I didn't see the threads from earlier to which Eric was referring in his pinned post.
However I was surprised that the Master List of Offensive Items thread survived last week. Granted, that one didn't turn into a complete mess the way these threads tend to go.
Talking about whether or not the Betsy Ross flag is an offensive symbol now, and what is happening at the border was ok.
And I assume anything about specific political persons, or parties is off limits.
That leads me to my question posed in the title.
Where exactly is the line drawn?
And I think the onus is on the thread starter or the person who introduces the political topic (if it's not the thread starter). How can you ban someone for responding to a post that shouldn't have been there in the first place?
unless your pot is also blue.
Requesting More love, less hate
Any variety of gender
Any daytime talk show that is women lead.
Any cable news topic
Religion
Unemployed Actors with too much time in there hands
Feel free to add
Sometimes people just can't help themselves and it's possible that a thread about "Best Toasters" becomes a political warzone but that's not on the OP.
Anything racist. Warning:Could be anything
Anything woke. Warning: not sure what that means
BBI was at its best in the late 90s when it was anything goes. It was very bloody and dirty around here...just the way I liked it. It was very raw and unplugged. You really needed a spine and tough skin.
Alas, the spineless, thin-skinned, overly-sensitive crowd won.
Those are the posters who should be banned.
On that site - you name the topic, in 5 posts you will more often than not end up in a political bitchfest. Most recently, one for fireworks and another asking for recommendations for a company to repair a fence (I shit you not).
So although I am fine with a ban on politics, I think it's time for some next gen analytics to find the people who twist all conversations in that direction and have them meet the banhammer.
BBI was at its best in the late 90s when it was anything goes. It was very bloody and dirty around here...just the way I liked it. It was very raw and unplugged. You really needed a spine and tough skin.
Alas, the spineless, thin-skinned, overly-sensitive crowd won.
Those are the posters who should be banned.
bw, want an intelligent political discussion?
Go here - ( New Window )
And I think the onus is on the thread starter or the person who introduces the political topic (if it's not the thread starter). How can you ban someone for responding to a post that shouldn't have been there in the first place?
Edited for truth.
That's kind of a cop out. Works in some cases - I would expect even reasonable people to end up in hot water discussing things like abortion.
But dude - a guy asking for recommendations on who can come fix his fence went political in literally 20 minutes. Some people can't help themselves, and those folks need their keyboards revoked permanently.
In a nutshell, most current events are off limits unless they are apolitical. But BBI posters have a way of making even apolitical current events political.
I get the sense some are testing the moderators again. The ban hammer is coming. It would be a shame to lose someone for a year or more just two weeks from camp.
BBI was at its best in the late 90s when it was anything goes. It was very bloody and dirty around here...just the way I liked it. It was very raw and unplugged. You really needed a spine and tough skin.
Alas, the spineless, thin-skinned, overly-sensitive crowd won.
Those are the posters who should be banned.
The internets is made out of overly sensitive souls easily triggered by words on a screen. Pathetic hysteric souls.
sure, if you're emotionally immature.
Free-for-all discussions are no longer allowed without economic punishment.
There is absolutely no incentive anymore to allow discussions that many big tech and media companies consider hate speech. And I have everything to lose.
And as I've stated over and over, the wear-and-tear on the moderators dealing with that mess simply is not worth it either.
You want to discuss politics? There are thousands of sites out there.
Quote:
Not for stuff to get political. It's the world we live in, for better or worse.
That's kind of a cop out. Works in some cases - I would expect even reasonable people to end up in hot water discussing things like abortion.
But dude - a guy asking for recommendations on who can come fix his fence went political in literally 20 minutes. Some people can't help themselves, and those folks need their keyboards revoked permanently.
I didn't see that thread. That is weak.
BBI was at its best in the late 90s when it was anything goes. It was very bloody and dirty around here...just the way I liked it. It was very raw and unplugged. You really needed a spine and tough skin.
Alas, the spineless, thin-skinned, overly-sensitive crowd won.
Those are the posters who should be banned.
When you say “Alas, the spineless, thin-skinned, overly-sensitive crowd won.” You are really talking about society as a whole, not BBI, which needs to go with the flow to survive.
Free-for-all discussions are no longer allowed without economic punishment.
There is absolutely no incentive anymore to allow discussions that many big tech and media companies consider hate speech. And I have everything to lose.
