Jump to content

ndawg

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    849
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ndawg

  1. I don't think Republicans don't give one solitary shit about cancel culture, it's just something they yap their jaws about to make it sound like they have ideas floating around in their head. There's no doubt that some of them are probably stupid enough to fall for this, but I think a good lot of them relish provoking controversy about Dr. Seuss even though they know their position is nonsensical. To them, it's a sign of their superiority that they get to feign outrage over anything they want and suddenly their outrage dominates the news cycle. I think that mostly, deep down inside, they just like wrecking shit. They like the destruction itself, for its own sake, but they also like the look on your face when you watch them wreck your shit.

    They're going to tear this country down to the skids, and none of them will have the ability to rebuild anything else in it's place, and things are going to get really, really shitty for everyone. And by the time that happens, I have no doubt that liberals will still be holding on to the same idiotic hope that maybe now, now finally the Republican rank-and-file will realize that the GOP can't actually govern. But the GOP will win again, because fascists already have a textbook solution to the problem of needing to stay popular in spite of their utter ineptitude: they'll just take wealth from the "out group" and give it to the "in group."

    Civilizations rise, and they decline. It's the natural course of history. Unlike other fallen empires, though, this civilization might just take the entire human species down with it.

    Wait, what were we talking about?

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 2
  2. 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    He didn't have to.

    The Voting Rights Act is dead, because unless the legislature has a stated purpose embedded in the preamble to the effect of "this law is intended to deny negroes the right to vote because they are an inferior race," it will all be okay with a wink.  

    The GQP is the party of open and proud white supremacy and racism.  It's not any more complicated than that.

    I'm not even sure of that anymore.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    This is my biggest worry too.  Fascist movements gain steam when governments abandon their populations or when voters perceive their government has abandoned them.  Biden needs to deliver early, often, and stand up to GQP obstruction tactics. 

    My fear with Biden was that he was going to try to placate everybody by negotiating with Republicans, who would get concessions from him and then renig.

    The GOP can't be negotiated with, because they don't want any actual policies enacted, they just want power.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  4. 4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    The data/numbers still point to an issue and a reasonable concern for people, right? I get that taking an outlier and making it a fundamental anchor in your thesis is disingenuous, but what at what point do you say an outlier is no longer an outlier but a trend?

    And maybe the answer is, we’ve always been and had so stupid and politically absurd people and didn’t know it, we just see example of left (and right) stupidity everyday because we are all so interconnected and online. And what does that mean? To ndawgs point of “if everyone would just get off Facebook/internet!” the toothpaste is out of the tube. We are in Industrial Revolution 4.0 and whether you want to be or are being dragged there, it’s a digital world where the poor don’t have food, but they have a smart phone looking for that free WiFi.

    I think the numbers point to the problem I described precisely.

    People FEEL concerned about cancel culture because they’re addicted to the only medium that it can even take place on.

    If Facebook and Twitter were banished from the Internet, nobody would be worried about “cancel culture.”

    • Hook 'Em 2
  5. 53 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


    ....which demonstrates the true disease that is killing us: toxic individualism.

    Individualism and individual liberty are not only fine, they are important. But when they are at the expense of ANY interest in community, we, and the common good....that’s killing us.

    By keeping people divided into little one person or one core family unit islands, we make ourselves vulnerable to....well, damned near everything.

    And all the while, if these people just signed out of Facebook, then the entire culture war they're willing to tear down our democracy over would utterly dematerialize. They're raging so hard against Hollywood cancel culture as if they're the next ones that will be sent to the gulags, when they could end it instantly by just getting off the fucking internet.

    It's not just toxic individualism, it's toxic individualism suffering from an insidious obsession with an imaginary collective enemy.

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 2
  6. I'd like to see the Democrats dip into the standard GOP bag of tricks.

    "Can't figure out how to afford $15/hr? Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and figure out how to increase labor productivity."

  7. 50 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Who's saying stop immigration ?  The issue is folks who have no skill sets who only add to welfare rolls, or criminals, traffickers coming in, and we have no idea who they are or where they are.  Knowing who's coming into the country is a basic responsibility of gov't.

