Jump to content


Supreme User
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Negatory

  1. 12 hours ago, brabus said:

    @FLEA I remember summer 2020 talking about these aspects of Covid - it’s amazing how so many people said I (and others like me with critical thinking capability) we’re out to lunch, dangerous, etc. Complete silence from those same people who have been proven 100% wrong. I don’t hold grudges, so whatever, but I’ll still remember how some individuals in my life were horrendously wrong, shit on those who disagreed, and have made zero acknowledgment about it. Says something about their character. 

    Nah bro, says that you oversimplify things significantly into right or wrong, black or white. You have become what you criticize, and you all wonder why folks stopped commenting back. The forum turned significantly more into an echo chamber the last year, which has been nice for you guys, but doesn’t necessarily represent reality.

    We all, right now, have the benefit of knowledge we did not have when decisions were being made. Your debrief choice (i can’t really call it a loop) is that we all made and then executed the wrong decisions in the beginning of the pandemic, and that “we” have doubled and tripled down and screeched the entire time. But in reality we as a society had very limited SA or perception of what the actual truth of the situation was until science uncovered some of those answers. It took months to years for that. And, you seem to forget, we had to operate and make decisions in that limited SA environment. You can’t put the big arrow on a decision when your SA is super low. The ends don’t justify the means. I believed, and will continue to believe, you 100% did not have the SA in the Summer of 2020.

    For example, we now know mRNA vaccines are entirely ineffective at stopping transmission - we were hopeful they would be very effective. Didn’t know that. We now know that we’re looking at a significantly lower mortality variant with significantly higher spread - the first variant spread slower but had a mortality rate about 10 times higher pre-vaccine. Didn’t know when that was coming. We know that COVID is airborne. Didn’t know that, remember folks sanitizing everything? We know how to test for it, and we know generally how long folks are contagious. We understand mortality risks much more completely now (fat and old). We did not know any of these things with significant certainty for a long time.

    You’ll also note that many folks on here changed our minds on many policies as more data emerged. As folks got vaccinated and mortality decreased and transmission reduction efforts clearly failed, many folks like me changed our opinions. We built SA and made decisions with said SA. You can demonize that, if you want, but it’s a pretty rough take.

    If your point is that in the absence of proof, we should be optimistic, fine, that’s your philosophy. But it doesn’t mean those that wanted to be conservative in the face of unknowns are inherently wrong and/or evil. In fact, you literally can’t prove that those efforts didn’t save significant lives (bang your head against the wall on that one, if you want).

    For the record, I think that masks and vaccine requirements now should be entirely removed in society with the exception of elderly care or hospitals. We should have gotten rid of it over a year ago for the military. There is more nuance to how decisions have to be made and opinions should be formed than you give credit.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 3
    • Downvote 7
  2. The whataboutism is amazing. I, for one, find the thing most ironic in these discussions to be the title of this thread. Today, in hypocrisy, you defend someone’s actions just because they are a Republican.

    Also, the President can not unilaterally declassify anything. Notable exceptions include nuclear data, waived data, and intelligence agent locations, among others. Oh, and there’s a process for it, you don’t just get to say “I DECLARE UNCLASSIFIED” like Michael Scott.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 3
  3. Sure, I’m fine with both.

    But you have to look at events in vacuums. If he did what they’re saying, it will require a lot of mental gymnastics for the right to not call for harsh consequences regardless. With that being said, I entirely expect it.

    • Upvote 1
  4. 20 hours ago, Blue said:

    It's almost as if man-made climate change is nothing but a made-up boogeyman to keep people distracted from the real ills of the world.

    Yes, allow the class politics to only see the world through the most distorted of lenses. Tucker Carlson would be proud of you guys 🥹I would also discount the whole of science based on a funny article about a super minority of one political side!

    I guess if we’re doing sweeping generalizations that have no basis, it’s those damn religious Republicans who are destroying the world and lying about it with false, untenable pretenses.




