Uncle Milty wrote:

Slowhand wrote:Even before this whole thing happened, I was wondering the other day when “cunt” become such a terrible word, because these are the sorts of things I spend my time thinking about. It was always considered worse than “bitch”, but not by much, and people didn't gasp in horror if you said it. Now we have to refer to it as “The C word”. Now we’re having a politics thread.

Either geographical or generational difference because that was always the absolute worst of the profanities.

Might be a good time to pitch my Netflix series "Bonfire of the Profanities"

Yeah, I remember in the 80s and 90s it was pretty much a word you simply didn't say. The b word was not nearly as bad.

jerseyhoya wrote:I would guess prior to today 75% of the usage of the word cunt on BSG occurred in the soccer threads

Near 95% would be my estimation, although it's kind of interesting seeing how the aging demographic of this board has changed language use.

Soren wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I would guess prior to today 75% of the usage of the word cunt on BSG occurred in the soccer threads

Near 95% would be my estimation, although it's kind of interesting seeing how the aging demographic of this board has changed language use.

Well, it's not really aging. In most of the English-speaking world it's not regarded as a very bad word. In the eurocentric soccer thread it's pretty understandable that it would be bandied about.

swishnicholson wrote:

Soren wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I would guess prior to today 75% of the usage of the word cunt on BSG occurred in the soccer threads

Near 95% would be my estimation, although it's kind of interesting seeing how the aging demographic of this board has changed language use.

Well, it's not really aging. In most of the English-speaking world it's not regarded as a very bad word. In the eurocentric soccer thread it's pretty understandable that it would be bandied about.

What I meant was that a good chunk of the people on this board are in the same general age range, so we're hitting our late 20s-mid 30s around the same time. That, hopefully, leads to things like derogatory language being used more judiciously. As an example of how we've agreed to change our language

Wish I knew how to web scrape so I could have some hard data on it but quick eyeball check the r word was used (as an adjective, not within a discussion about how we shouldn't say it anymore) 3 times so far this year, and somewhere in the mid 30s in the first half of 2007.

GAME ON!

Summit's back on for the 12th

Soren wrote:the r word was used (as an adjective, not within a discussion about how we shouldn't say it anymore) 3 times so far this year, and somewhere in the mid 30s in the first half of 2007.

he's coaching first base let it go

pacino wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

JUburton wrote:I probably agree with don't call her a #$!&@ for those reasons. But once you do, don't apologize.

And dems aren't going to win on issues because issues don't move people. We ran on issues in 2016 (and 2014 and 2010) and here we are.

That’s debatable but we DO know the right thrives on this #$!&@. So let’s maybe try to avoid it.

they'll simply find something new to be outraged by. this is just sam bee's turn on the wheel. next week it'll be some other random comedian or celeb. they create issues out of whole cloth (MS-13 is taking over our country!!!!) even if everyone held their tongues and put out their pinkies. I agree with you that we should stop playing their game, but stop it by not bothering to think about what they think while also realizing hypocrisy is dead and useless.

I agree with Grote more than pac on this. Even as a joke it was bad - the "****" was itself pretty much the punchline; and I think apologizing was the right move.

If you want to claim the moral high ground, you have to model the behavior on which you are trying to claim it. We all laugh when some self-styled Christian conservative gets caught with his pants down, because there is a kind of vindictive satisfaction in seeing the lecturing, hectoring moralizer hoisted by his own petard. This is no different, in a sense, although I recognize Bee is a comedian and not a politician; nevertheless, if she wants to deliver homilies on her show, and she does, about the patriarchy and the treatment of women and the like, she should probably avoid using an obviously abusive term because it's about someone she doesn't like.

The funny thing is Bee was among the first on the left to call out Hillary (correctly) for her use of the word "deplorable." Hillary's point, like Obama's in 2008, was not without merit, and wasn't nearly as bad as it sounded - but none of that matters in the game of perception.

