Larry of the Lawn

11 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

All good. As long as the depiction of protest as force of nature isn't used to paper over the uglier aspects of certain protestors as "inevitable," your comment makes perfect sense. It's just that sometimes people do use such framings to paper over nasty behavior, and so such statements can easily have a whiff of creepy zealotry to me. 

Well good thing I didn't do that then, huh? 

You're the one that said "inevitable" scolding me for "the language of inevitability" and likening protests to a "natural disaster" (which I didn't do, by the way!)

I guess I missed the part where I said "pick whatever you think is the worst, most toxic part about protesting, and let it be known to all the land, that's the part I fucking support!".  

10 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Okay, let's not fall on the language of inevitability.

Sure, some protests are strategic and have planning. My "pragmatic" comment was directed at people who seem to think that there is some electoral or specific public policy that's going to change immediately.  I doubt most protestors think that's going to happen. 

My commentary was directed at people who seem baffled or confused as to why people would be out there protesting.  I am amused that people are confused by this.  

I stand by my statement that protests are likely to happen when conventional or pragmatic solutions fail or are ignored. 

For what it's worth I've spent quite a bit of time on the pavement.  I went to college in DC immediately after 9/11 and was out in front of the Whitehouse at least once a week for a couple hours for a couple years.

1 hour ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

That sounds like the conditions of rioting or other upheavals. Protests certainly can be and often are strategic and calculated. Activists who organize protests are usually pragmatic and shrewd in their way, though that doesn't have to mean milquetoast or non-disruptive. 

There is agency and intention at play here with respect to means and methods. Let's not liken coordinated actions to natural disasters.

Yeah let's not like protests to natural disasters or libraries or cupcakes or sea monsters, I am 100% on board with that.  

On 4/21/2024 at 8:18 PM, Madame deVenoge said:

 I told him there is a painting in the attic. He got it.

@Mlle. Zabzie

I tired this 20 years ago and now there's just a lousy, moldy, rat-bitten painting of me in the attic and I'm turning gray and wrinkly lol.  

Just now, The Big Stink said:

These protests are completely pointless. Nothing will change. The majority of Jewish students will feel intimidated but that's it.

The only change I can see is conservative politicians pushing for hate speech laws where you cannot criticize Israel.

A major failure of Israel is the inability to make support for Israel to appear reasonable or sincere. It's clear as day that anyone under 50 that supports Israel is either Jewish themselves or is paid to do so.

 

 

 

I'm not sure the majority of Jewish students feel intimidated but I suppose it's possible. 

Protests aren't about being a pragmatic solution.  They are what happens when pragmatic solutions fail or are ignored.  It's like putting a pot of water in a lit stove.  Eventually it's gonna boil over and make a mess.  It's a predictable consequence of doing nothing to address an injustice that many people are very aware of.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I disagree.  As bad as this has been it could have been much worse.  Consider how Israel would have behaved if Trump had been office with Netanyahu in Israel.  It can, sadly, always be worse.

Ok?  That's non responsive, counselor.  The argument wasn't that there are US administrations who would be worse on this issue than Biden, the argument I responding to was your nuanced claim that giving money and weapons to Israel somehow gives the US more influence to prevent Israel from using them.  

That is a very different argument from "Trump would have been worse."

Yes, it could be much worse. Could you please explain how giving Israel more $ and weapons is going to reduce violence in Gaza?

9 minutes ago, Fez said:

Setting aside the merits or concerns about the protests, my main issue is that protesting on campus is basically pointless and just wastes people's time. The student demands are either impossible for the universities for achieve or doable but wouldn't have any impact on Israel. They'd be much more impactful protesting at congresspersons' townhall events and outside their district offices. Or, in the case of the NYC-based students, protesting outside the mayor's office or city council; since the NYC government has much larger economic ties to Israel than any university.

The only thing you achieve protesting on campus is smug self-satisfaction. And potentially intimidate Jewish students.

I don't disagree with any of this, really.

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There is a more subtle question here than most protesters like.  Does the US have more or less influence in Israeli military choices if it cuts off aid?

Who knows?  They US doesn't appear to have much influence right now.  It's not illogical to think that cutting of military aid to Israel is a more direct and sensible option.  

But the US government has been supporting Israel for a long time.  Maybe it's illogical to protestors to think that the US would suddenly rein in Israel by providing them with more weapons.  If protestors felt they had better ways of influencing the US government I doubt they'd be out there right now.  

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Which I’m not thrilled by.  But this isn’t like Vietnam where the US was directly involved.  Further if the US cut off military aid today the Israeli war in Gaza could continue without US support… right?

So?  Wouldn't you rather your government not be involved in something if you think that something  is horrible?  Wouldn't you rather see that money spent on something other than military support for a violent action you disagree with?

