The Refuge of the Toads

[Shatterface]

So, I've just finished The Blank Slate. It's the first book I've read in years, and the first ever on Kindle. Very much enjoyed it; thanks to those on here who recommended it.

Next book: Kraken by China Mieville.

Pinker is the a model of good, clear, entertaining science writing. The Language Instinct and The Stuff of Thought are two of my favourite books of any genre.

[Billie from Ockham]

Now, what about all this Trump state winning business? My son tells me that Trump is close to getting all the pledged votes he needs.

He had a very good night. He's always polled well in the northeast, but he beat his polling and won all the states that voted yesterday by the highest margins he's seen so far.

I'm wondering if Cruz and Kasich teaming up hurt them both, as people in the NorthEast only allow people to bend the rules to their advantage if they work or play for the Patriots.

[Billie from Ockham]

I'll believe Myers doesn't see sex when he says he'll sit on a panel no matter how few people with vaginas share the stage with him.

If Myers doesn't see sex, how does he know when to go get a graduate-student chaperone when an undergrad comes to complain about a grade?

[CommanderTuvok]

Gutted to hear about John. He was at the barricades from the beginning, leading the charge against the bullies and the madness of the Baboons.

It was John that wot won it.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Oy.

[Shatterface]

I was going to suggest changing the header in tribute but looks like you beat me to it.

[Guest_df4fcc85]

[John D]

This time last year Trump was a joke. Is there any chance there could be a general fingers up to party politics? Could the FBI thing bite HC? Someone needs to be updating the risk register.

Everyone in the media has been wrong about Trump. I think they are still wrong about him. There is a story going around that Republicans will not get behind him. I don't believe this story. The Republican "brand" is being transformed. The hard right still likes to think someone like Cruz has a chance. He doesn't. The country has moved so far to the left socially that Cruz can't pull in a majority. There are local areas that are very far right socially, but most of the country is tired of this nonsense. The center right in the Republican party is not inspiring very many people either. The Jeb Bushes and John Kasichs of the party are getting stomped because middle America is going broke and working harder than ever. The old coalition of social conservatives and pro-business moderates has collapsed for this election.

So, the Republicans need a new coalition. None of the Republicans knows exactly what this will be. They are in new territory and they really want to keep their nice jobs. So.... eventually... most of them will join Trump. They can always say that Trump was the choice of "the people" and they support the people.

Trump has a high negative rating, but he has an opportunity to change that. Hillary, on the other hand, has a high negative rating, but little opportunity to change it. People who hate Hillary have hated her for 20 years.... they will not change their minds now. She will be able to do little to reduce her negatives. Trump has most of his negatives because of his harsh language and pompous attitude. I think he will be able to do a lot to change this once the general election kicks in. He is a smart guy and knows what people want to hear.

If you watched his speech last night you could see him starting to pivot at Hillary. He started calling her a crook and a liar. She has a mountain of baggage that goes back 30 years. Trump will show the public every piece of her dirty laundry. "Benghazi... Whitewater...etc."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... zi/396182/

I think he has a very good chance at being the next President.

[Guest_df4fcc85]

Redis is an in-memory database that persists on disk.

via KIA
reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4gnm3x/you_have_read_this_even_if_you_dont_understand/

leads to a new instance of an old debate
github.com/antirez/redis/issues/3185

Inspired by django/django#2692, Redis should replace its "master" and "slave" terminology.

The summary is: master and slave have racial meanings (especially in North America, but also more generally) and it would be good to avoid them. Django went for primary and replica. I am not sure what makes the most sense for Redis.

Worth noting, CouchDB made a similar change. As did Drupal.

Back at KIA:

IronShoggoth

Oh it's my favourite trans woman. She's showed me that I can be a trans woman with a beard that wears men's clothes.
So I'm a woman born in a cis man's body but who's actually a trans man. So I don't have to change anything, but now I can talk about the cis white men as if I'm not one. And lesbians have to have sex with me.
Pronouns: God/Godself.

reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4gnm3x/you_have_read_this_even_if_you_dont_understand/d2j8gtm

And IronShoggoth is right! The github trollmitter is a muskrato!

github.com/nslater

Noah Slater
nslater
Pronouns: she/her

twitter.com/nslater

It gets a bit more interesting to see redis' author, antirez take on this in the github conversation

TLDR:

If I would start Redis from scratch I would pick a different terminology.
Now to switch would be too confusing: change of API, documentation, and so forth. We have a big tradition of backward compatibility to the point you can run in Redis 3.2 an application written for the first Redis beta released 7 years ago.
Redis has a SALVEOF NO ONE command that was designed on purpose as a freedom message.
So I'll leave it as it is.

I added an anti-slavery message inside the SLAVEOF manual page: redis.io/commands/SLAVEOF

@nslater using different terminology inside the code, in the INFO output and API, compared to the one used in the documentation, is not a good practice I think. Moreover I believe that retaining the terminology, but making people aware, as I tired to do in the SLAVEOF manual page, and as I'll do in other parts of the Redis documentation (the replication main page), is a very interesting alternative to banning single words. People aware of history have a much stronger defense from doing the same mistakes in the future, like the horrible thing of slavery, so I believe that by writing an anti-slavery sentence, linking to the wikipedia page I'll reach an higher goal:

To make people aware that the terminology used by Redis is not related to human slavery.
To try to make people read what slavery was about, how terrible it was, and that we should not make the same error again.
To show that there is another way compared to banning words, that is mostly a formal thing IMHO, and is the way of knowing what happened.
I myself tried to improve my own standards. I'm strongly against death penalty. I consider death penalty one of the most terrible things currently humanity is doing, so for several years I refused to trave to countries applying death penalty, including the United States. I may try to make people change the kill Unix command maybe, but I believe a more (much more, to ban the kill command is just useless) effective way to reach this goal is to support the Europe Union and other political actors that are trying to eradicate death penalty from the world. So I started to travel to US again since it was just a formal thing, but also to support more actively and in the open anti death penalty movements and political actors. I want to do a similar thing here with slaves and masters.

nslater:

Slavery is not a thing of the past. It continues to exist in many forms, not least of which is the prison industrial complex. "Slave" as a metaphor (and its use in Redis, etc.) cannot be detached from this. In fact, its function as a metaphor depends on this.

nslater:

I'm not suggesting you ban the word. I'm suggesting you deprecate it. This is a pretty standard practice across the software world as APIs change but need to keep backwards compatibility. The docs can simply mention there is a depreciated term that still works for old code.

