder.
How? Does the camera taze them when they try to step out of line? If no one ever sees the video, how does it prevent them from doing anything? The cameras given an extra avenue for activists to pursue to solve the problem, but they do not solve the problem. Something is only a solution if there is no problem left after it is applied. It's a tool if it creates an additional avenue that allows for a solution.

No answer to solutions, because you dont seem to care.
Keep making things up and I'll continue to refuse to go out of my way to give you more material to make things up about.

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: March 18, 2016, 08:55:10 AM »
There are more than one bar. This is specific to going about those higher goals in regard to interactions with Congress, not the whole picture. Specifically just the bar for "Can the President get what's needed from Congress?", not the entirety of "Can the President accomplish major policy goals?"

A president who is consistently able to get things they want into legislation by making deals and accepting a few things they don't like but can work around can easily be more effective than one who can't penetrate Congressional deadlock and has to invest a lot of time and energy in constant battles of will.

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: March 18, 2016, 08:19:30 AM »
Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others.
This is an interesting statement if you think about what the nominal responsibilities of the President in respect to Congress are. He doesn't set the legislative agenda or write the bills, but to the extent that he needs to approve to get them fully passed, that's a good level to operate at.

I'll address that question next time I have time to post, but I'll not that you post 4 times on this threat attacking me for not bowing down to the hate you've been spewing and not saying what you want time to say before you actually asked that question. Something that you'd know the answer to pretty well by this point if you'd have been paying attention to what I've been saying rather than trying to make up reasons to vilify me for not being willing to participate in and calling you out on your demonization and hateful attacks.

EVen here where you seem to be agreeing that camera aren't a solution, just a tool that can help if used properly, you still try to attack me for saying that in the process of pointing that out and even after we have evidence that that's exactly what the Chicago issue demonstrated. Had people called the problem solved by cameras in Chicago, nothing would have improved and the footage would never have seen the light of day. It's only because activists refused to let the polce rest on their laurels and held them to account that they got used properly.

So if you want my baseline answer, it's "Constant activism until there is no problem left". I don't have the fix for every single problem, but the solution- the thing that will ultimately fix all of the problems is constant, impossible to ignore, community pressure to fix them. Activism. Constant pressure to implement the things that we do know will work. Constant pressure to find solutions to the things that we haven't quite untangled yet. All the improvements in the world won't matter unless we, as a community, constantly force action toward making them and don't rest until the issue is solved.

Calling anything short of something that fixes _everything_, _once and for all_, a solution is just wordplay that tries to block progress by pretending that there's nothing left to fix.

Cameras are a useful tool, but they do not come close to fixing everything. Their utility only comes with pressure to use them properly. They're a tool that's useful for a specific task when applied properly, just like a bandaid, not a solution which is the thing that completely fixes everything.

If you can point to anything that's done more to fix problems than active, overwhelming community pressure to fix those problems (whose implementation and proper use wasn't driven in some whay by that pressure), feel free to point it out, but I've not yet seen anything that comes close.

I wasnt responding to how you see things but to what you said.  What you say now is pretty much what I said on the other thread.  You hever until now acknowleged the value of body cams towards making people aware of the problem. 
I very much did. I pointed out taht they were a bandaid, not a solution. They help control the issue, but hey don't solve it.

If you want me to respond to your actual views, then try harder to aericulate your actual views.  My responses to what you actually said may have been "crude" and "distasteful" but without what i said, you never would have clarified (P
No, if you had politely asked for clarification we would have gotten here much more quickly. The was much longer and drawn out because you chose instead to make things up and hurl invective instead of simply saying you didn't quite get what I meant, blaming me for your confusion instead of taking responsibility for resolving it.

The can't always. My point was only to illustrate the extreme poles, particularly in relevance to being completely unable to predict where a specific candidate happens to fall because he doesn't have enough of a track record to measure him by, not to somehow suggest that most activity didn't take place somewhere between them. So yes, arguing the example is a bit absurd when the example was presented to articulate an abstract ideal, not a real position.

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: March 17, 2016, 06:06:33 PM »
Sounds more like The Walking Dead to me.  ("Hey, gov'nor, whacha got in your back room there?" :) )
There was an explicit scene in B5 where the Emperor of one of the races went into his "council chamber" which was a room with the heads of all of his advisors that he'd executed for displeasing him.

So again, you get the gist of the example I used to illustrate the point, but are arguing because you don't like the example, not because you didn't get the point. That's being contrarian, or, at best, arguing the example. If you get the difference between being completely self-serving and the expense of the public good and actually trying to act in service of what one sees as the public good, then it's a bit fussy to nitpick because you think there's a better example.

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: March 17, 2016, 05:34:22 PM »
Seems as amusing a parallel as any ;).

