The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

I'm responding in kind to the target. You can't refute a Chick Tract with facts and logic because it operates outside of them, as the 1619 project does. I understand you don't find it to be a "Chick Tract" in the pejorative sense of the term, but then neither do people who like and are the primary consumers of literal Chick Tracts.

So any attempt to defend the project is detrimental to my authority—because it’s a chick tract and I simply want to believe it.

That’s a convenient little defense mechanism you’ve built for yourself there.

Maybe in the way you were thinking of it it would make sense to speak of these things as "pillars". Historically, there was only one cornerstone to a structure. It was a stone on a corner, but more importantly was the first stone laid, and in which all other elements of the building were laid in reference to. Other stones on corners in the structure were not cornerstones (I'll admit only knowing this due to many years sitting through multiple sermons explaining why Jesus was "the cornerstone" and what the significance of that was). Now such cornerstones are primarily symbolic.

I mean, I was just going by the colloquial definition, which is “an important feature on which something depends.” It doesn’t have to be the sole or original feature.

As far as Baptist goes, I think you've referenced him before and I've pointed out that economic historians have refuted him. A recent article:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ehr.12962

We indeed don't need to go round and round on this but I think that 2020 has shown in great burning detail (to the degree that many left-liberals are even noticing and calling it secular religion) that wokism or whatever label people want to apply to a somewhat fractured political movement is simply a secular evolution of protestantism.

Something’s burning alright.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Aaaackschually some buildings like the Pentagon have five or more cornerstones

 

[CiG]

Aaaackschually some buildings like the Pentagon have five or more cornerstones

Don't forget about the Flatiron Building.

 

[Einherjar86]

Aaaaackshually if you look at my post where I said that, you’ll see that the quote I included listed four things.

My comment about “four cornerstones” was in reference to the topic at hand—not that a building can only have four corners.

 

[CiG]

It seems like you believe something can have multiple cornerstones. Did I misread that?

 

[Einherjar86]

You guys are taking this way too literally. I’m not a fucking mason.

Colloquially, something can have more than one cornerstone; it’s an idea or feature on which a theory, system, process, etc. is based. It’s how people use the word in casual, metaphorical English all the time.

 

[CiG]

I wasn't taking it literally either, I understand it is primarily used metaphorically (do you think buildings are still built like that?) but I've never heard or read anybody using it the way you are.

 

[Einherjar86]

I wasn't taking it literally either, I understand it is primarily used metaphorically (do you think buildings are still built like that?)

Ha, no--which is why I was confused by the line of questioning pertaining to architectural cornerstones.

As it's used figuratively, a cornerstone is just a basic or fundamental element of something. This entire detour has been an exercise in pedantry. But I'll use "pillar" if it makes you guys happy.

Although technically speaking, couldn't something be founded on one pillar...?

 

[CiG]

Fair enough, I've just never seen it used that way and you boldly stated "that's what a cornserstone is" when in my experience it always refers to one thing from which all other things follow.

Not sure how something could be founded on one pillar though...

 

[Einherjar86]

Not sure how something could be founded on one pillar though...

It probably can't. Don't ever let me design a building.

 

[Dak]

So any attempt to defend the project is detrimental to my authority—because it’s a chick tract and I simply want to believe it.

That’s a convenient little defense mechanism you’ve built for yourself there.

No, I'm not saying that defending it is detrimental to your authority (although I'm not sure you have any authority on it in the strict sense, neither do I). I'm saying that it is neither accurate history nor a real attempt at an argument. It is, rather, advocacy in a nice way of describing it, or propaganda in the pejorative.

Even if we ignore advocacy or propaganda, we have to defer to the fact (Occam's Razor makes its appearance!) that journalists are mostly wrong about everything, which we know when it applies to our area of expertise, but then forget in a fit of Gell-Mann Amnesia.

I mean, I was just going by the colloquial definition, which is “an important feature on which something depends.” It doesn’t have to be the sole or original feature.

I have never seen it used that way in colloquial terms, in fact it's rarely used any more colloquially at all. Maybe it's different up north or in literary circles? Either way this is a semantic aside. The article I linked pointed out that slavery was not indispensable to either American or generally the West's economic development.

Edit: Ran across this too re: Gell-Mann Amnesia. Also certainly a thing.

https://medium.com/@addictiondocMD/a-new-corollary-to-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-3578a37ed3e9

 

[Bloopy]

Although technically speaking, couldn't something be founded on one pillar...?