And as I've stated over and over, the wear-and-tear on the moderators dealing with that mess simply is not worth it either.
You want to discuss politics? There are thousands of sites out there.
Generally speaking, I am not one to talk about politics on here. I come here for football... Politics is in fact a topic I generally avoid unless I know the other party very very well.
I was surprised that the List of Offensive Items survived and didn't result in bans. Admittedly, after it survived for a couple of days, I posted on there, just some statistics from the gov't, I didn't really engage. But given the warning today, it has me wondering...
This is getting silly.
Maybe he should be fined extra for the hassles created for the mods?
Nobody learns anything. Nobody changes his mind on anything. Most aren't nearly as informed as they fancy themselves to be. Many just regurgitate what they read/heard elsewhere, without even changing the easily detectable buzzwords.
What's there to miss?
adamg : 5:17 pm : link : reply
Fatman and others don't even realize that what they're posting is political. True believers don't realize that they're ideologues.
I posted about things that are deemed offensive in today's society. I talked about Kaepernick. Unless I'm mistaken and he's a political figure, how is discussing his references to a Colonial flag political?
It was a discussion on society's hair-trigger faux outrage to non-offensive symbols.
Now others on that thread made it political, but the thread started itself had no political references. No discussion of political figures or parties.
I've always provided refunds upon request.
Thank you for your reply, Eric.
BBI was at its best in the late 90s when it was anything goes. It was very bloody and dirty around here...just the way I liked it. It was very raw and unplugged. You really needed a spine and tough skin.
Alas, the spineless, thin-skinned, overly-sensitive crowd won.
Those are the posters who should be banned.
Discussion is one thing. People foaming at the mouth saying awful things to one another isn't discussion in my view. I don't understand the need for a topic to be bloody.
Take the Rapinoe thread. For the most part, I thought it was a great back and forth. My view point was different than UConns and Christians and a few others I can’t remmeber. It never got personal and it never got ugly. Just a back and forth that I actually enjoyed because even if I don’t agree with the opposite viewpoint, I enjoy learning from it.
But it takes a few posters to make it unbearable and that’s why Eric or another mod deletes than bans.
Free-for-all discussions are no longer allowed without economic punishment.
There is absolutely no incentive anymore to allow discussions that many big tech and media companies consider hate speech. And I have everything to lose.
And as I've stated over and over, the wear-and-tear on the moderators dealing with that mess simply is not worth it either.
You want to discuss politics? There are thousands of sites out there.
Fair enough. But here’s the problem for those “big tech and media companies” - they aren’t neutral. Many of them have declared which side of the aisle they roll with. So when they start regulating content, it’s abundantly clear - to me - they tend to eliminate content that doesn’t fit their view much more often that not...
A private 1-1 conversation between adults is still possible. For example, last election cycle, Eric and I had a few Private conversations. We are friends on polar opposite sides of the fence. Because we are adults, we are still friends.
I support his decision to keep it off the site. Sadly it’s necessary.
And BW is right, the late 90s WERE more interesting. There was still a measure of civility however.
As Dep and Fatman mentioned above, those two threads were about current events around patriotism and speech.
Fatman and I were getting at it, Dep and I were challenging each other. And even with a little heat, those exchanges stayed topical and not political. Hand to my heart I don't know Dep or FMiC's political views, and I guarantee they don't know mine.
There was no reason for them to *have* to get political. It's not impossible for adults to talk about current events without it getting political.
Same as it's possible to inject politics into nearly anything, it's possible not to.
And I think the onus is on the thread starter or the person who introduces the political topic (if it's not the thread starter). How can you ban someone for responding to a post that shouldn't have been there in the first place?
These are grown men.
If you run over somebody in your car ahould you not be responsible because they shouldn't have been in the road the first place?
As Dep and Fatman mentioned above, those two threads were about current events around patriotism and speech.
Fatman and I were getting at it, Dep and I were challenging each other. And even with a little heat, those exchanges stayed topical and not political. Hand to my heart I don't know Dep or FMiC's political views, and I guarantee they don't know mine.
There was no reason for them to *have* to get political. It's not impossible for adults to talk about current events without it getting political.
Same as it's possible to inject politics into nearly anything, it's possible not to.
