im sure her politics will lead to swing vote liberals of the upper class to assert them as guaranteed moral liberal votes she may even claim to become a born again christian to really hard sell it thats my guess of what will come next, the "born again" charade she cant operate outside the republican fence so she will be sitting on the fence trying to lure people to jump it or not cross it from the inside ushering them back inside the coral doesnt bother me either way im just an observer from afar
What are her views these days? She seems to change what she is for in every interview. She has always been a Republican. She was for Trump until she was against Trump. She was against same sex marriage but now decides that she is "100% for it". She thinks taxes are too high in California (doesn't everyone) and thinks the Covid restrictions are too severe. Hot mess reality show performer seems to be the only thing that is consistent about her as far as I can tell.
While Sciforums is not any good indicator of trumpitude, and many people here are anti-Trump, your statement stands out in other ways. The Administration has repeatedly demonstrated right-wing sympathies. Several years ago, Plazma leaned on the staff in defense of misogyny; James R has repeatedly made extraordinary efforts to accommodate white supremacists, as well as rape culture and misogyny. A few years back, Dave, you were in on a brief discussion in which I had answered another member by saying Sciforums isn't a science site. So here's the thing, historically speaking: You know how you might look at a ghosthunter or ufology advocate and ask for things like evidence, rational argument, &c.? Think about a range of ideas in circulation at Sciforums that would read vastly differently if the discussion included things like evidence and rational argument. It used to be that respect for the scientific method was intended to be the defining aspect of Sciforums. Well, maybe; I can't say the period in which that statement was supposed to be true was ever genuine. The problem was the need for consistency; the line sounds great when wagging fingers at religious and fortean zealots about supporting their arguments, but can easily fall apart if applied to a subject, argument, or even mere sentiment of favored bias. But if you take a moment to consider that Sciforums, in policy matters, is harder on armchair pseudoscientific crackpots than we are on supremacists and rape advocates, it might also occur to wonder if there is a reason for that. What it comes down to is that some arguments are not easily supported by evidence and reliably rational argument, and once that applies to something someone in charge wants to say, it turns out that no, that respect for the scientific method is not so defining, but kind of a nice thought worth aspiring to on some days, or, at least, pretending now and then. The result is pretty straightforward: The question of Trumpism fading is one of brand popularity; the underlying product it is and represents existed before, and will continue in the marketplace even after the last trumpence is spent. At Sciforums, many of these ideas have enjoyed relatively safe harbor. After all, if someone wants to equivocate #BlackLivesMatter and white nationalism, the prevailing outlook says we would not want to silence political views by obliging rational support for the comparison. And it really is hard to know how to answer blind stereotyping if the totally not white supremacist advocate wondering at all the #BlackLivesMatter fuss doesn't understand why all the black people went and segregated themselves like that, and their women have too many baby daddies, and they're all so scary to the police who have to patrol their neighborhoods; it would apparently be unfair to silence that totally not white supremacist political view by obliging it to some manner of rational explanation. And let me take the moment to clarify something: Even if we choose to take up one of these passionate but clueless advocates on whatever pretense of argument they bring, what happens when the next passionate advocate without a clue steps up and runs the circle all over again; and the answer is that it's up to you whether to engage or not. That is, there are ranges of discourse that are not obliged to any pretense of rational discussion because doing so would allegedly silence them, so if somebody wants to repeat what has already been debunked, there are times when that is allowed, and it's up to anyone else to decide whether or not to engage, thus resulting in an idyll by which certain crackpottery is not only allowable but potentially left to stand unchallenged because everyone else is sick of wasting their time on such bullshit. Or, as James R once put it↗, what will you do, give it up as a lost cause? Let's try a basic question; okay, not it's not quite basic, but neither is it actually a trick question: If I tell a Men's Rights Advocate that the fact of a woman participating in the gestation and delivery of his offspring does not automatically exempt him from obligations to that child, have I silenced #BlackLivesMatter? More directly, if we refuse to presuppose a facially incorrect argument until it is supported by evidence, what have we actually done? Well, some ideas and beliefs are not easily supported by evidence and rational argument, and perhaps those advocates are discomfited, but they're not actually, say, silenced, unless it turns out there really isn't any rational argument supporting their fancy. If a crackpot is distraught at the prospect of having to put some effort into explaining what their potsherds mean, and how their thesis works, what concern should that be of yours, or the next person? Or is there a question of which crackpottery you would grant what comfort? Inasmuch as Trumpism is a brand experience, and the underlying product it is and represents existed before, and will continue in the marketplace, the components of that underlying product are potsherds fashioned into vessels of bitter and poisonous draught. That people sympathize with this or that potsherd eventually adds up to the next iteration. And the part of Trumpism that shows any particular correlation to Sciforums is a circumstantial question pertaining to whichever potsherds any advocate brings. Beyond that, the more enduring question about Trumpism at Sciforums really does pertain to the underlying components. They were present before Trump; they will remain well after, especially if given comfort.