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: March 17, 2016, 05:07:19 PM »
I'm not as interested in the VPs as I am in who their staff/cabinet will be in areas that they're weaker. Who will Sanders look to for Sec of State, who will Clinton favor for the Treasury, Comptroller of hte Currency, SEC, etc...

Some sign that Trump's cabinet isn't going to be a room full of severed heads of his opponents that he turns to for advice when talking to himself doesn't get him anywhere...

Thinking about it, i will accept the relative position of "downplay" if you honestly tell me that you thing cameras are a solution. That, once implemented, the problem is solved and no further action or intervention will be needed. If you don't think that they're the magic bullet that will make the problem go away, then you've got no room to suggest that I'm downplaying them because I point out that they're not going to fix things by themselves.

The. Question adressed in this thread is, since you downplay body cams, what solution do you or Marissa Johnson advocate?
Since I do not downplay body cams, but just honestly see them as a tool toward fixing problems, not a solution unto themselves, the pretense of your question is false. Try again without misrepresenting me.

As far as bottled water goes, I assume you're referring more generally to disfavorable trade contracts negotiated under duress?
No, I mean using thew power of the office to pad his bottom line by ramping up the profits of his holdings. I was not being general- I was being very specific as to actions intended to profit himself and only himself regardless of the cost to others.

The rest of your response seems to suggest that you actually get the general idea, so it feels like you're just being contrarian at the point. There's a difference between trying to use the office for the good of the country as you see it even if we might disagree on what that is, and using it for personal gain without any regard at all for the good of the whole.

Trump, in one form or another represents the absolute greatest risk of that because thus far hes demonstrated an outright willingness to put self-aggrandizement over any other ethical concern. He doesn't seem to care who gets hurt, so long as he wins. Continuing that attitude can easily be extremely destructive so long as he doesn't, once he's president, associate future acclaim with personal victory. If he cares about how he's remembered, then that care could temper him. If he just wants power, money, glory, or what have you without regard to what he destroys in getting it, then he could tear the whole system down.

What, what? What is the 'common good'? Is this a defined thing that can be surgically separated from self-interest? I'm not even against having a discussion about defining what the common good might be, or even just 'the good', which is more general, but absent a hard definition how to do declare a given action for or against the common good?
What's good for the population or country as a whole, as opposed to, what benefits the particular individual in power, without regard to the effects on the country.

There's a wide difference between someone having a different vision on what's good for the country and working toward it and someone that doesn't actually care, so long as they come out more wealthy and perhaps having ground a few choice axes with their power.

Surely you could agree that if Trump gets into office and starts cutting diplomatic ties with and threatening to apply military force against any country that doesn't sign an exclusive contract to only allow Trump Bottled Water to be sold within its boundaries, that he's using the office to serve his own whims and not giving a fig about any semblance of the common good?

It's not that Trumps promises are vacuous, but that he might be willing to allow active harm to happen in order to serve his self interest if it doesn't happen to align with the common good. It's similar to the problem that true believers in damaging policies have, at that point. I'm even careful of true believers taht I agree with on that matter, because dedication to a cause to the point of being unwilling to compromise can do more harm than good in some cases, even if the cause is good. Someone willing to shift at least a little in light of sentiment and evidence is a much better person to to build robust solutions.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: March 17, 2016, 03:14:09 PM »
I'm not aware that bacteria or virus become aware of lab tests and modify their behavior while the tests are going on.
Out of bounds of what I was using the metaphor to illustrate.

[ In fact your flat wrong about this, recording police interactions and making them aware that they will be accountable for what's on the tapes (and even more liable if tapes go missing), will directly act to control those abuses that occur because certain officers think they can get away with it.   
This will only happen is someone holds them accountable for what's on the tapes or for missing tapes. The tapes in Chicago almost did no good, it took activism to actually make them follow the necessary procedure to make the tapes useful.

I think you're overselling the importance of activism, the vast majority of all beneficial change comes from within the system and working with the system.
Which is it, then is activism not useful, or do people need to work within the system to make change. Activism has nothing to do with in our out of the system; it has to do with active engagement by members of the public to make sure that change is happening. It only goes outside the system when the system does not offer a useful or sufficiently expedient path to the necessary changes.

In this conversation, absolutely. I'm talking about this thing, not that thing, so will not take the bait on your attempts to derail the conversation"

Since i specifically started this thread to ask you for proposed solutions, your ludicrous and arrogant attemt to redefine "the topic" and then temm me that i am "off topic" is typical of that Red Guard thug that you fawn over.