That's an excellent summation.
we have to stop equating all discussions as being political, even when they don't venture into that territory
I don't particularly care what other people's politics are nor do I care about their religion and things like that.
Hell, I don't think I even align with any political party these days. I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I basically follow the Party of FatMan....
Quote:
It's absolutely possible to discuss current events without it being political.
As Dep and Fatman mentioned above, those two threads were about current events around patriotism and speech.
Fatman and I were getting at it, Dep and I were challenging each other. And even with a little heat, those exchanges stayed topical and not political. Hand to my heart I don't know Dep or FMiC's political views, and I guarantee they don't know mine.
There was no reason for them to *have* to get political. It's not impossible for adults to talk about current events without it getting political.
Same as it's possible to inject politics into nearly anything, it's possible not to.
That's an excellent summation.
we have to stop equating all discussions as being political, even when they don't venture into that territory
I don't particularly care what other people's politics are nor do I care about their religion and things like that.
Hell, I don't think I even align with any political party these days. I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I basically follow the Party of FatMan....
I'm contacting the mods!
Hell, I don't think I even align with any political party these days. I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.
That might make you a libertarian. Lot's of people take the same stance as you, including me. But on a practical basis, in this country, in these times, it's really an impossible position. The governmental costs of supporting social liberalism is so enormous that it can't co-exist with fiscal conservatism. Would you ever tell your representatives to vote against a program for the children, for women, for the poor or minorities because it's too expensive?
Hell, I don't think I even align with any political party these days. I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I basically follow the Party of FatMan....
I think I am right there with you FMiC except when the social/liberal side negatively impacts fiscal responsibility.
Examples..
Gay marriage? Sure, marry your goat if you want.
Free healthcare for all including illegals? No chance in hell.
I would fully fund planned parenthood. Will pay for your birth control pills and also your abortion.
You are an adult making an adult decision to have sex, an adult decision whether to use birth control AND a decision as to whether to have the baby if you get pregnant.
So, if you decide NOT to take advantage of the planned parenthood benefits, then you are raising the child on your own without government support. The gravy train will end. Having children will no longer be a money making proposition.
I would fully fund planned parenthood. Will pay for your birth control pills and also your abortion.
You are an adult making an adult decision to have sex, an adult decision whether to use birth control AND a decision as to whether to have the baby if you get pregnant.
So, if you decide NOT to take advantage of the planned parenthood benefits, then you are raising the child on your own without government support. The gravy train will end. Having children will no longer be a money making proposition.
I would fully fund planned parenthood. Will pay for your birth control pills and also your abortion.
You are an adult making an adult decision to have sex, an adult decision whether to use birth control AND a decision as to whether to have the baby if you get pregnant.
So, if you decide NOT to take advantage of the planned parenthood benefits, then you are raising the child on your own without government support. The gravy train will end. Having children will no longer be a money making proposition.
That is not a libertarian view. I won't comment any further since you are venturing into the exact area Eric asked everyone not to, but I don't think you have a solid grasp of libertarian and conservative.
At least this example is neither a libertarian or conservative view.
Exactly... You can't make money on kids... they are so damn expensive. Even their shotty work free labor is over priced in the end!
Quote:
Fatman and others don't even realize that what they're posting is political. True believers don't realize that they're ideologues
Name a single political thread I started.
Quote:
Fatman and others don't even realize that what they're posting is political. True believers don't realize that they're ideologues.
And I think the onus is on the thread starter or the person who introduces the political topic (if it's not the thread starter). How can you ban someone for responding to a post that shouldn't have been there in the first place?
These are grown men.
If you run over somebody in your car ahould you not be responsible because they shouldn't have been in the road the first place?
Horrible analogy.
Quote:
In comment 14496858 adamg said:
Quote:
Fatman and others don't even realize that what they're posting is political. True believers don't realize that they're ideologues
Name a single political thread I started.
Changing the emphasis to address something never asked is a good tactic. I admire that.
Not just that I've started political threads, but that I'm too ignorant to realize it!!
Quote:
Fatman and others don't even realize that what they're posting is political. True believers don't realize that they're ideologues.
And I think the onus is on the thread starter or the person who introduces the political topic (if it's not the thread starter). How can you ban someone for responding to a post that shouldn't have been there in the first place?
These are grown men.
If you run over somebody in your car ahould you not be responsible because they shouldn't have been in the road the first place?