The problem might be when you label anyone that you disagree with as a "white supremacist". There was a time when you labeled everyone a troll and most behavior "gaslighting". Now "potsherd" is suddenly your favorite word. You have issues with James about administrative matters but you choose to react in your usual passive-aggressive manner and choose to do so in public. You don't take data casually but need to have links and footnotes when you know, in fact, that the data is accurate. You just don't agree with it. This applies to data regarding the number of unarmed people shot by police (white vs black). It's the same where "systemic racism" or "micro-aggression" is concern. I'm sure it applies to "critical race theory" as well. One either agrees with your take or they are a white supremacist or trolling or gaslighting. I really do think you would be happier to not be burdened by the role of being a staff member, particularly when you continue to complain for years on end about James in public. Staff blogger or even better public blogger would seem a more fitting title for you. When you can't have a pleasant discussion with anyone, maybe it's time for a new environment?
you mean the data you are grossly misusing do to a rather poor understanding of the interaction of differing rates of incidence on population of vastly different numbers?
It's "due" not "do". I understand the differences in the populations. I also understand the much greater rate of homicides in one population which makes the numbers more meaningful. That always seems to be left out for some reason.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! i went for a blood test recently & to my shock & statistical horror, i was 1 of only 2 white skinned people in the waiting room of roughly 20 seats, of which 15 were filled already as i walked through the door and i live in a white majority area the statistical chance of a 90(or soo) % minority skin colour being in a majority white skin colour area seemed to surprise me soo much i wondered if i had come on the wrong day. while i was waiting 5 additional white skinned people walked in & registered in the waiting line and another 3 or 4 dark skinned people also registered, while around another 5 looked in & walked off not wanting to wait while another 2 people de-registered & walked out not wanting to wait any longer another 1 person had an anxiety attack and de-registered and walked out out of that group only 2 appeared to be medical incident 1 i guess was likely tetanus testing for injury at work the other accident testing around 5 or soo looked diabetic what it reminded me of is the cultural beliefs around science & various cultural practices around medical science sexiest people on the day ... 1 Euro lady mid 20s 1 Chinese lady late 20s(maybe mid to late 30s) 1 Euro male late 20s oops, there was another guy possibly late 30s to late 40s euro male, he was pretty damn hot but acting all kinda no im not really that hot(but i could see dressed up he would melt a few hearts and pants) saddest people of the day was the elderly Indian couple both very obese, short and late 60s to early 70s looking very afraid and anxious, perched on their seats with their feet barely touching the ground looking too scared to make eye contact with anyone while feeling stuck on public display as if they had a stick shoved up their ass for a parent teachers meeting i tried not to stare Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! yup institutionalized bias systems designed to deliver outcomes f bias by overt saturation of implied means it is a brain washing technique used by many supposed church minister types(baby hitlers) precisely the new norm of the old gorm 100% agree and is 100% trumpist class of the wealthy elite is everything to her but like the psychiatric patients begging for spare change to guilt trip people into giving them money she is attempting to sell herself as a guilt trip vote swinger
When you suggest that the problem might be something that isn't real, well, it's your own damn problem. Seriously: If I disagree with a misogynist, the only reason to call them a white supremacist is if they happen to also be a white supremacist. If you're not smart enough to figure that out, that, too, is your own damn problem. Your critique appears to presume that "the data" is relevant, or properly considered and not misrepresented. That can be a problematic presupposition. This paragraph makes little sense. To wit, if one misrepresents the data, I'm going to disagree with that part of the argument. However, the sentences about systemic racism, microaggression, and critical race theory are rather quite vague; what "data" on "systemic racism" and "micro-aggression" are you referring to? Also, do you even know what Critical Race Theory is? (Hint: If you don't like people thinking you're a white supremacist, it would behoove you to not use the white supremacist critique in answering that question.) As to agreeing with me or else "they are a white