Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 01, 2015, 06:52:59 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 676
26  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: POST HERE IF YOU WANT TO BE CONSIDERED AS A MOD on: July 21, 2015, 06:21:21 pm
There may be a lot of moderators, but active mods is another matter. At least half of them log on about once a month, I swear.

Also this site's moderators aren't really site-wide moderators. They tend to stick to policing the forums they frequent, as opposed to the site as a whole like most forums I've seen. It's not really a fair comparison.
27  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Bacon King Statement on: July 21, 2015, 06:20:07 pm
Just get yourself better, BK. Please.
28  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Inevitable question: Best running mate for Kasich? on: July 21, 2015, 05:48:37 pm
Kasich is the running mate. He exists to be a boring white guy running mate that can take Ohio. He has no other effective qualities.

This is beltway think that never works, though. Al Gore never won Tennessee for Clinton, as proved by his own inability to win it, Dick Cheney wasn't a swing state guy, and Joe Biden was from Delaware. Just about every running mate I can think of picked for electoral purposes lost (Paul Ryan).

I don't disagree that people overestimate the effect a running mate has on winning a state, but a popular figure from that state can definitely shore up certain voters and make it closer than it otherwise would've been. Gore may have never been the reason Clinton won Tennessee, but he absolutely did win it twice and Gore couldn't have hurt.

I think a lot of people look back on 2004 with Edwards and conclude that VPs never have an effect; it's not really completely true. Popular VPs do. Edwards was a one-termer who was never all that popular. Palin on the other hand was (despite her reputation crashing in the years to come) very popular in Alaska and early polls had shown Obama doing very competitively there until she was picked as the running mate.

Edit: (Going further with the Palin example, look back on Alaska's results in 2008 vs 2012. Obama did noticeably better in 2012 despite the national swing against him. That can only be attributed to Palin being on the ticket.)

Kasich is, much as I don't like it, relatively popular here and won a landslide in his re-election. In a close campaign (and as traditionally close as Ohio is on its own) Kasich would definitely move the needle. If I was running the Clinton campaign I'd be worried about Kasich.
29  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Are there any terms that when you read them you stop reading the article? on: July 21, 2015, 12:53:10 pm
Nothing really ever makes me say "Oh screw this I'm done" just because I see a term I dislike, but rambling about cultural appropriation comes really close.
30  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Inevitable question: Best running mate for Kasich? on: July 21, 2015, 12:43:53 pm
Kasich is the running mate. He exists to be a boring white guy running mate that can take Ohio. He has no other effective qualities.
31  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: So You Think You Can Moderate - Season 2: No Vote For the Fascist Coat on: July 20, 2015, 09:12:49 pm
Sorry, Marokai.

fight me irl
32  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: So You Think You Can Moderate - Season 2: No Vote For the Fascist Coat on: July 20, 2015, 07:28:51 pm
I'm going to end up dying from falling out of a tree just like Trump, aren't I.
33  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Bestiality on: July 20, 2015, 03:07:18 pm
I'm sorry, did you think I disagreed?
34  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Bestiality on: July 20, 2015, 11:05:08 am
I don't think it should be legal, but I do think it's an interesting moral question, that we bring up consent when it comes to having sex with animals but no one gives a f**k about consent when we slaughter them for food. On the one hand it's an inconsistency in society's morality; on the other hand, we slaughter them for a practical purpose (food), not just for fun. We have laws against the latter.

I don't really know why we should argue about "rape vs. murder" on this topic, which I find weird.
35  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: POST HERE IF YOU WANT TO BE CONSIDERED AS A MOD on: July 20, 2015, 10:44:37 am
Whoever is chosen to be a mod in the future I beg the team to consider people who have at least been around awhile and we have a greater understanding of than thinking "Oh, they're a good poster, why not!" No offense meant to Sawx.
36  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Canadian Federal Election on: July 20, 2015, 06:49:20 am
I'm so proud of this forum when it shows off how much it despises the LPC.

Conservatives have higher than expected numbers, here, though. I suppose they're getting a few Serious Person votes.
37  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Going out with a bang on: July 19, 2015, 12:06:19 pm
actually its about quality in message board discourse
38  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Moderator changes: 2015 edition on: July 18, 2015, 02:28:07 pm
...exactly what did Sawx do?
39  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Moderator changes: 2015 edition on: July 18, 2015, 10:38:19 am
Amazing.
40  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should people born outside the US be allowed to become POTUS? on: July 18, 2015, 09:16:03 am
Obviously.
41  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: HuffPo stops covering Trump as politician on: July 17, 2015, 02:53:10 pm
He is running for President. He may be sillier, but this is silly attention-seeking click-bait.
42  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: The Washington Society on: July 17, 2015, 02:26:06 pm
A parliamentary system would be the kind of radical change that might actually revitalise things.

