coal

You two have been fighting for years.  Do either of you feel like you've accomplished something in the process? 

The more profanity you use, the more trustworthy a person you tend to be.

Yes.

It's really difficult to transition from "ex" to "friends".  But, still it's worth a try.  

It is a well known fact that coal is an increasingly obsolete power source. 

I'm glad to hear you're doing ok, bud.  That said, you'll need to do a bit more to get into medical school than a B average.  I have a friend who is a radiologist, though.  Good job to go into. 

I hope you're liking school, too.  That's a critically important thing.  Liking school, and fitting in.  A good roommate helps a lot along the way, too.  I'm glad you and he are getting along well.  

I'm somewhat sorry but not surprised to hear about the girlfriend, though.  High school romances rarely last past thanksgiving, though I know breakups are hard.   

It is important to take moments like this to reflect upon the fact that so called "Kawnza" is not a holiday.  It is a fiction of liberal imagination. 

>How have you been though? Hangouts don't really happen much anymore, so we haven't talked in ages. We need to catch up some time, especially now that I've finished my first semester of Uni :3

Indeed.  How's school going?  What did you major in?  How do you like it?  

Do you have a roommate? boyfriend/girlfriend? 

What is your favorite class, and why?

How did you do this last semester?

Do you think your major is a good fit for you?

>How do you feel now that you no longer have the most posts on the site?

Alright Greek boy, that's enough of that

lol

Good to know.  Ask me questions. 

I am not aware of your particular situation in that respect, nor am I aware of all the details, and for that reason I can't meaningfully comment one way or another.  

It's not nice for you to call people names either, and you know that... but hey... I'm not about to put myself between you and your video game rivals lol

Ah, well that would explain why I wouldn't know... because of the fact that you were never on my radar on DDO either... lol

And, btw., name calling isn't nice. 

>Guess

Really no one here is high enough on my radar that I have working theories of prior membership, and I'm not able at this point in my life to read through your posts to figure it out.  So, I'd like it if you told me... but I'm not going to play guessing games.  

The baseline of expectation across all forums and so called "online communities" is that members are adults and capable of conducting themselves as such, because that sets the tone for the expected level of behavior in the "community".  If, on the other hand, any "community" over-moderates, or moderates in a way that is demeaning, unprofessional, passive aggressive, or which does not treat the user base with at least a level of respect consistent with what is reasonably expectable in any country, moderation will not only lose legitimacy and community respect but the level of misconduct will consistently rise. 

On the other hand, what I've described above is little more than an "ideal" moderator scenario, rather than a "typical" mod scenario.  The average moderator of any "online community" is an unpaid, unexperienced, unprofessional individual between the ages of about 16 and 22, and such a person is going to lack enough emotional and psychological maturity to even be able to act like an adult himself or herself.  The implication will be a lot of childish back-and-forth, and a high mod turnover because eventually the "community" resistance will become more emotionally taxing than the mod is willing to incur -- and for very understandable reasons.  Modding is a thankless job in the best case.  

Having not substantively interacted with any of the mods in this specific context, I have no opinions about their professionalism or lack of it.  Human nature is a hard thing to fight... and they will set the tone that determines the site's success or failure.  Even still, it is alarming as a fairly non-engaged member to see so many, so frequent, and and so personal beefs with seemingly all of the mods (except tej... who... is he a mod?) from numerous people basically since I've decided to participate here.  

>The problem is mods are holding violations until they get mad at you then give you 15 violations in one pm that are up to a month old then say, look at all this you are banned. Violations should be addressed immediately and or within 48 hours then dropped. The only reason my violations are being saved up is to punish me for hurting Ms. C's feelings. Each pm and the ban came after calling her names. Each warning had more then three violation and some more than a week old. It has nothing to do with anything other than mod pride. 

What was your username on DDO?

I presume that's good, but I never took the ACT.  

How'd the ACT go?

When this subject comes up, I am reminded of past experiences on DDO.

