The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I absolutely support this, not sure why supporting cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts while we run huge deficits makes me a coward though.

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you, but generally those who support cutting the arts do so either because they fail to see the value of the arts in society, or because they see artistic expression as a possible form of dissent or political commentary that needs to be stopped. Those in the latter group are the ones I would describe as "cowards." Also, Scott put it very well. We're talking about a cut that would hardly benefit anyone, while hurting many people.

Or maybe they think that spending millions or even billions on art is not the role the government should be taking, and that that money could be better spent on programs that actually grow the economy. (Not politically and racially motivated handouts for votes. That doesn't grow the economy. It weakens it).

They probably also think - through strong evidence - that these kinds of programs benefit only a select few of politically like-minded people and creates unnecessary bureaucracies that leads to entrenched power and serve no purpose to the 99.9% of the American people (other than spending their money). The money for these programs also almost always gets misused for political purposes.

Finally, they realize - quite obviously - that art in society is not going to suffer one bit by removing government handouts.

The biggest flaw among liberals is that they project what other people think. You basically just accused a wide swath of your countrymen of being barbarians who hate art and fascists who want to shut down dissent. The thought that they have very good, logical, and moral reasons for their beliefs - whether you agree them or not - didn't even occur to you.

They don't believe what you believe so they must be evil.

lol, nice strawman. I never once used the word evil. Talk about projecting. I'm in a generous mood, so I'll respond, knowing that I could just be wasting my time.

As others have mentioned, 150 million is small potatoes in a national budget, but speaking as an artist, the NEA does make a difference in the lives of many artists. It's a small amount of money that provides support to programs across the country, many of which are struggling from an enormous lack of funding, and offers just a bit of support for people who get very little appreciation in society. We support and fund many other fields to a much greater extent, and yet I don't talk about that sort of funding as being a handout. Many artists and artistic communities depend on that small amount of support, and targeting or eliminating them does not actually help anyone or save a significant amount of money. Many arts programs in schools have to fight tooth and nail to get any funding at all, and we face lots of smug comments like "music isn't going to cure cancer" or "theater won't protect us from terrorists." I'm not saying people don't appreciate the arts because I'm an elitist with first world problems. I'm saying people don't appreciate the arts because a lot of people really don't appreciate the arts, and many artists and teachers of the arts feel as though their way of life is hanging on by a thread.

Sorry, but people who say that the arts aren't important are generally speaking from ignorance. That doesn't make them "evil", since we all do it from time to time, but nearly every argument I've heard about why the arts aren't important involves incredibly simplistic thinking. I could point you to a great deal of research on how art benefits the human mind from a scientific standpoint, or the fact that art plays a critical role in any form of entertainment or recreation, or how it provides a creative and productive outlet that helps many people reduce stress and remain healthy. This is not something that only affects 0.1% of the population. Slashing arts would not only harm artists (who are more than 0.1% of the population, by the way), but also anyone who benefits from art in society, which is everyone.

Maybe, just maybe the fact that I've devoted a great deal of my life to one of the fine arts (music), and not only studied it, but studied the impact it has on the human mind and society makes me a slightly better source on the subject than someone who has merely passively noticed art without giving it much thought. Does that make me an elitist? So be it. I guess doctors who think they know more than me about medicine are also elitist! And those computer scientists who think they understand code better than I do. Elitists, I say! Some people are better authorities on subjects. Either that or reality is elitist.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this forum was completely fake. I honestly can't believe that some of the people here are actually real.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this forum was completely fake. I honestly can't believe that some of the people here are actually real.

You're certainly real, Oldies. A sock would learn by now how to properly use this thread.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm trying to decide whether this school of thought is dangerous, or just stupid.

Longform response to this trash would be that, regardless of whether there is some identifiable difference in mental structure or capacity between members of two political parties, such a fact would fail to explain the shift of the political orientations of individuals and entire peoples over time, or how this would function in a multi-party system. And that is assuming that this is true, when it's clear there is some level of fear response manifesting on both sides of the political spectrum right now, as recent riots have doubtlessly demonstrated. I suppose this makes an Irishman in California in the 1870's "conservative" because his labor party's newspaper published something stoking fears about Chinese immigration.

Ultimately, seeking neuropsychological explanations for political behavior will lead to ruin, in my opinion, as it risks treating the subjects as evolution-driven animals rather than the product of (among other things) social factors such as economics, demography, and atomization.

