Objectively intelligent.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. I agree. Bernie people can be cultish and they are incredibly naive. But they are also kind of pure in this regard. They seem to really believe we need massive, systemic change. Their thinking is somewhat akin to Adder's assertion that one is either racist or antiracist. Or to cite Kesey, on the bus or off the bus. This may be pitiable, but a basis for hatred?

The fundamental disconnect is that they are most angry at liberals, whom they see as constantly working against them, while liberals see them as potential coalition partners if they'd just get on board. The Bros think staying out of the coalition is how the revolution comes. The liberals thinks partnership is how change happens to avoid the need for a revolution. Both theories of change are correct.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Discovery? Not much. Mostly government-funded already.

Approval? With a changed incentive structure, we can likely streamline the approval process (some of which we should be doing anyway).

Um, no, drug discovery is not mostly government funded. Government funding would be one potential answer to what to do if Venture Capital and capital from Big Pharma leaves the field due to trim backs in patent exclusivity, but the numbers would be pretty sizable.

The second point is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be added to an M4A strategy if you're going to keep the innovative parts of our system. For example, its crazy that there are four or five key approval processes drugs need to run through to get widely distributed. We should be eliminating the US/EU/China/Japan/Canada duplication of efforts and creating common approval processes. At the least you should be able to use the same tests for each. This is not a discussion Bernie Bros engage in, because M4A solves everything and this isn't that.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Good one.

Well, she beat Bernie's ass.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

The fundamental disconnect is that they are most angry at liberals, whom they see as constantly working against them, while liberals see them as potential coalition partners if they'd just get on board. The Bros think staying out of the coalition is how the revolution comes. The liberals thinks partnership is how change happens to avoid the need for a revolution. Both theories of change are correct.

But can they really get along? The Bernie folks are closer to populist than liberal. Liberals are incrementalists. The Bernie folks know that liberals won’t go to the extremes that Bernie followers desire. They view aligning with liberals as a bait and switch. Kind of like social conservatives with the old line moderate GOP. They’d vote for the Republican and demand social conservatism and after Election Day they’d be ignored.

I think the Bernie people suspect, and they’d be right, that letting it all burn down is more likely to get them what they want than getting in bed with Clintonites. The Clinton Democrats are never going to give the Bernie faction what it wants. The demands are simply too insane. No one can give them that. The only way they get what they want, which is truly very close to actual socialism, is if the capitalist system all but collapses and we have widespread severe social unrest.

That could happen if Trump wins another term. Not as likely if Biden wins.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Of all the wiggle words ever invented, "toxic" is one of the most effective and simultaneously cheap and embarrassing.

This from People's most recent article on the environment on the Ellen set (oddly, People's take seems more adult and unbiased than all others on the subject):

In mid-July, BuzzFeed News published a report in which previous employees alleged a "toxic work environment" behind the scenes of the daytime talk show. One current and 10 former staffers spoke anonymously about their experiences on set, including claims of being penalized for taking medical leave, instances of racial microaggressions and fear of retribution for raising complaints.

https://people.com/tv/former-ellen-s...ity-talk-show/

Sometimes, graphic phrasing has the desired effect. "Fear and loathing" remains potent to the literate. I'm of the opinion "toxic" is just too easy. It's like "radioactive," or "explosive." But it is a good word. It's got a great internal cacophany to it. Retirement is too harsh. But a period of dormancy seems warranted.

As far as Ellen, one can only hope if it comes to a serious attempt at cancellation (rather than Hollywood shitbags trying to decrease her pay when given the possible opportunity), she refuses, and maybe provides a Joseph Welch moment against our current peanut gallery McCarthyism.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But can they really get along? The Bernie folks are closer to populist than liberal. Liberals are incrementalists. The Bernie folks know that liberals won’t go to the extremes that Bernie followers desire. They view aligning with liberals as a bait and switch. Kind of like social conservatives with the old line moderate GOP. They’d vote for the Republican and demand social conservatism and after Election Day they’d be ignored.

