Geoff > Status Update

Geoff wrote: "Niklas wrote: "White male Americans don't need identity politics - they are the identity of politics. All you PC-bashing Dick Spencer types all I gotta say is boo-fuckin-hoo"

This is why you'll continue to lose elections.

Nick wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Niklas wrote: "White male Americans don't need identity politics - they are the identity of politics. All you PC-bashing Dick Spencer types all I gotta say is boo-fuckin-hoo"

This is..."

No, the Republicans will tank the economy like they always do, and we'll win the presidency again if not the next election cycle than in 8 years. But Republican policies consistently destroy the economy, and that is what people vote on, not identity politics.

Also Nick, that was a broad statement, care to clarify? You're saying white males are disproportionately under-represented in American politics?

Geoff wrote: "No, the Republicans will tank the economy like they always do, and we'll win the presidency again if not the next election cycle than in 8 years. But Republican policies consistently destroy the economy, and that is what people vote on, not identity politics."

This is completely detached from any reason whatsoever. Must be all those regulations and tax increases the dems push through that benefit the economy so much.

Geoff wrote: "White male Americans don't need identity politics"

Your fuck-the-white-male attitude. You're forgetting who elected Trump.

Geoff wrote: "All you PC-bashing Dick Spencer types all I gotta say is boo-fuckin-hoo"

This is probably even more indicative. Newsflash... most people can't stand the PC police.

Nick wrote: "Geoff wrote: "No, the Republicans will tank the economy like they always do, and we'll win the presidency again if not the next election cycle than in 8 years. But Republican policies consistently ..."

What happened after Reagan? Recession. Fixed by Clinton. What happened after W? The worst economic collapse since the depression - nursed to better health by Obama. You saying these things didn't happen?

And yes, all those regulations and taxes keep the economy stable and working for more people, indeed.

Nick wrote: "Geoff wrote: "White male Americans don't need identity politics"

Your fuck-the-white-male attitude. You're forgetting who elected Trump.

Geoff wrote: "All you PC-bashing Dick Spencer types all I ..."

I'm not saying fuck the white male, I'm a white male. I'm saying having an "identity victim" mentality as a white American male is some pretty soft, spoiled crybaby shit. Grow the fuck up and stop whining when your privilege puts you on the side of advantage practically every time.

And all those coal jobs and steel jobs and manufacturing jobs that disappeared, that got Trump elected? That's white-on-white crime, brother. That ain't about identity.

Geoff wrote: "Nick wrote: "Geoff wrote: "No, the Republicans will tank the economy like they always do, and we'll win the presidency again if not the next election cycle than in 8 years. But Republican policies ..."

* Reagan inherited Carter's mess.
* Clinton was lucky enough to be in office when the biggest technological advances of the century took place
* You're conveniently leaving out the dot com bubble crash
* The housing crisis is not the result of anything Bush did or didn't do
* The fix to the housing crisis had absolutely nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the Fed

Don't act like fiscal policy is the end-all-be-all to what drives the economy. The Fed has FAR more sway and other, external factors are far more indicative.

Geoff wrote: "And yes, all those regulations and taxes keep the economy stable and working for more people, indeed."

oh, is that what they do? now it all makes sense!

Nick wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Nick wrote: "Geoff wrote: "No, the Republicans will tank the economy like they always do, and we'll win the presidency again if not the next election cycle than in 8 years. But Republ..."

Yeah it's silly to think an administration needs to take credit or blame for things that happen under them. Things just happen, and the causes are up to de-historicized ideological reflection. Here we are.

Geoff wrote: "Nick wrote: "Geoff wrote: "I'm not saying fuck the white male, I'm a white male. I'm saying having an "identity victim" mentality as a white American male is some pretty soft, spoiled crybaby shit. Grow the fuck up and stop whining when your privilege puts you on the side of advantage practically every time"

Then I misinterpreted your comment.

Geoff wrote: "And all those coal jobs and steel jobs and manufacturing jobs that disappeared, that got Trump elected? That's white-on-white crime, brother. That ain't about identity."

No disagreement there.

Nick wrote: "Clinton was lucky enough to be in office when the biggest technological advances of the century took place"

Er... bigger than heavier-than-air flying machines, readily available automobiles, readily available radio communication, television, nuclear energy, space flight, transistors, integrated circuits, robotics?

Oops, the thread's getting hot.