    In reality, it’s rich vs poor, plain and simple. I was gonna ask why you all don’t believe climate change is a real threat to humanity, but then I realized that this forum gets their opinions straight from Rush Limbaugh reruns (RIP).

    By the way, it’s possible for there to be more than one ill in the world.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 1
  5. 12 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

    Any argument against your opinion is not implicitly anti democratic, however you have no interest in arguing honestly.

    Any argument against the total combined will of the American people isn’t anti democratic?

    It is clearly anti democratic. It’s not implicitly anti republic.

    What does arguing honestly mean, by the way? Did my opinion based on philosophy and reasonable arguments hurt your feelings?

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 5
  6. Yeah, actually, beyond all your other fallacies, let’s address whether government has an obligation to the American people to maintain a court that accurately represents the will of the people. Seems like there may be a moral imperative to bring the court back in line with American values in whatever way necessary, up to and including adding more moderate members to the court.

    Remember, any argument against this is implicitly anti democratic. Good luck.

    • Haha 1
    • Downvote 6
  7. First, it’s rich to say that the left should reconsider the meaning of democracy when a very unpopular, anti-democratic, opinion was passed. Almost all polls show 60-65% of Americans support Roe - nearly 2:1. Now if you wanna make some bullshit argument about how the Supreme Court represents our republic or something, go for it, but I’d recommend you look up what a democracy is supposed to be.

    Also, it’s rich to say that I don’t understand something that is clearly extraordinarily contentious and not understandable. Its an opinion. It’s also rich to say that Thomas determines what is correct in the constitution. Also, Thomas’s written opinion was a majority concurrence, not a non-majority. My point, which is 100% valid, is that a real Supreme Court justice in the majority of this case is calling for some really ridiculous things in a real Supreme Court ruling. He called for re-examining whether I as a married person can use contraceptives with my wife behind closed doors.

    Also, you’re lying about the dissenting opinion having no constitutional basis. They clearly used the 14th amendment, but I don’t expect you to read, as you’ve demonstrated a curious aptitude for avoiding facts over many years now.

    Just to be clear, Roe was upheld precedent for the last 50 years and was reaffirmed in Casey. Just because this court changed their mind doesn’t mean that this court is correct or that the previous 7-2 ruling was incorrect. This doesn’t “prove” anything other than packing the court with conservative judges gives a different result. Congratulations.

    At this point, it’s easy to see the court as a politicized, less neutral, branch of government. Time to pack it up! How about, say, 21 justices? We can probably get 12 more before congress turns over to the republicans, no more rules! Why not?

    Oh, there’s precedent for there to be just 9 Supreme Court justices? Precedent doesn’t matter anymore.

    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 3
  8. Sweet! Clarence Thomas owning the libs:

    "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

    Remember when you guys said it was alarmist to say that contraception was potentially on the chopping block next after abortion. Here it is! Better stock up on birth control, because we're going full Gilead. Nevermind the fact that literally none of these policies (including abortion) are even remotely popular in our society. #democracy 

    Gotta hand it to ya'll, the theocracy is coming together!


    I, for one, am non-ironically donating to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They, along with TST, do some good work pointing out blatant hypocrisy and overstepping of religious bounds in government. May we all heal from this and ultimately come together as we are touched by his noodly appendage. R'amen.

    • Haha 2
  9. 5 hours ago, bfargin said:

    Comparing homos to people of color is incredibly offensive and not accurate. Just cause you might be a homo, doesn't mean you can force your choice onto other's value system.

    Jesus. You think people choose to be gay. I guarantee you have literally 0 family members or close friends in the LGBT community.

  10. 3 hours ago, ViperMan said:

    Dude you left off the active clause of @brabus point - which was that people he knows can disagree with something but not be actively working to disabuse anyone of their rights. Lurking behind your post is the thought police. Because you don't believe what I believe, you are an immoral person. I am the only one who gets to determine what is true.