Politics is a stage show where you establish a character and then you best not blow your lines or step out of it. Trump can call people whatever he wants because he makes no pretensions to being anything but sort of a barely-civilized bully (but who fights for 'Merica, dammit!) - what would get him in trouble isn't saying the most outrageously offensive thing you could dream a politician would say - but rather getting caught being reasonable and level-headed about Democrats, or acknowledging the rights and interests of other countries, or foreigners. That would go against his brand/character and THAT would land him in hot water.

Similarly, Clinton can't run a campaign of inclusion and being the nice reasonable Mom of the USA but then also get caught being dismissive and insulting to a quarter of the population (or, as was perceived by so many, half), or being a ruthless business lady (like Sanders tried to paint her during the primary).

It's tough out there.

Politics is a stage show where you establish a character and then you best not blow your lines or step out of it.

Yeah, I think this is the core of where we disagree. I don't think this at all. Politics is simply an extension of the policy you aim to enact; i don't think there's real value to 'establishing a character' outside of being a clearer version of who you are. that doesn't mean you have to insult people if that's not your thing, but we don't have to act like we'r putting on a show here. this is about enacting policy to help people, not winning a pageant.

also, i don't really think anything sam bee does says much about 'the left' outside of upper-middle class white women

Yeah I agree with you there about bee.

And I also agree that is what politics should be, i was talking more about how it works out in practical reality, particularly in national politics. There is a performative aspect to it.

Monkeyboy wrote:

pacino wrote:seize the means to own the libs:

In order to bolster coal-fired and nuclear power plants, the Trump administration is working on a pair of federal laws to order grid operators to buy electricity from the plants.

The U.S. Department of Energy would use emergency authority to direct the operators from at-risk facilities, according to Bloomberg.

The agency also wants to develop a "Strategic Electric Generation Reserve" to promote national defense and maximize energy supplies, according to a draft National Security Council memo, Bloomberg reports.

Nuclear and coal-fired plants are struggling against renewable energy sources and cheaper natural gas.

They are literally murdering people.

Nearly as many people die from the air pollution caused by coal than in automobile deaths each year. This is a significant public health issue. They going to sneak all this stuff into law while we're all focused on Trump's show.

Very interesting to have a party pass laws picking winners and losers, and latching themselves to the horse chariots of the times. I can't see how this is a winning issue for moderates/independents.

Also, I doubt 35k people die from pollution each year in the US. Even without good statistics on true causes of things like COPD or lung cancer, so much of those deaths are driven by smoking.

Wolfgang622 wrote:Yeah I agree with you there about bee.

And I also agree that is what politics should be, i was talking more about how it works out in practical reality, particularly in national politics. There is a performative aspect to it.

I would say that consistency and authenticity tends to be appealing. When someone breaks from their consistent message, it undermines them.

There is some overlap with having good sales skills.

Werthless wrote:
Also, I doubt 35k people die from pollution each year in the US. Even without good statistics on true causes of things like COPD or lung cancer, so much of those deaths are driven by smoking.

You may doubt it, but it's true. Asthma, heart disease, lung cancer, etc, etc. We are just starting to understand how bad these micro particles and droplets of pollution are for the human body. Even people who live along highways have higher rates of heart disease and whatnot.

Here are two recent large studies that show numbers much higher than 35K. There's also be a lot of recent research on how these micro particles and droplets act on a cellular level in the lungs and blood vessels. It's devastating.

http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-poll ... he-us-0829

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN19J2V5

Thanks for the link, but I question the methodology here. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I have a philosophical problems with the methods used to estimate the impact of these particles.

They then divided the data into six emissions sectors: electric power generation; industry; commercial and residential sources; road transportation; marine transportation; and rail transportation. Barrett’s team fed the emissions data from all six sources into an air-quality simulation of the impact of emissions on particles and gases in the atmosphere.

To see where emissions had the greatest impact, they removed each sector of interest from the simulation and observed the difference in pollutant concentrations. The team then overlaid the resulting pollutant data on population-density maps of the United States to observe which populations were most exposed to pollution from each source.

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

pacino wrote:seize the means to own the libs:

In order to bolster coal-fired and nuclear power plants, the Trump administration is working on a pair of federal laws to order grid operators to buy electricity from the plants.

The U.S. Department of Energy would use emergency authority to direct the operators from at-risk facilities, according to Bloomberg.

The agency also wants to develop a "Strategic Electric Generation Reserve" to promote national defense and maximize energy supplies, according to a draft National Security Council memo, Bloomberg reports.

Nuclear and coal-fired plants are struggling against renewable energy sources and cheaper natural gas.

They are literally murdering people.

Nearly as many people die from the air pollution caused by coal than in automobile deaths each year. This is a significant public health issue. They going to sneak all this stuff into law while we're all focused on Trump's show.

Very interesting to have a party pass laws picking winners and losers, and latching themselves to the horse chariots of the times. I can't see how this is a winning issue for moderates/independents.

Also, I doubt 35k people die from pollution each year in the US. Even without good statistics on true causes of things like COPD or lung cancer, so much of those deaths are driven by smoking.

I hope trump somehow stays alive long enough to see nyc under water

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

pacino wrote:seize the means to own the libs:

In order to bolster coal-fired and nuclear power plants, the Trump administration is working on a pair of federal laws to order grid operators to buy electricity from the plants.

The U.S. Department of Energy would use emergency authority to direct the operators from at-risk facilities, according to Bloomberg.

The agency also wants to develop a "Strategic Electric Generation Reserve" to promote national defense and maximize energy supplies, according to a draft National Security Council memo, Bloomberg reports.

Nuclear and coal-fired plants are struggling against renewable energy sources and cheaper natural gas.

They are literally murdering people.

Nearly as many people die from the air pollution caused by coal than in automobile deaths each year. This is a significant public health issue. They going to sneak all this stuff into law while we're all focused on Trump's show.

Very interesting to have a party pass laws picking winners and losers, and latching themselves to the horse chariots of the times. I can't see how this is a winning issue for moderates/independents.

Also, I doubt 35k people die from pollution each year in the US. Even without good statistics on true causes of things like COPD or lung cancer, so much of those deaths are driven by smoking.

I hope trump somehow stays alive long enough to see nyc under water

Werthless wrote:Thanks for the link, but I question the methodology here. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I have a philosophical problems with the methods used to estimate the impact of these particles.

They then divided the data into six emissions sectors: electric power generation; industry; commercial and residential sources; road transportation; marine transportation; and rail transportation. Barrett’s team fed the emissions data from all six sources into an air-quality simulation of the impact of emissions on particles and gases in the atmosphere.

To see where emissions had the greatest impact, they removed each sector of interest from the simulation and observed the difference in pollutant concentrations. The team then overlaid the resulting pollutant data on population-density maps of the United States to observe which populations were most exposed to pollution from each source.

It's not the best, but all the studies are pretty much showing the same thing, just some are more severe than others. And like I said, there's a bunch of research coming out on how these very fine particles damage the lining of blood vessels, which of course leads to cardiovascular disease. It's not just the lungs that take the beating.

Sadly, with Trump in power or any of the GOP really, the research won't get funded that should be funded to study this stuff. It will all have to come from private monies.

President Donald Trump's lawyers argued in a confidential January letter to special counsel Robert Mueller that the President cannot illegally obstruct the Russia probe because he, as the top law enforcement officer, has authority over all federal investigations

In your best marble mouth stallone voice go with his Judge Dread 'I am the law' from the Hollywood tin era super hero movies.

Only the most awesome cheap authoritarian moves for don. What happens qhen he runs out of comic books to draw insipatoon from?

The text of that memo contains some scary shit.

I'll summarize: Dear Leader has absolute power and is subject to no laws. Also we lied about a bunch of stuff.

yeah probably not looking good for you when the defense becomes 'actually the president cant break any laws'