I'm just trying to do what I think is correct... but thanks for the advice. @nslater proposed a change. I don't agree but I like the idea of using an OSS popular project to inform people about human rights and related things, so I made some change. Now if @nslater is not happy with what I did I'm sorry but I will not obey to what she says here just because I must...

It actually gets better as a wider tiff develops between antirez and nslater and nslater insults antirez and a rape joke is not made but interpreted as such...

At any rate, I thought antirez's responses here were brilliant.

[d4m10n]

In remembrance of John Greg, one of his final comments at Skepchick.org

http://skepchick.org/2011/07/frequently ... ent-128803

He saw the rifts coming from a fair distance.

[Ericb]

Trump has a high negative rating, but he has an opportunity to change that. Hillary, on the other hand, has a high negative rating, but little opportunity to change it. People who hate Hillary have hated her for 20 years.... they will not change their minds now. She will be able to do little to reduce her negatives. Trump has most of his negatives because of his harsh language and pompous attitude. I think he will be able to do a lot to change this once the general election kicks in. He is a smart guy and knows what people want to hear.

If you watched his speech last night you could see him starting to pivot at Hillary. He started calling her a crook and a liar. She has a mountain of baggage that goes back 30 years. Trump will show the public every piece of her dirty laundry. "Benghazi... Whitewater...etc."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/d ... ski-222430



Up until now Trump has basically been running a marketing campaign relying on free TV appearances. He's had no ground game. His marketing strategy has enabled him to take advantage of the turmoil the GOP has been in since 2009 and focus on the anger of a large chunk of that base that is angry at the establishment for not being able to deliver on all the promises is had made since 2010. This has given him a substantial plurality of the vote in the primaries and has make him the likely nominee. The general will be a different story. He'll to need to expand his marketing strategy to include people who aren't so angry while keeping the angry folks on board. He'll also need to build organizations in contestable states to get out the vote (frankly it's kind of late to be starting on that). I don't agree that Trump has less baggage than Hillary or that it will be easier for him to reverse his negatives. Not only are there literally hours of video out there of him making crazy rants in the last 9 months he's also had a very spotty career in business. Despite their often harsh rhetoric the other Republican candidates have had been soft on him compared to what the Clinton machine will hitting him with. They had to worry about not alienating Trumps GOP supporters, Clinton will be under no such handicap. This is probably going to be the ugliest presidential campaign since the 19th Century and most people will be disgusted and will not flock to either candidate with any enthusiasm. I think Clinton will win because most people will go with the more predictable quantity. Most people don't want a revolution, they just want to get on with their lives with as little turmoil as possilble There is zero evidence that Trump can give them that. Both candidates are old, the "revolution" will be postponed until 2020.

[Sulman]

Sorry to hear about John. He seemed like a good man.

To everyone going through tough times at the 'pit, keep your chin up, and most importantly talk to people.

[Sulman]

Trump has a high negative rating, but he has an opportunity to change that. Hillary, on the other hand, has a high negative rating, but little opportunity to change it. People who hate Hillary have hated her for 20 years.... they will not change their minds now. She will be able to do little to reduce her negatives. Trump has most of his negatives because of his harsh language and pompous attitude. I think he will be able to do a lot to change this once the general election kicks in. He is a smart guy and knows what people want to hear.

If you watched his speech last night you could see him starting to pivot at Hillary. He started calling her a crook and a liar. She has a mountain of baggage that goes back 30 years. Trump will show the public every piece of her dirty laundry. "Benghazi... Whitewater...etc."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/d ... ski-222430



Up until now Trump has basically been running a marketing campaign relying on free TV appearances. He's had no ground game. His marketing strategy has enabled him to take advantage of the turmoil the GOP has been in since 2009 and focus on the anger of a large chunk of that base that is angry at the establishment for not being able to deliver on all the promises is had made since 2010. This has given him a substantial plurality of the vote in the primaries and has make him the likely nominee. The general will be a different story. He'll to need to expand his marketing strategy to include people who aren't so angry while keeping the angry folks on board. He'll also need to build organizations in contestable states to get out the vote (frankly it's kind of late to be starting on that). I don't agree that Trump has less baggage than Hillary or that it will be easier for him to reverse his negatives. Not only are there literally hours of video out there of him making crazy rants in the last 9 months he's also had a very spotty career in business. Despite their often harsh rhetoric the other Republican candidates have had been soft on him compared to what the Clinton machine will hitting him with. They had to worry about not alienating Trumps GOP supporters, Clinton will be under no such handicap. This is probably going to be the ugliest presidential campaign since the 19th Century and most people will be disgusted and will not flock to either candidate with any enthusiasm. I think Clinton will win because most people will go with the more predictable quantity. Most people don't want a revolution, they just want to get on with their lives with as little turmoil as possilble There is zero evidence that Trump can give them that. Both candidates are old, the "revolution" will be postponed until 2020.

I think the biggest problem Trump has is he does not have the political chops outside of internal GOP rhetoric. Clinton is going to slaughter him on policy by virtue of Trump thus far having no hard answers on policy questions; already he's attacking Hilary on an ad-hom basis. People don't care for that as they likely already hold that opinion of her but would like to know what's he's planning for his presidency outside of a wall he will never be able to build.

Clinton is going to take the female and minority vote by default. All of this bullshit is for nothing, she's been a shoe-in from the start.