I think the Bernie people suspect, and they’d be right, that letting it all burn down is more likely to get them what they want than getting in bed with Clintonites. The Clinton Democrats are never going to give the Bernie faction what it wants. The demands are simply too insane. No one can give them that. The only way they get what they want, which is truly very close to actual socialism, is if the capitalist system all but collapses and we have widespread severe social unrest.

That could happen if Trump wins another term. Not as likely if Biden wins.

Yes, the defining feature of a Bro is sufficient privilege to believe 1) nothing much worse than the status quo is a likely outcome of a revolution and 2) they will personally come through it fine.

Both of those beliefs are irrational and ahistorical. They can’t even win elections but are sure their side wins in a revolution.

That said, there’s nothing remotely insane about Medicare For All, living wages and some degree of free higher ed. The “actual socialism” that exists all around the developed world is, in fact, possible here too. These things are only extreme in our deeply stunted politics that prioritizes low taxes on the very rich and upwards redistribution of wealth.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, the defining feature of a Bro is sufficient privilege to believe 1) nothing much worse than the status quo is a likely outcome of a revolution and 2) they will personally come through it fine.

Both of those beliefs are irrational and ahistorical. They can’t even win elections but are sure their side wins in a revolution.

That said, there’s nothing remotely insane about Medicare For All, living wages and some degree of free higher ed. The “actual socialism” that exists all around the developed world is, in fact, possible here too. These things are only extreme in our deeply stunted politics that prioritizes low taxes on the very rich and upwards redistribution of wealth.

1. I think for a lot of Bernie Bros, nothing is much worse than the status quo. He attracts a lot of gig economy people and low skilled workers. Things can't get much worse for them. They're basically eeking out a miserable existence and waiting to die.

2. I don't think they believe they'll personally come through it fine. I think they've nothing to lose.

Where does "privilege" end, by the way? If I'm more attractive than someone else, am I privileged? If I'm smarter? If I was born with more family money?

Suppose I'm athletically talented where another is not and that gets me a college scholarship. I'm privileged versus those without my talents, no? They'll know struggle of a kind I will not.

Should the Victoria's Secret model be reminded she's privileged not to be a "big boned" girl who'll never know the feeling of being able to have men fall at her feet? Should the kid with the off charts IQ who skips grades and aces the SATs without trying be deemed privileged relative to the kid who has to work to get As?

Are better dancers privileged over those of us who've no rhythm? If I've a square jaw, am I privileged over men with softer features that women don't find as enticing?

Are the clear-skinned privileged over those who endure acne in adolescence? Is having a seven inch penis versus the poor cat with a four incher? Is being born of a gender with which you identify - through none of your own doing - a privilege?

This idea of privilege runs into Harrison Bergeron territory quite quickly. The word is necessarily such a broad catch-all it effectively has no meaning, a sloppy concept that stands for the proposition that anyone enjoying power or status relative to anyone else should feel some shame, or has acquired some form of unearned advantage which should be remedied.

We can discuss inequalities and discrimination without using such lousy and amorphous concepts. And we should. "Privilege" is what grandma told you: "Life isn't fair. Deal with it." I see no reason to turn the notion into a cudgel to be used against those who received a lucky roll of the dice. Life is arbitrary and cruel. We should remedy structural discrimination because we can do that. We can try to control actors among us who set up that sort of unfair system. But we should not suggest everyone who's been fortunate due to Mother Nature's generosity should feel a level of guilt about it. To the extent this "privilege" concept does that, and it does, it is asinine.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. I think for a lot of Bernie Bros, nothing is much worse than the status quo. He attracts a lot of gig economy people and low skilled workers. Things can't get much worse for them. They're basically eeking out a miserable existence and waiting to die.

2. I don't think they believe they'll personally come through it fine. I think they've nothing to lose.

Where does "privilege" end, by the way? If I'm more attractive than someone else, am I privileged? If I'm smarter? If I was born with more family money?

Suppose I'm athletically talented where another is not and that gets me a college scholarship. I'm privileged versus those without my talents, no? They'll know struggle of a kind I will not.