And I think joeinpa has it about right.
Quote:
In comment 14496860 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
In comment 14496858 adamg said:
Quote:
Fatman and others don't even realize that what they're posting is political. True believers don't realize that they're ideologues
Name a single political thread I started.
Changing the emphasis to address something never asked is a good tactic. I admire that.
I won't deny that I have a different POV and to one of you that might be construed as "ideological". But, I've never initiated a political discussion on this site. So, the analogy doesn't hold.
The Constanza theory - "Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it"
Great, you've never started a thread, you've only injected political opinions into other people's threads. Bravo.
Quote:
I won't deny that I have a different POV and to one of you that might be construed as "ideological". But, I've never initiated a political discussion on this site. So, the analogy doesn't hold.
The Constanza theory - "Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it"
Great, you've never started a thread, you've only injected political opinions into other people's threads. Bravo.
I injected politics in a thread about a political protest. Ok. Keep on keeping on Greg. That UVA education certainly paid off.
You're right. I was "grieviously" offended. That's what happened.
Quote:
Hell, I don't think I even align with any political party these days. I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I basically follow the Party of FatMan....
I think I am right there with you FMiC except when the social/liberal side negatively impacts fiscal responsibility.
Examples..
Gay marriage? Sure, marry your goat if you want.
Free healthcare for all including illegals? No chance in hell.
If you are a fiscal conservative, you should realize the state should not recognize or oversee a non productive social arrangement like gay marriage. It's a sentimental issue appeal to emotionalism used buy our scum aggrandizing politicians and media.
Lol. Fatman on the other was not offended at all. The entire was not predicated on Fatman's delicate sensibilities.
Quote:
I think part of the problem is that
adamg : 5:17 pm : link : reply
Fatman and others don't even realize that what they're posting is political. True believers don't realize that they're ideologues.
I posted about things that are deemed offensive in today's society. I talked about Kaepernick. Unless I'm mistaken and he's a political figure, how is discussing his references to a Colonial flag political?
It was a discussion on society's hair-trigger faux outrage to non-offensive symbols.
Now others on that thread made it political, but the thread started itself had no political references. No discussion of political figures or parties.
Please don't get me wrong, I thought the thread was interesting and was glad to read it.
That said, Kaepernick has not been a football player for several years. At the same time he is a public figure, and has most certainly taken a public political stances, and represented a specific political ideology. It could easily be argued that at this point he is more a political figure than a football figure.
The "faux-outrage" is an interesting comment in and of itself. Outrage seems to be largely endemic to a particular political ideology. Expressing it as "faux-outrage" seems to be endemic to the opposite ideology. Thus raising the issue of outrage can be argued is raising a political topic, and calling it "faux" can be construed as taking a political stance opposing it.
I will grant that the exercise I just went through, is largely the same exercise that the specific political ideology goes through when they express outrage. I only do it to point out that, while I understand that you and possibly many others do not think that you were being political, those subjects can be a lightening rod for others. Which brings me full circle to the point of this thread. I am still not 100% clear on where the political line is drawn. I am perfectly happy to say that the Master List of Offensive Items thread is OK, but it pushes up against that line. As I said, I found it to be an interesting thread. I did not see the Rapinoe thread...
He is not calling for political action - he called for Nike to stop production of the footwear. Just like I wouldn't call wearing pig socks a political protest - but a social protest and a horrendous fashion choice.
There were others on that thread who took the political route. I will rarely get drawn into those discussions.
So the ban is better, I'd rather be ignorant and enjoy the posts of people who I might otherwise find pretty repugnant. Ignorance is bliss.
Is that political?
That's me when I find out the meat in my pho is tripe.
stupid menus with pictures only.
For most purposes, it refers to Social Media Warriors, of which I assume span the spectrum of beliefs.
But for arguments sake, I like pj's take better....
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
He is not calling for political action - he called for Nike to stop production of the footwear. Just like I wouldn't call wearing pig socks a political protest - but a social protest and a horrendous fashion choice.
There were others on that thread who took the political route. I will rarely get drawn into those discussions.
You're fighting an uphill battle... even Kaepernick doesn't know what he's protesting. Cops, racism, economic balkanization, America... take your pick.
If you are a fiscal conservative, you should realize the state should not recognize or oversee a non productive social arrangement like gay marriage. It's a sentimental issue appeal to emotionalism used buy our scum aggrandizing politicians and media.