[Lsuoma]

This is probably going to be the ugliest presidential campaign since the 19th Century

no_parties.jpg

(85.89 KiB) Downloaded 1333 times

[John D]

Trump has a high negative rating, but he has an opportunity to change that. Hillary, on the other hand, has a high negative rating, but little opportunity to change it. People who hate Hillary have hated her for 20 years.... they will not change their minds now. She will be able to do little to reduce her negatives. Trump has most of his negatives because of his harsh language and pompous attitude. I think he will be able to do a lot to change this once the general election kicks in. He is a smart guy and knows what people want to hear.

If you watched his speech last night you could see him starting to pivot at Hillary. He started calling her a crook and a liar. She has a mountain of baggage that goes back 30 years. Trump will show the public every piece of her dirty laundry. "Benghazi... Whitewater...etc."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/d ... ski-222430



Up until now Trump has basically been running a marketing campaign relying on free TV appearances. He's had no ground game. His marketing strategy has enabled him to take advantage of the turmoil the GOP has been in since 2009 and focus on the anger of a large chunk of that base that is angry at the establishment for not being able to deliver on all the promises is had made since 2010. This has given him a substantial plurality of the vote in the primaries and has make him the likely nominee. The general will be a different story. He'll to need to expand his marketing strategy to include people who aren't so angry while keeping the angry folks on board. He'll also need to build organizations in contestable states to get out the vote (frankly it's kind of late to be starting on that). I don't agree that Trump has less baggage than Hillary or that it will be easier for him to reverse his negatives. Not only are there literally hours of video out there of him making crazy rants in the last 9 months he's also had a very spotty career in business. Despite their often harsh rhetoric the other Republican candidates have had been soft on him compared to what the Clinton machine will hitting him with. They had to worry about not alienating Trumps GOP supporters, Clinton will be under no such handicap. This is probably going to be the ugliest presidential campaign since the 19th Century and most people will be disgusted and will not flock to either candidate with any enthusiasm. I think Clinton will win because most people will go with the more predictable quantity. Most people don't want a revolution, they just want to get on with their lives with as little turmoil as possilble There is zero evidence that Trump can give them that. Both candidates are old, the "revolution" will be postponed until 2020.

I agree that this election will be a wild ride and I look forward to some great TV. You could also be right about Trump not being able to solve his problem of high negatives... but... we should not count him out.

[Dave]

John was a good guy. I can only hope this is the peace he was looking for.

I'm reassured that John will be spending eternity only a brisk paddle away from Beaver Island.

http://i.imgur.com/KduaRaj.jpg

And on a less somber note, I now want to look into the geology of the area with the hope of finding that fingertip rock is slowly moving toward Beaver Island.

[John D]

I think the biggest problem Trump has is he does not have the political chops outside of internal GOP rhetoric. Clinton is going to slaughter him on policy by virtue of Trump thus far having no hard answers on policy questions; already he's attacking Hilary on an ad-hom basis. People don't care for that as they likely already hold that opinion of her but would like to know what's he's planning for his presidency outside of a wall he will never be able to build.

Clinton is going to take the female and minority vote by default. All of this bullshit is for nothing, she's been a shoe-in from the start.

You may be forgetting that we Mericans elected G. W. Bush... TWICE. I remember watching Bush in the debates. He could barely speak in full sentences. I would always come away from the debate thinking he was an idiot and had no policy on anything. He would intentionally just not answer a direct question on policy... and HE GOT ELECTED!

Don't count the Trump out yet....

[Dave]

Plus, Cruz would make an even worse president than Trump. He's an ugly theocrat who would rather shut down the government than have it spend money on education. I would rather have PZ Myers as president than Ted Cruz.

I hope you're not serious.

I would agree with him. PZ would be completely ineffectual as President, so I have no concern what his opinions are, there is no chance he would ever be able to implement anything, hell I suspect he would set his own causes back a decade. Cruz knows how to play the game and is a fucking theocrat. Cruz is dangerous, PZ is a sideshow.

[Billie from Ockham]

I think the biggest problem Trump has is he does not have the political chops outside of internal GOP rhetoric. Clinton is going to slaughter him on policy by virtue of Trump thus far having no hard answers on policy questions; already he's attacking Hilary on an ad-hom basis. People don't care for that as they likely already hold that opinion of her but would like to know what's he's planning for his presidency outside of a wall he will never be able to build.

Clinton is going to take the female and minority vote by default. All of this bullshit is for nothing, she's been a shoe-in from the start.

You may be forgetting that we Mericans elected G. W. Bush... TWICE. I remember watching Bush in the debates. He could barely speak in full sentences. I would always come away from the debate thinking he was an idiot and had no policy on anything. He would intentionally just not answer a direct question on policy... and HE GOT ELECTED!

Don't count the Trump out yet....

I had exactly the same reaction as John. I remember being highly over-confident before The Shrub was elected the second time. I "knew" that we couldn't win again; he'd already been a disaster. My fellow Americans could not be that stupid.

I'm not Nate Silver (even though I could play him on TV), but I'd put the odds of Pres Trump at better than 1 in 5 as of now. That Clinton is so incredibly unlikable is not helping one bit.

[diabolimerick]

I quit Twitter but I felt compelled to share this somewhere. (I apologize if this was a bad idea.) It's a critique of Edward Said, who it seems was a poor scholar but because he blamed whites and the West for all the world's trouble he was celebrated by the guilt-laden left. He reminds me of Raza (argued in bad faith, misrepresented people, used misleading and sculpted quotes to suit his own purposes.) The whole article, to me, really shows the birth of the regressive left.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/arti ... dward-said

A few examples:

On Said's book Orientalism, "What made the book electrifying was that Said had found a new way to condemn the West for its most grievous sins: racism and the subjugation of others. With great originality, Said even extended the indictment through the millennia."

The West, caucasians, Europeans have been evil since forever!

"Thus did Orientalism fit the temper of a time when it was widely asserted that all white people were inherently bigoted, and “encounter groups” met at campuses and workplaces so that whites could discover and confront their inner racist."

That temper of a time is more now than ever. Have you checked your privilege today?

"In this atmosphere, wrote the New York Times in its obituary for Said, “Orientalism established Dr. Said as a figure of enormous influence in American and European universities, a hero to many, especially younger faculty and graduate students on the left for whom that book became an intellectual credo and the founding document of what came to be called postcolonial studies.”