    Of course we all agree that discriminating against people based on their immutable characteristics is bad. The disagreement in this case is that benefits which society historically conferred (effectively) only on mothers and fathers shouldn't be extended to cover anyone else who decides they want them. It's not even a moral position in my case - it's a legal/financial one.

    I left off nothing that was important and immediately addressed his statement you referenced in that I agreed that very few people are actively hating or suppressing the LGBT. My whole argument was that it wasn’t just active actions that are bad, though, the issue is being passive in the face of fucked up opinions also causes harm. I know you read it.

    Also, your argument about marriage doesn’t stand up to other specific examples when you use basically any other immutable trait. The flaws abound, and you’ll see that “thought police” is just an alarmist buzzword. Some thoughts are actually so fucked that they should be not allowed: hence why there are anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-ageism, anti-terrorism, anti-anarchist and multiple other laws in our society.

    Let’s apply your final argument to 1865:

    ”I, personally, don’t and would never own slaves. But I ask you, good sir, why should someone who does be forced to give up their slaves that they paid for and rightfully own? It’s not even a moral position in [this] case - it’s a legal/financial one.”

    Took over 100+ years for society to fully get on board, but sounds pretty fucked up to argue like this today, doesn’t it? It will be like this for LGBT rights after you all die out - just check Gen Z’s opinions.

    BL: Harmful effects of discrimination against those with immutable characteristics isn’t limited to just those who actively fight against them. That’s been my whole point. It’s also those that implicitly support those that fight against them. Enabling fucked up opinions is bad.

  11. 6 hours ago, brabus said:

    plenty of people who don’t morally agree with it and that’s totally cool

    I mean, this statement here is actually more telling than you realize, and it’s indicative of the centrist “everyone is right” attitudes that are extremely troubling to some of the LGBT folks I know. THIS subtle implicit non-acceptance is what they’re still fighting against.

    You don’t personally actively hate or oppress LGBT folks, I’m sure. Most people and military officers I know don’t. But some don’t oppose those that do to the level that shows any moral courage. Implicitly, statements like these normalize and equalize f’d up beliefs.

    Try these hypotheticals on, imagine you heard one of your buddies say one of these statements:

    “I don’t morally agree that black people should be able to marry white people. In fact, they shouldn’t be allowed in the same place as white people, it’s just not right.”

    “I don’t morally agree that a woman should be allowed to have a job. That’s a man’s right. They just shouldn’t be doing this stuff, their place is at the home.”

    “I don’t morally agree that a person with a different sexuality than me should be able to get married or serve in the military. It’s just not right.”

    If you heard someone say one of the first 2 things, you’d tell that person to fuck off. You’d tell them they’re wrong. I doubt you’d say “I respect your opinion” - in fact, I would expect you not to. Why is the third one different?

    Just because someone has different morals doesn’t make their opinions “totally cool.” In fact, their morals can be pretty fucked up and oppressive. The first amendment makes it legal to say whatever dumb shit a person wants, I get that and am not going down that rabbit hole. But you don’t have to respect someone’s beliefs, and you surely don’t have to say that “it’s totally cool” for them to believe something that marginalizes a group of humans for an immutable characteristic.

  12. Because you like to oversimplify my arguments into black and white, lib and conservative, whatever. I think my opinions are more nuanced than you would ever give me credit for, and often I don’t align with the bucket you try to put me in (sts).

    Also, I don’t believe that serving on active duty provides an iota more feeling of service to the nation than serving in the guard or in the civil service. I believe that if the military wants people on active duty, then they have to compete.

    As a young fighter pilot, i realized that TR guardsmen got to fly 6-9 times a month working 3 days and one weekend a month. I also realized that’s how much I was flying as a CMR wingman. On top of that I realized that flying was what I actually enjoyed in the Air Force, and it’s where I felt I was actually accomplishing something. 

    The military/gov is type one spatial D’d (unrecognized) when it comes to retention. They know active duty is the most important for military health and they need folks on active duty to accomplish their mission. But every single incentive other than slightly increased chances to become an O-6 🤮 goes to the advantage of the guard or GS.