"Recognizing it" has no fiscal impact. I never said they should oversee anything.
Politics like anything else should be a negotiation where both sides get walk away with something. Unfortunately, that is no longer acceptable. You have to completely win in politics and your opponent is not allowed to also be happy with the end result.
My planned parenthood proposal would appeal to both sides.
For most purposes, it refers to Social Media Warriors, of which I assume span the spectrum of beliefs.
But for arguments sake, I like pj's take better....
Look, I get it, I am not arguing one side or the other.
And adamg is exactly right, and I wasn't exactly stumbling onto it, it was my main point, even if I didn't state it succinctly. What is deemed political is likely to be in the eye of the beholder.
Quote:
In comment 14497408 adamg said:
Quote:
I won't deny that I have a different POV and to one of you that might be construed as "ideological". But, I've never initiated a political discussion on this site. So, the analogy doesn't hold.
The Constanza theory - "Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it"
Great, you've never started a thread, you've only injected political opinions into other people's threads. Bravo.
I injected politics in a thread about a political protest. Ok. Keep on keeping on Greg. That UVA education certainly paid off.
Posting in a thread is injecting a pov into the thread. A much less expensive degree than one from UVA would be needed to learn that.
Quote:
If you are a fiscal conservative, you should realize the state should not recognize or oversee a non productive social arrangement like gay marriage. It's a sentimental issue appeal to emotionalism used buy our scum aggrandizing politicians and media.
"Recognizing it" has no fiscal impact. I never said they should oversee anything.
Politics like anything else should be a negotiation where both sides get walk away with something. Unfortunately, that is no longer acceptable. You have to completely win in politics and your opponent is not allowed to also be happy with the end result.
My planned parenthood proposal would appeal to both sides.
I would appreciate no personal political ideologies, or policies in this thread. This is *NOT* a political thread, let's keep it that way.
Posting in a thread is injecting a pov into the thread. A much less expensive degree than one from UVA would be needed to learn that.
Bright guy. Obviously, any statement can be construed as a POV. The question is whether it's political or not. Dope.
Is that political?
That's me when I find out the meat in my pho is tripe.
stupid menus with pictures only.
you're a philistine. In Asian dishes tripe is delectable.
Quote:
Posting in a thread is injecting a pov into the thread. A much less expensive degree than one from UVA would be needed to learn that.
Bright guy. Obviously, any statement can be construed as a POV. The question is whether it's political or not. Dope.
You have injected your political pov into threads. You seem to simultaneously not recognize those posts as being political (and they are) while at the same time trying to believe that only posting within a conversation but not starting the conversation immunizes you from being political (it doesn't).
Quote:
Pho outrage?
Is that political?
That's me when I find out the meat in my pho is tripe.
stupid menus with pictures only.
you're a philistine. In Asian dishes tripe is delectable.
It is good, but I couldn't think of a meat I didn't like. lol. scrapple?
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
That's a crock. We've been fighting with one another since before we were even a country. The game hasn't changed, only the players and the equipment have.
Quote:
outrage isn't political nor does it lean to a certain political ideology.
For most purposes, it refers to Social Media Warriors, of which I assume span the spectrum of beliefs.
But for arguments sake, I like pj's take better....
Look, I get it, I am not arguing one side or the other.
And adamg is exactly right, and I wasn't exactly stumbling onto it, it was my main point, even if I didn't state it succinctly. What is deemed political is likely to be in the eye of the beholder.
And there are plenty who believe Kaepernick is a political figure... Here is just one of 100s of articles you can find if you google "kaepernick politics".
https://theundefeated.com/features/how-colin-kaepernick-became-a-cause-for-activists-civil-rights-groups/
Frankly, saying that he is making just a "social protest", is hiding your head in the sand. There is most definitely a political movement around him.
Quote:
In comment 14497478 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
Pho outrage?
Is that political?
That's me when I find out the meat in my pho is tripe.
stupid menus with pictures only.
you're a philistine. In Asian dishes tripe is delectable.
It is good, but I couldn't think of a meat I didn't like. lol. scrapple?
I like scrapple. How about liver.
My favorite chinese noodle soup is chock full of stewed beef tendons. It's a collagenny masterpiece. But tripe is also good in soup too. And there's a spicy tripe they always serve in dim sum houses that is great.
