Jump to content

Honestly, who really gives a damn about Afghanistan?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Afghanistan Was a no win from the start but no POTUS wanted to be "the one" to pull out as evidenced by the backlash from all sides of the media for various reasons. I personally think because Joe kno

IMHO, the entire force was already Taliban, just waiting for the dude in the palace to change over. 

Posted Images

7 hours ago, Burning Man said:

In all honesty, it's the SJW's in your wing that hold the D's back from greatness.  Sure, there's social justice.  We can pretty much all agree on that.  But then there's SOCIAL JUSTICE (GODDAMMIT!) for the sake of fucking SJ.   And y'all ram, cram, jam and slam that shit down everyone's throats 24/7/365.  Folks get as sick of that shit as much as we do Tom and OTP's dogballs.  Gotta know when to dial back a bit and let things be.  You can't win every battle.  Fight the battles that get you to ending the war.  But for the baby jesus's sake, don't go and die in every ditch you come across.

Just saying.

I don't see protesting the Texas anti-abortion law as SOCIAL JUSTICE (GODDAMMIT!) for the sake of fucking SJ. I don't see protesting their attack on voting rights as said same. Marc Benioff (Larry E's BFF) was a Steve Forbes Republican and now he's writing checks to move people out of Texas.

I don't see the BLM movement protesting a cop putting his knee on a guy's throat and choking him out as cramming that shit down people's throats.

Seriously, RWNJs just elected the most RWNJ ever (well, you bravely sat that one out) and you're asking us to dial it back?

You may want to re-think that. You have it good. We don't want to take that away. We just want to increase the franchise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

I don't see protesting the Texas anti-abortion law as SOCIAL JUSTICE (GODDAMMIT!) for the sake of fucking SJ. I don't see protesting their attack on voting rights as said same. Marc Benioff (Larry E's BFF) was a Steve Forbes Republican and now he's writing checks to move people out of Texas.

I don't see the BLM movement protesting a cop putting his knee on a guy's throat and choking him out as cramming that shit down people's throats.

Seriously, RWNJs just elected the most RWNJ ever (well, you bravely sat that one out) and you're asking us to dial it back?

You may want to re-think that.

It's the goddam Democrats fault that real honest hard-working Americans hate-hate-hate them.

It's woven into the inner core of RWNJ narrative to blame the victim.

How fucked in the head do you have to be to accept "progressive" as a dirty word, an insult?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Blue Crab is just so offended that anyone would have the audacity to mourn for Chileans.  

BC's thinking is a great example of the poison of nationalist views. 

Here is Stephen Zunes (he is a heavy hitter academic; I am not) on what happened to rational thought in the US after 9/11. 

It is similar to the abuse seen in this thread - just lucky for me I no longer have a job that y'all can threaten. 

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/09/11/many-americans-refused-consider-why-911-happened-costs-were-enormous

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Easy one: You have to a member of the Regressive Left.

Regressive Left | Know Your Meme

I'm not sure that even the Shining Path terrorists were far enough left to think "progressive" as an insult. Splitters, maybe.

Once you get into the mindset that "everybody either agrees with me 110% or they are my avowed enemy" then almost everybody becomes an enemy and their name becomes an insult. That attitude is popping up more commonly along the whole scale including the middle FFS.

But it becomes more universal the further right you move along that scale.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm not sure that even the Shining Path terrorists were far enough left to think "progressive" as an insult. Splitters, maybe.

Once you get into the mindset that "everybody either agrees with me 110% or they are my avowed enemy" then almost everybody becomes an enemy and their name becomes an insult. That attitude is popping up more commonly along the whole scale including the middle FFS.

But it becomes more universal the further right you move along that scale.

- DSK

Nope, and I offer AJ as a counter-example to that.

More correctly, it becomes more universal the further you move from the middle in EITHER direction.

Come on, Doug, the shit-fights on the Left about who's 'pure' enough are legendary.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I don't see protesting the Texas anti-abortion law as SOCIAL JUSTICE (GODDAMMIT!) for the sake of fucking SJ. I don't see protesting their attack on voting rights as said same. Marc Benioff (Larry E's BFF) was a Steve Forbes Republican and now he's writing checks to move people out of Texas.

I don't see the BLM movement protesting a cop putting his knee on a guy's throat and choking him out as cramming that shit down people's throats.

Seriously, RWNJs just elected the most RWNJ ever (well, you bravely sat that one out) and you're asking us to dial it back?

You may want to re-think that. You have it good. We don't want to take that away. We just want to increase the franchise.

Neither one of the examples above are what I was talking about.  Both of those issues have wide support and empathy from across the D party as well as most independants and quite a few R's who are appalled at both of those things happening.  Try again.  Because I know you know what I'm talking about.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
9 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I don't see protesting the Texas anti-abortion law as SOCIAL JUSTICE (GODDAMMIT!) for the sake of fucking SJ. I don't see protesting their attack on voting rights as said same. Marc Benioff (Larry E's BFF) was a Steve Forbes Republican and now he's writing checks to move people out of Texas.