Meanwhile, tomorrow's a potentially dangerous day for South Korea, but I may be the only one saying so. Tomorrow the Constitutional Court announces whether President Park Geun Hye's impeachment by the assembly is legal, and if so, she's out. She should be out, she's awful. And the large majority of citizens believe she should be impeached. But she has a sizeable, loud, and fanatical minority waving flags and supporting her. Almost nobody I've spoken to seriously considers the possibility that the court will reject her impeachment and keep her in power. But it could happen. In fact it will take a six to two majority of judges to uphold the impeachment.

But here's the thing no one has openly contemplated but I: It's possible that the court will uphold her impeachment and then the president will refuse to accept the court's authority. She already refused a subpoena and did not participate in her own trial or give any testimony. She already fired the prime minister and several cabinet ministers when she first faced a challenge to her authority, and that was just accepted. And she's been hiding from the public almost constantly for five months. I don't know if she can rally any support if she does that, but it's a scary possibility. Those whom I've spoken to say it can't happen... because it's illegal! She's the daughter of a dictator, her parents were both murdered, she shows signs of mental instability (she actually travels with her own bed and her own toilet when visiting hotels in foreign countries) and she's been impeached for illegal acts, corruption and such... does illegality necessarily mean anything to such a person?

Anyway, here's hoping for peace and justice.

Nick wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Nick wrote: "Geoff wrote: "I'm not saying fuck the white male, I'm a white male. I'm saying having an "identity victim" mentality as a white American male is some pretty soft, spoiled..."

It's not like I made it impenetrable to misinterpretation - it wasn't exactly subtle or like beta-tested - pretty much came from a place of anger.

To be fair, Clinton (Bill) repealed Glass-Steagall, setting things up for the financial crisis.

howl of minerva wrote: "To be fair, Clinton (Bill) repealed Glass-Steagall, setting things up for the financial crisis."

Gawddamn stop fucking my game up with facts Howl!

Zadignose wrote: "Oops, the thread's getting hot.

Meanwhile, tomorrow's a potentially dangerous day for South Korea, but I may be the only one saying so. Tomorrow the Constitutional Court announces whether Presiden..."

That's potentially horrifying. Peace and justice indeed.

No matter how you look at it our country (USA) is screwed. So is the earth and all life on it. Maybe Trump is here to make it end faster. I am such a pessimist anymore. Still, I want him out of here along with his cabinet.

Geoff wrote: "White male Americans don't need identity politics - they are the identity of politics. All you PC-bashing Dick Spencer types all I gotta say is boo-fuckin-hoo."

Not saying I agree with right-wing identity politics, fam. All identity politics is divisive bullshit that diverts people's attention from economic and class issues. But if you're wondering why we're suddenly seeing a resurgence in white identitarianism and white nationalism it's because the left has for a long time been playing the identity game whenever they can. It's pretty stupid not to expect white people to eventually want a slice of the identitarian cake every other group seems to enjoy. Left-wing identity politics have done a good job of dividing people into convenient groups of "oppressed" and "oppressors", and when a white working class coal miner is shoved into the latter group by the mainstream left there's bound to be some kind of counter-reaction. Hence, the Alt-Right. Hence, Trump.

Niklas wrote: "Geoff wrote: "White male Americans don't need identity politics - they are the identity of politics. All you PC-bashing Dick Spencer types all I gotta say is boo-fuckin-hoo."

Not saying I agree wi..."

Definitely - we squabble over whether a boy who used to be a girl can use a bathroom of their choice (the answer is an obvious yes) while the one-percent laughs all the way to all their banks while our livelihoods and hopes evaporate. You are right.

Jessaka wrote: "No matter how you look at it our country (USA) is screwed. So is the earth and all life on it. Maybe Trump is here to make it end faster. I am such a pessimist anymore. Still, I want him out of her..."

I just don't believe this. There are concrete ways we can make differences and improve things - we just have to start immediately and it will be long hard work. And there are tremendous obstacles to overcome from very powerful foes. But the power to change and improve is totally there and within our grasp.

David wrote: "Friend Nicole shared this wonderful article last night

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/0...

Great piece, thanks.

Aaaaand right on cue Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA who has never studied atmospheric science in any capacity, claims carbon dioxide is not a contributing factor to climate change.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-ch...

Geoff wrote: "Aaaaand right on cue Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA who has never studied atmospheric science in any capacity, claims carbon dioxide is not a contributing factor to climate change.

http://www.cnbc...."

Oh for fuck's sake.