And if you google "Kaepernick dickhead", you'll get 100's of articles and some really interesting pictures.
It doesn't really matter if people "believe" he's a political figure. That alone doesn't make him one. He protests shit - sometimes stuff he doesn't even himself know what the fuck it is. Police. Treatment of minorities. Symbols. National Anthems. The game of football.
He is not a political figure. Are you really insinuating that because articles exist on the Internet that he is? You can find an article about almost anything!
Quote:
not really one country any more....we are two divided nations being forced to live together. What the hell does some professional in NYC have in common with someone who lives in rural Mississippi? Forget belonging to the same political party, we don't read the same news, watch the same shows, enjoy the same actives or share any common values. The NYC person has far more in common with someone who lives in London than Alabama.
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
That's a crock. We've been fighting with one another since before we were even a country. The game hasn't changed, only the players and the equipment have.
Why is what Tesla said a crock... And you are right we have been fighting since before we were a country. I don't see the 2 points as mutually exclusive. In fact, many of the central themes of the fight, have been roughly the same for over 250 years.
😳
😳
It's called machine learning. google can see in your pants.
Quote:
And there are plenty who believe Kaepernick is a political figure... Here is just one of 100s of articles you can find if you google "kaepernick politics".
And if you google "Kaepernick dickhead", you'll get 100's of articles and some really interesting pictures.
It doesn't really matter if people "believe" he's a political figure. That alone doesn't make him one. He protests shit - sometimes stuff he doesn't even himself know what the fuck it is. Police. Treatment of minorities. Symbols. National Anthems. The game of football.
He is not a political figure. Are you really insinuating that because articles exist on the Internet that he is? You can find an article about almost anything!
As usual, you are so wrapped up in your personal point of view that you completely missed the point. In this thread, I could not care less about what your personal opinion of Kaepernick is. Nor do I particularly care about the opinion of the article I posted. The point is, and you have perfectly illustrated it, is that there are opposing views of this.
The fact that some, in fact a large number of people, do believe he is a political figure gets to the very heart of this thread. As I said, what is political vs. apolitical is in the eye of the beholder.
And yes I am playing Devil's Advocate here. I am not expressing a particular political opinion, nor an opinion of Kaepernick. I am not arguing with your specific POV of him.
The point I am driving at is this:
Does a thread about a protest started by a figure such as Kaepernick, who some view as political and others couldn't give 2 shits about him and so they don't view him as political, count as a political thread or not. As I said, I am perfectly happy to say that it doesn't. I am just looking for clarity.
Though I loathe the way you behave on this site, this thread is not an attack on you or your POV of Kaepernick.
It makes me wonder the point of asking it in the first place.
Quote:
As I said, what is political vs. apolitical is in the eye of the beholder.
It makes me wonder the point of asking it in the first place.
Well if people are going to get banned, and there is a gray area, I think its important to explore it.
Perhaps, the gray area threads are simply monitored to make sure they don't get out of control. If they do, then they are deleted and the out of control individuals are warned but not banned. I don't have the answers, but I felt it was worth exploring.
Maybe someday we will live in the Utopian world of a BBI with clear rules applied equally (which in the efforts of not having this post deleted I will say is incredibly hard to do) and a Giants management structure not intent on being behind the times.
Yes, which is why I was surprised the thread I have been discussing survived.
Either the rule is very clear and says anything even remotely political is off limits, which is what I thought it was. Or we have some gray area where slightly different rules apply. I am happy with either. I just think it should be clear, for the benefit of everybody.
Quote:
In comment 14497493 Tesla said:
Quote:
not really one country any more....we are two divided nations being forced to live together. What the hell does some professional in NYC have in common with someone who lives in rural Mississippi? Forget belonging to the same political party, we don't read the same news, watch the same shows, enjoy the same actives or share any common values. The NYC person has far more in common with someone who lives in London than Alabama.
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
That's a crock. We've been fighting with one another since before we were even a country. The game hasn't changed, only the players and the equipment have.
Why is what Tesla said a crock... And you are right we have been fighting since before we were a country. I don't see the 2 points as mutually exclusive. In fact, many of the central themes of the fight, have been roughly the same for over 250 years.