Usually when one specifically starts a thread to talk about something, one talks about that thing and not everything but that thing in the initial post. Your first post talked about body cams, Johnson, and BLM- somewhat incoherently, to be sure, but that's all that was in the thesis. Not one word about additional things that need to be done. So, do try again if you actually want to have a different conversation than the one you started, but don't try to dodge accountability for what you did say by changing the subject as it becomes clear that I'm not going to play the role you tried to cast for me\\ based on misrepresentations of what I  said.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: March 17, 2016, 01:44:48 PM »
I did nearly snort my drink this morning when I heard "I talk to myself. I've got a great brain. I say a lot of things."  getting airtime.

If the media doesn't realize that it's being trolled at that point, it's lost beyond all hope in accurately covering his campaign. He's got it completely twisted around his finger.

Some yes, some no, which is why I pick Sanders over her in the primary. Her track record shows that she will meaningfully shift on civil rights, employment, and  commercial private sector issues. But that same record makes any foreign policy or financial sector promises suspect. She isn't likely to make them much worse, but, without evidence of action, they're not credible shifts.

Trump, as he stands now is not credible for any shift he makes. There's no way to even begin to sort it out, and it may never be possible to, even if he makes a decent show of it at first.

Her message was that Sanders' campaign (and the Democratic primary in general) was neglecting minorities, and that he was going to be in a lot of trouble if he didn't change that. And he did change that in response, just as Clinton did.

He also refuses to propose any change in the law to reduce unnecessary police violence against black americans and/or others.
In this conversation, absolutely. I'm talking about this thing, not that thing, so will not take the bait on your attempts to derail the conversation. We can talk about things I'd like to see in other threads if you'd like. This one is, near as I can tell, about body cams, BLM and their relative place in helping solve the issue of police violence. Anything outside of that is a different discussion. Stay on topic.

Pyr now accuses me of spinning a "false narrative."  does Pyr deny that a number of innocent and harmless black americans are getting killed by police?  why does Pyr refuse to discuss this issue? 
Ooh. More false narrative. Hand waving away from pointing out the way your misrepresentations about my position create a false narrative by, amazingly enough misrepresenting what I've said and creating more false narrative about me.

he's jacked two threads to do nothing but fawn over Marissa Johnson, and to bash my disrespect for her.
And again, false narrative. I refuse to participate in your beratement of her. I don't ask that you respect her- you can feel however you want- I ask that you don't resort to vacuous, misogynistic name calling as an alternative to simply expressing your disagreement. I know you're fully capable of expressing your opinions as opinions and as meaningful arguments; the name calling is completely useless and uncalled for in any context or situation.

On strategy itself, he's a wizard- I'll give him that entirely.

It's the second part that's less clear- there's a difference between understanding and shifting to support what people want and need, even if you personally believe differently and in playing to those wants and needs without actually intending to work toward them.

That's where Trump is a wildcard. If his pandering ends up putting him in the first category (particularly if he ties the success fortunes of the US to his self esteem and reputation) then he could end up being a pretty impressive President, despite the damage he played into on the way up. On the other hand if he keeps gaming the system to get what he wants for himself without caring about his historical legacy, then he'll wreak havoc. I'm not willing to risk Trump B enough to bet on Trump A. But can bet that he's suddenly going to start projecting Trump A in the general in order to win it.

How Trump moves in the general election will also have a big effect. It's pretty clear that he'll do whatever it seems like it takes to get the most votes, whether it's openly pandering to every divisive tacting the GOP has used to condition and control its base over the past half century or completely repudiating it to scoop up disaffected voters on the left. His current adherents are pretty much a lost cause. IF he can get them to act out fascist salutes and pledges, there's now way that most of them are going to be willing to own up to the fact that they were taken in enough to do anything but continue to rationalize every single thing he asks them to do until well after the campaign is over and they wake up with a hangover, and a massive case of whiplash.

The way he trolls the media is a thing of horrifying beauty though:
"I talk to me self. I have a great brain. I say a lot of things." And the free press flows, because no one wants to admit they've been trolled.

I'm surprised he didn't quote Rick Astley. I'll bet he's saving that for the general where it's going to score them most points with the young internet crowd.

(That's a prediction I will 100% stand behind, honestly. It just fits perfectly. At some point, during some rally or press conference we will hear some variant "I'm never going to give you up, I'm never going to let you down," etc... come out of his mouth.)

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: March 17, 2016, 11:36:02 AM »
   What I meant was that I'd be surprised if you voted Sanders over Hillary in a primary, given how you fawned over the mobbers who gracelessly cornholed Sanders in on national television.
Except I'm not. I'm just not willing to judge and castigate them the way you are. There's a wide middle ground between fawning over someone and vilifying them. I refuse to vilify and try to put in the effort needed to understand the wider context of things that I might, in the immediate moment, find distasteful, no matter how abusive you get in your seeming insistence that everyone must be completely with you or completely against you.

