The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This is mostly confined to a few problem posters, but it seems more prevalent than ever now. You people know what I'm referring to, and if you don't, there's a problem. Remember that this is an educational site, and any content that might get the site blocked by a middle school is obviously unacceptable.

In other words, before you post, think about what you post is appropriate. If what you are posting is a "Hot or Not" thread, the answer is no, and in addition to being inappropriate it's creepy and gross besides.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

He was saying as a moderator that he wouldn't allow the comments. I don't think Eraserhead's defence holds up very well.

On this topic I'm not sure there is much need for this other forum, beyond maybe the Update stuff. I do think that it's a bit ungrateful to Dave to spin off his forum with the intention of killing the original (as some people seem to want)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Zionism is a problematic term because it gets used by anti-Semites as coded language.  When you append the word "scum" to Zionist, it adds to that impression.  To many people's ear, saying "zionist scum" will make people think you're an anti-Semite. 

It's like how racists will call people "black thugs" instead of using the n-word. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

His analysis won't get him hired by Nate Silver, but I can think of several posters more annoying. If he, or anyone else, gets stuff wrong: teach them, don't bash them. If you're as smart as you seem to think you are, then you'll turn a subjectively annoying poster into a good one, instead of chasing someone away.

Famous Mortimer, you seem to represent some of the worst of the internet: snobbery and putting down rape victims as fakers. The snobbery part is prevalent too often, and it's not noticed as much as it should be. I'm talking about calling people "the worst" instead of trying to help them, or even ignoring them. Where you feel that you're so important and the other person (Kingpoleon, in this case) is so bad that everyone needs to hear your opinion of how bad this person is. The putting down of rape victims is simply awful. Cut that out, please. I guess the silver lining is that, to be careful, you're really sure about asking for consent--but the motives are all wrong. Assuming that a person, when they talk about a terrible thing that happened to them, is lying just to get attention is, well, a very idiotic position to take.

Now, that's as far as you should go with the critique. I didn't make sweeping accusations about you (I said you seem to represent the internet's worst)--why? Because you're a person, and I don't know you. All that I did was tell you what you're doing wrong and why it's wrong--and now I'm telling you how, in my opinion, to get better. All you're doing is attacking the who of Kingpoleon--which is a line you shouldn't cross on the internet.

Let's keep it civil, everyone. Critique with the intent of making someone a better poster, yes, but never insult with no apparent intent except making someone feel bad.

I guess you didn't ask for my advice, but I gave it. Take it with a grain of salt if you like. But cut out the rape defence, please.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This Yale thing really is baffling to me, too, but then I have no reference point as I am a nerdy suburban white kid who mostly kept to himself while at UW and was completely inactive in terms of campus politics/activism.

Mizzou one can understand (not that nonsense with borderline attacking that photographer, but the protests in general) especially in comparison to the swift response by Oklahoma officials after the SAE incident there in the spring. Oklahoma, the flagship university in a state with a considerably darker racial history than Missouri (look up the Tulsa Race Riot), moved decisively in a much worse situation to show where the university leadership stood on the issue and that everyone from the President to Coach Bob Stoops was opposed. Wolfe seems like he grossly bungled the response. Like Crumpets said, PR is everything in that kind of job. If you can't manage the fallout effectively, you're not cut out for an image-management position.

I will say, though, that a lot of these campus groups are rolling out demands and politics that are essentially impossible for them or anyone in their purview to address. Demanding people "acknowledge their white male privilege" is petty and does little to actually help disadvantaged minorities other than make them feel superior for five seconds. In a quote from that Atlantic article re: Yale, someone saying, "I don't want a debate, I want to discuss my pain" - what pain? You go to an Ivy League school that's produced at least two Presidents I can think of off the top of my head, as well as the incumbent Secretary of State! You have more advantages than 90% of people from your background!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Honestly Sanders does look somewhat aloof towards black voters (not completely his fault, it's more a combination of factors), but the fact Hillary Clinton is easily winning the black vote after the campaign she ran against Barack Obama in 2008 is hilarious. That was some of the most evil campaigning the Democratic Party has seen in the post-WW2 era, and whites in West Virginia and Arkansas knew exactly how she was portraying Obama in her ads.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm just curious: why on earth are you getting so invested about creating flame wars, using every opportunity to take a dump on the candidate you don't support and getting orgasmic of the candidate you support, on some obscure political forum?

It's not like Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz would notice or give a flying f**k about your efforts.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

These guys could not understand this struggle. They wanted immediate success and gratification, and they were not used to things not going their way. The issues and the lives of others had become irrelevant. All they wanted was for me to agree that they had been unjustly cheated, and that “Killary” and the DNC had rigged everything against them. I could not agree, so I had to walk away.

I like this paragraph, but I dunno whether or not there is any truth to it. Bernie's campaign kind of set the mood for this, imo. His campaign was centered around a system being rigged, and it's not really that surprising that a lot of people see his defeat as a result of cheating when he has spent the past year going on about rigged economies / campaign finance rules. I still think he could have vigorously spoke out against this foolishness the second it started, but he tacitly endorsed it by letting it go largely unaddressed, as it seemed to benefit him by riling up supporters. Maybe they worked harder if they thought it was being stolen? I'd hope they have a damn good reason though, as letting these kinds of lies and conspiracies proliferate is bad for our elections and party morale

I'm beginning to be more and more disappointed with the Sanders campaign. It was all supposed to be about addressing issues, not playing a bitter conspiracy talk. Bernie should definitively have took a stance. OK, I understand he wants to have best possible performance when it's over, which is a requirement to have some impact, but that actually may hurt the causes.