Because the key word in his first sentence is "now," as if we were all in agreement about everything until recently, which is simply not true. There have always been regional and cultural variations among our people that have been reflected in our politics. About 150 years ago, one was so great it almost tore us completely apart. Some people say we're on the verge of a second Civil War. I say, man, we're not even close.
What Tesla sees as things that divide us, I see as things that have always been there in one form or another, but are largely irrelevant. Where we may live, what food we may enjoy, what books we read, what TV shows and movies we watch, or what values we hold dear don't define us as a nation. What does is the adherence to the rule of law, to the precepts set forth in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, and our governing document, the Constitution. That's what keeps this country together.
Tesla used a couple in a bad marriage as an analogy. Well, anyone who's been married knows that it's not all rainbows and sunshine. Every marriage has it's ups and downs, it's good times and bad times. America has certainly had it's share of both. But it's not staying together out of spite. It might be staying together "for the sake of the children," but I prefer to think that it's staying together because it believes that in the final analysis it's simply better off that way. I reject any notion that this country is broken beyond repair.
I also reject any notion that the problems we face today are any more insurmountable than those we've faced in the past. Sure, sometimes it might seem that way, but even a cursory examination of our history would dispel that notion. As I said above, we're still playing the same game.
I would appreciate no personal political ideologies, or policies in this thread. This is *NOT* a political thread, let's keep it that way.
Go find a safe space...
greatest nation in history.
In BBI's past we have had "Banning without explanation".
Is this really a thing of the past?
Or is the Pronunciamento considered to be a pre-explanation
of banning?
By the way, is the use of the old nickname "Lefty" a
bannable offense?
Quote:
In comment 14497550 Klaatu said:
Quote:
In comment 14497493 Tesla said:
Quote:
not really one country any more....we are two divided nations being forced to live together. What the hell does some professional in NYC have in common with someone who lives in rural Mississippi? Forget belonging to the same political party, we don't read the same news, watch the same shows, enjoy the same actives or share any common values. The NYC person has far more in common with someone who lives in London than Alabama.
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
That's a crock. We've been fighting with one another since before we were even a country. The game hasn't changed, only the players and the equipment have.
Why is what Tesla said a crock... And you are right we have been fighting since before we were a country. I don't see the 2 points as mutually exclusive. In fact, many of the central themes of the fight, have been roughly the same for over 250 years.
Because the key word in his first sentence is "now," as if we were all in agreement about everything until recently, which is simply not true. There have always been regional and cultural variations among our people that have been reflected in our politics. About 150 years ago, one was so great it almost tore us completely apart. Some people say we're on the verge of a second Civil War. I say, man, we're not even close.
What Tesla sees as things that divide us, I see as things that have always been there in one form or another, but are largely irrelevant. Where we may live, what food we may enjoy, what books we read, what TV shows and movies we watch, or what values we hold dear don't define us as a nation. What does is the adherence to the rule of law, to the precepts set forth in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, and our governing document, the Constitution. That's what keeps this country together.
Tesla used a couple in a bad marriage as an analogy. Well, anyone who's been married knows that it's not all rainbows and sunshine. Every marriage has it's ups and downs, it's good times and bad times. America has certainly had it's share of both. But it's not staying together out of spite. It might be staying together "for the sake of the children," but I prefer to think that it's staying together because it believes that in the final analysis it's simply better off that way. I reject any notion that this country is broken beyond repair.
I also reject any notion that the problems we face today are any more insurmountable than those we've faced in the past. Sure, sometimes it might seem that way, but even a cursory examination of our history would dispel that notion. As I said above, we're still playing the same game.
Excellent points.
I agree with you that many of the things that Tesla mentioned are superficial and don't matter.
Unfortunately, I think that when the 2 sides read the declaration of independence and the constitution it seems that they come away with very different POVs, and very different values. To keep with the bad marriage analogy, call it irreconcilable differences. Given enough time, perhaps a generation or 2, those difference can probably be resolved. I don't think the current generation can resolve it. Unfortunately, the problems we have today are more and more global in nature, many of them existential, and the pace of everything is speeding up. I'm not so sure we have the luxury of time to resolve our differences anymore. Certainly dividing us into 2 separate nations is not the answer. But it certainly feels like a bad marriage.
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
the last time we went the divorce route 750,000 people died.
You are hereby banned from the cooking threads
😳
because the word has gotten out about you?
