Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark in the Middle

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 603 posts

Re: Mark in the Middle

#591

Post by slg »

DenisM wrote: post #589
slg wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The New York Times is stating "senior leaders at the Pentagon, speaking on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged that they were talking among themselves about what to do if Mr. Trump, who will still be president from Election Day to Inauguration Day, invokes the Insurrection Act and tries to send troops into the streets". This is only "completely made up" in the sense that every hypothetical the military prepares…

> every hypothetical the military prepares for is a made up scenario Trump is within his authority to send the troops into the streets to quell an insurrection against constitutional order. This being an unusual situation naturally the generals should be getting prepared. Where's the coup?

We aren't talking about an insurrection against constitutional order. The hypothetical is that Trump loses the election, he cites some bogus case of fraud like he has spent the last several months building, he refuses to concede just like he said he wouldn't concede if their was fraud, large protests pop up in response to these moves as would obviously happen, Trump declares them riots just like he has been calling the largely peaceful protests of the last several months riots, and he orders in the troops to squash dissent just like he said he would when he refused to agree to a peaceful transfer of power. All of this is based off Trumps own words and prior behavior. It isn't the most likely scenario, but it can't be completely dismissed. It is a situation that the other branches of government and the military need to seriously consider.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#592

Post by DenisM »

slg wrote: post #591
DenisM wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> every hypothetical the military prepares for is a made up scenario Trump is within his authority to send the troops into the streets to quell an insurrection against constitutional order. This being an unusual situation naturally the generals should be getting prepared. Where's the coup?

We aren't talking about an insurrection against constitutional order. The hypothetical is that Trump loses the election, he cites some bogus case of fraud like he has spent the last several months building, he refuses to concede just like he said he wouldn't concede if their was fraud, large protests pop up in response to these moves as would obviously happen, Trump declares them riots just like he has been calling t…

> All of this is based off Trumps own words and prior behavior.

Which behavior is that?

>he refuses to concede

This is not supported by the NYT quote re Pentagon officials you have provided. Do you have a quote where Pentagon officials discuss actions in case of Trump's failure to concede?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#593

Post by monadic2 »

lightgreen wrote: post #294
shagie wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An article from four days ago: How Boomer Parenting Fueled Millennial Burnout -- https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/09/anne-hele... The initial bit of the interview in the article: > Anne Helen Petersen: There are two major factors. The first is conceiving of children as mini-adults—trying to cultivate behaviors, postures, and skills that are associated with adults, like being able to carry on conversati…

> The first is conceiving of children as mini-adults Or it's opposite. Children recently get so overprotected (eg they no longer can go walk in the forest alone for example), so when they reach 20, they are still children mentally, they cannot stand for themselves, and they expect protection from employee, government, society even when they hear something offensive (which is a lot).

I mean lack of protection for employment seems to be the essence of cancel culture. I suspect that this overprotection of children stems from the (often unrelated) fears of the parent, such as lack of social welfare and social services seen in other countries.

The world is pretty offensive if you listen to what people get offended by, like police shootings.

This whole panic about "sheltered millenials" or whatever seems to be projected from boomers (and older) who refuse to admit how poorly society functions compared to the idealistic but anemic view through the lens of private media (universally owned and operated by older generations).

Re: Mark in the Middle

#594

Post by slg »

DenisM wrote: post #592
slg wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We aren't talking about an insurrection against constitutional order. The hypothetical is that Trump loses the election, he cites some bogus case of fraud like he has spent the last several months building, he refuses to concede just like he said he wouldn't concede if their was fraud, large protests pop up in response to these moves as would obviously happen, Trump declares them riots just like he has been calling t…

> All of this is based off Trumps own words and prior behavior. Which behavior is that? >he refuses to concede This is not supported by the NYT quote re Pentagon officials you have provided. Do you have a quote where Pentagon officials discuss actions in case of Trump's failure to concede?

Are you just being willfully obtuse? The words and behaviors that I described in the previous comment. I give up trying to explain this to you. Congrats, you win the debate through sheer exhaustion.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#595

Post by xtian »

slg wrote: post #571
xtian wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How have you gained so much insight into Russia’s long-term geopolitical strategy and deduced that their primary goal is malice against American people? Through US media? Why do you think they’d invest considerable national resources into this malice for the powerless citizenry? And why do you think this supposed intent matters so much? Do you think outcomes will be worse for the people of the US than living under Pi…

Intent matters in society. There is a difference between murder and manslaughter. We don't know the ultimate result of all this on the US since we are right in the middle of it. It is possible things turn out relatively fine, but the US democracy right now is on the edge of collapse. The most recent example of such is that we have generals worried about a coup. [1] Also the US isn't the only target of this type of be…

My point is simply that on the level of geopolitics there isn’t a difference between murder and manslaughter. You keep asserting that there is without articulating the material ramifications of that difference for the actual people who live in a country.