I don't think I've ever used the hot water function in a washing machine.  

Fucking Dems won't let my 8 year old niece have the crippling factory job she's always dreamed of

Dude is going to be prescreening all of Baron's graduation cards to pocket the cash.  

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

 

I don't know where the authors of the above are from themselves, but as someone who's never read Rothfuss, does he really use the word "fannies" to describe female genitalia? That would be remarkable for an American author. 

He doesn't, I was just going for the alliteration and figured that with our pan-anglosphere board at least some would assume the raunchier meaning rather than the quaint American one.  

I bet Doors of Stone is a total fuckfest.  Like, after living with the sex ninjas and and the Felurian side quest, he's loses all interest in things school and revenge related.  He just dives fully into his sexuality and fucks his way across (whatever the name of the land in this story is).  

My theory is that the book has been completed for years, Rothfuss wasn't lying, he's just been at a stand-off with the publisher, who refuses to print it as it is.  Way too many fae fannies and sorcerous schlongs flying around.

7 hours ago, House Balstroko said:

Just a couple of quick points. 
 

@kissdbyfire Iran has already attacked Israeli diplomatic missions, which includes embassies in the past. Claiming that they should retaliate now is utter nonsense. This doesn’t mean that I think Israel should expand the engagement right now, as it risks creating a disastrous situation for all parties involved. 
. 

So if a country has attacked a diplomatic target in the past it's just open season on their own consulates and embassies for ever after?  This is a very weird position to take-- what's the logic here? The Buenos Aires bombing you mentioned was over 30 years ago. 

Even if it was conducted by the Iranian government instead of a Lebanese group with ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, I don't see any logic in saying that some how we can't expect a country to retaliate to a consulate bombing because they bombed an embassy 30 years ago.

45 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

You made more spelling and grammatical errors than Iran landed bombs. 

They attacked Israel because their stated goal is to always do so until it's destroyed. This isn't hard to understand. What's weird is when people wonder why they're confrontational with a state that wants them all to die. 

All of this could be solved tomorrow. Release the hostages and work out a lasting ceasefire, except that's not actually the goal on one side and increasingly doesn't look like it is on the other. But don't give me the BS that Iran didn't play a role in what sparked this. 

 

After Oct 7 we heard that Israel was showing restraint in their response in Gaza.  If they hadn't, Gaza wouldn't exist anymore.

Similarly, you know very well that Iran showed restraint this weekend. This missile and drone attack wasn't "because their stated goal is to do so until it's destroyed".  It was undeniably a response to the Damascus attack.  

And wtf now we're picking on spelling from posters whose first language isn't even English?

48 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Iran played a significant role in the October 7th attacks. That's the escalation. 

Ok. 

Try plugging in 'Israel' and 'Hamas' into HoI's post that I quoted and see how it sounds:

Quote

Why do people imagine Hamas is targeting Israel? Has Israel just been sitting around minding it's own business for the past decade?

Can you see why that kind of framing is kinda lazy and fucked?

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Why do people imagine Israel is targeting Iran? Has Iran just been sitting around minding it's own business for the past decade?

It's less "targeting Iran" than escalating with Iran by killing 50 people in the embassy attack.  

1 hour ago, Jace, Extat said:

Astute question.

Nuclear capacity being isolated to rational actors. And I include Kim as a rational actor. 

Now that's not me saying that all nuclear-armed countries are guaranteed to be led by rational actors! Far from it! Each and every nation on earth armed with weapons is a danger of producing a madman that could end the world. That's why NO MORE get to join the club.

Let me rephrase.  You said :

Quote

But that is a world that has proven, so far, viable. That viability must be enforced. 

You've already established that "that world" is the 8 'rational' nations with nuclear weapons.  But I'm asking you is why has that been proven "viable"?  What does viable mean in this context?  Does it mean that this is what has happened so far?  Do you simply mean that nuclear weapons haven't been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

5 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

This seems to fit better here, and if you want the truth I'll tell you that my inclination in this is to be inward-focused and reconstructive as a nation right now. That's what I'd like to do. 

But the tiger's tail is caught, there's no wishmaking away America's unique capacity as a world agent. I can't make nobody have nukes. What I can advocate for is that nobody else gets them.

And yes, I am aware that in the coming decades of resource scarcity and climate change that that means there is an effective Imperialising of the world to the benefit of the eight outgoing nuclear-armed states. 

But that is a world that has proven, so far, viable. That viability must be enforced. America can do that. So we should. 

"viable" doing a lot of work here.  What does viable mean in this context?  

I'd be absolutely fine never hearing another Florida man / Florida joke for the rest of my life, because this thread specifically has ruined my ability to appreciate it by oversaturation and the need to shoehorn any tangential reference to Florida into lazy and unoriginal jokes.  It'd be one thing if the jokes were good, but they're not even funny.

Eta: C'mon board, you can all do better.  Wait for the right opportunity or for some real inspiration.  One good joke is better than 500 shitty ones.  

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

After Florida voted to enfranchise felons, Trump’s lead rose in 2020.  No doubt felons saw him as a kindred spirit.

do you have a citation that supports the idea that felons voted for Trump at a higher rate than your average Floridian?

7 hours ago, mcbigski said:

As for the gas and electric ranges, I've seen conclusions from studies that purport to say that.  People have been living around well ventilated fires for a while, probably since before we were modern humans.  Frankly if asthma or similar are spiking now, I'd suggest looking more at injections affecting the immune system, since I'm pretty sure I have better ventilation and less smoke in my house than my great grandparents grew up with.  (Jakob was a fine man for the record.)

Maybe the chemistry they taught me back in the 80s isn't woke enough.  I don't see how powering an electric oven from a hydrocarbon plant because we can't ever have on demand wind or solar, is somehow more efficient than just burning the gas on site, especially when the actual desired output is heat.  But gas ovens have to go for some reason.  

As for nutrition, are you even serious?  There have been a few protests in a couple of food exporting countries about, effectively, cutting agricultural production down by about half.  Sri Lanka had a terrible experience following the left globalist ag policy as well, as you might have seen if you looked outside the echo chamber.

As far as the environment at large, as a "conservative or maga type", I'm all for more fission.  No carbon, plentiful energy.  Let the kids 10000 years from now figure out fusion.   I'm not sure where you fall on this one, but if you're anti fission, you're effectively either pro carbon or pro reducing the global population.

 

Gas stoves and ovens can also leak benzene, which can cause leukemia.  Houses today are not necessarily better ventilated than they were 25 or 40 years ago.  Often modern construction is so airtight due to spray in insulation that houses don't "breathe" at all.  A good portion of my job involves dealing with pressure issues in new construction homes.

Electricity is cleaner than burning gas on site.  Because it's not all generated from hydrocarbons.  There may be local exceptions if you live near a coal plant.  

There is plenty of food out there.  Some people think any regulation to keep poisons out of it or the water used to grow it are onerous.

Solar and wind need to be coupled with fission or fossil fuels to reduce emissions.  We should have dumped a ton of money into fission 50 years ago.  We should have done it yesterday.  But being pro-fission on its own doesn't mean that your some tree hugger.  Show me some conservative gneerated legislation to stop pollution or deforestation or stop the privatizing of publicly owned resources.

Show me any real legislation from the right to protect our natural resources.  The right has been gutting the EPA and complaining about business not being able to pollute since the EPA was created. 

The American right doesn't give a fuck about the environment.  Dems corporate donors aren't about to let them make major changes to help either, but at least they aren't marching gungho towards an apocalyptic wasteland where the only animals are in zoos and every river and lake is owned by some corporation, or where there is no guarantee your water isnt polluted with industrial waste.  

You talk about nutrition while the GOP creates school lunch debt and wants to keep food stamps from being used on fresh produce:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/31/politics/wic-benefits-cut-culture-war

5 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

 She got that number from taking in what she saw in an area and just calculated how many blocks there are in the city and assumed they all had the same numbers. 

I guess you could say she used your porn theater counting method, eh?

14 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Well for starters I've been to NY and FYI, those theaters weren't just in Times Square. What I was talking about was the perception of NY during that time which was not very positive. Comparatively today is much better when you're complaining about dispensaries. 

Also, there are fewer than 200 dispensaries in the city, so no, the blocks are not loaded with them. By comparison there are nearly 4,000 liquor stores in the city plus god knows how many bars. 

And there are prostitutes in basically every neighborhood in every large city. That you didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't happening.  

That 200 number is almost certainly wrong, possibly by an order of magnitude.  No one is sure exactly how many illegal dispensaries are operating, but if you count smoke shops selling THC products the high end estimates are 8000.

https://council.nyc.gov/press/2023/08/14/2454/

Even if it's half that you're still wrong.  

Eta:  some quick googling will tell you that there are illegal shops on almost every block in Hell's Kitchen, for example.  It's easy, just use Google Maps.  

11 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Look, we can't all be naked cowboys playing a guitar, but still, dream that you can make it.

@Week is obviously a shitty TMNT in Time Squares. At least @Fragile Bird put some effort into her Pikachu costume. But no one compares to @DanteGabriel. He's been doing the devil's work for years at the highest levels. He's 65% of the reason why Central Park smells like weed 23 hours a day. Being a kind devil, he gives one hour to enjoy the trees, but don't you fucking dare ask for a second longer. He will burn it all down if you do. Or so I'm told. 

You know it's pretty easy to say "huh, guess I was wrong"