General Comments / Re: A question about unfair taxes
« on: March 17, 2016, 11:26:58 AM »
It seems to me that, up to that point, it's generally pretty easy to spend most of that over a reasonable buffer of savings, and you're not yet to the point that you're pushing up prices on limited essential resources such as land. It's only when you get past that point that we really need to put a strong sense of diminishing returns on immediate income over deferring it through productive reinvestment.

But even if you put something lower, all state/local taxes should be 100% refundable, so that the Federal tax represents the total you're paying on any dollar rather than adding to it. Localities and states actually need revenue, the federal government just needs to make consumption and productive reinvestment more attractive than hoarding or charging financial rent.

(And, as I qualified, that's just on wage/salary income. If you're not actually working for the money and producing something, then I lower the axe much lower. At a point where it's still perfectly possible to be comfortable, but  still discourages financial manipulation in comparison to value production.)

Which is to say, since I actually answered honestly and didn't play to your strawman and gross misrepresentations of what I said, you're going to keep slinging insults at me instead of actually having acknowledge, never mind discuss any point of view other than the one that you demand that everyone accepts.

Why don't you actually respond to what I said, instead of making things up that I didn't say, then attacking me for not conforming to your false narrative?

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: March 16, 2016, 02:44:48 PM »
Social media gives the illusion of a wide field of people, but it's really a vary narrow and pretty biased sample. It's hard to get that because it's hard for us to really grasp just how many other people there really are out there.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: March 16, 2016, 01:13:21 PM »
If you want to persuade me to not describe Marissa Johnson as a shallow controlling little attention whore, wbo dances on black dead bodies in order to play gunpoint Simon Says with an angry white crowd, then please show me where she actually advocates for some solution.
Why does my difference in opinion on her actions have any relevance to your usage of empty, degrading, and inflammatory name calling? What is it about her sexual behavior that you believe is relevant such that you apply with words "whore" and "skank" in a way taht both targets empty invective at her and perpetuates the notion that women need to conform to your sexual standards to be respected?

Why can't you just talk about your objections and your opinions about the issue without resorting to degradation and name calling?

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: March 16, 2016, 01:04:38 PM »
That's idiotic.  Body cams are both a short term cure and a diagnostic for long term cures.  Plus in the medium term it will weed out abusive cops.  You can't solve a problem without getting a good look at it, and analysis of this sort of footage will revolutionize police training to handle situations safely.
They're not a cure any more than a lab test is a cure. they're a diagnostic tool as you note. If all the footage goes into a vault and no one sees it or pushed for action on it, nothing will change. They're a tool, taht helps us find a solution, not a solution unto themselves, despite people taht will claim the problem has been solved because body cams are now deployed so everything will automatically be better.

What cameras won't solve is the underlying poverty of African Americans, nor the police-fearing culture that gelds their interactions with police.
Indeed. Activism, that's assisted with footage will help with the latter, and other economic policies will help with the former. But that's the point, in no case are cameras the final cure for anything, they're a patch that helps us get closer to real solutions, with ongoing activism being needed to make sure taht we don't stop there and pretend things are fixed, as has routinely happened with every other "solution" applied in the past/

Nice try at pretending that body cams aren't "relevant", (which you use here again in typical Pyr fashion to shut out any inconvenient fact).  You blather about the importance of her message, which presumably involves police violence against African Americans.
If body cams have something to do with the disruption of the Sanders rally, you'll need to spell it out for me. Otherwise this is a separate protest action that only happens to be linked by having a person to point to that was around for both of them. Otherwise the body cam disruption has no relevance to the Sanders disruption. But this does fit your general patter of me pointing out how you derailed one specific conversation to inject a completely different conversation, then accuse me of saying taht the other conversation is't useful because I point out that it's a separate thing unrelated to the current conversation.

So please-  connect the dots here. What does the issue of body cams have to do with your objections to her behavior at the Sanders rally aside from the completely incidental fact that she was involved with both events?

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: March 16, 2016, 12:53:13 PM »
Pyr, I was about to "like" your penultimate post but realized I was confused about your meaning. First you say you won't throw the election to Trump by voting for Sanders (or Stein) in the general, and later say that Sanders can beat Trump at his own game while Hillary would be in trouble against him. Can you clarify?
I won't throw it by _writing in_ Sanders in the general if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. (Something that I've seen people starting to advocate) I'll vote for Sanders in the Primary and pull for him to win to the extent of my ability to do so. But if Clinton takes it, even only because of superdelegate manipulation, then I'll vote for her in the general if that's what it takes to keep Trump from landing the job. I disagree with Clinton, but at least I know where she stands, I'm not willing to bet on a complete wildcard taht is nakedly only playing the game for self-aggrandizement.

General Comments / Re: A question about unfair taxes
« on: March 16, 2016, 12:47:48 PM »
And, if we're talking purely financial income- profits not tied to wages or producing and selling goods and services, then I'd also assess 40% on every dollar over 2x median for total income on that revenue, including non-educational/health spending from trusts.