And I fail to see how the US fits into the category of manslaughter anyway. For instance, there has been plenty of strong and well-documented anti-communist malice at the highest levels of power in US government and intelligence. But even so, imperialist histories like to portray this country as somehow stumbling into the atrocities it has committed.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#596

Post by jakelazaroff »

DenisM wrote: post #590
jakelazaroff wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump gets re-elected, by hook or by crook, and spends the next four years continuing to dismantle political infrastructure? Republican congresspeople continue to rubber stamp his agenda and Democrats offer only token resistance? The courts that Trump and McConnell have spent the past four years packing only rule against the most flagrant of Constitutional violations? Trump has spent the last four years flagrantly br…

> Trump gets re-elected, by hook or by crook, and spends the next four years continuing to dismantle political infrastructure? He already had four years. What exactly did he dismantle? The courts, the congress, the senate, the elections, the state rights? Did anything change at all in the "political infrastructure"? > courts that Trump and McConnell have spent the past four years packing only rule against the most fl…

> The courts, the congress, the senate, the elections, the state rights? Did anything change at all in the "political infrastructure"?

He and the Senate have aggressively confirmed judges at all levels. He’s purged all but the most obsequious members of the executive branch. He started to gut the USPS and will continue after the election. He’s attempted in multiple ways to undermine the census, specifically to undercount minority residents. He’s sown misinformation about voting. He’s encouraged police and private citizens to intimidate voters at the polls. While not his own doing, he will take advantage of the 1982 consent decree that expired in 2018.

> This trope is getting old. Justices are not puppets of their presidents.

I never said they were “puppets”. But they’re obviously biased — otherwise, why would Mitch McConnell try to block so many of Obama’s nominees and confirm so many of Trump’s? A case in which the conservative bloc of the court voted to uphold a law prohibiting gay sex in a private residence does not support your assertion.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#597

Post by dragonwriter »

DenisM wrote: post #590
jakelazaroff wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump gets re-elected, by hook or by crook, and spends the next four years continuing to dismantle political infrastructure? Republican congresspeople continue to rubber stamp his agenda and Democrats offer only token resistance? The courts that Trump and McConnell have spent the past four years packing only rule against the most flagrant of Constitutional violations? Trump has spent the last four years flagrantly br…

> Trump gets re-elected, by hook or by crook, and spends the next four years continuing to dismantle political infrastructure? He already had four years. What exactly did he dismantle? The courts, the congress, the senate, the elections, the state rights? Did anything change at all in the "political infrastructure"? > courts that Trump and McConnell have spent the past four years packing only rule against the most fl…

> Justices are not puppets of their presidents.

True, but Justices are extremely consistent with their appointing President’s preferences on political issues that are salient at the time of their appointment.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#598

Post by bryan_w »

henearkr wrote: post #74
facebookbadfru wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook ticks all of those? It's banned on china. https://sustainability.fb.com/ No proof on privacy issues but certainly neither seem saint. Any other concrete examples?

That's good to hear. It seems to me that FB is still a little short on ecological engagements. At least, compared to Google. So, room for improvement. About privacy concerns, for example: FB is not guaranteeing anything about not mining your private messages. What I find when googling it does not reassure me neither.

Facebook's privacy policy spells out what they use as sources of data for ads and messages are not on that list.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#599

Post by thu2111 »

sagichmal wrote: post #561
thu2111 wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can't be projection when it's so easy to find quotes or decisions that demonstrate it's the truth. Hillary Clinton: "women are the primary victims of war" ... "the more we support women, the more we support democracy" Joe Biden: next justice must be a black woman Obama: "Men have been getting on my nerves lately. Now women, I just want you to know; you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is tha…

I don't know where to start here. If you think those quotes reflect a hatred of men, you're without context to such a degree that I don't think we can even begin to have a conversation about it. I'm a white man and I don't have a problem with any of that. I think it's essentially all true. Can you square that?

That's the kind of non-answer that you posted before. Without context, blah blah blah. Fine, put them in a context that doesn't make them misandry. You can't because they are.

As for you being a white man and thinking it's true, Obama and Biden are men and also obviously think it's true - or calculate that it's politically beneficial to say it. It's still hating men: yes Dorothy, men can be misandrists. Plenty of irrational people in the world.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#600

Post by thu2111 »

Falling3 wrote: post #572
thu2111 wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can't be projection when it's so easy to find quotes or decisions that demonstrate it's the truth. Hillary Clinton: "women are the primary victims of war" ... "the more we support women, the more we support democracy" Joe Biden: next justice must be a black woman Obama: "Men have been getting on my nerves lately. Now women, I just want you to know; you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is tha…

Another white man here that disagrees with your assessment. How can pointing out the lack of representation on the nation's highest court with a desire to fix (the Biden quote) ever be construed as "overt and open sexism"?

These posts are absurd, it's like we aren't speaking the same language. How did you get like this?

Sexism means discrimination on the basis of sex. Stating the next SC justice isn't allowed to be a man is sexism. That is undeniably a correct statement.

Now, you believe sexism against men is justified. You should own that and just admit you're deeply sexist, you're engaging in misandry and female supremacy and you're happy about that. Don't try and alter the English language to pretend that isn't your position: own it.

But I don't know if you will be able to, as you're not only distorting the language around the word sexism. Biden isn't "pointing out" a lack of representation. He isn't a passive observer merely remarking on a phenomenon. He's stated very clearly that he should be the guy to pick and he will not pick a man or a white person under any circumstances. That's not "pointing out" - it's active sexual discrimination against men and whites.

Again, own it if you like. Say you're a sexist and you think it's justified, you wish it weren't illegal because men should lose by default. But don't try and claim that statements like "men are better than women" isn't sexism.

Post reply on HN