followed tags: 13
followed domains: 1
badges given: 4 of 7
member for: 1770 days
It's like movies.
If it doesn't hurt it doesn't count.
I'd be looking for some solid term limits, but the ideal is a proper constitutional amendment covering the extent of their powers.
Edit: now that I'm at work, some clarification.
The Supreme Court is a pretty poorly defined branch overall. It's a small part of the constitution and mostly governed by precedent.
Its a time bomb. Yes it can effect necessary changes and help civil rights among many other positives, but the ability to go above the heads of Congress and the President works in both directions. It also leads to the situation that we're currently in, where a single election is going to determine the policy of the Supreme Court for the next two decades, which could in turn determine the course of the country. One election.
It needs a limitation and clearly defined boundaries, or its going to become a route for politicians to go to when they need something accomplished that wouldn't fly in Congress.
Hell we need to even figure out if we want the Supreme Court determining a lot of these questions. Do we trust them to figure out the right course for how we treat AI in the future? Or any other issues that come up?
And that lesson is "never trust a politician from Chicago."
Don't worry, the F-35 has a total cost of something like 1.5 trillion dollars at this point.
Which is more than the GDP Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia rolled up in to one country.
The article skipped the real reason.
To personally spite me. Here I've been, hoping that we'd get a presidential race that was of reasonable length, where both sides spent there time trying to reasonably convey their opinions to people, and then at the end of it we'd vote for who we thought best. I said hope.
I was betting on the fact that we'd get a horrible B -tier Clinton/Bush election and it would be a beautiful crescendo to our era of 90s-00s nostalgia, what with the return of super hero movies, Jurassic Park, and of course a Clinton/Bush ticket. Poetic garbage.
No. We have a fucking circus among the Republicans competing for who can smear the most shit on their face, a Democratic party that is giving the most dispassionate support for Hillary that I've maybe ever seen for a human, and Bernie Sanders off in the corner somewhere not getting important voting blocs. And it's not even November of 2015. We're well over a year away from elections and it feels like we've been here forever.
You know what we should do instead of this? Take a big pool of candidates, put them in to an office building for 3 weeks and reveal every detail of their personal history, give them a full rectal exam, send the results to the internet, and then people can vote based off all that info along with a 5 minute video of each candidate insulting their opponents. It's the same goddamn thing. It is functionally the same.
Who cares what their platforms are anyway? Donald Trump won't build a wall facing Mexico if he's elected. He won't have the money. None of this matters. Fuck everything.
At some point they already have so much goddamn data on me that I feel like there's nothing new I can give them. Shit, 15 year old me went to some real weird sites, I tell you hwhat. Back when all we had were 30 second sampler clips. The dark ages.
If google ever decided that they wanted to air my dirty laundry I'd be so fucked that the only action I could possibly take was throw my hands behind my head, kick up my feet, and pray to whatever vengeful god is out there that the person I'm with is an angel made human. Which I mean, I'm sure is true for basically everyone else whether they like to admit it or not.
No, but it will save the porn industry.
I'm not actually joking.
Oh man we're not even that deep in to election cycles. Fuck.
You are some kind of special, huh. Before I cut the legs out from your shitty blog post, I just want to go over what exactly you've done, just so you are entirely aware of why I'm so goddamn insulted.
You came up with this poorly researched, boring, poorly written, inaccurate, non-spellchecked article, filled the last half with multiple fucking paragraphs of worthless opinions backed up by generalities or sometimes just nothing, and then posted it here. Not only posted it, but thought so highly of what you had written that you published it under #history, which is how I even saw this shit. What an affront to the subject, what an insult to the entire study of our culture, that you think for even a goddamn second that your sub-amateur, unfounded opinions deserve to be part of it. To top all of this off, you are then responding to criticism by demanding that your critics provide you with a well researched argument that you refused to provide in the first place.
I hope you get mad at this, I hope you get furious enough to block me, and I hope that one day you take a good long look at the way you approach writing, approach life, and approach our past as a species and take what I'm saying to heart even a little bit, but fucking hell I know you won't, so let's go for the legs.
Your argument is basically thus; Men are better capable of performing physically strenuous tasks than women to the point where traditionally male roles would be impossible for a woman to perform acceptably. This argument is then followed up by a second one, almost entirely unrelated to the first; Men in a male-only environment form a fraternity, which is being used as a synonym for a cohesive and coherent group built on mutual trust, rather than an organization built around beer pong and unfunny casual racism.
Your supporting evidence for the first argument is an unnamed woman, who is totally unqualified to speak on the subject in a logical and reasonable manner, the fact that women and men are split during the actual Olympics, and the fact that women and men don't compete during the Bay Area Firefighter Olympics thing, whatever the hell that's called.
The first piece of supporting evidence can be dismissed outright. Testimonial from an anonymous source who is fit only based on your standards, which you don't reveal to the audience by the way, isn't evidence. It's not even a good anecdote, because the only thing that it actually shows is that you know a woman. Given your backwards ass views, I'm surprised you're on speaking terms with any, but life is so full of surprises.