General Comments / Re: A question about unfair taxes
« on: March 16, 2016, 12:40:03 PM »
To that I fully agree. I'd go with 0% below it at the federal level, at least and something closer to 60-80% for every dollar above it, with all state and local taxes being 100% refundable to encourage states to take a share for themselves instead of letting it go into the federal shredder.

You'll note it wasn't the cameras that solved the problem here, it was activism that got the footage release and then created consequences based on the content.
I get the, "That's not the end of it, or enough" sentiment, but...   You seriously don't think the cameras solved it?  If there was no footage this sounds like they would have tried (even more) desperately to sweep it under the rug.
No, it was going under the rug even with the cameras. It was the activist push to get the footage released and then force consequences for the coverup that ultimately solved it. The cameras were a tool, but suggesting that they solved it is like saying a hammer built a house, not the carpenter that used it.

They were important and essential to the process, but they're not a solution unto themselves. And people who care about the issue have to be clear taht they're not going to just sit down and shut up because the problem is "solved" now that there are cameras. They have to keep pushing to fix the problem, using the cameras as one additional tool to get them closer to the real solution.

Trying to say that my agreement that the cameras aren't enough in response to the original incident in question here amounts to saying that the cameras aren't useful at all is absurd and completely ignores my position in favor of asserting a strawman narrative that Pete's hacking away at here.

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: March 16, 2016, 12:30:42 PM »
I don't believe the rhetoric we've seen from him shows us the real man, which would normally comfort me a little. But everything I've seen from him belies a complete lack of a moral compass. I don't think the man we're seeing is what we'll get, but I don't think what's actually back there is much better.
Yeah, exactly. He's a genius at manipulation to the point of perhaps being a complete sociopath. It's frightening for reasons completely different than the act he's putting on. The main thing frightening about that is how well conditioned his audience is to respond to it.

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: March 16, 2016, 12:28:27 PM »
Doesn't surprise me that Al or Greg D supports Hillary.  I reckon Tom D would as well, and I will be very surprised if Pyr sticks with Sanders; he has Clinton writ all over him.
As in you're suggesting that I should write him in in the general and let Trumop take it to prove that I'm not defecting to Clinton?

I mean, I think Trump's narcissism and desire to be seen as the best there ever was will actually pull him back from the cliff that he's currently dancing on to take advantage of the divisiveness the GOP has trained its base to respond to, which puts him a little over Cruz who is a a true believer in it, but I'm not going to throw the election to him by voting Sanders or (at that point, Stein who at least will be on the ballot) in the general. The places where Sanders and I disagree put him closer to Clinton than me, I'm not going to go around him in the primary for a less desirable match or one that's far more vulnerable to Trump's game once he flips his campaign to recruit as many orphaned Sanders supporters as possible.

Unless he's actually out to throw the campaign to Clinton, he's well positioned to eat her lunch. She just looks safe because the media can't quite zoom out enough to pat attention to his strategy rather than the tactics he's applying when his targets are limited to the GOP base that's been pre-conditioned for decades to respond to his current show of authoritarianism.

Sanders can beat him at his own game, Clinton will be in trouble, never mind that she's far too conservative to do anything but mostly hold the line as she currently presents herself.

Good for them. Bandaids have a purpose and are important stopgaps while working on the deeper solution. Remember the problem isn't "We don't get to see what the police are doing" though that's one thing tha can help solve it. The problem is taht the police are abusing power and being too liberal in their application of violence and deadly force, particularly against minorities. We wouldn't need cameras if they weren't doing that in the first place.

You'll note it wasn't the cameras that solved the problem here, it was activism that got the footage release and then created consequences based on the content. They contributed the solution, but if peopel had said "There are cameras, out work here is done" and then pretended like there was nothing more tha needed to be done, we wouldn't have seen any real results here.

Others have already pointed out anything else I could have said here. If you actually have a point or want to ask something coherent, please feel free to do so.

If they change or bend the rules, Trump goes 3rd party and carries off most of their voting base. He's already told them that was coming, so they can do it, but they know what the cost will be.

It's absolutely laughable that you're going to bat for the power of a corrupt water authority to threaten a poor community with the termination of their water supply, if the poor community doesn't cave to their punitive demands. 
If you ask me to turn the lights out at 5pm unless you say otherwise, and then a call you at 4:55 saying I'll be shutting the lights out like you asked and you say "Okay, go ahead" then it's really hard to pin any coercion on me for letting you know I'd be doing exactly what I'd agreed to do earlier.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: March 15, 2016, 05:03:23 PM »
This is your standard ends justify the means argument,
No, it's a right tool for the job argument. It's not the ends that justify the means, but the nature of the problem itself. Suggesting that the means needs to be justified here comes from your presumptions, not mine.