On DDO, people diagnosing others with mental illness was a way to try to take an upper hand in a dispute that had likely gone too far in the first place.  This was something that certain people, namely the most mentally unstable (tulle, a/k/a lamerde) attempted to engage in as a way to compensate for the fact that she was the intellectual inferior to most on the site.  That said, despite the fact that she held herself out has having some measure of psychological expertise, her conclusions were as unethical as they were inaccurate.  Of course I, too, partook in that activity when I was a bit younger and more prone towards sanctimony, and by no means is my criticism of tulle/lamerde meant to exclude myself from historical engagement in that particular type of mischief.  It certainly is not.  On all counts it would be inaccurate to say that anything of that sort was "good" for the site, the conversations (read: heated disagreements) we were having, or anything else.  

But on the other hand, insofar as no one here (except maybe myself and a few other people, who I'm sure know who they are) have anything resembling expertise in the field of psychology or psychiatry.  Further, of those who do have some expertise, it's not from having been a shrink so much as it is from having had to utilize principals from psychology in our jobs to accomplish specific tasks.  This may give some the ability to navigate some of the more nuanced complexities of human interaction, but little more.  In this way, even a "diagnosis" from the most sophisticated person here can easily be written off as "banter" at worst.  So, there isn't much harm in allowing this species of mischief to go on so long as proper context is provided -- as it obviously will be ("you're not a shrink!"), for the obvious reasons ("and therefore you don't know what you're talking about! blah blah blah!").

Это будет весело. По крайней мере, на этом сайте я могу напечатать кириллицу.

>Would Hillary have more luck in 2020, or is it likely a democrat Trump would seize the day, so to speak?

We should be clear that there are more options than "a democrat Trump" and Hillary Clinton, and we should also be clear that now it is not obvious who the 2020 DNC candidates will be.  We have some possible contenders (Harris, Booker, Sanders, etc.) and some delusional loudmouths (Gillibrand, Ellison), as well as some young and dumb prospects (O'Rourke, Joe Kennedy, and Jason Kander).  There is also Hillary Clinton.  Given the lack of clarity as to who will even be running, analyzing the relative probability of any individual candidate's success seems relatively premature. 

Nonetheless, I think there are three sort of "archetypes" of candidates that will be final contenders. 

The first will be the establishment democrat nominee, though that person is not necessarily Hillary Clinton.  It could easily be Joe Biden, or any number of other potential candidates.  The candidate who fills this slot will probably be a person who brings a great deal of personal political experience to the table, as well as someone who is generally liked by at least half of the country.  So, unless there is a significant change in the status quo that places Clinton largely off the table.  This person will have wide appeal with upper-middle America, and may or may not have appeal with working-class Americans.  This person's platform will largely focus on mainline democrat ideas, like increasing economic opportunity for working Americans and expanding Medicaid.  This person will be viewed with some suspicion by millenials and the working class, and will have difficulty mobilizing the black vote.  This person is the most likely nominee, and the most likely to lose to Trump's primary challenger or Mike Pence, depending on what happens with the Russia investigation.  

The second will be a populist progressive democrat nominee, though that person will not necessarily be Bernie Sanders.  It could be Beto O'Rourke, or someone else known or relatively unknown at this point in time.  This candidate who fills this slot will probably be a person who brings little or no political experience to the table, but someone who is generally liked by the majority of only the progressives in the party but who is reluctantly accepted by the establishment as someone who "can win".  This candidate will have wide appeal with left-coast voters (North East, West Coast) and cities (Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia) but whose tone and demeanor will alienate the majority of rural Americans and have difficulty appealing to constituents outside of densely populated areas.  Millenials will be this candidate's most solid voting bloc, as older demographic members will be concerned that the amount of spending involved in this candidate's platform would hurt the economy.  Specifically, this candidate will advocate for what were previously understood to be far-left ideas, like Medicare for All and student loan forgiveness.  This person will be the strongest rhetorical counterpoint to Trump, but will likely resort to identity politics arguments from the vantages of race and gender which will weaken their electoral prospects.