I don't see the BLM movement protesting a cop putting his knee on a guy's throat and choking him out as cramming that shit down people's throats.

Seriously, RWNJs just elected the most RWNJ ever (well, you bravely sat that one out) and you're asking us to dial it back?

You may want to re-think that. You have it good. We don't want to take that away. We just want to increase the franchise.

Expand  

Expand  

Neither one of the examples above are what I was talking about.  Both of those issues have wide support and empathy from across the D party as well as most independants and quite a few R's who are appalled at both of those things happening.  Try again.  Because I know you know what I'm talking about.  

This probably explains it far better than I can, or care to.

https://observer.com/2016/02/the-totalitarian-doctrine-of-social-justice-warriors/

The entire article is spot on, but the snip below sums it up nicely.

Quote

 

Unfortunately, Mr. Rosa’s other examples of “social justice” in action—the feminist revival, the new visibility of transgender issues and opposition to “Islamophobia”—are squarely in train-wreck territory. Not that there’s anything wrong with the principles: Most Americans support gender equality, believe transgender people should be able to live as they wish and reject anti-Muslim hate. But social justice warriors have turned these causes into malignant self-parody. Their feminism frets over men sitting with their legs apart on public transit, seeks dissent-free “safe spaces” and cries oppression at concern about obesity’s health risks. Their transgender advocacy demands respect for customized gender identities with personal pronouns that may change on a whim and crucifies a devoutly progressive filmmaker for a “transphobic” joke that presumes that female characters are anatomically female. Their anti-Islamophobia trashes feminist critics of conservative Islamism and victim-blames journalists murdered for publishing Mohammed cartoons.

Have the social justice warriors of 2015 supported some worthy causes? Sure. But much of their passion goes into speech and culture policing directed at victimless crimes that violate their moral taboos.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

This probably explains it far better than I can, or care to.

https://observer.com/2016/02/the-totalitarian-doctrine-of-social-justice-warriors/

The entire article is spot on, but the snip below sums it up nicely.

But of course, Major Tom, written by an editor for Reason. Speech codes are all we ever think about. It's what we live for.

image.png.a7eb46c32203a5f61663950fb9d24fde.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm driving down Webster in Chinatown with one of my nieces and we pass The Bank of the Orient and she explodes about the term Orient. I'm a little confused, although nieces of this age are highly volatile, but then I recall that Asians supposedly don't particularly like the term Orient these days and prefer Asia. I tend to use Asia myself but without any thought. It's just the common term so I use it.

My go along, get along counterargument though was that this bank is in Chinatown. It's their bank. It's their deal. But the battle lines were drawn. My niece BTW is pretty damned fluent in Mandarin, courtesy of that terrible San Francisco school system. Her accent is scary good.

The next night we have to go to a dinner with some UCSF profs and the conversation continues. But in the meantime I've looked up Orient and Asia. They're the same word except that Orient is derived from the Latin Oriens and Asia is derived from the Greek Ἀσία. That's it. There's your controversy.

We argue about this and other things. Shots are not fired. I can speech code with the best of them and some of the speech code ideas are really good like singular they which is even accepted by the Chicago Manual of Style now.

By comparison, I read Secrets of Sand Hill Road by Scott Kupor. He's a raging Republican. But he has daughters and so he wrote the whole damn book with she/her. It was freaking annoying.

Life goes on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

This probably explains it far better than I can, or care to.

https://observer.com/2016/02/the-totalitarian-doctrine-of-social-justice-warriors/

The entire article is spot on, but the snip below sums it up nicely.

But of course, Major Tom, written by an editor for Reason. Speech codes are all we ever think about. It's what we live for.

 

Funny thing, there is a lot more volume of media produced by RWNJ outrage about the outrageous Far Left Loony Militant Gay Punk Vegan Goths On Your Lawn than the actual number of militant leftist -any-thing. It's a pretense, a fakery. Outraged over something that almost doesn't exist.

One of my wife's best friends ran an "alternate" newpaper in a university town, it was pretty tame and I remember her complaining about how difficult it was to recruit journos/writers.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Funny thing, there is a lot more volume of media produced by RWNJ outrage about the outrageous Far Left Loony Militant Gay Punk Vegan Goths On Your Lawn than the actual number of militant leftist -any-thing. It's a pretense, a fakery. Outraged over something that almost doesn't exist.

One of my wife's best friends ran an "alternate" newpaper in a university town, it was pretty tame and I remember her complaining about how difficult it was to recruit journos/writers.

- DSK

The Onion started small.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

So I'm driving down Webster in Chinatown with one of my nieces and we pass The Bank of the Orient and she explodes about the term Orient. I'm a little confused, although nieces of this age are highly volatile, but then I recall that Asians supposedly don't particularly like the term Orient these days and prefer Asia. I tend to use Asia myself but without any thought. It's just the common term so I use it.