Further, you assert that she created grounds for a better conversation about the topic, but I've never read one single thing corroborating this claim; it seems entirely to be made of smoke. When Clinton met with BLM members it was arranged and mutually agreed upon.
After BLM advocates had been turned away many times. It was only arranged and agreed to instead of dismissed in the wake of this event.

They didn't storm her rally, and they had real questions for her rather than the mere intent to disrupt.
And had Sanders already similarly made such a big deal about meeting with them publicly and thus induced Clinton to have to follow suit, it's likely none would have seen the motivation. The meeting with Clinton alone was a major win for them out of this, because her much tighter security had, till then, actively prevented them from even getting into any events, never mind actually commanding her direct personal attention.

You know the difference between an activist and a disruptor?
One acts in the way you are about to dictate as proper, the other one does not.

For a person to successfully disrupt an event and then have nothing to say demonstrated that this was not an activist deep in the cause they were supporting. Such a person would have plenty to say on a moment's notice.
That's funny, it seems like she did have plenty to say, it just wasn't well rehearsed. In fact Pete is here bashing her for saying too much and not giving the microphone back according to his schedule. She wasn't ready to speak, she wasn't rehearsed, so what she said didn't come out in as organized and coherent way as it would have if she were better prepared, but that doesn't mean there was nothing there at all.

It's not like activist speech is canned or scripted; they know their topic.
It's not like activists don't give rehearsed speeches either, though. They can be rehearsed, they can be off the cuff. A prepared and rehearsed statement will always be more tight and coherent than an off the cuff delivery, and each has its place. And even off the cuff delivery benefits from the implicit rehearsal of having done int many times until one has effectively perfected their delivery method.

That she was young and relatively inexperienced isn't really at issue here. She managed to pull off a bigger success than she was expecting and had some pretty significant downstream effects.

I remember back during Occupy there'd be people accosted by a camera crew and extemporaneously spell out detailed problems with Wall Street and what they wanted changed. They were passionate about it. And these weren't designated spokespeople or experts - some of them were barely teenagers and they knew their stuff.
Repeat and re articulate a concept many times over and you can get pretty good at speaking off the cuff about it. The internal debates about such principles within the Occupy movement were very good and getting people to articulate such ideas on the fly easily, especially because such activity was encouraged rather than used as basis to criticize others as it is in other forums.

Can BLM learn a bit for the Occupy tactics? Absolutely; there were a lot of useful tools developed or improved upon through the various groupings.

 But this lady who disrupted Sanders didn't have anything to say, wasn't versed in her material, and had no real cause to put forward. She was there to harass Sanders and that's exactly what she did. Because she was there under the false banner of BLM Sanders knew the game was up.

This disruptor didn't bring attention to her cause, she brought shame to it.
Seems like we're still paying attention, so the first half of that is false. It'll only become true once no one talks about it anymore.

Countless people who witnessed this were disgusted.
I'm sure they did and were. That's the price of speaking out about things that make other uncomfortable.

You can rely on the fact that Sanders supporters came out of this upset rather than impressed with her so-called cause.
I'm sure many did, if they didn't then there really wouldn't have been a need to do it in the first place. The one thing that could have contradicted what she said would have been everyone being patient and respectful of her until she was done, capping it off with a little polite applause and then getting back to the business at hand.

It received attention all right - negative attention.

Luckily for the BLM she wasn't actually part of it, which meant her shameful act reflected only on her and not on BLM.
You still haven't pointed out this magical grand judge of the BLM movement that makes such declarations. How can one not be part of a movement that's based on voluntary declaration of affiliation?

She definitely sparked a lot of conversation within the movement between people that supported her action and those that didn't like it. But again, that's how sich things work.

Or at least I hope that's the case, because she may inadvertently have poisoned part of the public consciousness against BLM too. Some people probably never heard the update that she wasn't BLM, so they'd blame BLM for the disruption. Others may have read the update but it was too late for them; the negative association was already made and couldn't be unmade.
Further validating her action, and proving her point, then.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: March 15, 2016, 04:21:01 PM »
You're being dishonest about what the skank did.
No, I'm simply not agreeing with your interpretation of events. And still objecting to your use of judgemental. and actively sexist name calling.  Even if you have no respect for her, have some respect for women in general by not using terminology that demeans them as a class by using them as a point of comparison for bad behavior.

She stopped talking and started doing that four and a half minutes of silence bit.
Talking yes, speaking no. Or do you take any request for a moment of silence as a signal that someone is done speaking? SO again, it's not that she lied, but that she didn't behave in the way you wanted her to.