    You can't simply let everyone just come in.  That is not a good way for a country to maintain a healthy socio economic state.  The cost of raising a family coupled with higher, and higher costs/ taxes/ fees/etc. is also a contributing factor to a decreased population.

    We don't take care of our impoverished citizens now, and to just let more, and more (uneducated, unskilled) folks cross the border only makes that task more difficult if not impossible.

    How is an ever increasing cost of an increased welfare roll, increased costs for housing, social programs, medical services, schools, to an already poorly run system now not a compelling reason to limit how many folks (who often have no economic self support) come here ?

    Releasing citizens before a trial who have SS numbers, drivers licenses, home addresses that can be verified is in no way shape or form similar to releasing a non citizen with no way to keep track of them.  Couple  that with the fact they fear being kicked out of the country makes for a huge number of those folks  simply not showing up for their court dates.  There's no way to track them.

    How much productivity do illegal immigrants contribute to our economy, and how much do they cost in social services?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    They're here being called fanatical, antifa-loving circle-jerkers by people calling themselves conservatives without any concept of what that is supposed to mean.

    An intelligent person calling himself a GOP conservative is a steady customer of fear mongers and likely puts self above all. They're thinking is unbalanced by hysteria.

    In other words, they're standing athwart stupidity, yelling, "STOP!"

  9. 5 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    3) There is such a thing as Good, but when it comes to politics and power, good (and bad) are social constructs used as tools. They are excuses to act in whatever way is the most efficient to achieving the goal. This is what I've seen and experienced, at least, just this one man's opinion. I think this opinion explains a lot of what we see from politics and politicians, as well, so I feel it's not an opinion without merit though I respect your disagreement.

    You are ascribing motivation categorically to people you don't know. What kinds of observations and experiences have you accumulated that give you justified confidence in ascertaining their motivations?

  10. 10 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    In this instance, if both things are true, then where does that lead you to land? If my opinion, informed by my firsthand experiences and perspectives and weltanschauung is true, and your opinion which is a competing and contradictory point of view is true, where does that leave us?

    The reason I asked what is your point and alluded to a brain with only so much cognitive resource and ability to conceptualize in a non-quantum way, is because my first reaction to your post was how do we reconcile everyone having a correct opinion?

    Like I mentioned above, I feel like this all goes back to not having a clear mission. In 2021 we have no shared sense or understanding of what we are even supposed to be doing here in the USA and as a government. It was easier to hold together a nation of people who had champions and representatives with power before literally everyone was given a voice and opinion thanks to technology. The mirror that is this nebulous idea of utilitarian good and right and a government is an ethical and moral machine to see rules are put in place to advance the causes of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been shattered into a million little pieces. That's my thesis, at least.

    Neither are true. Your assertion that morality is only found at the extremes of the spectrum is not true. The counterargument I was suggesting you explore is not itself true. The latter was only meant to reveal a flaw in the former, and there will be further flaws in that counterargument that additional scrutiny would reveal.

    Your worldview includes your belief that politicians in the middle of our left/right political spectrum are motivated by the pursuit of power -- because if they weren't, you seemed to argue, they'd hold one of the more ideological positions that is found on the extremes. That belief can be easily refuted. A politician who is driven to make maximum progress toward their ideal can easily justify a steadfast commitment to the middle: progress can only be made at the negotiating table, after all.

    I don't want to come across like a condescending prick, and I'm trying to avoid sermonizing you. However, the opinions you're espousing simply haven't been tempered by even minimal critical thinking. You can clearly apply critical thinking towards the opinions of others, so why not apply it towards your own?

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 2
  11. 1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    Okay. Beyond making my robot brain explode from the multitude of truths (and confirming the subjective nature of this all); what, I respectfully ask, is your point? 

    Because I think if you develop the habit of considering competing and contradictory points of view when you formulate opinions, you won't have to suffer from the limitations of a "robot brain" anymore.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. 5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    I get that people are crazy as shit.  Shit happens.

    What I don't get is why they're also so fucking mean.

    Be batshit if you want.  But don't be a fucking asshole.

    It all starts with the same script, IMO. "We, in the X community, are under attack from Y."

    "We, in the Christian community, are under attack from a radical transgender agenda."