[Mr. Smith]

This has been the case for nearly 2000 years.

Are you being serious? Because centuries of Christian dominance in Europe would tell you otherwise.

Roman persecution, other European pagans, Islamic invasions, religious violence in the Reformation, the rise of Communism.  Had Hitler been successful he had plans to eventually eliminate Christianity as well.

And then, of course, there is the rest of the world.

No pagans have killed as many Christians for religious reasons as Christians did. As I said, killing Christians seems to be the main Christian doctrine: at least, it is the one thing they all happily do.

Well, pagans were a non-factor in most of Europe for the last millennium, that's for sure.

Well, nor do Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. taken all together compare in the number of Christians murdered for religious reasons with Christians. Killing Christians is the main Christian doctrine. Historically, if there is a religion of murder, war and cannibalism, then Christianity is it.

You may be overestimating the degree to which Christianity, as a religious faith, is itself responsible for these centuries of heinous crimes. There's nothing in Christian doctrine that legitimizes the crimes committed by countless numbers of its adherents. In reality, the problem isn't Christianity, but rather the cultures that adopted Christianity. Numerous Protestant sects, despite being quite small, were fundamentally opposed to the violence that dominated their societies - such as the Quakers. Whereas, and more numerous, other sects were perfectly happy to engage in bloodshed and conquest while preaching "love thy neighbor as thyself." Even when conducted in the name of Christianity and condoned by Christian leadership, the crimes were those of the political system those Christians largely inherited.

Consider how Christianity in the Mediterranean vastly differed between each ethnic group and their respective cultural traditions. When the Roman leadership converted to Christianity, they justified their expansionism and persecutions of threats to their new political leadership through references to their faith. The persecution and forced conversion of Northern European Pagans was no different; it was for political purposes, with Christianity as the excuse. Remember, at this time the Church forbade Mass to be recited in any tongue other than Latin and for the congregants to have access to Bibles. They used the Roman Church to expand their political power; similar actions were conducted in the Greek dominated East, albeit to a less severe extent. The Levant, Ethiopia, and Egypt also had a less aggressive form of Christianity compared with the Roman dominated West. In Eastern Europe, the Eastern Orthodox Churches preferred the protection of the Islamic Ottoman Empire and the Sultans to the threat of the Roman West. It was the Roman West who even attacked Constantinople and attempted to reconquer the Levant from the Muslims, which largely fell apart due to the Roman Church wanting to dominate the largely Orthodox and Oriental Christian natives. Look what happened in Spain following the defeat of the Caliphate: Muslims were killed, expelled, or persecuted, followed swiftly by the expulsion of the local Jewish populace that took refuge largely in the Muslim lands of North Africa and the Ottoman Empire.

The problem is clearly not Christianity as a faith, but rather the cultural inheritors of the Roman imperialistic mindset. Unfortunately for the world, it was those same people who, due largely to Ottoman blockades that strangled Western Europe's trade with Asia, were compelled to sail around the Middle East and thus discovered, then persecuted and exterminated millions of people, the "new world."

[Horus]

All this said, punching Richard Spencer and his ilk aren't going to solve, or even seriously address the problem. If we set aside the hyperbole, overt neo-Nazis aren't going to take over or even seriously intimidate the body politic like early 30's Germany. We need to be far far more concerned with their sympathizers in high positions whose veneer of respectability insulates them to varying degrees. Assaulting these meaningless peons of the hate movement in anything other than legit self-defense only drags the assaulters and their movement down to the Nazis level, both in an objective moral sense, as well as a subjective judgment of public opinion.

Keep calm and fight racists, but not with violence. It's worse than useless; it's downright counterproductive.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

This has been the case for nearly 2000 years.

Are you being serious? Because centuries of Christian dominance in Europe would tell you otherwise.

Roman persecution, other European pagans, Islamic invasions, religious violence in the Reformation, the rise of Communism.  Had Hitler been successful he had plans to eventually eliminate Christianity as well.

And then, of course, there is the rest of the world.

No pagans have killed as many Christians for religious reasons as Christians did. As I said, killing Christians seems to be the main Christian doctrine: at least, it is the one thing they all happily do.

Well, pagans were a non-factor in most of Europe for the last millennium, that's for sure.