  You can't force that on a crowd,
She didn't. She asked for it and performed it, but made no effort to actively force the crowd to participate.

especially a crowed you've been insulting and lying about.
Completely unfounded claims. Calling someone out for bad behavior is not insulting or lying about them, even if they feel indignant that someone is holding them to account.

  She called them white supremacists and then expected them to go silent for her?
No, she called them that so that they'd have to at least consider the effects of their behavior, even if they then chose to prove her right by way of their disrespect.

At that point it became obvious that she had no intent to give the mike back.
That's your opinion. I disagree.

  So  when you pretend that her intent wasn't primarily to shut Sanders' speech down, I lose respect for you to the point I don't trust anything you say.
Right, because the only valid opinion here is yours. If others disagree, then you should punish them for not bowing to your authority by being disrespectful.

  I didn't make up those facts or the meaning of lying or fraud, and when you pretend that's just my own standard, you come off as a sellout like her.
You made up your interpretations of her actions, and it's dishonest to present those as facts rather than as your opinions.

less than 40% of white Americans approve of MLK during his time, but most got the message at Selma and things began to change fast.
The right ones got the message and things changed because the forced the issue despite the objections of those that were opposed.

You blather about the message but all you are doing is defending the protesters.
Absolutely. Someone has to, and the more people do, the less need for protest there will be.

MLK was willing to endure beatings and prison to get his message out.
Well thank goodness we have you to help administer the beatings, if verbally, to those that follow after him. They wouldn't get nearly as much press if people like you weren't ready to go to town on them when they spoke out.

You bleat on about the unfairness of me saying mean words that you even admitted may be true.
I've never said one thing about fairness or unfairness (except, occasionally, to dismiss them as vacuous notions.)

If the message is important, then articulating it, actually getting people to understand and contemplate what you are saying, would be more important than getting them to like you or to kiss your ass. 
Indeed, as you're proving here. And that was my point above as well. They're obviously not trying to get you to kiss their ass, or even like them. They're trying to be heard by the people in a position to make a difference, and they're continuing to get results, rather than bowing down to the supremacist notion that they need to please white people in order to be tolerated.

Let me tell you a bit more about this dumb ass slag that you lionize.
ANd you're making things up again. That I'm willing to defend a particular protest action says nothing about whether I agree with her on any given point.

She busted up a Seattle meeting that was promoting the use of body cams on cops.  You know the sort that would PREVENT the very sort of police violence that this dumb slag supposedly opposes, right?  Do you know what she said about it?  That she had no interest in watching her oppressor's "home movies." 
If I have time, I'll look into it. It'll be interesting to see what effect it had on the overall conversation, particularly if it helped ensure that people didn't just do the minimum possible by deploying body cams and then pretending that they'd done all they could to fix the more fundamental problems.

Because, while body cams do help protect people from the problems, they don't actually address the underlying issues, without which, body cams wouldn't be needed in the first place. They're a good step,. but they're a short term bandage, not a cure.

Wanna bet Pyr is going to dodge that last challenge re body cams and come back with more personal attacks on me wrapped in sanctimonious jibberjabber?
We'll see what I have time for. BUt nice try at derailment there by bringing up something completely irrelevant to the protest action in question and it's immediate and long term effects.

From the time Flint moved to a strong mayor in 1975 they don't appear to have ever had a Republican mayor, nor can I find any evidence they ever had a majority (or substantial minority) Republican city council.  Refuted.
Was FLint in a strong economic position at this point, or had it already been mismanaged into a hole.

Democrats tend to be in charge in failing cities because they take over _after_ mismanagement has run them into a hole, and they're the only ones willing to try to pull them out when there's no money left to be squeezed out by private interests.

So to be clear, for those joining us late, a boy playing a music box one time in his ex-girlfriend's yard is coercion that robs her of her ability to say no to continuing a relationship,
Is a creepy form of stalking that shows an utter disregard for he expressed wishes and encourages the notion that it's okay to ignore what others say they want and instead harass them until they give in to what you think they should want.

but cutting off the water to a city of 100K people as a negotiating tactic,
No, it's following a prearranged agreement in accordance to previously stated wishes of the other party.

signaling that you wouldn't negotiate an extension in good faith, actually failing to negotiate an extension in good faith (demands for long term commitment, punitive fees) wasn't coercion or even forcing that city to find a short term solution.
Because the other party did not exercise good faith offers to ask for an extension under the terms that they had previously negotiated that they would if they needed more time.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: March 14, 2016, 07:46:56 PM »
I showed what she said, and I showed what she did,
Thus conveniently ignoring conversation that followed it and the wider message taht both Sanders' and Clinton's got and reacted to.

and I inferred that she lied and kept people sitting while she said nothing, based on the expectation that she would eventually give up the stage.
Which she did.

Which she didn't until Sanders left.
Thus making it impossible to tell if she would have given hem back the stage if he'd stayed.

