We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

O.K., this is hard because I am not as apt as you at preventing my rampant emotions from completely disrupting my ability to think critically. But I think I am getting your point. If politics were a meal you were having in a restaurant, it would not be a traditional meal where you, for example, pick an appetizer or salad from a list of several such offerings, and then pick one entree out of the five or six they have available. That's more like old school GOP. Nor is it a tapas or small plate situation where you get a number of different dishes, none of which is really an entree, but together they fulfill the role of the traditional appetizer-entree-dessert format. That's more like identity politics. It's more like a meal where you have multiple appetizers and entrees all available to you at the same time, and you serve yourself so you can have a little bit of each, if you wish, or just a few of the offerings, or you could just fill your plate with meat from the carving station and call it a meal. You know what, I'm sorry, this makes no sense. I don't know where I got the idea for this stupid fucking metaphor in the first place. It's moronic. Like sharpshooting with a shotgun. No, that metaphor was stupid too. Never mind.

Leave this stuff to others. GGG has your proxy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here's the metaphor you want. It's like a shit sandwich. Yeah, there may be shit on the inside, but you've got to focus on the bread, the bread is good.

Yum.

Quarter Cask?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here's the metaphor you want. It's like a shit sandwich. Yeah, there may be shit on the inside, but you've got to focus on the bread, the bread is good.

Yum.

Politics is like an all-you-can-eat buffet consisting solely of shit sandwiches. Brilliant. Thank you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

O.K., this is hard because I am not as apt as you at preventing my rampant emotions from completely disrupting my ability to think critically. But I think I am getting your point. If politics were a meal you were having in a restaurant, it would not be a traditional meal where you, for example, pick an appetizer or salad from a list of several such offerings, and then pick one entree out of the five or six they have available. That's more like old school GOP. Nor is it a tapas or small plate situation where you get a number of different dishes, none of which is really an entree, but together they fulfill the role of the traditional appetizer-entree-dessert format. That's more like identity politics. It's more like a meal where you have multiple appetizers and entrees all available to you at the same time, and you serve yourself so you can have a little bit of each, if you wish, or just a few of the offerings, or you could just fill your plate with meat from the carving station and call it a meal. You know what, I'm sorry, this makes no sense. I don't know where I got the idea for this stupid fucking metaphor in the first place. It's moronic. Like sharpshooting with a shotgun. No, that metaphor was stupid too. Never mind.

I have found it a good idea to apply skepticism to every buffet.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I have found it a good idea to apply skepticism to every buffet.

Moral/political certitude = Penny loafers.

Don’t.

[ferrets_bueller]

In an effort to move away from the most pedantic, ponderous week of name calling drivel this Board has seen in many a year, may I suggest the following change of topics to foreign affairs, similar to the old James Bond video game Global Domination of the World, that Sean Connery played with Klaus Maria Brandauer for the right to keep Kim Basinger.


If you wanted to put the international Game of Thrones in six pages, I believe this is as succinct and comprehensive a summary of the current Great Game you're likely to find.


https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic.../realist-world

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

In an effort to move away from the most pedantic, ponderous week of name calling drivel this Board has seen in many a year,

I for one wasn't calling sebby anything- I was asking if a guy I had never heard of before wasn't in fact racist- I don't think anyone else drifted too far from that

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

In an effort to move away from the most pedantic, ponderous week of name calling drivel this Board has seen in many a year, may I suggest the following change of topics to foreign affairs, similar to the old James Bond video game Global Domination of the World, that Sean Connery played with Klaus Maria Brandauer for the right to keep Kim Basinger.


If you wanted to put the international Game of Thrones in six pages, I believe this is as succinct and comprehensive a summary of the current Great Game you're likely to find.


https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic.../realist-world

The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been.

[ferrets_bueller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I for one wasn't calling sebby anything- I was asking if a guy I had never heard of before wasn't in fact racist- I don't think anyone else drifted too far from that

As you wish. I delete "name calling" and stand by the balance of the text. Move. On.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

As you wish. I delete "name calling" and stand by the balance of the text. Move. On.

you think last week was "pedantic" and instead want us to opine on how the US might play an international dance with China? Plus we have to register for some geeked out journal?

