Fuck unity

[prideandfall]

I have a bit of a problem with the ultimate goal being something that is irrational, unrealistic, unattainable, and above all counter to human nature, and nature itself.

it's also the only viable solution for the current incarnation of human civilization, so while it may be all of those things currently, 500 years ago walking on the moon or taking close up pictures of neptune were also irrational, unrealistic, and unattainable.
the human race as it currently operates has an expiration date - eventually we will run out of fossil fuels, we'll use up radioactive material, we'll deplete whatever mineral it is that we use for things, we'll use up everything that allows our species as it stands now to continue to function at the level at which it is functioning.
when that happens, we have two options: have a new source of resources, or scale back the species to a pre-industrial state - which includes dropping us back down to 400 - 600 million population world wide.

this won't happen in any of our lifetimes, obviously, so solving an eventual resource depletion crisis isn't something to be dealt with now.
but what should be dealt with is the forward progress of human technology and society, so that when the times comes we need to deal with that we're in a position to be able to, otherwise there could well be a homo sapien extinction event.
(not that i personally care about this possibility, but the goal of human civilization should be to prevent that eventual outcome if it has no other goal whatsoever)

Insisting that this miracle goal is the only acceptable goal and that all else is stupid is... well... fucking stupid.

no, actually, it isn't - on a long enough time line, it's the only goal that matters because it's the only thing that will allow the continuation of the species.
(barring that we don't all die in another meteor impact or the like)

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Not really; But then, you didn't say that.

"Saying you think it is good doesn't mean you have actually done it".

Facts exist. It's a fact that that is the thing you said to which I was responding. To pretend otherwise is insane, in the most literal sense.

Jahryn wrote about Jahryn allegedly punching Nazis, and I was responding to Jahryn when I wrote about how talking about punching and actually punching are different - implying that I seriously doubt any claims of Jahryn punching anyone, let alone Nazis. You called that bleeding obvious, so it was contextually obvious you were also talking about Jahryn allegedly punching Nazis. Not a theoretical someone somewhere perhaps punching a Nazi. This should be obvious, why don't you understand?

Why the fuck would I care about the conversation you were having with someone else?

Because you picked up a conversation mid-stream, responding to my response to Jahryn without having any clues what we were talking about.

In OUR conversation, I pointed out that you had said something mind blowingly obvious;

That Jahryn never punched any Nazis in spite of Jahryn's claim to the contrary.

And you responded by saying that something completely different was "pretty bleeding obvious".

I replied that I agreed with you that Jahryn never punched any Nazis in spite of Jahryn's claim to the contrary.

I don't agree, and I won't allow you to get away with implying that I do.

If you jump into a conversation in progress and misunderstand what is being said, that is on you. Not me.

Either say something substantive, or don't.

I substantively say Jahryn never punched any Nazis in spite of Jahryn's claim to the contrary.

But don't you fucking DARE imply that I agree with something you have every reason to understand that I don't agree with.

Then it isn't "bleeding obvious" that Jahryn has never punched any Nazis in spite of Jahryn's claim to have done so. You retract your former statement about something being "bleeding obvious".

Try understanding what you are responding to before you respond. You won't have to retract stupid statements if you do.

Since you joined a conversation already in progress perhaps you can join the topic and tell us if you think Jahryn's claims about punching Nazis are truthful or hot air and bluster.

 

[Emily Lake]

Honestly I wouldn't reject a hand if offered, but I would prefer my politicians stop offering them to recalcitrant criminals. As near as I can see, no hands are reaching back. It's just those of us who've been living in fear for the last four years who are now being lectured for admitting ill will to those who created it, and who regret nothing.

Why on earth have you been living in fear for four years? I'm sorry, I know Trump is an idiot, but there has been no rational reason for fear.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Honestly I wouldn't reject a hand if offered, but I would prefer my politicians stop offering them to recalcitrant criminals. As near as I can see, no hands are reaching back. It's just those of us who've been living in fear for the last four years who are now being lectured for admitting ill will to those who created it, and who regret nothing.

Why on earth have you been living in fear for four years? I'm sorry, I know Trump is an idiot, but there has been no rational reason for fear.

He's literally attempting to become a dictator right now. There's no reason for fear??

 

[Emily Lake]

I have a bit of a problem with the ultimate goal being something that is irrational, unrealistic, unattainable, and above all counter to human nature, and nature itself.

it's also the only viable solution for the current incarnation of human civilization, so while it may be all of those things currently, 500 years ago walking on the moon or taking close up pictures of neptune were also irrational, unrealistic, and unattainable.
the human race as it currently operates has an expiration date - eventually we will run out of fossil fuels, we'll use up radioactive material, we'll deplete whatever mineral it is that we use for things, we'll use up everything that allows our species as it stands now to continue to function at the level at which it is functioning.
when that happens, we have two options: have a new source of resources, or scale back the species to a pre-industrial state - which includes dropping us back down to 400 - 600 million population world wide.

this won't happen in any of our lifetimes, obviously, so solving an eventual resource depletion crisis isn't something to be dealt with now.
but what should be dealt with is the forward progress of human technology and society, so that when the times comes we need to deal with that we're in a position to be able to, otherwise there could well be a homo sapien extinction event.
(not that i personally care about this possibility, but the goal of human civilization should be to prevent that eventual outcome if it has no other goal whatsoever)

Insisting that this miracle goal is the only acceptable goal and that all else is stupid is... well... fucking stupid.

no, actually, it isn't - on a long enough time line, it's the only goal that matters because it's the only thing that will allow the continuation of the species.
(barring that we don't all die in another meteor impact or the like)

Resource scarcity will always be a reality. Resources are not, quite simply, unlimited. The only realistic solution to resource scarcity is a state of continual expansion, which would mean colonizing other planets. And even then, each planet will have limited resources, and will face those constraints as a matter of fact.

Beyond that, utopia will never exist. Struggles will always exist, conflicts will always exist - that's in the nature not just of living organisms, but of all reality. The universe does not exist in a steady state. It is a dynamic, changing environment, and as such will always present challenges for survival. Humans, additionally, are mammals like any other. We compete for dominance and status, we form tribes and circles of stronger or weaker affiliations. We engage in sexual selection. We don't control our own evolution as a species. If we survive, it will be because we are fit for the environment that we exist in. If we don't fit, we won't survive.

Either way, a post-scarcity utopia is a pipedream. But it does make for a nice bit of fiction, I suppose.

 

[Emily Lake]

Honestly I wouldn't reject a hand if offered, but I would prefer my politicians stop offering them to recalcitrant criminals. As near as I can see, no hands are reaching back. It's just those of us who've been living in fear for the last four years who are now being lectured for admitting ill will to those who created it, and who regret nothing.

Why on earth have you been living in fear for four years? I'm sorry, I know Trump is an idiot, but there has been no rational reason for fear.

He's literally attempting to become a dictator right now. There's no reason for fear??

First: He's stomping his feet, yelling at the top of his lungs, and will likely throw himself on the ground in a full-fledged toddler-esque meltdown within the next few days. He might *want* to be dictator for life... but it's not going to happen. It's not even going to get close. No matter how much of a fit a five-year old throws about wanting to eat only chocolate cake for every meal, their tantrum doesn't dictate what happens.

Second: How does this relate to Poli having lived in fear for the last four years?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Honestly I wouldn't reject a hand if offered, but I would prefer my politicians stop offering them to recalcitrant criminals. As near as I can see, no hands are reaching back. It's just those of us who've been living in fear for the last four years who are now being lectured for admitting ill will to those who created it, and who regret nothing.

Why on earth have you been living in fear for four years? I'm sorry, I know Trump is an idiot, but there has been no rational reason for fear.

We are watching an attempted coup play out right now. No reason to fear??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's literally attempting to become a dictator right now. There's no reason for fear??

First: He's stomping his feet, yelling at the top of his lungs, and will likely throw himself on the ground in a full-fledged toddler-esque meltdown within the next few days. He might *want* to be dictator for life... but it's not going to happen. It's not even going to get close. No matter how much of a fit a five-year old throws about wanting to eat only chocolate cake for every meal, their tantrum doesn't dictate what happens.

Second: How does this relate to Poli having lived in fear for the last four years?

Because this isn't out of the blue--the Republicans have been building up to it for a long time now. His inept temper tantrums aren't relevant--it's not whether he can have a successful coup, but whether the Republicans can have a successful coup with him as figurehead.

 

[Politesse]

Honestly I wouldn't reject a hand if offered, but I would prefer my politicians stop offering them to recalcitrant criminals. As near as I can see, no hands are reaching back. It's just those of us who've been living in fear for the last four years who are now being lectured for admitting ill will to those who created it, and who regret nothing.

Why on earth have you been living in fear for four years? I'm sorry, I know Trump is an idiot, but there has been no rational reason for fear.

My right to employment was challenged in the halls of the Supreme Court last year, and very nearly lost. If the same case were to be tried today, with the judges Trump has recently appointed, it seems likely if not inevitable that I will lose my right to have a job under federal law, protected only by the laws of my state. And you're telling me I'm "irrational" to be afraid? And it's not just employment; Mike Pence has built his entire political career and reputation on his willingness and eagerness to persecute and oppress gay people. If Trump had had a heart attack at any point in the last four years, that man would suddenly have become president, with enormous latitude to oppress whatever portions of the population he deems unfit to hold basic civil rights.

Elsewhere, parents are seeing their children permanently kidnapped by the US government at ports of entry, a consequence that cannot be undone. 666 of them now cannot be returned to their family, because their personal information was deliberately "lost". And you say that the fear of a grieving parent who will never see their child again is "irrational".

More than 11 million people have been infected, and almost 250,000 have died, from a global pandemic that the Republican-controlled government refuses to meaningfully address in any way. Those people, similarly, will not magically come back to life once a democratic govenrment is in place again. The dead will still be dead. And you say that anyone who fears this is "irrational".

I mean, Jesus Christ, what is a rational fear in your view? Spiders? Vampires? Asteroids from outer space? What rock have you been living under, that you see nothing to fear in the recent conduct of the US government?

 

[Worldtraveller]

I mean, Jesus Christ, what is a rational fear in your view? Spiders? Vampires? Asteroids from outer space? What rock have you been living under, that you see nothing to fear in the recent conduct of the US government?

The rock of privilege.

 

[laughing dog]

Honestly I wouldn't reject a hand if offered, but I would prefer my politicians stop offering them to recalcitrant criminals. As near as I can see, no hands are reaching back. It's just those of us who've been living in fear for the last four years who are now being lectured for admitting ill will to those who created it, and who regret nothing.

Why on earth have you been living in fear for four years? I'm sorry, I know Trump is an idiot, but there has been no rational reason for fear.

Gee, I cannot imagine why anyone of color or the LGBTQ community would have a rational reason for fear given Mr. Trump's bigoted dog whistling.

 

[repoman]

This is the Unity we need again

 

[bilby]

I mean, Jesus Christ, what is a rational fear in your view? Spiders? Vampires? Asteroids from outer space? What rock have you been living under, that you see nothing to fear in the recent conduct of the US government?

The rock of privilege.

^This.

"I have no reason for fear" isn't even close to being the same as "there's no reason for fear"; But a lot if people miss that point. We call those people "conservatives".

 

[Angry Floof]

This is the Unity we need again

View attachment 30359

Do you have any other details about this? As far as I can see, Michael Froman, formerly of Citibank, was on Obama's transition team - not news or a secret - and helping the president choose his cabinet is part of that team's purpose.

So how much influence did Froman have on that process and on how many cabinet members, especially in comparison to the input of others on the transition team?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is the Unity we need again

View attachment 30359

How about actually supporting it rather than using an image to simply make large text?

 

[Jarhyn]

The same wikileaks? Assange's Wikileaks? That site turned hard. That man was bought and sold. Some of it was great, real, a lot of it was straight up shit. At this point, you'll have to have outside support.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The same wikileaks? Assange's Wikileaks? That site turned hard. That man was bought and sold. Some of it was great, real, a lot of it was straight up shit. At this point, you'll have to have outside support.

Also Wikileaks promoted Pizzagate at one point. Instantly lost any respect I had for them when that happened.

 

[Jarhyn]

The same wikileaks? Assange's Wikileaks? That site turned hard. That man was bought and sold. Some of it was great, real, a lot of it was straight up shit. At this point, you'll have to have outside support.

Also Wikileaks promoted Pizzagate at one point. Instantly lost any respect I had for them when that happened.

Just making sure I was thinking about the right wikileaks.

 

[Emily Lake]

My right to employment was challenged in the halls of the Supreme Court last year, and very nearly lost.

Yours specifically, or the general concept overall? Were you, personally, afraid that your employer would fire you if that challenge won? Is that the kind of employer that you work for? And do you believe that the vast majority of employers in the US are anti-gay bigots just chafing for the chance to fire gay people as soon as they're allowed to?

I'm inclined to say that's not going to become a widespread thing. Our social mores have changed. Even if the entirety of EOE statutes were overturned tomorrow, I don't think it's rational at all to live in fear that employers across the nation are just going to start firing minorities and women for no reason except they can. If you seriously think that the US is populated so heavily by bigots that social norms will just evaporate as soon as laws change, then you have an entirely different problem as it relates to the perception of reality.

If this really is your concern... how do you square that with your views on transgender rights? Many of the things that TRAs are seeking directly undermine rights and protections on the basis of sex, and would harm women - especially if the loss of those explicit protections would lead to the widespread loss of jobs and livelihood that you imagine.

Elsewhere, parents are seeing their children permanently kidnapped by the US government at ports of entry, a consequence that cannot be undone. 666 of them now cannot be returned to their family, because their personal information was deliberately "lost". And you say that the fear of a grieving parent who will never see their child again is "irrational".

Are you channeling the fear of foreign people seeking entrance to the US and feeling it as your own? Have you had your children taken away from you?