Then she bragged about "holding him to account."
Because that is what happened, and his campaign very clearly and quickly reacted to having its blindspot exposed.

  I disapprove of lying and fraud.  Fraud means manipulating people to do what you want based on a lie.
Sure. Not controversial.

  If you think the only the only thing wrong with lying and fraud is that Pete disapproves of it, then it's a complete waste of time to talk to you about anything that has to do with right or wrong.
Reverse that. I object to calling something fraud and lying _because_ it's something that Pete disagrees with, and then selectively recasting the event and resorting to name calling to back the accusation.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: March 14, 2016, 07:38:21 PM »
I criticized her for failing to deliver on her promise to turn the stage back to sanders WHEN SHE RAN OUT OF THINGS TO SAY.
By which point Sanders was gone.

And you even admitted above that she had nothing to say when she got the mike.
No, I said that I'd heard an interview where they said taht they hadn't planned _what_ to say. The fact that she winged it and didn't come across as coherently as she could have in the moment doesn't mean she might have if she has a rehearsed piece to deliver doesn't mean that she had nothing to say, just that she wasn't fully ready to say it.

Here the messenger forgot her *censored*ing message and held the stage by force, saying nothing and insulting people. I criticized what she did, and in response, you've lied about me and made stupid insulting motive inferences.

Okay, so despite all your protestations, you are, in fact, attacking what she did. Even right after you just said that I was being somehow misleading for saying that. HE choice of when to give the stage back was part of how she delivered her message, as is how she talked about the event afterwards in the conversation that happened about it and because of it. You can't cast them as separate things.

You don't dispute that she lied
I never agreed that she lied. I, in fact, did not address that because we never really found out if she was going to hand it back because Sanders was gone (and, for that matter, on his way to another microphone waiting for him to speak into it) by the time she actually finished. So he was still heard despite anything she did, and she was heard because he chose to let her speak instead of having her removed as he could have (and the Clinton campaign had managed to quietly do a few times over already at that point)

You say she made a positive difference.  I don't believe you, because you have zero credibility with me after how you've misrepresented me.
How convenient. Glad to give you an easy excuse so you didn't have to dig any deeper to find a reason to go on not paying attention to the actual impact.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: March 14, 2016, 07:25:50 PM »
The incident of her interrupting Sanders would have gotten publicity as it had before.  My criticism only occurred to her failing to keep her false promise of turning the stage back to Sanders when she'd had her say.
If it never happened, how would it have gotten publicity? Are you saying people would have made it up if she hadn't done it?

They sent a letter of termination.  Forcing a short term solution.  True or False?
False, particularly with your qualifier. They agreed top a termination date and options to extend it if needed. The pro forma notice was sent when the prior date finally arrived with no extension, but it did not force a short term solution; the failure to exercise any of the extension options available forced when Flint found itself behind schedule forced the short term solution

And the evidence indicates they attempted to use that to force a long term recommitment and/or punitive short term rates.
A long term commitment or shorter extensions that were marked up as is standard to account for the cost and risks associated with investing in shorter term accommodations. If you pay for a service month to month, you're often going to pay more than if you commit to a yearly or multiyear contract. That's not punitive, that's sharing the savings that comes from the certainty and ability to spread static/structural costs across a longer period of time.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: March 14, 2016, 07:03:33 PM »
  I have no idea if she brought attention to the matter.  Based on the obvious falsehoods you've said here, the fact that you claim she did means nothing to me.  When I heard about the incident for the first time on this thread, I was approving at first, until I saw the video of what the skank actually did.
On what  basis do you effectively assert that you'd have been criticizing this incident if this incident never happened?

She literally had to do this for you to have any chance of knowing that it had happened, never mind throwing insults at her for having done it.

So you are lying when you claim that I'm resentful of her speaking.
I didn't say anything about resent. I said that you were talking about what she did and slinging insults at her for doing it. And making it very clear that you do not approve of it and feel justified in insulting her because you disapprove.

Don't project your authority worship psychosis onto me
And yet you're the one angry here in response to people that didn't behave the way you wanted them to, not me.  You keep accusing me of authority worship, but it's you that insult and attack people who don't meet your standards.

I'm angry that AFTER she got her "message" out, she still didn't let him speak, out of pure malice against him.
Please cite the explicit quote where she puts forth that explanation. It seems to me that he never spoke at that because he left before she was done speaking. Though you've certainly directly asserted an itemized list of when you declared her done and thus should have handed the stage back.

Yes, my criticism of her is personal, because she's the person who did this crap.
That again, is a poor excuse for the kind of demeaning and insulting name calling you're employing.

  That's no excuse for you to lie about me or what I said, or to claim that I believe things that you know I don't believe.
Something that I haven't done, no matter how much you try to manufacture accusations.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9