And those faculty members kept regurgitating these bad ideas to students who would then become faculty members themselves and these bad ideas became increasingly distilled with each successive student-cum-teacher cycle. Boom: microagressions.

"It was not only American leftists who seized on the book. The Guardian, in its own obituary, observed that:
--
Orientalism appeared at an opportune time, enabling upwardly mobile academics from non-western countries (many of whom came from families who had benefited from colonialism) to take advantage of the mood of political correctness it helped to engender by associating themselves with “narratives of oppression,” creating successful careers out of transmitting, interpreting and debating representations of the non-western “other.”
--
Orientalism, added the Guardian, “is credited with helping to change the direction of several disciplines,” a thought echoed by supporters and detractors alike. Admiringly, Stuart Schaar, a professor emeritus of Middle East history at Brooklyn College, wrote that “the academic community has been transformed and the field of literary criticism has been revolutionized as a result of his legacy.”

And the disease spreads until video games, comics, scifi books, STEM, etc, until everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is -ist, -ist, -ist. You -istist!

Tell me the following doesn't remind you of our privileged, keyboard-activst SJWs:

"Said was fond of invoking the mantra of “speaking truth to power.” This was an easy boast for someone who opted to live in America, or for that matter to live anywhere, and make a career of denouncing the West and Israel."

Said even lied about his upbringing. He made his career as a Palestinian refugee but he was raised in Cairo and his family was loaded! That's so SJW.

"Leftism is the stance of those who aspire to make the world a better place, according to their own view, through political action. For roughly a century its modal idea was Marxism, which identified the proletariat as the engine of redemption, a choice that resonated with the age-old Christian belief that the meek shall inherit the earth. As the twentieth century wore on, however, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela displaced Joe Hill, Mother Bloor, and Henry Wallace as objects of veneration. People of color and strugglers against colonial oppression stirred the hearts of idealists more than leaders of strikes and fighters for a fair day’s pay. Once, Zionism had tapped into that older leftism, seeing itself as a workers’ movement. But instead in the latter twentieth century—and in considerable part thanks to the impact of Edward Said—it became redefined as a movement of white people competing for land with people of color. This transformation meant that from then on the left would be aligned overwhelmingly and ardently against Israel."

There you have it. White people are just the worst because they're inherently evil racists, and people of color are just the booooooomb diggity. (I hazard to guess Said would rather SJWs focused more on the Middle East and less on manspreading and such, but creating monsters involves a certain level of unpredictability.)

[I may be over medicated at the moment so I apologize if this was a dumb thing to post here. Scroll on, brothers and sisters.]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Spike13]

They waste their energy on arguing over technical terms ( master, slave... Wait till they get to male, female, transmission, studs... Any who)

These fuckers are so sensitive it's a wonder exposure to sunlight doesn't kill them....meanwhile in their own minds they are fierce progressive warriors..

given the somber news of Johns passing yesterday I've done a bit of reflecting.

I think I can say that to a lot of us, this place is an island of sanity, reason and humor in a sea of lunatics.

I'd like to thank you all for that.

As the struggle has spread from the A/S community to the wider world, it seems our little refuge is needed now more than ever.

[Shatterface]

The Guardian, in its own obituary

If only.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

This time last year Trump was a joke. Is there any chance there could be a general fingers up to party politics? Could the FBI thing bite HC? Someone needs to be updating the risk register.

The HRC email thing is going nowhere. Nothing of substance there. Most people have no clue what a complete joke classifying information is in the government.

Trump is the only candidate addressing concerns about immigration. People generally dislike it, and also really fear terrorism.

Sanders is being a petulant sore loser, preventing Hillary from shifting back toward center. She needs to expand the "Us" in "Working For Us" to more than bratty college students, PoCs, and single women.

Hillary can beat Trump by playing the pragmatic mom chiding the little boy and his antics. But Trump knows how to play to a crowd. So far, those antics have been exactly what folks find appealing, in the face of stodgy pols out-of-touch with everyday Joes & Jills. In any case, he wins if there's a terrorist attack.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

John always (rightly) prided himself on the vast number of blogs where he'd been banned.

[deLurch]

Latest PSA making the rounds.
[youtube]9tU-D-m2JY8[/youtube]

[Ericb]

I think the significance of Trump is in the future rather than the present. He has shown that a significant chunk of the GOP is "nationalist" rather than "conservative." I have no idea how this will eventually play out but if Trump's heirs are able to create a coherent ideology out of this and make it appealing to people other than the old party base then this may the beginning of the end of the conservative movement's domination of the party.

[feathers]

Myers demonstrates his boho creds

I tend not to characterize people into one of two groups by the degree of enlargement of their embryonic genital tubercle, either. That seems a kind of crude and useless taxonomy. In general, lumping humanity into men on one side and women on the other seems like a useless distinction that ignores a tremendous amount of nuance.

I’m going to start thinking of people in terms of their blood groups. I really should start hanging out with more type O people, in case there is a tragic accident and I need a transfusion. I’m incompatible with those A and B people, and those ABs, just forget it. But at least I’ve divided humanity into four arbitrary subsets, rather than a mere two.

In other words, PZ Myers never noticed the sex of his wife-to-be before he bonked her for the first time. Might's well have been a beardy muscato.

Is there a physical limit to sanctimony?

[Karmakin]

Latest PSA making the rounds.
[youtube]9tU-D-m2JY8[/youtube]

I used to go to a lot of hockey games.

I'd hear women all the time hollering the nastiest stuff at the players. I doubt this is nearly as gendered one-sided as this video makes it out to be.

[feathers]

I'll believe Myers doesn't see sex when he says he'll sit on a panel no matter how few people with vaginas share the stage with him.

Also that.

[Billie from Ockham]

I think the significance of Trump is in the future rather than the present. He has shown that a significant chunk of the GOP is "nationalist" rather than "conservative." I have no idea how this will eventually play out but if Trump's heirs are able to create a coherent ideology out of this and make it appealing to people other than the old party base then this may the beginning of the end of the conservative movement's domination of the party.