My go along, get along counterargument though was that this bank is in Chinatown. It's their bank. It's their deal. But the battle lines were drawn. My niece BTW is pretty damned fluent in Mandarin, courtesy of that terrible San Francisco school system. Her accent is scary good.

The next night we have to go to a dinner with some UCSF profs and the conversation continues. But in the meantime I've looked up Orient and Asia. They're the same word except that Orient is derived from the Latin Oriens and Asia is derived from the Greek Ἀσία. That's it. There's your controversy.

We argue about this and other things. Shots are not fired. I can speech code with the best of them and some of the speech code ideas are really good like singular they which is even accepted by the Chicago Manual of Style now.

By comparison, I read Secrets of Sand Hill Road by Scott Kupor. He's a raging Republican. But he has daughters and so he wrote the whole damn book with she/her. It was freaking annoying.

Life goes on.

I would think the term "chinatown" would be far more offensive to SJWs than orient.  Shrug.

I think a better summary of my point about this is SJWs need to pick their battles, lest they actually make the situation worse for their cause du jour.  You can't fight ALL battles all at once.  It's not possible and it leads to fatigue towards the politically correct, speech police triggered BS.  It leads to backlash and a diminution of your overall cause.  

BLM is a worthy cause.  Abortion rights in TX and the greater US is a worthy cause.  Global Warming is a worthy cause.  Making a big fucking hairy deal over whether someone not into the nuances and intricacies and daily changes of the trans movement uses the correct fucking pronouns is NOT a worthy cause.  Needing your safe space or being triggered over the smallest BS thing is NOT a worthy cause.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, I don't know if you know anything about the military. Myself, I only had a hand-me-down GI Joe when I was a kid. Or maybe I stole it. Hell, I can't remember. Anyways, the Google tells me that the military is very big on the speech codes. It's almost as if they invented them. Everyone dresses alike and then you have to call them all different names. I know, weird. Call the wrong dude or dudette the wrong honorific and there's probably gonna be some paperwork. Yo, Angus will not do. You have to address her as Colonel Angus, Mam.

So if you haven't been in the military, and I'm beginning to suspect you haven't, then like I totally get your point about speech codes and social justice warriors. For us civilians, it's really strange. And what's with the warriors thing anyway? Were they in the military?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Jeff, I don't know if you know anything about the military. Myself, I only had a hand-me-down GI Joe when I was a kid. Or maybe I stole it. Hell, I can't remember. Anyways, the Google tells me that the military is very big on the speech codes. It's almost as if they invented them. Everyone dresses alike and then you have to call them all different names. I know, weird. Call the wrong dude or dudette the wrong honorific and there's probably gonna be some paperwork. Yo, Angus will not do. You have to address her as Colonel Angus, Mam.

So if you haven't been in the military, and I'm beginning to suspect you haven't, then like I totally get your point about speech codes and social justice warriors. For us civilians, it's really strange. And what's with the warriors thing anyway? Were they in the military?

TFG loves warriors. Probably saw a lot of gladiator movies as a kid, since he smelled funny and walked around with his hands down his pants so nobody wanted to be near him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Making a big fucking hairy deal over whether someone not into the nuances and intricacies and daily changes of the trans movement uses the correct fucking pronouns is NOT a worthy cause. 

I am fine with someone being a he or she as they desire. When they get into words made up the day before and get irate if you don't already know them is iffy and being called "they/them/we" is a bridge too far. Unless you have a mouse in your pocket or are suffering multiple personality disorder, you are not more than one person :rolleyes:

* MPD lady in my hood growing up had personalities that hated each other and would stand in her front yard and cuss herself out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Jeff, I don't know if you know anything about the military. Myself, I only had a hand-me-down GI Joe when I was a kid. Or maybe I stole it. Hell, I can't remember. Anyways, the Google tells me that the military is very big on the speech codes. It's almost as if they invented them. Everyone dresses alike and then you have to call them all different names. I know, weird. Call the wrong dude or dudette the wrong honorific and there's probably gonna be some paperwork. Yo, Angus will not do. You have to address her as Colonel Angus, Mam.

So if you haven't been in the military, and I'm beginning to suspect you haven't, then like I totally get your point about speech codes and social justice warriors. For us civilians, it's really strange. And what's with the warriors thing anyway? Were they in the military?

Yawn. Another one who doesn’t get it. See KIS’s reply. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Yawn. Another one who doesn’t get it. 

Jeff, I think I demonstrated some fluency in both sides of the argument about Orient vs Asia. Then you pulled a Tom and just quoted a Reason writer. Maybe if you could explain in your own words your problem with these deeply offensive speech codes, you could demonstrate what this it that I'm clearly not getting is.