Well, nor do Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. taken all together compare in the number of Christians murdered for religious reasons with Christians. Killing Christians is the main Christian doctrine. Historically, if there is a religion of murder, war and cannibalism, then Christianity is it.

You may be overestimating the degree to which Christianity, as a religious faith, is itself responsible for these centuries of heinous crimes. There's nothing in Christian doctrine that legitimizes the crimes committed by countless numbers of its adherents. In reality, the problem isn't Christianity, but rather the cultures that adopted Christianity. Numerous Protestant sects, despite being quite small, were fundamentally opposed to the violence that dominated their societies - such as the Quakers. Whereas, and more numerous, other sects were perfectly happy to engage in bloodshed and conquest while preaching "love thy neighbor as thyself." Even when conducted in the name of Christianity and condoned by Christian leadership, the crimes were those of the political system those Christians largely inherited.

Consider how Christianity in the Mediterranean vastly differed between each ethnic group and their respective cultural traditions. When the Roman leadership converted to Christianity, they justified their expansionism and persecutions of threats to their new political leadership through references to their faith. The persecution and forced conversion of Northern European Pagans was no different; it was for political purposes, with Christianity as the excuse. Remember, at this time the Church forbade Mass to be recited in any tongue other than Latin and for the congregants to have access to Bibles. They used the Roman Church to expand their political power; similar actions were conducted in the Greek dominated East, albeit to a less severe extent. The Levant, Ethiopia, and Egypt also had a less aggressive form of Christianity compared with the Roman dominated West. In Eastern Europe, the Eastern Orthodox Churches preferred the protection of the Islamic Ottoman Empire and the Sultans to the threat of the Roman West. It was the Roman West who even attacked Constantinople and attempted to reconquer the Levant from the Muslims, which largely fell apart due to the Roman Church wanting to dominate the largely Orthodox and Oriental Christian natives. Look what happened in Spain following the defeat of the Caliphate: Muslims were killed, expelled, or persecuted, followed swiftly by the expulsion of the local Jewish populace that took refuge largely in the Muslim lands of North Africa and the Ottoman Empire.

The problem is clearly not Christianity as a faith, but rather the cultural inheritors of the Roman imperialistic mindset. Unfortunately for the world, it was those same people who, due largely to Ottoman blockades that strangled Western Europe's trade with Asia, were compelled to sail around the Middle East and thus discovered, then persecuted and exterminated millions of people, the "new world."

I think a good argument for this would also be that on paper Western Christianity is actually much less vituperative about certain things. We were discussing the origins of Christian anti-Semitism in a class today and the professor made this point about Augustine's anti-Semitism versus John Chrysostom's.

[SATW]

Go home sunrise, you're drunk.

Yaaaaas. context needed.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

1) This would be a terrible move, and I would love to see CONSERVatives adopt CONSERVation as won of their principles.  Protecting the environment should never, ever have been adopted as a strictly "liberal" position.

2) The GOP has historically pretty much done what business wanted it to do, so long as it didn't directly conflict with its moralist base, LOL.  Its environmental policy has not exactly followed a principled pattern.

3) Every five years, the threshold for when Republicans were "sane" gets bumped up five more years into the future, LOL.  In 80 years, Democrats will be talking about how Reagan was a liberal for his time because the Democratic Party of his day had two Senators from Alabama or some bullshlt like that, and they'll say Reagan would be a Democrat today.  You can make your case about the current GOP - an institution that I have as much issue with as most any Republican - without feeling the need to praise Republicans from history that still represented the basic conservative principles that you would take huge issue with.

[publicunofficial]

When the right thought Obama was going to put people in FEMA camps, it was based off of pure conspiracy theory.

When the left thinks Trump is going to threaten the press or go after classes of people he doesn't like, it's because Trump gives interviews and speeches where he literally says he is going to do those things.

Don't pretend it's the same.

I'll be the first to say that doesn't belong here.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A party clustered in major cities and a few, mostly racial or ethnic minority-based rural sectors is at an immense disadvantage in a legislature comprised of representatives elected in single-seat, plurality winner-take-all elections. This is a problem at both the state and federal level. Gerrymandering arguably worsens this effect, but IIRC even randomly drawn districts would tend to exaggerate representation for the group that is more evenly distributed.