Geoff wrote: "Aaaaand right on cue Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA who has never studied atmospheric science in any capacity, claims carbon dioxide is not a contributing factor to climate change.

http://www.cnbc...."

See Nick, this is where the anger comes from. My wife spent almost ten years getting her PH.D. in atmospheric physics, spends at least 8 and often many more hours a day poring over data coming in from satellites and a plethora of sources, works interminable hours coming to conclusions about this data and what it really means for the chemistry of our atmosphere and its fate, as one of the heads of carbon data at NASA, and a little prick like Pruitt comes along, doesn't know a damn thing about the science, hasn't spent a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of time or effort to understand the physics and the data, and just dismisses all that work, somehow believing he is in any way qualified to come to conclusions about what is happening and structure policy on it. Infuriating and insulting.

Geoff wrote: "Aaaaand right on cue Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA who has never studied atmospheric science in any capacity, claims carbon dioxide is not a contributing factor to climate change.

http://www.cnbc...."

The primary emotions I feel reading the news aren't even the horror/rage combo I anticipated...mostly now I just get sad. If it was just cut-and-dried evil a la Historical Terrors, I think I could deal, but this stuff...it feels more like the most sadistic joke ever perpetrated. Of course we get to pass through a post-modern apocalyptic storm with a literal clown at the ship's wheel.

Geoff wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Aaaaand right on cue Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA who has never studied atmospheric science in any capacity, claims carbon dioxide is not a contributing factor to climate change.

ht..."

Beyond the basic denial in the face of the global community and universal scientific acceptance, it's just bad moral and business sense, right? Like you can look at it like a matrix of action/outcomes:

Climate change is man made and we take action: Our efforts push the advancement of humanity's capacity to harness technology while reducing our dependence on finite resources.
Climate change is man made and we don't take action: Existential crisis of which no one gets out--not even the rich.
Climate change is not man made and we take action: Our efforts push the advancement of humanity's capacity to harness technology while reducing our dependence on finite resources.
Climate change is not man made and we don't take action: New catastrophes to come over wars for finite resources (or rather, not new, but continue, for isn't that the tale of time?)

Even if you truly do not believe climate change is real, or that it will have a major effect on life on earth, you're still not in a moral position. Fossil fuels are finite. That's the crux of any and all argument we should embrace with deniers.

Ian wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Aaaaand right on cue Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA who has never studied atmospheric science in any capacity, claims carbon dioxide is not a contributing factor to clima..."

best logic I have heard. I am going to copy and paste this for a time when I can use it as a good argument.

In the meantime animals, etc. are going extinct at an alarming rate.

the commentariat on Breitbart are currently VERY confused by the healthcare bill and the fact that Trump seems to be backing "lyin' ryan"...it is quite fun to watch. How can he be MAGA and all that and yet support Obamacare 2.0? There are stirrings of "he is letting us down"..."his first misstep" etc

Ian wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Aaaaand right on cue Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA who has never studied atmospheric science in any capacity, claims carbon dioxide is not a contributing factor to clima..."

Yeah thanks for that Ian, good stuff and true.

Manny wrote: "It has been obvious for some time that the right's strategy has been to transition smoothly from "we don't have enough evidence" to "it's too late".

I still don't quite understand why they're doing it though. Large-scale destruction of the Earth's ability to sustain life doesn't really seem to be in anyone's interests. The explanation that makes most sense is that people aren't actually rational, and only operate on short-term reasoning. All other species are like that: why should we be different?"

Well, you don't hear that anywhere in national party politics on the right - that it's too late. Or perhaps some of them privately believe it and that's why they go on as described because they are selfish and obviously don't care about anything except their own fortunes and immediate gratification.

Meanwhile reading environmental discussions, I get the impression the left aren't vocal enough about how to make a decent society where it is some degree of too late - too many seem overoptimistic about current conditions continuing and seem too scared to think about life without technologies we take for granted - and, with the occasional exception, broadly right-wing male social traditionalists get away with driving the conversation on what things would look like. And often - though okay this one here is a thread about American poltics - that means ideas most relevant to a powder-keg of a society with millions of guns in private ownership, and other perspectives, even those from other countries, except sometimes Russia, which are basically similar, never really get a look in.

Geoff wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Aaaaand right on cue Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA who has never studied atmospheric science in any capacity, claims carbon dioxide is not a contributing factor to climate change.

ht..."

Well for what it's worth, I don't agree (with him)

Nick wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Aaaaand right on cue Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA who has never studied atmospheric science in any capacity, claims carbon dioxide is not a contributing factor to clima..."