Use your words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Jeff, I think I demonstrated some fluency in both sides of the argument about Orient vs Asia. Then you pulled a Tom and just quoted a Reason writer. Maybe if you could explain in your own words your problem with these deeply offensive speech codes, you could demonstrate what this it that I'm clearly not getting is.

Use your words.

I know someone who insists on using plural pronouns. It is amazingly annoying. "We are coming to the meeting now" "Well YOU are coming, did you kidnap someone and stuff them in your briefcase on the way over"

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I know someone who insists on using plural pronouns. It is amazingly annoying. "We are coming to the meeting now" "Well YOU are coming, did you kidnap someone and stuff them in your briefcase on the way over"

It depends on whether you like or appreciate that person. There was a teacher for one of the fam. Mx. Whatever. They were a breakthrough teacher. As far as I was concerned, they walked on water.

Some of this is generational. Earlier generations clearly didn't get this.

BTW, I'm a huge fan of singular they because I remember really disliking second person him (or worse, her). Maybe that's why I don't have a problem with Mx. they we. But I'm human. If someone is annoying, they're annoying and I have a short fuse for annoying.

Anyways, Jeff has this major problem with us liberals and this apparently is it. So I can imagine Jeff meeting some ultra precious trans and then the two pair annihilating. Maybe the world would be a better place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

It depends on whether you like or appreciate that person. There was a teacher for one of the fam. Mx. Whatever. They were a breakthrough teacher. As far as I was concerned, they walked on water.

Some of this is generational. Earlier generations clearly didn't get this.

BTW, I'm a huge fan of singular they because I remember really disliking second person him (or worse, her). Maybe that's why I don't have a problem with Mx. they we. But I'm human. If someone is annoying, they're annoying and I have a short fuse for annoying.

Anyways, Jeff has this major problem with us liberals and this apparently is it. So I can imagine Jeff meeting some ultra precious trans and then the two pair annihilating. Maybe the world would be a better place.

Jeff has a point - some liberals/leftists/progressives/whatever do an EXCELLENT* job of repelling people who would otherwise gladly hop on the left side of the dividing line. If Michael wants to wear a dress and be called Michelle on Wednesdays and Fridays, then I can roll with it. I really don't care. Not even a little. Be who you want to be.

That said, you are still ONE person. Unless you have a severe mental illness going on, you are not a THEY.

* See AJ, you either indulge in Maoist self-criticism of the horrible history of the horrible USA that you personally are responsible for or you are a Nazi. There are no other choices but those two. I had to block him or run out and register myself as a Republican :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

"We are coming to the meeting now"

This person is an idiot, a precious idiot. Any normal person would say I am coming to the meeting now. I've never heard we used for first person singular and I'm decently fluent in this stuff. Still, I can imagine some super precious idiot would do this. I'd either roll my eyes or correct them depending on the situation. Hell, I might even y'all them.

But this extreme case of stupidity has nothing to do with liberalism. There was a case of a man getting fired in Wisconsin for refusing to get fingerprinted. Wisconsin is an at-will state. Still, he sued claiming it violated his Christian religious faith and got $65,000. That had nothing to do with religion, conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism or any other ism. It had to do with a court case.

Great cases make bad law and annoying people make bad politics. If Jeff doesn't like us disgusting liberals because some idiot wants to say we, well then, that there sounds like a deeply considered opinion. I'll note with derision that that's coming from the magazine vs clip crowd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

This person is an idiot, a precious idiot. Any normal person would say I am coming to the meeting now. I've never heard we used for first person singular and I'm decently fluent in this stuff. ....

There's the Nurse's "We" ... it means "you"

Then there's the far less common Royal "We" ... which means the king (or queen), spoken by the king (or queen). And btw a constitutional monarch does not decide which they want to be. Parliament decides for them.

 

40 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

...

But this extreme case of stupidity has nothing to do with liberalism. There was a case of a man getting fired in Wisconsin for refusing to get fingerprinted. Wisconsin is an at-will state. Still, he sued claiming it violated his Christian religious faith and got $65,000. That had nothing to do with religion, conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism or any other ism. It had to do with a court case.

...

And a stupid one, IMHO. It may be that buried in this case somewhere, there is a reason why the employer was unfair in wanting this particular employee fingerprinted. But it seems to me that being in a profession dealing with large amounts of personal debt, having confirmed ID and security is a good idea. Hell, we fingerprint applicants to be sailing coaches. Don't wanna get fingerprinted? Fine, don't... but you can't chase kids around in boats (or a large number of other high security jobs including having a pilot's license BTW).

But I'm sure that Jeffbo and his fellow RWNJs will brush it off. They are completely convinced that the LGBTQ Army is coming to take away their gunz, or something.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

There's the Nurse's "We" ... it means "you"

Then there's the far less common Royal "We" ... which means the king (or queen), spoken by the king (or queen). And btw a constitutional monarch does not decide which they want to be. Parliament decides for them.