The Senate also over-represents rural and small-city people over people living in the country's largest urban centers. Big cities have larger populations than a large share of states, and among them New York City and, more recently, DC, are really the only major city with a wide enough footprint to comprise a substantial share of the population in more than one state. This effect is passed on to the electoral college, although there it is diluted.

Moreover, the regional distribution of where votes has swung is enough to make Republicans competitive across the Rust Belt while falling just short for Democrats AZ, GA, TX, where expanding the presidential map would most count.

So it makes it worse that the clusters are in the largest and most dense urban areas, but the clustering would be an electoral problem regardless of the population density of the clusters. It's better to be the party that can win the median district with a negative margin in the national popular vote than vice versa, obviously.

And the fact that Democrats are losing these places as they depopulate, deindustrialize, and die off counts for something, I think. Suicide rates in many of these rural counties are higher than homicide rates in the most violent American cities. We have an epidemic of opioid addiction in rural places that has become more lethal than AIDS at its peak that's been on the rise for almost fifteen years with negligible public attention until the most recent couple. The Economist found that variation in local health outcomes correlates with over two-fifths of the variation in Trump-ward swings by county.[/url]

People are not voting for Republicans because the places where they live are doing well. Maybe Democrats don't have any special obligation to serve as the voice of these people, but rising mortality in any part of the country is something with which both of its major parties ought to be concerned.

[DC Al Fine]

This is what the abortion debate seems like:

-A man is murdering people, and has been doing so for decades.
-Nine people are in a room, and are about to take a vote on whether or not to call the police about this man.
-Four people want to immediately call the police.
-Three people don't actually think that the man is guilty, so they see no point in calling the cops.
-One person says that, "While I personally believe he shouldn't be killing people, I shouldn't force my morality on others."
-Another person says "We all agree that killing people isn't ideal, but his victims are mostly poor people.  And I don't see any of you volunteering to pay for his future victims medical bills.  That means that you don't really care about the lives of his victims."

So they voted 5-4 to not call the police.  The 5 were convinced that they had a moral high ground and attacked the 4, claiming that calling the cops on the murderer would mean the establishment of a theocracy.

[Anti-Bothsidesism]

Why isn't Atlas banning violence and extremists statements in signatures?

[Crumpets]

I feel like this deserves a spot in here. A well-informed, post that I think I actually learned something from:

I work in finance.

My firm is already a fiduciary and many firms are moving this direction anyways. I should note that my understanding is that this is a one year delay - I could be wrong.

"Fiduciary" is a broad standard. I personally think the "suitability" standard that exists is way too vague, but from what I've heard (admittedly biased) many managers were panicking about some pretty stringent stuff coming down the pike, including stripping lawsuit protections and SRO arbitration

[Bacon King]

who is fighting against capitalism in all seriousness these days?

seems outdated.

Young people who have never known anything but what appears to be a severely ineffective system where industries are allowed to consolidate and amass power unfettered. Where businesses are increasingly free to bribe politicians for all sorts of benefits. Where the pharmaceutical industry has become so powerful that they casually engage in extreme price gouging to the detriment of society. Where the fossil fuel industry continues to wreck the earth for short term profits. Where the banking sector crashes the economy, gets bailed out and gets off with a mere slap on the wrist. Where wages and benefits have stagnated while COL rises, and the wealthy increasingly take bigger pieces of the pie. All while many pro-market politicians deny citizens any programs or benefits to alleviate some of this burden, under the excuse that the market will take care of it (lol). And on, and on and on....

And sure as hell doesn't help that the loudest proponents of the free market come from a political party whose economic philosophy of deregulation and giant tax breaks for the wealthy/corporations is at times almost indistinguishable from special interest corruption.

Proponents of capitalism have really failed to make the case to young people of why their system is the best. It doesn't mean capitalism shouldn't be practiced - it just means, imo, that the GOP's idea of it should be killed with fire. Unfortunately, because of the unwillingness to reign in the huge excesses of this failed system, they are helping to create a large amount of people who are far more open to a completely different ideas.

I think well-regulated markets with generous social programs is the way to go, but I don't blame others for completely losing faith in capitalism.