supremacist or trolling or gaslighting", you are entirely incorrect and should stop wasting your, my, or anyone else's time with such petty, uneducated make-believe. The truth of the matter is that it's not hard to disagree with me and not read or sound like a white supremacist; as with the hint above, skip the white supremacism. No, really, it's that simple. The prospect that you can't figure that out ought to be a ridiculous idea, but here we are. It's actually kind of like your point that, "When you can't have a pleasant discussion with anyone, maybe it's time for a new environment". If you, or anyone else, can't say a totally not supremacist thing without resorting to supremacist rhetoric, maybe it's time for new rhetoric. It seems pretty straightforward: If someone who disagrees with me actually corrects a mistake I've made, or increases my understanding, it's likely they're not pushing supremacism. That part, at least, shouldn't be so hard to figure out. I'm trying to think of an example that isn't overly subtle compared to your range of discussion, but it's kind of hard. I mean, I can think of an artistic critique I hold, and if someone gave me the typical bullshit about why the art and artist were not misogynistic, well the typical bullshit is itself misogynistic. To the other, someone with a clue, if they knew of my critique, could have told me to cross one example off the list because I was missing an implication; that would not erase the question of misogyny, but, rather, correct, inform, and thus refine the critique. Still, compared to someone whose justification↗ is not being smart enough to know he's repeating roadworn white supremacist tropes, it's true, the people who are capable of informing and refining my critique—a vast swath of humanity, if we consider the range of my criticism—tend to see the world a bit differently than you. On the upside, you haven't gone Schroder on us, yet.
You have gone Tiassa on James though, over and over. Why not keep that passive-aggressive behavior for the private forum designed for that? I obviously know what Critical Race Theory is or I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Sometimes questions arise, and certain information is relevant. What, does James need to be shielded from the possibility of being triggered and suffering lasting emotional harm? In the question of trumpism fading, and any correlation to what goes on here at Sciforums, the more enduring question really does pertain to the underlying components°, and, yes, the Administration's history giving comfort and sympathy to supremacism is relevant. But as long as you're on the subject of aggression, yours would probably have more meaning if it had something to do with reality. Like potsherds. The question of favorites is at least understandable in the context that you apparently didn't have anything less useless to say, but "suddenly"? I mean, sure, it's not a precise word, but no, 2004↗ would seem to fall outside the range of "suddenly". Maybe 2011↗? Or, perhaps 2015↗-16↗, when I started using the term more often, but I don't really think that qualifies, compared to yesterday, as "suddenly". ____________________ Notes: ° Consider mabonism, for comparison. Wait, what? Mabonism. You'd think it would have ended when Mabon went to jail, but it's nearly twenty years later and worse than ever. Except, of course, mabonism itself never really existed. Rather, the components of his Christian-supremacist, hateful obsession with other people's sex lives existed before Lon Mabon's political rise, and has remained even after his decline, because, really, his decade in the limelight was symptomatic, not causal.
Why be so predictable? To the one, to the other, to wit, 'twixt, 'tis, no really. It might be time to shake things up and go for the less pretentious option, no really. Everyone should be protected from being triggered, don't you think? Where should we draw the line? Do you want to be cancelled?
The idea that a three-word phrase in which the longest word consists of three letters qualifies as pretentious says more about your standards than anything else. Though, by proxy, I suppose, you also make a fine example of the sort of person it takes to carry the potsherds stones petrified shit to be fashioned into the next vessel.
To the one, they have therapy for anger management these days. To the other, those in need never go so as Bells says, "you do you" and continue with your rage against the world, no really.
As someone who lives in the heartland of a Red state in the flyover country of the USA, Trumpism is not going anywhere. My prediction is that the US will continue to move toward autocracy or authoritarianism, and that ultimately the Constitutional form of government we had here will be relegated to the annals of history. We will be under the boot along with most of the Western world.
This is the truly scary part. Trump is one guy. But 71 million people out there decided they want more of that. And they're still out there.