I like your examples. I'd call nurse's we idiomatic but that's a guess. I wonder if there's anything similar in other languages.

Royal we is getting closer to this preciousness, or at least as I see it. I think they take their non-binaryness a little too preciously and promote their I to a we, which is not so different from the preciousness of royal we.

BTW, I just looked. This is a LOT more complex than I thought it was, AND the site I looked at DIDN'T even cover first person singular pronoun. However, I did learn a new word, epicene, having characteristics of both sexes or no characteristics of either sex; of indeterminate sex. Singular they is an epicene pronoun. Plural they is as well.

I've said my piece, hopefully clearly. But I have a question for @Burning Man. I really like singular they (and I think singular we is stupid). That means that when I'm referring to someone and I don't know their gender and it doesn't matter, I say they. In olden times, I was taught to say he. What sez you, about writing/talking today, going forward? What would you write? He or they.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

There was a case of a man getting fired in Wisconsin for refusing to get fingerprinted. Wisconsin is an at-will state. Still, he sued claiming it violated his Christian religious faith and got $65,000. That had nothing to do with religion, conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism or any other ism. It had to do with a court case.

Great  "Hard cases make bad law" and annoying people make bad politics

Paul Harvey here with the rest of the story: This was a FEDERAL CASE in MN brought by the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So, in this corner we have a chickenshit little bill collector in Minneapolis

vs

THE UNITED STATES GOVT 

  • Referee: "Honorable"  U.S. District Judge Eric C. Tostrud.
  • The C is for "Christian" ... I fuketh around not
  • Tostrud went to college at St Olaf's which is not an elite football school but whose mission is “To be nourished by Lutheran tradition.” All these commitments are reinforced by a Lutheran understanding that God’s love calls us to meet the world in generosity and service. "
  • Tosrud was appointed by one DJ Trump in like 2018
  • Tosrud was an all star collegiate golfer.

So, I'm guessing that facing an appeal in Fed Court ... the ridiculous judgement of $65K starts to look like the cheapest way out. 

Decision: RWNJ Christianity under cloak of separation of Church and State stomps reasonable rule by private company. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's weird, I seriously dislike the nurse's we when used by waitstaff. "How are we doing?" puzzles me. I'm trying to enjoy my wine, and the asker is working. There is no we here. I think it would puzzle me coming from a nurse too. 

I understand the singular they just fine, but my brain is seemingly hard-wired to interpret it as plural. Always takes a sec to figure out the singular. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know what you mean. Ungendered him doesn’t bother me when I hear it but bugs me no end when I read it. It’s what we’re used to, I suppose. I don’t think anyone should go to jail for this stuff. I think language will evolve organically. Some languages like Finnish don’t even have gendered pronouns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as to the OP . . . 

Our local nationalists have trouble facing the fact that they got Afghanistan and Iraq completely and totally wrong. 

They drank of the Neo-con preposterous lies. 

So what do they do ??

Face up to their grievous mistakes, or lash out at those of us who got it right ?? 

You know the answer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gptyk said:

It's weird, I seriously dislike the nurse's we when used by waitstaff. "How are we doing?" puzzles me. I'm trying to enjoy my wine, and the asker is working. There is no we here. I think it would puzzle me coming from a nurse too. 

I understand the singular they just fine, but my brain is seemingly hard-wired to interpret it as plural. Always takes a sec to figure out the singular. 

When I was a toddler in the hospital the nurse would come in and say "Time for our shot" and I would be a smartass 4 year-old and ask if it was OUR shot, when was my turn to give her one.

OTOH I and pretty much everyone use the Lindberghian "we", we are out of 9,000 for 11,000, we are turning to 180, we have traffic in sight, we didn't mean to buzz the tower and we'll pay for a new antenna, etc. etc. It is always at least two of you, you and the airplane ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Jeff, I think I demonstrated some fluency in both sides of the argument about Orient vs Asia. Then you pulled a Tom and just quoted a Reason writer. Maybe if you could explain in your own words your problem with these deeply offensive speech codes, you could demonstrate what this it that I'm clearly not getting is.

Use your words.

I did use my words.  And when it wasn't enough for you, I gave you someone's words that articulated it even better than I did.  My thoughts on this were formed LONG before some "Reason" writer said them.  I didn't get it from her or anyone else.  It was the first google search item I ran across yesterday. 

If you insist on an ad hominem attack rather than what is actually said, knock yourself out.  But the article came from the Observer who it rated as Center biased, as in neutral.  I doubt they would publish an article from someone if the editors thought it was too far out there.

in any event, And then I further used my own words to dumb it down for you even more since you still don't seem to get it.  If your not willing to take a swig of that sweet sweet water, I've led you to - There is nothing more I can do for you.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Anyways, Jeff has this major problem with us liberals and this apparently is it. So I can imagine Jeff meeting some ultra precious trans and then the two pair annihilating. Maybe the world would be a better place.