[Crumpets]

I believe OP is referring to church of the lukumi v. City of hileah. That case involved a local ordinance banning certain types of animal killings on the grounds that it was inhumane. It was passed soon after an event by the local santeria population at which several chickens were ritually sacrificed and their carcasses were later found discarded on the sidewalk. The ordinance exempted kosher and hallal food preparation  (undermining the argument that the inhumane treatment was the purpose of the law) but was still applied against the local santeria population. The supreme Court held that even though the ordinance was facially neutral, the surrounding circumstances and selective exemptions for some religions but not others demonstrated discriminatory intent. Discrimination against a specific religion triggers strict scrutiny which means the law is presumptively unconstitutional unless the government can overcome a very high threshold. I believe OPs argument is that banning immigration from countries with a very high population of one religious group is evidence of targeted discrimination in light of the fact that minority religious practioners may be exempt.

The tricky part about arguing this is that its foreign policy related. Zitolsky v kerry held that the president has a whole lot if discretion in how to conduct foreign policy and that some such decisions are political questions that cannot be decided by a court. The constitution does give the power to congress to regulate immigration. They have delegated some power to the president. If Trump frames the travel ban as related to the governments of the banned countries he might win. But presidential actions generally are still limited by the bill of rights. Its just a matter of when and where  you can sue. I haven't taken the time to see if this issue is carved out from the APA rules for when and how to sue over government acts.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Dinkins gets re-elected, for starters

With Re-Election of Dinkins then NYC would have remained the Crime Capital of America to these probably much worse than Chicago and Detroit. NYC now would not be like it is Today. It would definitely just like in the 70's, 80's and Early 90's with full of Crimes, Violence, Shootings, Stabbing, Kidnappings, Robberies, Drugs, Prostitution, Slums, Poverty, Graffiti and e.t.c.

Crime started to reduce under Dikins start again.

"Under Dinkins' Safe Streets, Safe Cities program, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly, both in terms of actual numbers and percentage, than at any time in modern New York City history."

Try Again.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There are occasions when they're appropriate (there is no better parallel to the way the White House is being run, with a multitude of factions who all hate each other, very little clear direction from on high and a leader who specifically wants a darwinian system of overlapping responsibilities than the Third Reich), and people of all sides need to drop the annoying tendency of lapel clutching at every comparison to anything as if the act of comparing is the same thing as equating. But mostly they're lazy and can be downright offensive as well.

But there is a wider point here. Historical comparison only works if the audience gets the history. It may well be that King Michael the Obscure of Belgium is the best comparison to Trump, but if no one has heard of him then comparing the two is rhetorically useless. A large part of the reason that everyone jumps for Hitler comparisons is the Second World War is one of the very few historical events that everyone has in common both through school and through films and TV. If you want a better standard of comparison then you need to teach better history.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

No, he hasn't. He's fine. You not liking his views doesn't make him a bad poster.

This is basically the "I put posts in here that I disagree with" thread.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Why isn't Atlas banning violence and extremists statements in signatures?

Dinkins gets re-elected, for starters

With Re-Election of Dinkins then NYC would have remained the Crime Capital of America to these probably much worse than Chicago and Detroit. NYC now would not be like it is Today. It would definitely just like in the 70's, 80's and Early 90's with full of Crimes, Violence, Shootings, Stabbing, Kidnappings, Robberies, Drugs, Prostitution, Slums, Poverty, Graffiti and e.t.c.

Crime started to reduce under Dikins start again.

"Under Dinkins' Safe Streets, Safe Cities program, crime in New York City decreased more dramatically and more rapidly, both in terms of actual numbers and percentage, than at any time in modern New York City history."

Try Again.

No, he hasn't. He's fine. You not liking his views doesn't make him a bad poster.

This is basically the "I put posts in here that I disagree with" thread.

None of these belong here.  Stop.

[Antonio the Sixth]

May I please remind you all that for that sort of posts, there's this thread?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

May I please remind you all that for that sort of posts, there's this thread?

I'm confused about what the delineating line between those two threads is supposed to be.

[Antonio the Sixth]

May I please remind you all that for that sort of posts, there's this thread?

I'm confused about what the delineating line between those two threads is supposed to be.

Reservoir posts are short, simple yet clever. Gallery posts are thoughtful, articulate, complex, and take effort.

[Santander]

May I please remind you all that for that sort of posts, there's this thread?

I'm confused about what the delineating line between those two threads is supposed to be.

Reservoir posts are short, simple yet clever. Gallery posts are thoughtful, articulate, complex, and take effort.

Brevity can be scintillating.