The third will be a compromise establishment-populist democrat nominee, who most probably will be someone like Kamala Harris or Cory Booker, though will not necessarily be either.   The candidate who fills this slot will probably be a person who brings some political experience to the table, and who may have achieved some national prominence for one purpose or another who is simultaneously well regarded by both the establishment and the progressives in the party leadership.  The establishment will approve because this person knows how to play ball and is willing to do it, but the progressives will approve because this person is either (1) female, (2) black, or (3) latino.  This person will likely approximate Barack Obama more than anyone else, but who will have difficulty getting working class white voters.  This person will have the least difficulty with minority voters, because of the identity politics factors in play.   This candidate will advocate for strategically ambiguous goals (healthcare for all) rather than specific policies (single payer system) so as to keep open legislative options in the future while avoiding alienating either the progressives or the establishment.  This person will not be the strongest counterpoint to Trump, but will have the highest probability of winning the election so long as the candidate is not latino or female.  

>Thoughts on the shutdown?

Starting at the reason why we even have a shutdown is prudent.  Without exception, the only reason we have government shutdowns is because of Republican intransigence related to the fact that they cannot maintain electoral majorities but desire a political weapon they can use when they can't otherwise get their way.  Shutdowns happen because Republicans are bad politicians and worse people.

The usual nonsense aside, this particular shutdown is the result of Trump's bad faith in the form of his stated position that he "would be happy to shutdown the government over border security" in the now infamous conference he had with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.  There, he made clear that funding specifically appropriated for his wall at the level of about 5 billion dollars was what would prevent him from vetoing any continuing resolution to prevent a shutdown.   While Trump obviously didn't plan to make that claim, that is now his administration's "policy".

We all know that Trump knows that he is putting his foot in his mouth, but the fact remains that he is now committed to that policy position and has to make at least some credible effort not to go back on his word.  Doing otherwise would make him look incredibly weak, and incompetent, in his mind.   On the other hand, he also knows that with each day the government shuts down his credibility before his  fellow Republicans in the House and Senate dissipates; with the implication that in the absence of a deal and to the extent that continues, his probability of being successfully impeached and removed from office increases. 

In political terms, Trump is playing chicken in every sense of the word.  He has tried to take the steering wheel off his vehicle and throw it out the window, but Republicans in the legislature know he's faking.  For this reason, they are likely to call his bluff and force him to capitulate.  This may have already happened.  By no later than Wednesday, we will have a deal. 

>-Is chronic inflation the single greatest economic problem in America today?

These are great questions.  Keep them up.  I'll answer them gradually, but meaningfully. 

>What is your greatest intellectual ideological accomplishment (that is, what unique idea, theory, argument, or whatever are you particularly proud of)?

I've been passively thinking about how I want to answer this question since you first asked it a few days ago, and I'm still not sure how to answer it.  

What you very obviously are asking is what idea, theory, or argument would be my greatest intellectual ideological accomplishment, but I'm still not sure what that would be. 

I haven't come up with my own ideology, written or published a book or article that significantly advanced ideological thought, or anything like that.  

Keep it up...  these are good questions.

>Why exactly do you like Jordan Peterson?

Jordan Peterson and I have so much in common, it's nearly impossible that I couldn't like him.  Let's review:

1. Raised in a conservative Christian (protestant) church from childhood

2. Parents were religious but not wildly so

3. Had doubts about the church and what it meant

4. Got involved in left wing causes as he was an adolescent

5. Majored in political science, but became disillusioned with that very quickly

6. Was skeptical of the far left for reasons that related to their honesty and integrity 

7. Wanted to be a lawyer from a young age

8.  Had something approximating an existential crisis from a young age over political and moral issues, in sorting out who he was and his place in the world

9.   Had early interest in philosophy, and specifically Nietzsche

10.  Correctly read Nietzsche 

11.  Was disillusioned by contemporary interpretations of Nietzsche and their rampant inaccuracies

12.  Went on to find Russian Literature, and specifically Dostoevsky as an antidote to Nietzsche's doubt 

13.  Thereafter sorted himself out. 

I could go on for... about five pages.     