This is not ALL what I have a problem with the more liberal wing of OUR party.  It was but one easy example to use to make my point.   There are ditches to die in / swords to fall on (Fill in whatever other cliche you want) and there are others that are not.  Some fucking precious tranny boy / confused girl and similar shit like safe spaces, being triggered, and all the rest of the superfluous crap are not the battles we should be spending precious and scarce political capital on while bigger fights get left unfought.  Someone with some balls in the D party should tell them to sit the fuck down, STFU and wait your turn.  And it ain't your turn yet.  Because like it or not, you NEED independent and Right of center support for the bulk of the agenda.  But shit like this derails the conversation everytime.  The D's are so fucking afraid of their shadows sometimes and are so afraid to alienate even one butch dyke or one precious snowflake out there like your niece, that they let the minority of the minority in the party drive the agenda.  Its no different than "Defund" the Po-LEECE derailed much of the needed LE reform to get run over by an small but loud angry mob.  The D's are our own worst enemy.  

Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olsonist said:

This person is an idiot, a precious idiot. Any normal person would say I am coming to the meeting now. I've never heard we used for first person singular and I'm decently fluent in this stuff. Still, I can imagine some super precious idiot would do this. I'd either roll my eyes or correct them depending on the situation. Hell, I might even y'all them.

But this extreme case of stupidity has nothing to do with liberalism. There was a case of a man getting fired in Wisconsin for refusing to get fingerprinted. Wisconsin is an at-will state. Still, he sued claiming it violated his Christian religious faith and got $65,000. That had nothing to do with religion, conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism or any other ism. It had to do with a court case.

Great cases make bad law and annoying people make bad politics. If Jeff doesn't like us disgusting liberals because some idiot wants to say we, well then, that there sounds like a deeply considered opinion. I'll note with derision that that's coming from the magazine vs clip crowd.

But it already goes FAR beyond just a few idiots.  People in workspaces are getting shamed for not using it all correctly.  There are now guides out on how to use the correct pronouns.  I believe it is now being taught in some (and growing) diversity & inclusion training classes.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Bitch, please.

image.png.ccadc227e20d08cced2d8745f8deed70.png

This is Cathy Young in 2016 saying in as many words to hold your nose and vote for Shitstain.

https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/07/electing-donald-trump-make-political-correctness-worse/

And I'm already on record that some of this stuff is overboard, but I'm a little more fluent in it. I did have a question for you above. I'll repeat it again.

I've said my piece, hopefully clearly. But I have a question for @Burning Man. I really like singular they (and I think singular we is stupid). That means that when I'm referring to someone and I don't know their gender and it doesn't matter, I say they. In olden times, I was taught to say he. What sez you, about writing/talking today, going forward? What would you write? Would you write he or they in a situation where you didn't know the gender? There is no right answer. I'm just curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

And I'm already on record that some of this stuff is overboard, but I'm a little more fluent in it. I did have a question for you above. I'll repeat it again.

I've said my piece, hopefully clearly. But I have a question for @Burning Man. I really like singular they (and I think singular we is stupid). That means that when I'm referring to someone and I don't know their gender and it doesn't matter, I say they. In olden times, I was taught to say he. What sez you, about writing/talking today, going forward? What would you write? Would you write he or they in a situation where you didn't know the gender? There is no right answer. I'm just curious.

You're focused on the pronoun thing.  I am on record as saying that is a part of it.  On it's own, no big deal.  When combined with all the other SJW BS they think up, it hurts the party's agenda and pushes people away.  Clear enough?

It.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

 

What would you write? Would you write he or they in a situation where you didn't know the gender? There is no right answer. I'm just curious.

They stole my airplane and flew the plane into a tree.

They stole my car.

They stole my underwear

In all cases the cops are looking for a gang, not ONE person of unknown gender.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gender Dysphoria?  Balls!  

Feeling unease if you're a woman trapped in a dude's body?  Go get the jangly bits chopped off.  Stop being such a pussy and get off the fence.  Pick a side, any side......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think I could care much less about anything than  Afghanistan but oh! how very wrong I was. When it comes to transplaining, I have reached near-nadir levels of Don'tCare. 

This is for citified sissified young people who mistakenly think anyone cares. Take it to Metrosex Anarchy! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gptyk said:

It's weird, I seriously dislike the nurse's we when used by waitstaff. "How are we doing?" puzzles me. I'm trying to enjoy my wine, and the asker is working. There is no we here. I think it would puzzle me coming from a nurse too. 

I usually respond by saying..... "WE (my wife and I) are doing great, how about you?"  Of course I do it in a joking way so they don't go and spit into my lobster bisque.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

When I was a toddler in the hospital the nurse would come in and say "Time for our shot" and I would be a smartass 4 year-old and ask if it was OUR shot, when was my turn to give her one.