I even have some positive feelings about what Trump might mean down the road. For one thing, he is definitely causing grief for the Religious Right, which is always a good thing. Yes, uniting the Right around xenophobia and nationalism ain't so great, either, but I actually see these are more easily dealt with or channeled than religion.

[Guest_df4fcc85]

This time last year Trump was a joke. Is there any chance there could be a general fingers up to party politics? Could the FBI thing bite HC? Someone needs to be updating the risk register.

The HRC email thing is going nowhere. Nothing of substance there. Most people have no clue what a complete joke classifying information is in the government.

Many people, many liberals, who have had security clearances disagree.

Jonathan Turley, who most people consider liberal, but many liberals *now* consider right wing, has had a TS/SCI clearance since Reagan and has blogged about this many times. It likely will not going anywhere, but not because there is nothing of substance there.

[feathers]

Sorry to hear about John. He seemed like a good man.

To everyone going through tough times at the 'pit, keep your chin up, and most importantly talk to people.

As they say, if you're neck-deep in the shit, it's better to keep your chin up than to let your head hang.

[deLurch]

What killed me about John was that he had a laid out plan, and fixed requirements and wasn't willing to change up his game to adapt to his economic realities.

[deLurch]

Interesting article that shows some of the emails Mizzou was receiving.
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/inside-t ... at-mizzou/

[Oglebart]

What was the opinion regarding Reagan before his election? I was only a nipper when he was POTUS so have no idea of the way the US people regarded him.

Did the whole acting career detract from his image? Or add to it even?

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

What killed me about John was that he had a laid out plan, and fixed requirements and wasn't willing to change up his game to adapt to his economic realities.

I'm pretty sure that's what killed John as well.

[deLurch]

Here is a better sample of the emails at Mizzou
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/internal ... -protests/

[Cnutella]

Plus, Cruz would make an even worse president than Trump. He's an ugly theocrat who would rather shut down the government than have it spend money on education. I would rather have PZ Myers as president than Ted Cruz.

I hope you're not serious.

His stents would immediately blow (not a death threat) and we would have his VP as president, President Watson.

"Oh uh, hey there voters! Yeah, I know that I was supposed to have this Presidential Address broadcast by Wednesday but things got away from me... as you know, I've been pretty sick with the flu and this Syrian crisis thing isn't helping. If you have any good ideas about how I can resolve it, please tweet them to @SecOfDefenceSurlyAmy ASAP. It might help her get over her panic attack... Might be a bit late as we missed the deadline for a resolution of action at the UN two weeks ago - at least, that's how I think it's supposed to work? Yeaaah... guess we'll see about that. In other news... I will be streaming a Twitch feed of me playing Fallout 7 for anyone interested at 8pm tonight."

[Ericb]

What was the opinion regarding Reagan before his election? I was only a nipper when he was POTUS so have no idea of the way the US people regarded him.

Did the whole acting career detract from his image? Or add to it even?

He served two terms as governor of California before he ran for president and almost got the nomination in 1976 so he was hardly a political neophyte. Liberals and comedians made much of his acting career but I don't think the average person gave a shit. He was well packaged and his campaigns were slick with the right mixture of righteous anger with feel good optimism. I often read that voters liked Reagan himself more than his policies. He had a rocky first term but he was reelected by an electoral landslide (the last time that happened).

In other words there is really very little similarity between him and Trump.

[Billie from Ockham]

In other words there is really very little similarity between him and Trump.

Weird hair?

[Ericb]

In other words there is really very little similarity between him and Trump.

Weird hair?

And make-up.

Reagan was kind of like a flesh puppet. He was suffering from by alzheimer's in his 2nd term. It didn't seem to make that much of a difference.

[comhcinc]

You may be forgetting that we Mericans elected G. W. Bush... TWICE.

Well, once.

[Service Dog]

John Greg set a deadline to end his life, and he had qualms about asking for help here & from his family. Which indicates his reticence to trade his value system for a few more days of life, or a few more dollars.

People who live by their principles built our civilization, by putting-aside shortsighted gratification.

But I'm skeptical about how-well that arrangement served John Greg. He, and I, and many-others, seem to be in a late-stage Prisoners' Dilemma, where many-others have already decided to break the social contract, opting-for a me-me-me freeforall. At that point, is it worse to be the last-one to grasp for crumbs/ or worse to eschew even crumbs-- retaining only misguided honor?

His posts about suicide plans-- and his 'life support system' fundraising-- illuminated the subject, by example.

Back when John Greg posted that stuff, I was having dark days. I set a deadline, but tried to improve on John Greg's design: Instead of a date to die/ I set a date to live-until; with the option of extending the deadline indefinitely. Namely, "as long as my dog is still alive." This helped me put-aside To Be Or Not To Be questions, so I could work-on getting-by here&now. I've already extended that deadline-- when a specific calendar date (a few years away) suggested-itself... So, even if my dog doesn't last that long, I intend to remain in-business. Fuck it. I'll extend it again, right now: I plan to live to be older than John Greg.

My critique of his "life support system" plea, is that-- having been begrudgingly persuaded to ask for help-- John Greg was unable to fully-discard his prior approach. Instead of an unapologetic, streamlined solicitation; he draped those posts with disclaimers: pre-emptive statements that he was as-disgusted with himself for being a vulnerable victim... as any unsympathetic critic who might be sneering at him. His self-effacement made it harder for well-wishers to support him. Open shame makes passerbys want to avert their gaze & let him rot in privacy/ rather than look him in his eye & help an equal.

I questioned his sincerity-- but I kept my doubts quiet, because there was no benefit in him proving his sincerity by refusing-help, or by killing himself. The only upsides to how things turned-out, is 1. if others learn that-- when it's time to ask for help-- there's nothing-wrong with keeping the request simple & vulnerable/ no need to inoculate yourself against scorn by a big show of scorning-yourself. 2. I think our current culture overemphasizes the manipulative scammers/ neglects genuine face-value cases of deserving-people in legit need. Better to be occassionally-scammed, than insist someone martyr themselves before granting them compassion.

