Who should replace Breyer on the SC?

[Kitten]

I've been called a boomer by students before. I shrugged it off like anyone else would and said "okay dude" 😛 it was a pretty interesting experience.

[The Blood]

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human being to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.

[Kitten]

1 minute ago, The Blood said:

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human being to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.

Did you copy this from another post because it sounds rather familiar, almost as it's from someone on this forum or our old forum.

[Kitten]

pneumono­ultra­microscopic­silico­volcano­coni­osis

[Kitten]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

Can we get a transcript 🙂

[DakotaHale]

55 minutes ago, The Blood said:

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human being to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.

Me when someone asks me if I’m mail voting (yes)

[DakotaHale]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Call it what you will, but mail voting is a luxury. We still don't have it in Canada, and have to physically go the polls. None of the six main party leaders bring it much at all.

Good

[Dobs]

1 hour ago, DakotaHale said:

Good

I like dropboxes outside polling places under 24/7 surveillance personally as a way to reduce wait times. But such ballots need to be requested and have to be personally dropped. That's the extent to which I support "mail-in".

[Cenzonico]

I love this forum

[pilight]

5 minutes ago, Dobs said:

But such ballots need to be requested and have to be personally dropped

So facial recognition will be used there too?  Or do you have some other way of determining if the person dropping off the ballot is the actual voter?

[Dobs]

5 minutes ago, pilight said:

So facial recognition will be used there too?  Or do you have some other way of determining if the person dropping off the ballot is the actual voter?

Not by *the* voter, just by *a person*. What I mean to say is that it cannot be mailed in.

[Dobs]

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

A, "voter," isn't a, "person?" Sounds like the path to the Terminator, Matrix, and Captain Power franchises being laid there...

Good Lord patine the operative change was the article not the noun, hence the asterisks. Of course voters are persons, the point being that it doesn't necessarily have to be *the* person casting the ballots.

[Timur]

Delete

Edited January 28, 2022 by Timur

[jnewt]

5 hours ago, Patine said:

@vcczar @MrPotatoTed I think, though, that in all seriousness, ageist/generationist slurs should be treated the same on this site as racist, sexist, ethnocentric, ant-LGBTQ, anti-religious group, anti-disability slurs, because the intent behind them is the same, at it's core, even if the viciousness of their usage can be dialed up and down by context, like they can with all slurs.

"Boomer" is not a slur. Don't even begin to compare it to the f-word or n-word.

[jnewt]

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

A slur is defined by intent. The f-word is not a slur when it refers to a cigarette in the UK. The n-word is not a slur when used as term of endearment between African-American friends. How old are you, and how many times have you been called a, "boomer," with the obvious intent @Pringles has used to be able to judge this situation from such a high horse, may I ask? The way @Pringles uses it is to dismiss my opinions and viewpoints in an insulting, demaing, and derisive way because of my age and generation (and it's not even my actual generation - and that error is deliberate). That, by intent, is a slur.

It's a joke and refers to a mindset. Hence why it doesn't matter if its your generation or not.

[Timur]

I see so many Pringles pings.

[Pringles]

7 hours ago, Patine said:

I don't believe his intention is so humourous as you think. He strikes me as a profoundly unpleasant, arrogant, vicious, and cynical young man with certain twisted views on the world and a sense of detachment. People here defending his irresponsible and crude commentary from being called out only compound the issue. 

Does it ever occur to you why I'm that way to you? Why others annoy you? Why this whole argument started? You had to tag me. 

Since then I've responded in my own way and stopped. Only to finally respond with this. 

The fact that you are so offended by this, and others appear to be supporting you in calling boomer a slur is so ludicrous, its downright funny. 

You will never see me whine by what someone calls me on the internet. As much as I resent the way you talk. I'd never truthfully, genuinely advocate a ban on the outrageous things you'd say. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Pringles

[pilight]

9 hours ago, Dobs said:

Not by *the* voter, just by *a person*. What I mean to say is that it cannot be mailed in.

I fail to see what difference it makes if it's a random person or a mail carrier who delivers it

[Dobs]

5 hours ago, pilight said:

I fail to see what difference it makes if it's a random person or a mail carrier who delivers it

Your failure does not negate its existence.

[pilight]

38 minutes ago, Dobs said:

Your failure does not negate its existence.

Perhaps you could explain it

[Rezi]

17 minutes ago, pilight said:

Perhaps you could explain it

I may not be on the same page as Dobs, but part of the reason I’m not a fan of mail voting is because I don’t trust the postal service enough to deliver votes properly.

[Pringles]

2 minutes ago, Rezi said:

I may not be on the same page as Dobs, but part of the reason I’m not a fan of mail voting is because I don’t trust the postal service enough to deliver votes properly.

I largely don't trust the postal service due to a lot of smug workers that throw your packages around everytime you order shit... people like that in charge of our entire elections? Eh. That's not to advocate the military monitoring it either though. Dont get me wrong. But also I think another problem is that the postal service gets screwed by spending cuts. 

[DakotaHale]

12 hours ago, jnewt said:

It's a joke and refers to a mindset. Hence why it doesn't matter if its your generation or not.

This is true. I self-identify as a boomer. It doesn’t have to be a bad thing

[DakotaHale]

@Dobs just to be clear you ballot drop off idea would replace absentee voting right? In person would be unchanged?

[Dobs]

7 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

@Dobs just to be clear you ballot drop off idea would replace absentee voting right? In person would be unchanged?

Yes that's accurate. But I imagine many would prefer it as an alternative to in person as well.