    You let me fly fighters, pay me twice as much, don’t force me to move, can’t deploy me if I don’t accept, and have to keep me to 40 hour weeks - thats better in literally every single way.

    • Like 7
    • Upvote 1
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

    I don't think any of your guys' comments about how the science isn't settled match up with, y'know, the science and/or reality. Would love if you would even look at 2 of the references on this article. Maybe some of the NASA, NOAA, or IPCC reports.

    If it makes you feel better, when I voted for Bush, I also thought climate change was fake. Because, you know, I was told to think that. Was good enough at the time: Go republicans, beat demtards!

    • Haha 1
  14. 2 minutes ago, bfargin said:

    What a complete BS claim.

    Brandolini's law explains how that feces was published in spite of the ridiculous claim shown in quotes in your post.

    There are way too many variables, each with significant variance in climate change models, to come even close to showing a causal effect (even a "relative causal" effect). I know a Senior Editor who should be replaced.

    @bfarginThat is a quote from the article the previous person posted. Looks like you don't read either.

    • Downvote 1
  15. 24 minutes ago, JimNtexas said:

    Obama owns two waterfront mansions.  Biden owns one.  The Bush family owns one.  I bet Kerry owns one.

    All of them travel via Gulfstream.

    I’ll believe I have to give up fossil fuels when these people start living like climate change is real.

    We both know you wouldn't believe even then. Your arguments have always focused on entirely unrelated appeals to emotion and virtually never on evidence or facts.

  16. 44 minutes ago, Swizzle said:

    There is WAY more going on, on Earth than your/my/our CO2 contributions....where are we in any of these other factors????

    FFS...Earth wobble affects more greatly temps than CO2, or sea currents.

    The disconnect is people who believe a single thing IS the cause, when the whole system is more complex and don't consider the other factors. You know, like, pick and choose what suits your narrative instead of the science! Ha, trust the science (cough, hack, the science we tell you to beleive)! Where have we heard that before?



    Case in point. I don't know if you even read the source. Second paragraph:

    "We can clearly show the causal link between carbon dioxide emissions from human activity and the 1.28 degree Celsius (and rising) global temperature increase since pre-industrial times." Then he goes on to tell you about other things that have affected the climate in the past, but that article in no way backs up your point. Also, just to be clear, the scientific community is not even slightly split on this. 99-100% consensus on humans causing anthropogenic climate change.



    Brandolini's law strikes again. "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it"

    • Haha 2
  17. Another well informed take that boils down an entirely flawed economic policy among all us government since 2001 into simplistic red vs blue. It’s everyone’s fault here.

    How much of gas prices are due to domestic economic policies dictated by the executive branch? Is the US President causing gas to be $6-9 across Europe as well? Oh wait this is global? That’s not good for my narrative or funny gas pump stickers. Or is there a potential that a war in Ukraine + restarting a global economy after a massive overreaction due to COVID + a literal cartel (OPEC) have a lot more to do with energy prices? Also, reminder that there are a surplus of drilling permits (about 10 years worth) available by the federal gov that are unused. What’s the policy you think that would solve this?


    Second, how much of inflation is due to quantitative easing? Reminder that the Trump admin effectively printed and threw over $3T into the economy in 2020 to prop up the stock market. 2 of the 3 stimuluses came from GOP leadership, but giving that free socialism money to everyone probably had no effect on inflation. At least no effect we should talk about.


    The bottom line is that neoliberal economic policy, which both parties fully support, is driving us off a cliff. Unlimited economic growth in a limited society (actually approaching contracting) isn’t possible. It’s time to raise the interest rates to 6-9% and deal with our poor decisions we have made thinking we could avoid natural economic cycles. The real marker in failure economically was October 2019 when the government saw that quantitative tightening (the right call) made the stock market go down and abandoned all logic to maintain the illusion of a green DJIA. Then COVID happened and the whole of US government lost their collective minds.

    • Upvote 2
  • Create New...