  13. 8 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    I don't think I agree with you. The only people it seems to me that can lay a moral claim to anything beyond boring, petty, everyday self-centeredness and selfish ambition, are those on the extreme fringes. Are there exceptions? Sure, but I don't generally see them. It appears otherwise that politics is the mechanism for the transfer of power in order to use it for your own purposes, against the will of others.

    And even then, there is always an argument of egoism vs altruism and are people doing "good" for the sake of good or for selfish reasons?

    At the end of the day there is only one Good. We don't really know it. I certainly don't claim to be in perfect knowledge of it.

    Okay, now make the obvious counter-argument. Argue that the extremists are actually the most self centered politicians, because if they really believed in their vision of progress, they'd employ a pragmatic approach designed to cause the most amount of optimal change, rather one that only causes gridlock.

  14. 1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    Then, what is the counter? I'm not a political philosopher, but I think it's a valid point of view.

    I worry I'm going to sound like I'm saying something obvious, here, but what the hell. There are all sorts of types of people in this world. There are self centered narcissists/sociopaths, there are average blokes, and there are people who are deeply motivated to make the world better. A better point of view would involve understanding that there are vastly different temperaments, and they are represented quite differently in the ranks of the Republicans and Democrats.

    I think you're limited by a narrow perspective of politics as a never ending episode of Game of Thrones. Start seeing the differences in temperament, ethics, etc. that go far beyond ideology.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  15. 53 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Gonna disagree with your first sentence, because the worldview of the person in charge drives the "solutions" that they might consider.  The Texas GOP has steadfastly refused to implement any of the proposed fixes for years not because they aren't competent to come up with them (they were presented to them on a silver platter), but because that goes against their inviolable philosophy of "help industry, fuck the people."  When that is your foundational, inviolable law, then competence is irrelevant.

    The problem isn't that conservatives are incompetent (I mean, they are, but that's not the problem).  It's that they don't give 1/1,000,000th of a shit about you.

    I should have stated it better. I just meant that in any sufficiently complex system, good management is a prerequisite to good outcomes. Ideology alone contributes nothing towards success. Bad ideologies -- and this is where my statement was wrong -- absolutely cause failure. Trickle down economics combined with austerity cause failure. Soviet style communism causes failure. Etc.

    And in my experience sociopaths are typically terrible at the job of management, because they're lazy, useless fucks when there's nothing in it for them, and good management requires producing good outcomes for everybody. This is just conjecture on my part, but if I had to bet, I'd bet that the people responsible for fucking us over are also incapable of deploying and operating top tier infrastructure. Sure, many of them might be smart, but none of them are the kind of people that carry any burden of responsibility. None of them will lose sleep if there are important things that might get missed.

    Right now, in 2021, all of the truly competent people have long left the GOP. And I was making a point that only really makes sense in societies that aren't already reduced to only one major political party that isn't despicable -- in a functioning democracy, the quality of the people we elect matters more than their ideological affiliation.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  16. 2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    I think we all agree with the bolded. The position from some was that because of the politicians in charge, you aren't going to be able to get this, due to the politicians being largely unaccountable. That leads to a lot of folks moving to the conclusion that, well we just have the wrong politicians in charge. If it were the other guys, it would be fine. I was thinking of an alternative way to get the bolded through a whole different mechanism entirely. 

    And maybe the answer for you is to give the Democratic guys the opportunity to screw it up first before you completely change strategic directions and introduce a whole new process to getting this end result, which is consistent and fair if this is the only issue of import. My thinking is more in line with lets take this bolded task off the GOP's plate because they are obviously not capable in this respect.

    I'm getting a vibe from you that suggests you think our outcomes are mostly the result of the ideology of our elected officials. I think that's a really incomplete way to look at it (but apologies if I'm misreading your stance).

    Humans have the capability of deploying and operating reliable infrastructure. Whether any particular government can deploy and operate reliable infrastructure for its citizens has more to do with the caliber of people charged with overseeing and managing the operations. Texas could elect incompetent Democrats that tried but failed to improve our utilities infrastructure. Texas GOP could also take the stick out of their ass and try to improve our infrastructure as well, and perhaps they would succeed. But success or failure would have little to do with the ideologies of the people in charge, and more to do with their management capabilities, work ethic, temperament, etc.