Someone goofed on a typical 1970s "father" rile this way_ "My wife controls the unimportant decisions in our family, what we eat, where we vacation, how the kids get raised day to day. Me, I handle the more important things, like what US economic policy should be."

Maybe I don't know the def of pedantic?

[ferrets_bueller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you think last week was "pedantic" and instead want us to opine on how the US might play an international dance with China? Plus we have to register for some geeked out journal?

Someone goofed on a typical 1970s "father" rile this way_ "My wife controls the unimportant decisions in our family, what we eat, where we vacation, how the kids get raised day to day. Me, I handle the more important things, like what US economic policy should be."

Maybe I don't know the def of pedantic?

pe·dan·tic
pəˈdan(t)ik/
adjective
lets jump to the synonyms:



overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, finicky; dogmatic, purist, literalist, literalistic, formalist;
casuistic, casuistical, sophistic, sophistical;
captious, hair-splitting, quibbling;
informalnitpicking, persnickety

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Mic drop: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...can-dream.html

ETA: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...al-crisis.html

In retrospect, Clinton's acquiescence to right-wing insistence that government is bad was a massive strategic failure that empowered "starve the beast" as a governing strategy and has left us without the means to stave off three decades of upward redistribution of income and wealth.

Yes, the democrats are complicit in the undermining of functioning government, but they are also the only possible hope to restore it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

In retrospect, Clinton's acquiescence to right-wing insistence that government is bad was a massive strategic failure that empowered "starve the beast" as a governing strategy and has left us without the means to stave off three decades of upward redistribution of income and wealth.

Yes, the democrats are complicit in the undermining of functioning government, but they are also the only possible hope to restore it.

Wait... I thought everything was going well? I mean, the market's up, unemployment's down, and all those jobs being eliminated are being replaced with equally well-paying positions in new industries created by the tech disruptors and cheap foreign labor. Adam Fucking Smith's cycle, in all it's glorious wonder.

These last ten years haven't been a phantom recovery, have they? We haven't been blowing up another asset bubble to get the baby boomers who are dependent on the market to the finish line, have we? Please don't tell me much of this growth has been fueled by things like buybacks. I'd lose faith in this country. Hell, a lot of people would lose faith in this country. They'd think it was a rigged game and then elect some kind of demagogue.

No... No. That can't be true. This has been a real recovery. And things are just dandy. People just need to develop a more sunny disposition! It might not be morning in America, but it's a brunch hour, and if you just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, why gosh darnit, you can be the next Horatio Alger! Go on out there, Mr. Millennial, and get yourself that brass ring in that shiny new gig economy of ours!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you think last week was "pedantic" and instead want us to opine on how the US might play an international dance with China? Plus we have to register for some geeked out journal?

Game, set, match.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I for one wasn't calling sebby anything- I was asking if a guy I had never heard of before wasn't in fact racist- I don't think anyone else drifted too far from that

For fuck's sake, Hank, you're doing this all wrong!

I'm tired of you're being in the middle on things. You and your confusing views, some of which are conservative, some of which are liberal, most of which are moderate. You've no backbone, man! With all that thinking and considering of things. You listened to Sam Harris before passing judgment on him. Who does that?

You'd better get with the fucking program and believe in something. Pick a side. Doesn't matter which, but pick one. You know the teams.

And when you do, start branding others as members of competing teams.

It's all about belief. What do stand for, Hank? Whose team banner are you holding? You contemplative sorts aren't doing anyone any favors. What we need more of in this country is people who've picked a side. People who see every issue through a prism of beliefs. Because beliefs, man -- that's where it's at! The more you buy into what a group's thinking, or feeling (feelings are huge, too... remember, nothing is more sacred than empathy), the happier you'll be. Feel that warmth wash over you... You believe, you've an ethos, you're aligned with others. You might even say you've got a mantra.

It's much more comfortable than trying to figure things out on an issue by issue basis. That'll just make you unhappy. And no one will invite you to anything.