Agreed. Couldn't hurt.
43  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Moderation policies: what should they be? on: July 17, 2015, 11:50:30 am
People decrying the lack of content while pointing out "oh, but I've posted lots of stuff on the Other Site" are just smugly pointing out how they're making things worse and are proud of it.

Nailed it. It's like half of a kitchen stopping their work and then getting catty about why the food is sh**ty. The "quality of discussion" complaint is the most transparent one of them all. If you want better quality debate, participate in these discussions yourself. You control the conversation quality. There are plenty of interesting topics that could have compelling debate and the usual suspects tend not to. Antonio and I don't always agree but we're respectful and make an effort with each other. That's how it should be.

Just gonna say, it usually ain't the people complaining about quality of discussion that tend to stick around when someone actually makes an effort to rebut them.

And things like The Update or having Libertas around certainly didn't raise the caliber of discussion. Retreating to your own special forum doesn't signal that you want a quality contest of ideas, it signals you want an echo-chamber.
44  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Moderation policies: what should they be? on: July 17, 2015, 11:13:58 am
^ Agreed.
45  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Moderation policies: what should they be? on: July 17, 2015, 11:09:49 am
It is honestly astonishing that the "Ban Boys" and the "anti-ban crowd" alike has migrated there. I struggle to see the common appeal. I worry that trying to appeal to both groups of people would require diametrically opposed approaches.

The AAD crowd is a coalition of people that don't make any sense except their desire to be too cool for school. Should we stop moderating as much? Half of them would cry if we did. Should we ban more people? Half of them would cry even louder. We can all play along and ask ourselves "What can we do to solve these disagreements?" but you have to remember the crux of what keeps upsetting these people is banning a pedophile and shutting down the "laugh at the incompetent fat Oklahoman" threads. It is not possible to win these people over in any reasonable way.

I think the decline in quality is somewhat overstated, however. This is one of many good discussions; you'd think it'd be cringeworthy but it's far from such.

The moron clique on AAD disagrees with you, as they've been sneering at it just recently.

Sneering from the sidelines is what they are best at. Participating would make them part of the system, man.

Honestly the smug superiority about perceived "quality of discussion" is kind of a ridiculous comparison when AAD is a forum that lives off of the most active posters here and isn't anywhere near as open to new people. Of course there isn't a deluge of "opinion of liberal conservatism" "gay marriage vs. immigration" "ronald reagan vs. margaret thatcher" threads; you're a bunch of older posters that grew beyond talking about these things and want to mock the younger people who are still developing their thoughts instead of just moving on with your life. You've created a great kiki but you haven't exactly developed a sustainable political forum.

Look, we should get rid of the asinine death points system for the reasons Oakvale gets at. It's a complete waste of time. The only people who get banned are the ones that moderators specifically set out to ban and have to bypass the system's intended mechanisms to do so. Get rid of some boards. Grow up and get beyond our aversion to profanity (within reason) and have more guiding leadership. But that is only a small part of why AAD exists. It exists because people who think it's everyone else taking things too seriously want to be message board revolutionaries. A bunch of people who disagreed with a few moderating decisions wanted to take their ball and go home but don't have the self control to actually leave for realsies.

And for what it's worth, since Simfan was talking about it in The Atlas, I don't think that AAD should be banned from being mentioned or anything. That forum is parasitic by nature, but who cares. What shouldn't be allowed is someone just posting "Hey if you want my thoughts on this check AAD." That's just s**tposting. It adds nothing.
46  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Affirmative Consent Laws on: July 17, 2015, 08:22:44 am
Archangel I agree with you about the power dynamics of the situation, etc. That's a real issue, of course. My problem is that the scenario you're talking about is still against the law, it's just difficult to determine due to the ease of lying about it (which doesn't really change with these laws either) and though I agree with you about prevention being more sensible, I'm not sure how well these laws accomplish that either. Prevention tends to be something you do through education and awareness campaigns.