What the fuck does the Giants management structure have to do here?
Excellent points.
I agree with you that many of the things that Tesla mentioned are superficial and don't matter.
Unfortunately, I think that when the 2 sides read the declaration of independence and the constitution it seems that they come away with very different POVs, and very different values. To keep with the bad marriage analogy, call it irreconcilable differences. Given enough time, perhaps a generation or 2, those difference can probably be resolved. I don't think the current generation can resolve it. Unfortunately, the problems we have today are more and more global in nature, many of them existential, and the pace of everything is speeding up. I'm not so sure we have the luxury of time to resolve our differences anymore. Certainly dividing us into 2 separate nations is not the answer. But it certainly feels like a bad marriage.
Those different POV's and values have been around for 100+ years, ever since the birth of the modern Progressive movement and the idea of a "living" Constitution (championed most notably by Woodrow Wilson). Before that, the Populist movement pitted farmers against "Eastern moneyed interests," and for a time seemed to wield considerable political power, but fizzled out rather quickly for a variety of reasons.
The struggle was just as real then as it is now, and we've always had groups like the Mugwumps, switching party allegiance for one reason or another. Are those Obama voters who might have supported Bernie Sanders, but voted for Trump instead of Hillary Clinton any different than the Republicans who refused to support James G. Blaine and voted for Grover Cleveland instead? I really don't think so.
Throughout our history, many of our problems have been global in nature. Foreign intervention has been hotly debated for more than a century, as one "crisis" after another - manufactured or otherwise - has reared its ugly head. But the next time you hear any talking head on any network beating the war drums, think about the artist Frederic Remington being sent to Cuba by William Randolph Hearst prior to the Spanish-American War. Remington cabled Hearst telling him that all was quiet there, and that "there will be no war." Hearst cabled back, "You furnish the pictures. I'll furnish the war." Some things never change.
I think a faster pace in terms of the flow of information is a net positive, even though the information can be misused or perverted at times. I like the way the "town square" has expanded. I like the immediacy. I like the new breed of "citizen journalists" inhabiting all points on the political spectrum. Do biases exist? Of course. They always have. But the rise of major networks and the consolidation of local and regional newspapers under increasingly large corporate umbrellas tended to enforce conformity, especially the conformity of ideas. The Internet changed all that. September 2004 was a seminal moment. A blogger took on CBS and Dan Rather and won.
Regarding the luxury of time. We still have it, in my view. The perception may be that it's running out, but I think that's fueled by a false sense of urgency promoted by a small, but very vocal cadre of demagogues who prefer sloganeering to sober debate. The Founders purposely set up a system that moved slowly, that diffused power, that encouraged debate and pushed for consensus. It isn't perfect, but it's still "more perfect" than anything that came before or has come since, and it certainly shouldn't be dismissed in the name of expediency.
Finally, other than nuclear annihilation, I think the only real existential thread we face is straying too far from the path laid out by the Founders. By that I mean we're in danger of having the Federal Republic they created morph into a judicial oligarchy. I think that's been trending for the past 40+ years or so, and I find it very worrisome. The consolidation of power by what was supposed to be the weakest branch of government, the one least accountable to the people, should give everyone pause. Unchecked, it may not lead to "divorce," but it will most likely bring about an end to whatever harmony still exists among all members of the family.
I would add as existential threats the very poorly controlled global and US financial system, the lower and lower efficacy of the traditional levers to pull out of a financial crisis ( other than print which is socially destabilizing) and income inequality when the next downturn comes ( which is socially destabilizing).
To me the judicial swings occur every 30 to 40 years since the beginning so I don't see that one as destabilizing as the ones above.
This period is like the others in our history when there was not a significant multi decade source of real growth from productivity gains from an energy, transport, or communication or CS source.
( canals linking water sources in the 1820's, railroads from 1830 to 1880, steam/coal to gas, electrical miniturization, etc.
Quote:
not really one country any more....we are two divided nations being forced to live together. What the hell does some professional in NYC have in common with someone who lives in rural Mississippi? Forget belonging to the same political party, we don't read the same news, watch the same shows, enjoy the same actives or share any common values. The NYC person has far more in common with someone who lives in London than Alabama.
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
That's a crock. We've been fighting with one another since before we were even a country. The game hasn't changed, only the players and the equipment have.
.