 

[Slammed]

Where did you find a picture of my letter box?

 

[Einherjar86]

The article I linked pointed out that slavery was not indispensable to either American or generally the West's economic development.

By the mid-19th century it wasn’t indispensable, hence why we could abolish it. In the eighteenth century, it was indispensable.

The U.S. may have been able to achieve its industrial success without the help of slavery—but it didn’t. It relied on slavery to get there. Moreover, the industrial factory system was derived organizationally from the plantation system. It’s all part of the same long history of economic managerialism.

 

[Dak]

By the mid-19th century it wasn’t indispensable, hence why we could abolish it. In the eighteenth century, it was indispensable.

The U.S. may have been able to achieve its industrial success without the help of slavery—but it didn’t. It relied on slavery to get there.

True it didn't. That's a separate issue from whether it was necessary. It can be argued that it was a hindrance to optimal growth rather than "helping", but I'm not in a position nor do I have the time to do the necessary research to start to make that argument to any satisfactory degree.

Moreover, the industrial factory system was derived organizationally from the plantation system. It’s all part of the same long history of economic managerialism.

I don't know enough about this claim to agree or disagree with its veracity, but as it stands it seems rather to support the claim that they could have just used all the poor whites in the South to pick the cotton instead of using slaves. Possibly less profitable for the 5% or whatever it was, but it's also true old ways die hard even when there are better options. Legacy switching costs, etc.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

This proposed 4 hour Joe Rogan debate would unironically be a bigger October Surprise in Trump's favor than the Comey letter was. Even bigger than Kennedy vs Nixon 1960. Big enough to potentially create a permanent internet-independent seat in the media dialogue and end centuries of corporate dominance. A shame that's the reason it almost certainly won't happen, and it isn't surprising that CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo/Atlantic/etc haven't touched the story, all the while they made Rogan laughing at a rape joke into a front-page story.

I know a lot of people expect the cable debates to be Trump's saving grace over Biden, but I think they will be far more slanted against him than the 2016 ones already were. If anything the lack of audience/remote moderation for wuflu concerns will only be used against Trump. Not to mention that it won't be a theatrical event anymore; just go back to the one Biden vs Sanders wuflu debate and see how difficult it is to watch from a purely aesthetic point of view.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I way preferred the Biden/Sanders debate format. Without the crowd, the debaters didn’t have to pander to the crowd with one liners and focused way more on policy. It the most substantial Dem debate by a mile. Also, the crowd is usually loaded with a bunch of donors, so it actually skews the audience at home towards the establishment. Now, Trump was smart in 2016 to call this out, but still, this overall negatively impacts the usefulness of the debate, because it hurts the audience at home’s ability to determine the outcome for themselves. No crowd is better.

What I would be worried about if I were Trump, is Biden did pretty good in that one on one debate with Sanders. Now it may of been that he was on drugs, or that he just had a good day, because he was terrible in most the debates. However, it’s also possible that Biden is more mentally sharp when he has to consistently use his brain in a one on one debate, while his mind gets soft when he’s one of 10 people on the stage and goes massive stretches without talking. Trump has made a big deal about Biden’s cognitive decline, so even if Biden draws and just acts normal and has reasonable responses to Trump, that’s a win for Biden. Trump needs him to go into melting brain Joe Biden mode.

 

[Dak]

The shift is already starting to promote a Harris administration. A woman who couldn't even win a primary. Hidin Blitherin Biden ain't gonna make it.

 

[CiG]

I think a big part of why Biden does worse on the debate stage when there's 10 others up there (or whatever the largest number is) is because the format of rushing your answers out fast fucks with his stutter.

 

[Einherjar86]

https://projects.propublica.org/cli...ooK6FItgnd-YvN7-wascJYyJdSLGpT7TYI5is2p02eRNY

But as the climate warms, the niche could shift drastically northward. Under even a moderate carbon emissions scenario (known as RCP 4.5), by 2070 much of the Southeast becomes less suitable and the niche shifts toward the Midwest.

In the case of extreme warming (represented as RCP 8.5), the niche moves sharply toward Canada, leaving much of the lower half of the U.S. too hot or dry for the type of climate humans historically have lived in. Both scenarios suggest massive upheavals in where Americans currently live and grow food.