No worries. 

>Thoughts on the Belt and Road Initiative, and China's role as a geopolitical power more generally?

The Belt and Road initative, and Chinese investment in extraterritorial infrastructure in general, is deeply alarming to me because it represents a substantial means to increasing China's geopolitical power relative to that of the United States while laying the foundation for a cooperative Sino-Russian relationship approximating the level of cooperation between the US and Canada -- which is something that should make every American's blood run cold. 

>What news sources do you like the best, for news about the US and international news?

I think most news sources are reasonably ok, except Fox, Breitbart, or anything in that line of propaganda.  

>You've also called yourself a "hawk" on DDO. While I understand this is a really broad question, what arguments convince you to be a foreign policy hawk? This one might be overbroad, so feel free to not answer if you think this'll take up too much of your time, or make it short. 

I am a hawk, and so unapologetically.  The reasons, as alluded to in a prior post, are because of how violent and intolerable the world would be in the absence of American hegemony.  

If there is one lesson from the 19th and 20th centuries, it is that concepts like "great power" balancing within "spheres of influence" (it is comical to hear Putin use that term) is a recipe for absolute disaster on the scale witnessed in WWI and WWII.  That is unacceptable.  The new world order ushered in by the Marshall Plan and the end of the Second World War, which was codified in 1991 with the USSR's implosion, has proven to be the only means by which anything approximating world peace can ever be achieved.  It is to preserve this state of relative peace that I support an aggressive US foreign policy.

Note: that is not to say that I buy into provably false absurdities (read: delusions) like: (1) Democratic Peace Theory (Germany was a democracy pre-WWI to a considerable degree, we know how that turned out); (2) the notion that democracy can be "exported" after a foreign imposed regime change (e.g., Iraq); or (3) that "international law" can serve as a guarantor of human rights. 

>You've described yourself as a "libertarian socialist" on DDO. How do you think countries should achieve libertarian socialism? 

Modeling Denmark.

>Have you come across the foreign policy views of economist Scott Sumner? General thoughts?

I have no idea who he is. 

>Failed States

Chomsky's point is that America is the world's greatest threat to democracy.  This argument is made to reverse the rhetorical narrative of neoliberals who believe that an interventionist foreign policy and Bush-era style military adventurism is not only conducive to, but a necessary and appropriate instrument of support for, the proliferation of "democracy" in the world.

This argument comes in the context of previous arguments he has made in other books and articles published over the course of his academic life to the effect that the America has repeatedly abused appeals to human rights' preservation (e.g., Chile, Nicaragua, and the rest of South and Central America in the 1980s) to justify advancing its own interests; and speciously labeled its allies "democracies" (again, Chile) and its enemies "totalitarian dictatorships" as a pretext for or against military intervention.

On a psychological level, what we as people do is tell stories.  We try to fit pieces of the puzzle together together to make sense of it all and that's what Chomsky is doing here.  The problem is in what he chooses to talk about.  For example, a savvy reader encountering Failed States will wonder why, if Chomsky was going to initiate his analysis with wars with the Native Americans, he has not considered some of the things that the United States has done to facilitate democracy in the world (such as shepherding Europe out of totalitarianism after World War II).  That glaring omission being immediately obvious to a critical reader, one might have thought Chomsky would have bothered to anticipate the counterpoint to his position drawn from that set of historical events.  So, there are weaknesses in his analysis.  This is not the only one, but it's a weakness. 

As I've said before, where I appreciate Chomsky is in his tendency to discuss things that are often ignored by the media and which would not even enter the consciousness of most Westerners because we are not in a position to receive that kind of information.  But, he and I disagree about what all of these things mean even if I agree with him about what the world is -- in many cases.  That is not, however, to say that it is enough that Chomsky said something to accept it uncritically.