OTOH I and pretty much everyone use the Lindberghian "we", we are out of 9,000 for 11,000, we are turning to 180, we have traffic in sight, we didn't mean to buzz the tower and we'll pay for a new antenna, etc. etc. It is always at least two of you, you and the airplane ;)

Nah, it's just the airplane they care about.  Proper radio etiquette is:  69U is out of  9 for 11, 69U has the traffic in sight, 69U didn't mean to buzz the tower so you can send he, they, them the bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue Crab said:

And ... as night follows day: California is on the cusp of becoming the first state to outlaw “stealthing,” the depressingly common practice of removing a condom during sex without verbal consent. Mother Jones

Is that a 2-way offense?  Or just against the guys?  I had a "GF" a long time ago who tried to stealth on me once.  She reached down and slid it off when she was ostensibly trying to "help out: after an overshoot on an overly vigorous thrust.  I was like outloud:  "hey, something feels different down here.  WTF?  Turns out she was looking for a meal ticket.  

BTW - I had never heard it called Stealthing until the thread.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

They are just flat-out evil - nearly all of them  . .  

all 50 Republican senators vote to curtail aid to Afghan evacuees who are granted parole to quickly enter the United States

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

They are just flat-out evil - nearly all of them  . .  

all 50 Republican senators vote to curtail aid to Afghan evacuees who are granted parole to quickly enter the United States

They know that their voters will swallow any lie, no matter how preposterous. And will support any illogical destructive acts, as long as it hurts Democrats.

Cruelty is the point.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

They know that their voters will swallow any lie, no matter how preposterous. And will support any illogical destructive acts, as long as it hurts Democrats.

Cruelty is the point.

- DSK

Apologies to Meli. Who knew half the population were dumbasses? I did not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

They know that their voters will swallow any lie, no matter how preposterous. And will support any illogical destructive acts, as long as it hurts Democrats.

Cruelty is the point.

- DSK

Not so sure that cruelty is the point but, from the perspective of the premillennialists controlling the R's, it's just a cruel God's judgement on the damned.  Who cares what happens to the Left Behind as long as you're ascending?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a parallel between Republicans being both anti-Biden withdrawal and anti-Afghan refugee, and Republicans also being both anti-abortion and anti-child. I fear that Tom will be along shortly with an explainer from Reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/2/2021 at 10:29 AM, Olsonist said:

I see a parallel between Republicans being both anti-Biden withdrawal and anti-Afghan refugee, and Republicans also being both anti-abortion and anti-child. I fear that Tom will be along shortly with an explainer from Reason.

Sorry for my tardiness. I got the wrong Afghanistan thread. Twice. And people wonder why I like to stick to one thread.

In any case, with the caveat that I'm twice as sorry as usual for repeating the Koch-$pon$ored Biden cheerleading,

 

On 10/4/2021 at 7:48 AM, Excoded Tom said:
On 5/27/2021 at 11:22 AM, Excoded Tom said:
On 8/19/2021 at 10:54 AM, Excoded Tom said:

Biden's Determined Humility Regarding Afghanistan Is What America Needs Right Now

Sorry as I'll ever be about the Koch-$pon$ored Biden cheerleading.

I misunderestimated Biden on this one badly. Lucky for me, no one else thought it likely he would follow through and bet me.

I figured he would face pressure like this and fold. The pressure came. He didn't fold.

I was only in for $20. In retrospect, I should have allowed Olsonist to bet. When I lost, offering to pay in Bitcoin would have been funny turnabout.

The Ed at Reason was apparently in for a lot more.


So what did they get wrong? Also would you have been happy to accept Bitcoin when I sprung that one on you after the fact?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

... so, "Honestly, who really gives a damn about Afghanistan?".

Maybe we should.

We meaning the nations that were involved in that idiotic war, and certainly those who blew the endgame. Again.

Facing Economic Collapse, Afghanistan Is Gripped by Starvation

An estimated 22.8 million people — more than half the country’s population — are expected to face potentially life-threatening food insecurity this winter. Many are already on the brink of catastrophe.

 

Source: NYT. Read on.

 

If that doesn't tick any boxes, some simple humanitarian help would come in handy, but please without having to fear the diplomatic wrath of the USA.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is how to get aid to the people who need it, without handing it over to the new warlords. The Taliban is perfectly happy to let Afghans starve if it means keeping their power.

Radio news program last week interviewed a bunch of people including the current director of a big medical charity organization in Kabul, a couple of Taliban "spokesmen," and a few people who were working in Afghanistan up until the US pullout this summer.

The Taliban blamed foreign governments, of course. The medical director said that he wanted access to Afghanistani funds that foreign gov'ts had frozen so that he could keep his hospitals (from the description, they're pretty rudimentary) open and also distribute food, which they are already doing to a small extent. The aid workers who were not currently in Afghanistan said that was probably the best solution but would also be likely to lead to the Taliban shutting it down so they could get control of the food.