Yes, the candidate should make damn sure to disassociate herself or himself from certain actions of  supporters. Remember Geraldine Ferraro's comments on Obama in 2008? Hillary did immediately disassociate herself from this and Ferraro ceased to be a surrogate.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How about we me memoralize a poster whom actually deserves it? M'kay?

Please pardon my extreme ignorance, but what exactly happened to Sam Spade?

He got banned for being an obnoxious bigot, IIRC.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This has been a peculiar feature of the Atlas forum community that I've noticed since joining. Many, although obviously not all, members seem to have some kind of adoration for  Sec. Clinton, almost to the point of veneration. Don't misunderstand, I'm not a Hillary hater - that should be obvious considering I support her. But I do acknowledge that she's a rather flawed candidate, even if all the right-wing allegations and witch hunts against her are completely insane. The most obvious example was her choice to use a personal email server. No, she didn't commit a crime, nor was it of the level of severity that many Republicans try to make it appear. But it was incredibly bad judgment and yes, she basically lied. She also helped promote the idea that a stupid video caused the attack in Benghazi that killed a US Ambassador, which was outright false. Sec. Clinton even promoted her husband's welfare reform by arguing that those stripped of state benefits were "no longer deadbeats." She has also promoted her husband's crime bill that expanded the death penalty and led to greater African American incarceration.

Unfortunately, the Clintons' have performed a long dance courting the line between ethically questionable and legally criminal. This, when combined with a right-wing hard-on to see them imprisoned and defamed,  their decades in the public spotlight, and mastery of politics, have led to Hillary being increasingly secretive, defensive, and perceived as untrustworthy, whether it's for her handling of her email server or position changes on issues like TPP. These can generally be accepted as facts about Sec. Clinton.

All of that leads me to the point of this thread, which is to ask why Atlas has such reverence for her. In comparison to Trump, yes, she is an infinitely better choice. Compared to Sanders, yes, she has a considerably better chance of passing legislation through a Congress she knows perfectly well how to navigate - for better or worse. She has a resume that few could match. There's absolutely no denying that she's exceptionally qualified for the Presidency, although there are legitimate concerns one could raise about her judgment and policy positions. With all of that said, the question remains why Atlas adores her so much. Why is that the case? Why do so many seem to glorify a woman who, while a good choice for the Presidency, is quite flawed and comes with lots of baggage? There's a difference between supporting a candidate and revering/adoring that candidate, so why choose the latter?

I guess this turned into a rant more than anything else, so thank you for reading it until the end. /end rant

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The idea that white working class voters backed Trump due to "white identity politics" makes no sense whatsoever because so many of them voted for a Black graduate of Harvard Law School who is a champagne sipping, latte liberal. The difference was that he actually made an effort to campaign on tangible policy issues, distanced himself from "special interest groups" (to his credit, Obama earnestly seemed to despise people like George Soros), actually campaigned on accomplishments, like rescuing the auto industry etc.

Maybe white working class voters backed Trump due to "white identity politics". Maybe they're racist. What history should teach you is that this shouldn't matter: the white working class was the bedrock of the Democratic Party from the 60s onward and backed stereotypically liberal candidates against Republicans time and time and time again. The Iron Range of Minnesota never budged in its support for people like McGovern and Humphrey and so on.

So yeah, I think you should pull your head of your rear end and realize that this is prejudice. Do you know who loved George H.W. Bush's blatant and disgusting race-baiting campaign? Affluent "moderates ". Do you know who voted for Dukakis regardless of the fact that he loved Willie Horton Negroes or whatever? A bunch of gun-toting hicks. I suspect that people like you only care about racism when it comes from those people and sounds like it's in the wrong tone but when it sounds respectable and is hidden, it's acceptable and okay.

edit: mostly I think it's wild that a bunch of idiots online think that the white working class is racist meme holds up when so many of these people voted for Obama twice. Maybe they're racist but it's good that Obama tricked racists into voting for him, proof that racism can be shallow and unimportant in the polling place. The less important that is in motivating people, the better. You don't want to encourage people to act on racism by daring them to act on it by scolding them. So dumb that I have to be punished for this mentality when it's white liberals who are promoting it.

Came here to post this

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Gorsuch is right-wing nutjob and I'm not sure what would make anyone think otherwise.  If anything he'd shift the court to the right.

Are you implying that Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia?

Are you implying that's impossible or even difficult? Sure, Scalia was right wing on many things, but he consistently advocated a view touting the legislature's supremacy over the courts in the making of policy. While I don't know Gorsuch's views, there are plenty of right wing jurists who want the Court to take a much more activist role in advancing conservative policies than Scalia did. The Supreme Court emphatically does not operate on the exact same left-right axis that other branches do. A judge whose personal views are less right wing could have a view of the constitution that leads them to even more radical decisions.