More than 11 million people have been infected, and almost 250,000 have died, from a global pandemic that the Republican-controlled government refuses to meaningfully address in any way. Those people, similarly, will not magically come back to life once a democratic govenrment is in place again. The dead will still be dead. And you say that anyone who fears this is "irrational".

Would all of those 250,000 people still be alive had a Democrat been in charge?

I mean, Jesus Christ, what is a rational fear in your view? Spiders? Vampires? Asteroids from outer space? What rock have you been living under, that you see nothing to fear in the recent conduct of the US government?

Feeling and internalizing someone else's fear as your own, and feeling it as a "constant" state for four years is entirely irrational. Assuming that everyone who has died from COVID is dead because of Trump directly, and living in fear of TRUMP as a result of that is irrational. Fearing that Republicans challenging some special protections will somehow result in pogroms against gay people and all of them getting fired is irrational.

Having a reasonable concern and suspicion of potential outcomes is not irrational. But that also doesn't lend itself to "living in constant fear for the last four years". If you've been actually living in a state of fear for that long, I very respectfully suggest that you might want to look into some anti-anxiety meds.

 

[Politesse]

Were you, personally, afraid that your employer would fire you if that challenge won?

No, partly because I try not to inform them about my private life more than necessary, and partly because that would be illegal in California. But the latter is not true of the whole country, and the former is a very thin protection, easily broken, especially in the internet era. Secrets are hard to keep. And I'm offended that this should be necessary anyway.

And do you believe that the vast majority of employers in the US are anti-gay bigots just chafing for the chance to fire gay people as soon as they're allowed to?

I'm not willing to stake questions of basic civil rights on the supposed moral goodwill of a "majority". And being fired over questions of sexuality is already a common phenomenon despite being illegal, so I don't see why you think giving a green-light to the practice would somehow improve the situation. I am very careful not to inform employers of my sexuality. All they need to fire someone is a plausible excuse, and those are easy to find or manufacture.

I'm inclined to say that's not going to become a widespread thing. Our social mores have changed. Even if the entirety of EOE statutes were overturned tomorrow, I don't think it's rational at all to live in fear that employers across the nation are just going to start firing minorities and women for no reason except they can. If you seriously think that the US is populated so heavily by bigots that social norms will just evaporate as soon as laws change, then you have an entirely different problem as it relates to the perception of reality.

Then why did almost half of them just vote for an unashamed sexist white nationalist??? I do not determine my position on political issues based on my personal guestimation of how "nice" other people are or will be, anyway. The rule of law exists for a reason, and it must continue to exist.

I would be very uncomfortable if we were to suddenly legalize murders, for instance. Is that because I think "most people" would suddenly murder their friends and neighbors if this happened? No, but the murder rate would definitely increase, especially since the same offenders could continue to murder whomever they liked without formal consequence or reprisal. Observe the American West; very few serial murderers as a proportion of the whole population, but murder itself and dueling were commonplace crimes that greatly disturbed the safety and propserity of the frontier states until the rule of law was re-established over the US' territorial claims.

If this really is your concern... how do you square that with your views on transgender rights? Many of the things that TRAs are seeking directly undermine rights and protections on the basis of sex, and would harm women - especially if the loss of those explicit protections would lead to the widespread loss of jobs and livelihood that you imagine.

What, using the bathroom? For the record. I support both trans and cis women being allowed to use the bathroom.

Are you channeling the fear of foreign people seeking entrance to the US and feeling it as your own? Have you had your children taken away from you?

No, I'm just a fucking human being. What's wrong with you? Is that the position you take on every crime? If it doesn't happen to you personally it isn't worth worrying about? The government should not have the authority to kidnap children without consequence, regardless of who they are currently targeting. Nothing good could possibly come of this.

Would all of those 250,000 people still be alive had a Democrat been in charge?

Political party isn't (or shouldn't be) a concern. But some kind of leadership, informed by science, would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives by now. I firmly believe that a more sane Republican president, like Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush would have been able to screw up their courage to govern properly during this crisis. The fact that this has now been conceived of as a partisan issue is a major part of the problem.

Feeling and internalizing someone else's fear as your own, and feeling it as a "constant" state for four years is entirely irrational. Assuming that everyone who has died from COVID is dead because of Trump directly, and living in fear of TRUMP as a result of that is irrational. Fearing that Republicans challenging some special protections will somehow result in pogroms against gay people and all of them getting fired is irrational.

There's nothing irrational about empathy. What affects your neighbor affects you as well, immediately or eventually. As for fear that Republicans wil attack gay folks, they have never claimed any other position, so you're venturing well past irrationality and well into insanity if you don't think they intend to continue. I don't want to live in a country where the equal civil rights of all citizens are not guaranteed, even if the current government favors my race and gender. Things can change.