[Spike13]

What was the opinion regarding Reagan before his election? I was only a nipper when he was POTUS so have no idea of the way the US people regarded him.

Did the whole acting career detract from his image? Or add to it even?

From what I remember ( I was 14, ) Carters approval rating was in the dumps.( his presidency was when the media started tracking these things) He survived a challenge from Ted Kennedy in the primaries. A large part of the party wanted to replace him. Stagflation, high gas prices, Russia invadeing Afganistan and the Iran hostage crisis were all going on.

Reagan was the odds on favorite for the Republican Party.( he had finished a narrow second to an incumbent Ford in 76') George Bush posed as an early challenger but faded quickly.

From the vibe I got, the Dems were overjoyed that Reagan would be the Rep. Candidate as they could frame him as a dangerous right wing conservative.( much like Goldwater in 64')

The Dems were further bolstered by the decision of republican John Anderson to run as an independent. ( it was felt this would hurt Reagan much more than Carter.)

Much like Kennedy, Reagan was made for television and modern politics. He had a gift for a timely sound bite and a quick wit with the press.

There was some derisive reference to his acting career but, this didn't seem to really hurt him.

Carter seemed vacillating, unprepared and weak, Reagan had more of an air of confidence.

[comhcinc]

So I had my interview and I believe it went well. They are going to interview more people and get back to me next week.

[Ericb]

So I had my interview and I believe it went well. They are going to interview more people and get back to me next week.

That's the hardest wait. Good luck.

[Kirbmarc]

Plus, Cruz would make an even worse president than Trump. He's an ugly theocrat who would rather shut down the government than have it spend money on education. I would rather have PZ Myers as president than Ted Cruz.

Myers could never be elected president through democratic means in the West, he's too shy to speak loudly in public even in a friendly event. All of his public speeches are carefully scripted and rehearsed, even the weakest of his rivals could accidentally tear him to shreds by changing the subject of a debate.

I don't think that any of the FTBloggers have it in them to be charismatic enough to inspire people to vote them. Even other SJWs would be unimpressed. This is one of the reasons why FTB is such a laughingstock even in SJW circles.

To be fair I can't think of any SJW blogger who could inspire enough people to be elected even in a SJW commune. They're all too concerned with policing each other, with acting as critics to act as charismatic leaders.

I think that if we're going to have a SJW-friendly president anywhere in the West it's going to be a seasoned politician who jumps on the SJW bandwagon because he or (more likely) she can cash in some oppression points, not an outsider who starts a SJW revolution like Trump has started his own private campaign. SJWs are intellectually and physically lazy. They're going to support whoever seems to pander to them the most, they're unlikely to start a movement of their own. They're either going to go with the flow, or to simply stay at home.

We've seen it recently with Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton. On paper Sanders looked like the ideal SJW candidate, but pretty much all the most influential SJWs supported Clinton, because Sanders wasn't pandering to them but had a more comprehensive plan, and mostly because he's an old white hetero cis man.

SJWs care only about identity policies. To get them to vote you it's enough to say "vote me, I'm a member of oppressed minority X". If Sarah Palin ran against Bernie Sanders many SJWs would vote for her, or at the very least not vote for Sanders, just because she's a woman and he's an old white man. If Ted Cruz came out as trans he could get some SJWs to vote for him on the basis of his new trans identity.

[jet_lagg]

I think the significance of Trump is in the future rather than the present. He has shown that a significant chunk of the GOP is "nationalist" rather than "conservative." I have no idea how this will eventually play out but if Trump's heirs are able to create a coherent ideology out of this and make it appealing to people other than the old party base then this may the beginning of the end of the conservative movement's domination of the party.

I even have some positive feelings about what Trump might mean down the road. For one thing, he is definitely causing grief for the Religious Right, which is always a good thing. Yes, uniting the Right around xenophobia and nationalism ain't so great, either, but I actually see these are more easily dealt with or channeled than religion.

I'm thrilled to see things being shaken up, but

*Indiana Jones impression*

Trump... why did it have to be Trump? He personifies everything I hate in the world, anti-intellectual, xenophobic, crude. Crude in politics mind you. I'm all for dick jokes at the tavern or on the pit, but naively hope the political arena could conduct itself with a bit more dignity. Time and a place, yes?

That first part was a rhetorical question btw. The populist backlash to the increasingly aggressive and ever-smug encroachment of progressive culture was inevitable. Now the people who've been called hateful bigots for ages are embracing the title and laughing as liberals howl while Trump barrels on ahead.

And I hope my silence on John's passing can be forgiven. I just find words inadequate in situations like these.

[Spike13]

Remember, when the SJW's job the Hugo's it's progressive and brave.

When anyone else does it, it is weepfully wrong...

Given what went on last year why didn't the SJW's rally the troops to overcome this horrible travesty?


Mmmm... More of Pizzy's salty tears for my marquerita glass.

[Ericb]

Why the GOP would rather face Sanders than Clinton in the GE.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _them.html

[Shatterface]

What was the opinion regarding Reagan before his election? I was only a nipper when he was POTUS so have no idea of the way the US people regarded him.

Did the whole acting career detract from his image? Or add to it even?

Reagan inspired this JG Ballard work as far back as 1968:

http://www.ballardian.com/images/unicorn_ballard.jpg

[jet_lagg]

Remember, when the SJW's job the Hugo's it's progressive and brave.

When anyone else does it, it is weepfully wrong...

Given what went on last year why didn't the SJW's rally the troops to overcome this horrible travesty?


Mmmm... More of Pizzy's salty tears for my marquerita glass.

Is anyone here familiar with the Fandom (I love the genres, but never participated in forums or went to any cons) who is opposed to the Sad Puppies? If my understanding of the voting process is clear, then they really are in the minority and just using a brigading tactic to game the system. How do they have enough votes to get entire categories filled with nothing but nominations from their slate, but then not enough votes to defeat everyone snubbing them with a "no award" vote?