    I'll take a conservative who knows what she is doing over a progressive who is inept any day of the week. At this point, though, I doubt I'll see a competent (R) running for office ever again.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. 14 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    Obviously not a complete apples to apples, but more in line with what I was thinking (but drilling down another level to the end customer instead of being abstracted at the muni layer).

    But again, I conceded the point and thought your input was great and made a strong case to table that idea. Do these additional posts help clarify the initial position? I forgot why we were still talking about it, to be honest.

    I'm not going to argue against private companies having a place in the utilities value stream. Rather, I'm arguing against the idea you put forth that we have to choose between needing to hold a government accountable versus holding large corporations accountable, or the idea that mobile apps fundamentally change the equation for what should be private vs. public. There's a hell of a lot of steps in between power generation and residential consumption. It's an oversimplification to suggest the whole system should be public or private (and we're not even talking about regulated vs. unregulated).

    I think my perspective here is probably consistent with most people's. I want utilities to be well managed with a level of service that befits a first world nation. I do not want to have to play games with apps to ensure I don't get a massive bill. I want it to be impossible for me to get a massive bill, unless I use a massive amount of energy.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  18. Just now, DonkeyCigars said:

    Maybe I have a wrong understanding as I haven't dug into the service, but isn't what you described exactly what Gritty is?

    Yeah I'm completely in the dark about Griddy (pun intended). It's pretty stupid, if that's what it is. If I wanted to actually make money trading energy, I'd buy/sell stocks, securities, commodities, etc.

    I have about as much interest in "managing" my electricity bill in real time as I do in putting a hole in my head.

    • Like 1
  19. 6 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    Let me clarify and sorry I missed it earlier.

    My only argument was that these advances in technology have a created a culture where end-users demand a more connected and transparent (and fast) experience. This would seemingly translate to it being better for people/end-users to put the market pressure on a multinational corp who vies to win the energy business, by having them provide these services (self-service portals, dynamic reporting, real-time support, real-time costs, build-your-own-plan transparencies of costs, etc.) versus only having the ability to vote (and zero transparency, ability to get support or accurate ETA's and information in a timely fashion, to say nothing of costs) as a cudgel to get something done. 

    And let me be clear-- I'm not married to that argument or being prescriptive of what it would take to fix this-- I was trying to unravel the thread and trying to logically follow with what information I had at the time. Your post was very informative, as a follow-on, and made sense as to why merely an advancing culture of consumer expectations is not a panacea for an argument of megacorps over government inefficiency, and I've conceded the point...much to Briskets chagrin as I think anytime I agree with something he might agree with, it makes him question his sanity because I'm an evil Republican.

    I'm not sure I see the incentive for anyone in the electricity or water supply chains to build, deploy, and maintain end user software that you describe. How many end users really want to add "managing my energy consumption in real time in order to keep from getting fucked on next month's bill" to their list of things they have to stay on top of in life? There's no value being created for the end user in this scenario, there is merely management responsibility being foisted upon them, with nothing to gain.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  20. 12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    He's a Republican.  He's being disingenous and creating a false dichotomy ("do what the Repubs want or you're a socialist commie!").  It's what they do.

    I can't figure out why he's arguing that recent advances in technology somehow tilt the scales in favor of multinational megacorps over government bureaucracy. It seems to be offered as something that is self-evident, but I just don't see it. It's as if he's saying, "because of the rise of mobile apps and factory automation, now we should favor unregulated privatization, because technology now allows customers to effectively regulate directly." But that's preposterous, so I'm left scratching my head.

    • Like 1
  21. 25 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    Agreed, apologies, let me restate. In 2021 when answering to the consumers demands/needs-- and with speed, transparency and in a "connected" experience e.g. highly available, mobile/digital apps, etc.-- it seems having a large organization whose shareholders' bread is buttered by us, the end user, is preferable to having politicians of any stripe or team whose only interest is in serving a few specialist lobbyists/organizations.

    I can't figure out the connection between the technologies you're describing and the two outcomes you're choosing from.

  22. 3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    In the modern era, digital age, Industrial revolution 4.0 I would argue, if you are correct about the above, that having a large multinational corp. control and run the power grid because answering to end customers trumps answering to a few specialist politicians, right?

    This is a difficult sentence to parse.

×
×
  • Create New...