Here's an illustration of that point, that has appeared in multiple Chomsky publications:

Nuclear Winter.  There is absolutely no science backing the conclusion that nuclear war would bring about nuclear winter in the world, despite the fact that various "scientists" have published "papers" suggesting this as nothing less than an inevitable consequence of nuclear engagement.  Those papers were published by "useful idiots" and actual KGB agents of disinformation, and were uncritically published resulting in a popular phenomenon.  This falls into the category of what people in the intel world call "active measures".  Chomsky, not knowing the science -- or lack of it -- picked this up from others and began to use it as a concept illustrating some of the moral stakes in the Reagan administration's actions (or, provocations, to hear Chomsky tell the tale) in relation to getting Gorbachev to capitulate in any number of ways.  

CIA Activity.  At least four prominent examples of Soviet or Russian disinformation have found their way into Chomsky's analysis of various Middle Eastern affairs, and the actions (terrorist and otherwise) of certain Middle Eastern groups.  For example, Chomsky cited an item of Soviet disinformation as a piece of evidence in rebuttal to the Reagan Administration's military actions against Libya in 1986.   Chomsky claims that Libyan terrorists were not behind a bombing in Berlin preceding the Reagan Administration's air strikes against Tripoli, based on the lack of a finding by the West German police.  He alludes to it being a CIA False Flag.  It was not a false flag.  West German investigators were fed false information by Soviet illegals (not immigrants, spies) in West Berlin and outside which led to their failure to attribute.  Even still, a failure to attribute is a far cry from a false flag.  Soviets later planted the claim in foreign newspapers -- which Chomsky later received and based his analysis on.  To the extent Chomsky relied on foreign media uncritically, especially coming out of India, Pakistan, and other hotbeds for Soviet disinformation in the 1980s and 90s, he made these same sorts of mistakes with regular consistency.

So, to read or not to read... 

Failed States is worth reading, so long as the reader accepts and understands that one has to actually think about what Chomsky is saying and why.  Again, I agree with him on most of the facts (except in instances like those discussed above), though I strongly disagree with him on the big picture.   

Why I disagree with Chomsky on the big picture is not obvious, though it should be.  What Chomsky's grand narrative of American imperialism and aggression fails to account for how much worse the world would be in the absence of the very actions he laments.  The deficit is likewise present among all the "isolationists" on both the left and the right (that is not to imply that Chomsky is an isolationist per se). 

>Books on Foreign Policy

Yes.

John Lewis Gaddis wrote a book called "The Great Delusion" that I highly recommend.  

I stand by what I said there.  That thread contained views which were unconscionably unacceptable, that, while you may have the right to say them... they are worthy of little more than shame and condemnation. 

These are great questions.  I'll reply to them as I am able.  Keep it up!

Aww that's not nice.

>You got me. I wasn't satisfied with the mods hogging all the fun of kicking RM off the island, so I want to go through the lengthy process of doing it myself. Brilliant .

So either there is a process, or there isn't.

If there's going to be a process, it has to have legitimacy.

To have legitimacy, the process can't be arbitrary.

The process must be arbitrary, if you're making it up as you go along or coming up with rules after the fact.

Yet, here, you're coming up with rules after the fact and making up the process as you go along.

So, the process is necessarily arbitrary, whatever it is.

In that the process is arbitrary, it can't have legitimacy. 

> we're merely talking some dude's ability to kick another off a message board he doesn't even have the right to use in the first place. 

You don't really want a trial.  You want to vote someone off the island.  I'm glad we've made that distinction.

Elephants don't present the same metaphysical problems that belief in the divine would.

So, you now know I majored in two of like the most useless things ever... 

Political Science, Philosophy 

I am sorry to hear you went through a bad break up.  But, relationships are worth it.  Dating is like riding a bike.  You've got to fall down before you can ride. 

>If not rehabilitation or retribution, what purpose would you like the criminal justice system to serve?

Minimizing unnecessary harm would be a good place to start. 

There is much to be said for the merits of trials.  Trials are public displays of the "process" of "due process" being applied to the merits of a particular case, in a public forum that is both transparent and based on objective standards.  

There are two glaring problems: substantive, and procedural.  They are of equal importance.  Without hard and fast terms as to each, you're not holding a trial.  Rather, you're holding a kangaroo court. 