[deLurch]

John Greg set a deadline to end his life, and he had qualms about asking for help here & from his family. Which indicates his reticence to trade his value system for a few more days of life, or a few more dollars.

People who live by their principles built our civilization, by putting-aside shortsighted gratification.

But I'm skeptical about how-well that arrangement served John Greg. He, and I, and many-others, seem to be in a late-stage Prisoners' Dilemma, where many-others have already decided to break the social contract, opting-for a me-me-me freeforall. At that point, is it worse to be the last-one to grasp for crumbs/ or worse to eschew even crumbs-- retaining only misguided honor?

His posts about suicide plans-- and his 'life support system' fundraising-- illuminated the subject, by example.

Back when John Greg posted that stuff, I was having dark days. I set a deadline, but tried to improve on John Greg's design: Instead of a date to die/ I set a date to live-until; with the option of extending the deadline indefinitely. Namely, "as long as my dog is still alive." This helped me put-aside To Be Or Not To Be questions, so I could work-on getting-by here&now. I've already extended that deadline-- when a specific calendar date (a few years away) suggested-itself... So, even if my dog doesn't last that long, I intend to remain in-business. Fuck it. I'll extend it again, right now: I plan to live to be older than John Greg.

My critique of his "life support system" plea, is that-- having been begrudgingly persuaded to ask for help-- John Greg was unable to fully-discard his prior approach. Instead of an unapologetic, streamlined solicitation; he draped those posts with disclaimers: pre-emptive statements that he was as-disgusted with himself for being a vulnerable victim... as any unsympathetic critic who might be sneering at him. His self-effacement made it harder for well-wishers to support him. Open shame makes passerbys want to avert their gaze & let him rot in privacy/ rather than look him in his eye & help an equal.

I questioned his sincerity-- but I kept my doubts quiet, because there was no benefit in him proving his sincerity by refusing-help, or by killing himself. The only upsides to how things turned-out, is 1. if others learn that-- when it's time to ask for help-- there's nothing-wrong with keeping the request simple & vulnerable/ no need to inoculate yourself against scorn by a big show of scorning-yourself. 2. I think our current culture overemphasizes the manipulative scammers/ neglects genuine face-value cases of deserving-people in legit need. Better to be occassionally-scammed, than insist someone martyr themselves before granting them compassion.

A couple of his hooks that made it difficult to find alternatives for him, is that he insisted on staying in his current apartment and refused to consider moving to an area with a lower cost of living.

He said he was willing to work any job, with the qualification that it paid a "living wage." But any number jobs under a "living wage" would have significantly extended his financial burn rate. Not to mention if you adjust your expenses, you can have a very pleasant, yet frugal life with the right mind set.

To him changes in those areas meant that he was going straight back to being homeless. He had dug himself out of that hole once before and didn't want to take a step back. It was all he head now, or nothing.

And given his fatalist mindset and depression, I can see how it would be extremely difficult for him to continue to market himself and network within his current profession. He had already given up.

It is difficult to talk someone out of their course of action once their mind is set and they are significantly depressed.

[dog puke]

Fucking bloody hell.

John Gregory, you will be missed.

Personally, I need no more reminders of the shortness and preciousness of life; there have been far too many in recent times. However, despite over saturation, I will not eschew the message.

Condolences to Clarence and Jugheadnaut, et al. (I am going through stuff very similar to Clarence these days and it sucks big time.)

Peace and love to all my sisters, brothers and non-binary siblings here at the pit.

[deLurch]

In hindsight, maybe the act of getting out of the house to work a non-living wage job might have changed things around for him mentally to get back on track. Remove him from isolation.

[Aneris]

Rumour has it that I'm rather unwitting when it comes to the workings of the US election and “democratic” system. But having immersed myself bravely into a stream of Clinton and Sanders postings on Facebook, I'm confident that my views aren't entirely rubbish.

Almost everyone, in almost every article I read, is cocksure that their candidate will win. Sanders-supporting articles have had few more hedges but were still hopefully optimistic. Clinton-supporting articles treated the matter as decided for her, and keep insisting this even when it's clear that Sanders turns out to be unexpectedly strong. Republicans don't strike me as the most reasonable people and it is probably worse on their side.

An army of especially younger people feel cheated. Apparently, voters were switched to independent when they indicated to vote for Sanders, then turned away without leaving their mark. An awful lot of more people don't want Hillary Clinton at all, but she is still the better option than voting Republican (John Boehner or Mitch McConnell are actors playing supervillains, are they?)

For great many people, it seems, there is no democracy. There are no options, and the remaining illusion of choice is taken away by superdelegates, rigged primaries and an overwhelming corporate media that gives most airtime to Trump, ignored Sanders for the most part, and is remarkably lax with Clinton, the world's champion of flip-flopping.

Hillary Clinton is be a huge gamble. Firstly, when she makes it, Sanders oppositon did unexpectedly well. You could not say this if their positions were flipped. This has the consequence that there are far more people than expected that aren't too fond of her; who saw an often dirty campaign coming from Clinton's side and who feel cheated by the process.

Secondly, social media and confirmation bias are a powerful force. Nobody knows how strong it is, but giving voters the impression their candidate will win and make them deeply invested in this narrative, and then have it shattered by harsh reality will not go down well. The Democratic Party is couragegous when they believe that Sanders supporters will switch over, just because of necessity and in lieu of better options.

Even more so, when they were assigned to “independent” to deny them their vote, but now that it is expedient they are self-evidently seen as democratic voters. Maybe “Bernie or Bust” turns out to be more of a bluff, though I would not rely on it. Politics is already an abstract process where you can hardly tell what your vote actually did in tangible effects, and with some emotions at play, those people may simply stay home or vote some minor party. I would.

You can get all fancy with the Trolley problem: People have a sense of “letting things happen” and “doing things actively” and voting for a Wallstreet hawk and warmonger is on the “doing” side, like pushing the fat man off the bridge, whilst not voting or voting something else is “letting it happen”. Still terrible, but most people rather have five workers killed than getting blood onto their own hands. Another gamble to simply rely on cold rationality of GOP prevention.