Your second bit of evidence is correct in a very limited way, and unfortunately for your argument, the limitation is such that it's irrelevant. The fact that men and women don't compete in the Olympics proves that yes, the most physically fit men in the entire world are indeed more physically fit than the women, with maybe a few exceptions. When soldiers, cops, firefighters, politicians, managers, or whatever else suddenly require gold medal physical fitness from all of their members, then this will be relevant. I will let you know when that happens, but judging from the cop who comes to my favorite coffee shop, we're a fairly far fucking ways away.
Aight third bit. This would almost be an argument, but since the only thing you present is the fact that the not-Olympics are segregated by gender, the only thing that you establish is that the people running the not-Olympics think women can't compete with men, not that women actually can't compete with men.
Okay cool, so your first argument is supported by basically nothing. You don't give us any examples of the requirements for physically demanding jobs, you don't even establish what a fit woman's performance is, you just kind of piss in to the wind for a few paragraphs before acting surprised when it splatters back on to your leg.
Second argument is just straight up crazy. I can't actually break this down point by point, but fuck man. The basic premise is fairly straightforward and fairly stupid right off the bat; men in a male-only group form unbreakable, homoerotic bounds of trust which let them do "great things", and women ruin all of that because men would immediately start to sexually compete for the woman. Fairly straightforward.
Here's an interesting question first, what if the woman in the fraternity was ugly? Like I mean really, really ugly. Elephant-man style, or I suppose elephant-woman. The men wouldn't sexually compete for her, right? Would that circumvent that whole deal or what? How about a really androgynous looking guy. To the point where the group legitimately couldn't tell. Would they then being trying to sexually compete for the guy because their brains see them as a woman or what?
I'm getting sidetracked by your stupid argument, my bad. Let's bring this back. You bring up a few examples that are interesting to say the least. Firefighters, Sparta, the Military, and for some ungodly reason, Congress. Only the American Congress though. Clearly no other representative government is manly or has bounds of trust or whatever. Fucking christ. Alright let's get in to this.
Firefighters formed as a public service, the first recorded ones were Roman and were primarily composed of slaves who would only help their owner's buildings. American firefighters were private companies competing for insurance money for ages - plus they had at least one women in them as early as 1816, which is why fires destroyed the entire country like two weeks later - and were that way essentially up until the French made firefighting a government ordeal, which we all later adopted in one form or another. What a deep bound of trust that clearly only men can form. Speaking of homoeroticism....
You made a weird choice when bringing up Sparta. I'm assuming your only knowledge of ancient Greece is the movie 300 , which I'm sure for someone of your intellectual calibre was a bit of a heady enterprise, but none the less you powered through it. Unfortunately, and this may come as a shocker, 300 was what we call a movie. It isn't real. It's not even remotely accurate. First, the Spartans were a fucking awful city-state. All their work was done by slaves, infanticide was rampant, currency was iron bars that were heavy as hell, there wasn't any architecture or joy, it was just fighting and a whole lot of gay sex. Holy fuck was there a lot of gay sex in Sparta. Greece in general, yeah, but Sparta just went to down on that man-ass. Good thing there weren't any women to sexually compete though.
Military is easy enough to dismantle. First, women have been serving in the military to some degree for ages, if you want to go back a-ways you can find Joan of Arc as just one example. For something more modern, female resistance fighters in Nazi Occupied countries during World War 2. Boom, there ya go. It's a shame that the resistances all basically failed because the Nazis walked in on them fucking because I mean, men can't control themselves around women at all, right? Second, women have been serving admirably in the navy for some time, but I guess that's not a real military branch.
Now we get to Congress. Why you choose that as a trusting organization is beyond me. Early Congress especially was argumentative, overly petty, and by and large unpleasant. Men killed each other in duels for christ's sake, why would you hold this organization up as some trusting bond of male friendship? How thick do you have to be?
Your whole argument stems from this aggressively flawed worldview centered around an unfounded idea of "great men." You ignore at every fucking turn the realities of history, of the context of all of these institutions throughout time. It's amazing in a way. You know why you do it though, don't you? You can feel that thought gnawing in the back of your head, I'm sure of it. If you can't you're thick as hell. It's because if you took a magnifying glass to what you're saying, put your heroes under a spotlight, put the institutions you hold up as virtuous under a spotlight, they fall apart. There are no great men. There is no formula for trust or friendship. The world has always been this dark and scary, and everyone in their moment in time was exactly as clueless as we are right now.
This is why I'm so mad. You come here and ask people to give you a well reasoned argument? What, you want citations? You want respect? Why? You won't see it. You demand to be taken seriously, but you won't even step outside of this stupid fucking bubble that you've made for yourself, and it is a goddamn insult to me and everyone else who had the misfortune of reading this that you want to hold us to higher standards than yourself.
Take your shitty blog, take your shitty opinions, pack up, and go home. You're done.