Should the Victoria's Secret model be reminded she's privileged not to be a "big boned" girl who'll never know the feeling of being able to have men fall at her feet? Should the kid with the off charts IQ who skips grades and aces the SATs without trying be deemed privileged relative to the kid who has to work to get As?

Are better dancers privileged over those of us who've no rhythm? If I've a square jaw, am I privileged over men with softer features that women don't find as enticing?

Are the clear-skinned privileged over those who endure acne in adolescence? Is having a seven inch penis versus the poor cat with a four incher? Is being born of a gender with which you identify - through none of your own doing - a privilege?

This idea of privilege runs into Harrison Bergeron territory quite quickly. The word is necessarily such a broad catch-all it effectively has no meaning, a sloppy concept that stands for the proposition that anyone enjoying power or status relative to anyone else should feel some shame, or has acquired some form of unearned advantage which should be remedied.

We can discuss inequalities and discrimination without using such lousy and amorphous concepts. And we should. "Privilege" is what grandma told you: "Life isn't fair. Deal with it." I see no reason to turn the notion into a cudgel to be used against those who received a lucky roll of the dice. Life is arbitrary and cruel. We should remedy structural discrimination because we can do that. We can try to control actors among us who set up that sort of unfair system. But we should not suggest everyone who's been fortunate due to Mother Nature's generosity should feel a level of guilt about it. To the extent this "privilege" concept does that, and it does, it is asinine.

For once, you’re not thinking remotely big enough about how bad things can get.

I’m also not sure you’ve got the demographics of the Bros right either. Plenty of the outspoken ones have trust funds.

[Icky Thump]

I think I’ve figured it out.

Retirement Visa Requirements
The requirement for a retirement visa is 65,000 baht per month (about $2,000) or savings of 800,000 baht ($25,000) in a Thai bank account. 2 Steve LePoidevin, an InternationalLiving.com correspondent, says this is a good starting point for a retired couple.Jun 25, 2019

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Of all the wiggle words ever invented, "toxic" is one of the most effective and simultaneously cheap and embarrassing.

This from People's most recent article on the environment on the Ellen set (oddly, People's take seems more adult and unbiased than all others on the subject):

In mid-July, BuzzFeed News published a report in which previous employees alleged a "toxic work environment" behind the scenes of the daytime talk show. One current and 10 former staffers spoke anonymously about their experiences on set, including claims of being penalized for taking medical leave, instances of racial microaggressions and fear of retribution for raising complaints.

https://people.com/tv/former-ellen-s...ity-talk-show/

Sometimes, graphic phrasing has the desired effect. "Fear and loathing" remains potent to the literate. I'm of the opinion "toxic" is just too easy. It's like "radioactive," or "explosive." But it is a good word. It's got a great internal cacophany to it. Retirement is too harsh. But a period of dormancy seems warranted.

As far as Ellen, one can only hope if it comes to a serious attempt at cancellation (rather than Hollywood shitbags trying to decrease her pay when given the possible opportunity), she refuses, and maybe provides a Joseph Welch moment against our current peanut gallery McCarthyism.

It's hard to describe the toxicity of a toxic workplace. For one place I worked, I tend to say the CEO was an asshole, and leave it at that.

[LessinSF]

This 17 year is my fuckin hero. https://news.yahoo.com/17-old-high-s...124000191.html

[Hank Chinaski]

Watching the Sturgis Webcams- we are going full on Sweden, and the decision is being made by some very dumb people, officially and unofficially.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Watching the Sturgis Webcams- we are going full on Sweden, and the decision is being made by some very dumb people, officially and unofficially.

Any nipplage?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Any nipplage?

mostly covered by hair, but prolly

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Watching the Sturgis Webcams- we are going full on Sweden, and the decision is being made by some very dumb people, officially and unofficially.

I was crossing South Dakota on a bicycle in August once, and met a lot of people heading to Sturgis on motorcycles. They were uniformly nice and supportive.