Thirdly, Sanders has shown that he can win over people. I don't know how many converted from Sanders to Clinton, but if they exist, they are not a story the Clinton side found worth telling (this suggests they hardly exist).

Forth, Sanders is popular with the younger demographics by all accounts, i.e. the future of the Democratic Party. If they feel disenfranchised enough, they might eventually look for other options, which will invariably hurt the Democrats.

The Democratic Party has to do a complicated maneuvre that are common in European politics (in Germany, there are half a dozen parties that stand a chance to win over seats). In classic two party showdowns, the standard maneuvre for the main-left party is to have a rightish front, to fish uncommited voters and poach voters from the opposite's party left side. And vice versa, the main-right party will put a leftish individual to their front, to do the same. They always rely on loyal voters that would never dream of voting something different and thus, their goodwill can be strained a bit (still looking for the political term of this, which I forgot and I'm sure exists).

However, doing that too much, and a gashing wound can open up on the flanks and people either become disenfranchised non-voters, or they form a new viable party, which makes subsequent maneuvring much more complicated. And that kills the classic trick, that still holds Americans in a chokehold. Since the two parties survived other times, I don't think they are doomed, but this might cost something, maybe a few presidents in the future.

When the Democrats now think they can profit from a weak Republican side, and swoop up their voters by nominating a right-wingish front (Clinton is the perfect candidate for this), as in the classic trick, they might wake up to the reality that a viable third option springs up to their left side. And Sanders happens to be the perfect candidate for this, being independent and having enjoyed mainstream momentum and news.

And since all good things come in fives, Clinton is also a gamble because of the many scandals and dubious things she is involved in and which already came to light. The Republican media machine will find them tremendously useful. Many a would-be democratic voter will be marinated in things they already despised in the primary.

Finally, what if Clinton loses in the end? How well will this go down with the Sanders faction, after they switched sides to Clinton? Going with Clinton seems like a bad idea to me. It's not in line with the future vote of the party, and going with a candidate with low favourability that seems unable to win over people seems a folly.

[Kirbmarc]

I'm thrilled to see things being shaken up, but

*Indiana Jones impression*

Trump... why did it have to be Trump? He personifies everything I hate in the world, anti-intellectual, xenophobic, crude. Crude in politics mind you. I'm all for dick jokes at the tavern or on the pit, but naively hope the political arena could conduct itself with a bit more dignity. Time and a place, yes?

That first part was a rhetorical question btw. The populist backlash to the increasingly aggressive and ever-smug encroachment of progressive culture was inevitable. Now the people who've been called hateful bigots for ages are embracing the title and laughing as liberals howl while Trump barrels on ahead.

And I hope my silence on John's passing can be forgiven. I just find words inadequate in situations like these.

Trump is simply the American version of the Austrian FPÖ, or of the French Front National, or the current version of the Italian Northern League.

They all share the same ideology: an anti-immigration, nationalist, "populist" and protectionist version of conservatism. People in the "West" are tired of their political establishment parties, regardless of whether they're left or right wing.

Traditional political parties are seen as corrupt, inefficient and increasingly authoritarian, not to mention as the main reason for the recent global economic crisis. People, both on the left and on the right, want change. They want to get rid of the political elite. They want something revolutionary, they want to upset the status quo.

This is why the right produces the rise of the nationalist/populist movements and on the left we see the revival of many socialist/communist ideas. Both movements see the current political elites as the source of all social woes.

In general the ideas of globalization and of a free global market are becoming less and less popular. The support for nationalism and protectionism is growing. On the right side of the political axis this means closing borders and stopping immigration. On the left side it means nationalizing private business, especially in some sectors (Jeremy Corbin wants to nationalize the British Railways, Bernie Sanders wants a nationalized Social Security).

The global free market is seen by many (both on the left and on the right) as a threat. People fear the competition of foreign workers and businesses, or the arrival of immigrants, or the power of multinational business or of the international banking system.

The next few years will probably see less military and political interventions of the Western powers in the Middle East and elsewhere, along with the gradual closing of borders, a series of measures to reduce immigration, the reversal of many policies of privatization, and in general more protectionist and nationalist economic policies. The collapse of the EU is very likely (probably it's only a matter of time). The UN have already become almost completely ineffectual.

In this political climate international trade and business could gradually grind to a halt, especially in some sectors. Putin's Russia and the Iranian regime will probably extend their influence in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. ISIS will likely be defeated eventually as a political regime in Syria and Iraq, but it will remain an endemic problem as a terrorist organization, along with all of his allies.

In general I think that the West's influence and interference in the rest of the world will gradually fade. Israel will have to find new allies (probably Turkey and Saudi Arabia). Hopefully the focus on internal issues will mean that the Western institutions will deal with some domestic problems (like the Islamist projects in the West), but I'm not particularly optimistic about that.

[Malky]

JG - very sad

[RonSwanson]

RIP John. :(

[RonSwanson]

I think that if we're going to have a SJW-friendly president anywhere in the West it's going to be a seasoned politician who jumps on the SJW bandwagon because he or (more likely) she can cash in some oppression points, not an outsider who starts a SJW revolution like Trump has started his own private campaign. SJWs are intellectually and physically lazy. They're going to support whoever seems to pander to them the most, they're unlikely to start a movement of their own. They're either going to go with the flow, or to simply stay at home.

We've seen it recently with Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton. On paper Sanders looked like the ideal SJW candidate, but pretty much all the most influential SJWs supported Clinton, because Sanders wasn't pandering to them but had a more comprehensive plan, and mostly because he's an old white hetero cis man.

SJWs care only about identity policies. To get them to vote you it's enough to say "vote me, I'm a member of oppressed minority X". If Sarah Palin ran against Bernie Sanders many SJWs would vote for her, or at the very least not vote for Sanders, just because she's a woman and he's an old white man. If Ted Cruz came out as trans he could get some SJWs to vote for him on the basis of his new trans identity.

Deray's campaign for mayor of Baltimore has been a failure. Here's a recent interview that is pure cringe. SJWs truly are lazy in almost every dimension.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... imore.html