During the Russian years, there were winters wherein the majority of Afghan children died. It seems likely that's about to happen again.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

During the Russian years, there were winters wherein the majority of Afghan children died. It seems likely that's about to happen again.

Maybe time for the United Nations to earn its keep. Without us. We've paid plenty already.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A Big, Dumb Machine
 

Quote

 

It is common to chalk up America's failures in Afghanistan to incompetence, ignorance, or stupidity. Yet The Afghanistan Papers, by The Washington Post's Craig Whitlock, shows an American government that, although it had no idea what it was doing when it came to building a democracy in Afghanistan, did an excellent job manipulating the public, avoiding any consequences for its failures, and protecting its bureaucratic and financial interests. The problem was a broken system, not a generalized incompetence.

...

Ultimate responsibility must start on top. No matter what he told himself, President George W. Bush acted as a man who simply didn't much care what happened to Afghanistan beyond how it influenced his political fortunes. One of Rumsfeld's memos notes that in October 2002, Bush was asked whether he'd like to meet with Gen. Dan McNeil. The president asked who that was, and Rumsfeld answered that he was the man leading the war in Afghanistan. Bush responded that he didn't need to see him. The president was presumably preoccupied with the Iraq war he would launch five months later. (That is, he was preoccupied with selling the war. He didn't really think much about what the U.S. would be doing in that country either.)

The bureaucracy beneath the president comes across as a big dumb machine that was unclear about what it ultimately wanted, and whose different limbs sometimes worked at cross purposes. Many parts of that machine were extremely aware of how hopeless the mission was. As Gen. McNeil said, "There was no campaign plan. It just wasn't there." The British general who headed NATO forces in the country from 2006 to 2007 similarly remarked that "there was no coherent long-term strategy." American military personnel would be sent to Afghanistan on more than one occasion over the two decades of conflict and, in Whitlock's words, "the war made less sense each time they went back."

To fight the Taliban, the U.S. empowered brutal warlords, who would often rape and terrorize the local populations. One of the most prominent of these, Abdul Rashid Dostum, was such a destructive force that one American diplomat offered to make him the executive producer of a movie just to get him out of the country. At the same time, the CIA was paying him $70,000 a month. Whitlock's account includes an endless number of similar stories, in which one part of the American government was doing things that completely negated the actions of others. Anand Gopal's No Good Men Among the Living documented this on the ground, showing how the same individual might be an ally to the CIA and an enemy to the military, and how ultimately this hurt the Afghan people more than anyone else.

...

Each part of the American war machine had its own mission, and was going to do what it did regardless of the facts on the ground. The DEA wanted to destroy opium, the human rights bureaucracy pushed women's rights, and the military wanted to keep the war going. Nobody was there to force these disparate parts to work towards a common goal in a way that made sense. Theoretically, the president should have done so, but the American system clearly rewards political competence more than it does the ability to build stable democracies on the other side of the world. Often extremely self-aware, American officials were not as stupid or incompetent as they were self-interested cogs in a system filled with misaligned incentives.

While this system has an almost unlimited capacity to excuse egregious corruption and incompetence, it comes down hard when its own interests are threatened. In May 2009, Gen. David McKiernan was fired as commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, a historically rare event for a leadership class that almost never faces real accountability. McKiernan's misstep was being too honest with the media—he had told them the war was stalemated. He was replaced by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who could be relied upon to issue optimistic predictions. The violence in Afghanistan got worse, and McChrystal is now a well-regarded author and corporate consultant.

The transition from Barack Obama to Donald Trump shows how flexible the Pentagon could be to keep the war going. When working for the former law professor, the generals used more rhetoric about human rights and became experts at manipulating statistics to show how they supposedly were making people's lives better. Under Trump, they realized that they could maintain his support for the war by talking of victory and killing bad guys. In both cases, the generals successfully resisted a president who was skeptical about their mission. The military seemed relatively indifferent to whether it was spending its time building girls' schools or undertaking a more expansive bombing campaign, as long as it could keep the war going. Joe Biden watched the generals box in Obama, and he came into the White House determined not to be similarly manipulated.

...

 

I don't think the "machine" headline fits all that well.

Actual broken machines don't conceal their failures so well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mid said:

to be fair they are just the latest in a long list .

It is a very human failing, the big jobs and money program needs to keep running, so you tell the bosses what they want to hear.

Same reason Chernobyl blew up, all kinds of safety studies and exercises the bosses back in Moscow wanted done were done "successfully", if by that you mean they got written up as working well instead of someone actually doing them. Eventually reality catches up.

I got the impression from some Vietnam era memoirs the troops eventually figured out they weren't there to win and weren't there to lose, they were there to just keep it going and going and ....................

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...