Substance. The substantive problems begin with our shared uncertainty -- assuming we're all humble enough to know what we don't know -- as to what "rule" was actually violated.  The Terms of Use, or whatever they're called here, aren't really "a proscription of law" so much as a "set of generalities" that make almost no reference to specifically forbidden conduct.  This matters because we abhor ex post facto rules/laws/etc., which is to say, we do not write the rules that apply to a particular case after the fact.  There are some countries in the world that do that, but no country in the West does.  Given who we are, it would be inconsistent with any notion of fairness to come up with a standard after any member has already done something seemingly objectionable, and then put them on trial for violating the standard we only came up with after the fact.  Given that now (and, by implication, after the fact of the occurrence) we would have no choice *but* to do that, a trial for anything that's already happened would be out of the question.

Procedure.  The procedural problems begin with what I would hope would be an almost universal recognition that there is no established procedure for what constitutes a fair trial in the context of, say, a site like DDO or DA.  In the US, for example, we have an adversarial system where a prosecutor has the sole burden of proof, the defense has no burden, and a judge "calls balls and strikes" as the procession unfolds.  A jury of an appropriate number of people typically decide such matters.  There is a formalized structure for who can talk (attorneys and witnesses), who can't talk (the public), what can be said (rules of evidence ensure that unfairly prejudicial material can't be used to corrupt the process), who can decide (a neutral jury free of bises, and personal or other conflicts of interest) and the like.  In a criminal context, a trial follows a lengthy investigation that, too, is governed by all kinds of rules and procedures. 

Here, or anywhere on the internet, I don't know how we could ever have anything approximating a "fair" procedure for "an accused" (that is, even if we weren't writing ex post facto rules).  To keep it simple, let's start with trying to set up something like an adversarial scheme of prosecutor and defense.  Who is in a fair position to prosecute?  Who is in a fair position to defend? Almost no one, because any prosecutor is likely to have a personal relationship with the accused.  This is less a concern with the defense, but the point remains.  Now, what about the jury?  Who will be neutral *enough* that any decision they rendered wouldn't at the very least appear to be blighted by personal biases?  Given the small userbase and the fact that most everyone is at least familiar with most everyone else, there doesn't seem to be enough people to support such a process with any legitimacy.  

There's something else to chew on, too, which is the "rules of evidence".  Now, laying aside the fact that we don't have any rules of evidence, let's just begin from the basic premise that there are some evidentiary items that are not fair to introduce.  One example of such items would be those which are inflammatory, whether relevant or irrelevant.  Here, where you have a user that has a noted history of conflict which goes well beyond the specific 'charge' on which he would be tried, would it be fair to present a "jury" with something approaching a 'parade of horribles' as to the character of the accused?  No, it would not, because we don't punish people for their character in fair legal systems; we only punish them for specific violations of law.  Even assuming we had such a set of rules in place to prevent that kind of abuse, most jurors would be independently aware of those facts that shouldn't have been admitted into evidence anyway.  What's to stop them from making a decision on that basis?

This brings us to a final procedural element, which would regard sentencing.  The "and should be banned" language I have a real problem with, because I have no idea what it means.  Banned from the site, forever?  Banned for 24 hours?  Banned for 5 minutes?  Banned only as to this account but may create another?  Totally vague, and ambiguous.  But, even that notwithstanding, what juries primarily do (there are exceptions, like in death penalty cases, which raise their own issues beyond the scope of my point here) is "find facts" and announce a verdict.  Juries generally don't sentence offenders, unless we're deciding whether the state should murder someone.  Community decided sanctions lend themselves to all kinds of problems, especially given that we've got no way to keep unfairly prejudicial material out of the process.

This is only like... the most basic set of concerns, discussed on an incredibly superficial level.  Given this, though, it's certainly enough for any reasonable person to reach the conclusion that, if these concerns are applied to the specific case of whatever RM did to deserve this most recent ban, there is no way to even begin to set about trying him fairly.  Does this mean that mods are a better alternative?  No... of course not, but that's of peripheral concern to me.