I know Nick, and I apologize for getting heated - I know you're a good guy. I mean, you love Ulysses. That speaks leagues about a person. (But you know if it were strictly up to market forces, Ulysses wouldn't exist. Etc.)

Manny wrote: "Nick wrote: "Clinton was lucky enough to be in office when the biggest technological advances of the century took place"

Er... bigger than heavier-than-air flying machines, readily available autom..."

I don't know how you can compare the tipping point of the computer/internet age with airplanes.

Since this is a book -themed social media website... this is currently the #1 book on amazon right now. It has stellar reviews.

Reasons To Vote For Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide

https://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Vote-D...

Geoff wrote: "I know Nick, and I apologize for getting heated - I know you're a good guy. I mean, you love Ulysses. That speaks leagues about a person. (But you know if it were strictly up to market forces, Ulysses wouldn't exist. Etc.) "

It was government that prevented Ulysses, not market forces. Market forces demanded it come out.

Nah, it was neither. It was more like a premodern, feudal arrangement. Joyce's patron Harriet Shaw Weaver. Her support shielded Joyce from the vicissitudes of the market.

Antonomasia wrote: "Manny wrote: "It has been obvious for some time that the right's strategy has been to transition smoothly from "we don't have enough evidence" to "it's too late".

I still don't quite understand wh..."

This is all coming from my thinking so should only be taken as such, but the elephant in the room that no one, left or right, is willing to say, that needs to be said, is that if the species is going to survive, the current situation cannot continue - meaning, limitless material production and consumption. If humanity is to survive, each of us is simply going to have to have fewer things. Less of everything, but the things we have will need to be made more smartly, built to last a lot longer, and will be more expensive. The lifestyles of manic cheap consumption we lead now are just untenable for the resources and environment of earth.

Nick wrote: "Geoff wrote: "I know Nick, and I apologize for getting heated - I know you're a good guy. I mean, you love Ulysses. That speaks leagues about a person. (But you know if it were strictly up to marke..."

No, remember that Joyce and Nora lived in utter poverty and he could only complete the work because (women) benefactors gave him money and expected no recompense. He only survived by pure patronage and generosity. No one was demanding Ulysses except a handful of literati.

David wrote: "Nah, it was neither. It was more like a premodern, feudal arrangement. Joyce's patron Harriet Shaw Weaver. Her support shielded Joyce from the vicissitudes of the market."

Oh, so it wasn't the Comstock law that prevented the release in the US until 1934... and before 1934 necessitated smuggling?

Rephrasing, I'm saying both the market and the state worked against Ulysses's existence.

(neither one facilitated it)

Nick wrote: "David wrote: "Nah, it was neither. It was more like a premodern, feudal arrangement. Joyce's patron Harriet Shaw Weaver. Her support shielded Joyce from the vicissitudes of the market."

Oh, so it ..."

The Comstock law only became relevant after it was written. Joyce wrote it for seven years in miserable poverty and failing health. He only survived by patronage. No market force allowed this book to exist. Even after it was published, he never made any serious money off it and wrote Finnegans Wake in essentially the same financial circumstances, and far worse medical circumstances. Ellmann's biography of Joyce is a wonderful thing.

Geoff wrote: "Nick wrote: "Geoff wrote: "I know Nick, and I apologize for getting heated - I know you're a good guy. I mean, you love Ulysses. That speaks leagues about a person. (But you know if it were strictl..."

David wrote: "Rephrasing, I'm saying both the market and the state worked against Ulysses's existence.

(neither one facilitated it)"

I still don't agree with the market forces. Despite it being banned in the US and UK for 12 years, it still sold thousands of copies with a dozen printings before 1934.

I don't dispute that Joyce's survival depended on benefactors, but he didn't really work, and never gained real commercial success until the ban on Ulysses was lifted, and by that point, he only lived another ~7 years.

In Joyce's lifetime be never approached anything that might be called commercial success.

Joyce "didn't really work"?????? You write his body of literature and tell me that isn't work. For fuck's sake the man worked tirelessly in horribly antagonistic circumstances!

Nick wrote: "I don't know how you can compare the tipping point of the computer/internet age with airplanes."

The innovations of the 90s were just some of the stuff that followed from the discovery of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century. The really interesting and novel things happened then. That's one of the key themes in Against the Day.

Seriously Nick read Ellmann's biography to get an idea of Joyce's actual life. It's an amazing book and will make clear the harrowing obstacles lived through so that these books exist.