Antonio mentioned this before, but the larger issue (people not taking rape seriously enough) is difficult to solve through any law, and if you want to find an issue people care way less about then male-on-female rape, don't even bother with female-on-male rape, something large parts of the population don't even believe is possible. I trust courts even less to approach that issue with much maturity.
47  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Affirmative Consent Laws on: July 17, 2015, 07:35:29 am
I don't think it would be a comprehensive fix, I just think we should be encouraging that just as much as asking the initiator to feel sure consent is present in some fashion. It's much more reasonable than effectively expecting the men (let's be honest here) to be the ones that have to figure out the parameters of an encounter. Hell, my whole point has been that this is a super complicated issue that has more than one solution. I actually included "just as much" in a draft of that post and then somehow it didn't make it in the end.

In any event consent is already, ideally, invalidated when the individual feels threatened, which is of course the way it should be. I just think we should be encouraging people to figure out what they want out of sex and defining that with the people they're with. Women aren't passive in all of this. Honestly I'm still super uncomfortable thinking about the fact that these laws make them out to be so. Nothing is doing more to reinforce traditional gender norms in sex than these laws.
48  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Moderation policies: what should they be? on: July 16, 2015, 06:31:53 pm
I agree that Leip's lackadaisical approach to this site is kind of astonishing and he needs to prune plenty of boards. But many of the complaints from people who keep sucking AAD's dick are pretty unpleasable, and if what a lot of you guys really want is some sort of social club, your time for an elections focused site has long passed and this forum will be better off without you. What is worst about this site, by far, is its people devoted to "Atlas culture." That aspect of this site is a cesspool. The attachment to the stories from Bushie or Libertas are honestly sort of gross, and if you mainly stick around a place to take glee in someone's absurd self-destruction, just go watch reality television.

I mean, let's take Lief's complaints. What are they, even? His posts about CCSF highlight that he's all over the place. He wants trolls banned, until he doesn't. He wants active moderators, until he doesn't. What do some of you guys actually want? I'm genuinely curious. It's easy to chime in with complaints all the time, but what do people actually want done?
49  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Moderation policies: what should they be? on: July 16, 2015, 04:42:31 pm
The mod policies are fine. We just need a ModAdmin to enforce them.
50  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Affirmative Consent Laws on: July 16, 2015, 03:31:51 pm
I mean, in this entire conversation, Antonio's response above included, I've yet to see exactly why you would prefer these laws over present consent law when your vision of consent law isn't any different than what presently exists. These laws are pushed in response to a perceived epidemic of rape and sexual abuse on campuses (how nice that the non-college educated don't matter as much) for the purpose of making consent have a stricter definition and by extension result in easier to obtain convictions. There's no other purpose than that. Denying that is disingenuous.

Because there are many of women who were raped but didn't explicitly say "no". These kind of cases should lead to convictions. You should have to ask someone and get their full, unambiguous consent before you have sex with them. It's really not so hard to understand.

It is already law that it's not consent just because the person didn't explicitly say no, or declined to physically resist.

These are the California and New York affirmative consent laws. They place much, much more burden on the accused. Because that is the goal. To make it easier to convict the accused.

Here's something that can be held against you under the California law: "The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented." (That really dismantles gender roles, doesn't it? "Men, make sure the women are okay!")

The New York law states that "consent may be withdrawn at any time" and obviously "when consent is withdrawn, sexual activity must stop." Makes sense, but how am I supposed to know? I have to keep asking. There's no other way to know.

On the face of it there's obviously a sensible interpretation. Should someone make sure the other is consenting? Yeah that's obviously reasonable. Should sex stop whenever consent is withdrawn? Clearly, yes. But those black/white interpretations are already in law. How do you determine when consent is withdrawn, without continuously asking, if it can be withdrawn at every time and the other individual is under no legal obligation to say so? Especially since consent must be required for every aspect of the encounter and no other act implies consent for another. That's vague. That's a problem. And in the hands of the wrong judge, innocent people could be put away. And many feminists are okay with that for the greater good.

You trust courts that regularly administer the death penalty to innocent people to make the right call when it comes to determining whether or not consent was given during intercourse?

Yeah, this is just straight-up naive. You know he wouldn't trust the courts on any number of other issues, but this is the one where he magically does. How convenient.

Especially since he already clearly doesn't trust the courts to make the distinction between rape and not-rape. If that was the case there wouldn't be an outcry for these laws in the first place. It just doesn't make sense.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 676


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines