Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Frumple

Pages: 1 ... 570 571 [572] 573 574 ... 1929
8566
Section 14.
Quote
Sec. 14.  Privacy Act.  Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.

... though I guess it's only applicable to executive departments and agencies? Not sure what that excludes, tbh.

8567
So looking at news today it seems President Trump is actually delivering on his campaign promises. Halting immigration from predominantly muslim countries, cutting back the refugee program, signing an order to begin building the wall.

The absolute madman, a person in a position of political power is actually doing what he said he would.
... so have any of y'all happened to actually read the executive orders? Some fun stuff in there. Some that immediately jumped out... ICE is now on paper to have its employee numbers increased by about 50% (10k new officers, currently employment is ~20k total), customs and border folks are looking at at-least a rough 1/5th increase in border patrol officers (5k more, currently about 21-22k, making up a rough 1/3rd or so of CBP's total headcount). USCIS looks to be untouched, at least so far.

Secretary of Homeland Security is now being said to have sole and unreviewable discretion in determining if an immigration officer is appropriately handling the identification of immigrants and asylum seekers -- this was previously a power the attorney general had, but it's apparently changing hands (now, why you'd want to pass that power from the legal affairs position to the internal security one...).

If they weren't already before, all government agencies are being told to exclude all non-citizens or permanent residents from any protections vis a vis personally identifiable information they may have, to the full extent allowable by the 1974 Privacy Act. I'm not saying it's a good time for a gov't worker to have a side job in identity theft, but...

Handful of things that look kinda' sketchy in emphasizing gov't actors are only going to be held accountable to the plain language reading of certain statutes.

E: Oh, right, and the hiring freeze on all non-military federal positions that don't get exemption (mostly determined by position elect fiat, near as I can tell) is in effect.

8568
So the thing with sanctuary cities - is the idea before it was like civil disobedience or just some loophole in immigration law that let the cities skirt immigration law in the past?
It was the cities deciding they didn't agree with federal/state policy and refusing to cooperate on that particular issue. Not really civil disobedience, per se, as refusing to accede control on or assist with certain things when higher/other levels of the government sufficiently depart from the locality's (or state's, or whatever) cultural/ethical/etc. mores.

Immigration and firearms* are probably the two most common issues areas/cities/whatever refuse to enforce, but there's others as well. We saw some of it in relation to homosexual marriage and trans issues, recently-ish, ferex; cities refusing to enforce bathroom laws or recognize homosexual marriage, stuff like that. It's not exactly common or pervasive in terms of number of issues that get attention of that sort, but it's pretty far from uncommon, too. Not unusual, basically.

*At least the last time I checked, there's a number of places in the states that have a standing order (or something along those lines) to not cooperate wrt to most enforcement issues with the ATF, or whatever it's called these days.

8569
Huh. Wasn't the campaign message basically forcing protection money out of all our allies, to make up any differences? Did that fall through or somethin'?

8570
They could have done far more damage to Trump's campaign by simply doing what they should as reporters, rather than scurrying for any opportunity to inflate an incident and manufacture a nice scandal.
Pretty damn doubtful, that. Over the course of the last year the fourth estate did, at one point or another, just about everything they should have as a reporter. It's one of the most screwed up parts of the last year or two's media cycle, that just about friggin' everything involved had the information needed to figure things out (truth, relevance, etc., etc.) just kinda' out there and barely anyone could seem to notice, particularly for more than a day or two.

Functionally no one gave a flying fuck about it. Folks didn't care about the criminal actions and legal history, about the business incompetence and malfeasance, about the ethical character outside of the couple of points of it that got attention, and so on and so forth. So the bastard news venues decided to give their viewers what they did care about, and every last bit of it was flooded with bullshit. FTFE, yes, but they only get part of that blame. A lot of what they did was just because they were responding to what the population was signaling they wanted.

Thinking that if somehow the news just put out proper investigative journalism, it'd make the difference, flies in the face of the last while's reality. When they do, it gets ignored or barely acknowledged, and half the time folks immediately flock to a blatantly fabricated bullshit rebuttal, about as much just because it's there as anything. It's another one of those points where it'd either take something draconian or a internal shift in their viewer base before it changes. People don't want news, they want a show, and until that stops -- or at least reigns its bloody self in -- they're going to get a show more than they get news and we're all going to get fucked by it.

8571
Other Games / Re: Dominions 4: Thrones of Ascension
« on: January 25, 2017, 11:12:05 am »
Wayback machine has some captures, apparently. Poke it for www.desura.com/games/dominions-4-thrones-of-ascensions/forum/. Might have to tell it to search all archived pages if that spits out something about not having it archived. May or may not have what you're looking for, but it's a possibility.

The invision board (the arguably main mod board, with desura gone) might have a duplicate of the guide, too.

8572
One of the parties being unwilling to compromise. Do get that straight, heh. Chunk of the dem's legislative problems the last decade or two (at least) has been a willingness to compromise... when the other side involved is a bad faith actor that doesn't intend to keep their side of things going at all. You want to bring people together substantially, you're going to have to figure out how to fix that latter bit. Lotta' folks want to compromise, but they start getting prickly when it sequentially buggers them.

The way it's being argued in here makes it sound like there's absolutely no hope for these places and the only fate is to become ghost towns. I know frumple is saying otherwise, but at the same time, possible solutions keep getting shot down.
*shrugs* Maybe those towns just weren't meant to be. There's no rule that says there needs to be a way to solve this problem. Maybe there isn't, at least not for a price we are willing to pay.
Oi, don't get what I'm saying wrong. There's still going to be rural towns, for all sorts of varying reasons. You're still going to have economic enclaves (or whatever they end up being called) based around whatever crap can operate under the burden of working in those conditions and maintain competitiveness, and there's going to be a fair chunk of folks out there willing to pay the extra costs involved in order to live outside a city. It's just that, yeah, a lot of these places are going to become ghost towns. It's going to take freakishly unlikely shit happening for the rural/lower density populations to be able to maintain quantity and quality of life with the demographics it has now and in the areas they're in now, much less grow in a way it's not functionally dying because it's staying relatively static when everything else isn't.

Solutions that are going to be able to work are pretty much known, and have been for a while now. You have to retrain, you have to reorganize the economies of the areas (that can manage it) around industries that aren't (as) effected by the economic problems involved (i.e. close to nothing that involves physical goods, little that involves a lot of necessary interpersonal wheeling and dealing, etc., etc.), you have to get the portions of the population that will necessarily be unable to manage that (because there's going to be less jobs out here, and they're going to be pretty damn different for a lot of folks, too) either some sort of support or the means and willingness to go somewhere that they can support themselves through work they can manage.

You need education investment, subsidies and government investment (because it's going to take an actor that's not operating off profit motive to spearhead this, period) in said industries to get them to critical mass and start investing in these areas under their own volition in meaningful amounts, welfare and various sorts of other easement that either makes the movement involved with that tenable for families that currently can't afford it without functionally destroying themselves financially or make the lower income folks stuck in these shitholes not have to live like shit because of it (and so might just be able to start accruing the resources necessary to get out or transition to an industry more able to support them). Way to get low expertise folks to realize and accept that they're not (all, anyway) going to be able to live a good life on that, anymore and particularly out here, and how to live with that. Lot of these areas are still going to be screwed, because there ain't a single damn thing you can do about that that's going to be particularly sustainable, but that's how you get the populations in them a path forward. Gonna' be a fair amount of that that paths to somewhere else, location and living style wise, but that's seriously about all we really got that'll work on the scale we need it to.

Problem's getting people to do that, when it means more government involvement, less pride, a fair bit of pulling up your roots on top of it, and a great deal of personal level uncertainty regardless. The fact that one of our two major political parties has spent the last few generations actively trying to sabotage the country's raw physical ability to deal with stuff like this doesn't exactly help either, heh.

8573
@Frumple: We don't really have a lot to talk about if you aren't willing to even consider the possibility of a rural economic program not failing. What I will say in response is that we've already seen clear evidence of basic income revitalizing post-industrial communities, and that as long as this continues to be thought of in terms of returning factories and old jobs instead of establishing a new ruralism, we're not even on the same page of discussion. The whole "fuck em all" line, with or without added "and they deserve it" is kind of a waste of a conversation. We've seen our circumstances, now we must adapt to them.
MSH, most of my point was that that "adapt to them" is still going to fuck these areas sideways, particularly if we try to hold on to them instead of getting folks to get out as much as possible. New ruralism isn't going to maintain the same level of population, or if it does, they ain't gon' be too happy about it. It can damn sure help, but it's not going to nearly be enough on its own and it's pretty damn unlikely many of the populations we're talking about are really going to be able to really benefit from it much.

Rural economic program can do its thing, but the problem is the damned things, however wonderful they can be, are necessarily inefficient. By the very nature of what's involved, they're building around a competitive disadvantage. You just can't sodding do as much with one, just because of what a low versus high population density means in regards to economics. They can slow down the slide for some areas, but a lotta' folks are going to be left out if they're used as a centerpiece, sooner or later.

I wasn't giving a "fuck em all" message, I was giving a "they're fucked, and this shit isn't going to fix it" message, basically. Ain't a matter of it failing, it's a matter of other crap meaning it's got zero chance of doing anything terribly substantial. Adapting to our circumstances is going to involve starting to treat rural living as the luxury/economic burden it's increasingly becoming, or it's going to involve a helluva lot more suffering than it needs to.
Also, as I'm sure Frumple is writing up right now, at least from what I garnered from some of his prior posts, he has done shit to help, and actually got involved. So don't go immediately assuming that no one here tried to do anything.
Didn't think it was aimed at me, actually.

And sorta'. Most of what I've personally done hasn't really been directly political, though, save for occasionally talking to friends and family... anyone it's relatively safe to talk politics with in person around here, mostly. Which, to be fair, is itself more than non-zero investment, as some of those have had a fair bit of (mostly local) political influence over the years (former mayor in the family, stuff like that). There's just not much of a point to do much more in this particular area, unfortunately -- God could manifest here and tell people to vote democrat and it probably wouldn't make much of a difference -- and outside the net I don't have much resource/health wise in me to scoot around to the areas more personal impact could be made. Been more volunteer/non-profit stuff, side of occasional assistance with education related junk (family's got/had teachers, principals, etc. in it), helping family and friends of family actually try to do something for these hellholes. Easier to reach, heh.

Personal contributions have been less than they could have been 'cause I've been in fairly rough shape health wise for a while and probably worse vis a vis income, but they've been there over the years and the nature of my relations' involvement with that stuff means I've interacted directly and otherwise with a fair amount of folks involved in such things, and over a pretty damn expansive amount of geography. It's why people sayin' liberal efforts aren't out in these places kinda' piss me off, because I've been living in or close to a fair handful of communication networks (in the business networking sort of sense, mostly) that have been involved in dedicated and pretty persistent and expansive efforts to execute just those bloody things all over this friggin' country. Don't like seeing the years and years of effort of a lot of friends and acquaintances, and all the folks they've worked with, basically pissed on and stated to not exist, y'know?

8574
I could get behind a rebranding, though, sure. Best choice for an experiment would be to just say to hell with it and change the name to Republican. If yeh can't beat 'em, steal their name, cut 'em open, and take over their lives wearing their corpse as a meatsuit.

8575
I think these first days, if nothing else, has proven that a moderate conciliatory path is- while not ideal - better than the alternative.
I hope I'll be proven wrong, going forward.
Depends on what you call that path, heh. This last year definitely showed the dems that they have less allies on the far left (so far as the US goes, anyway) than they hoped they did, as well as how little of an actual path there is to connect with some of the groups in that bunch. In a way, it's good, similar to what we were talking about a bit earlier. If you know who you can't get through to, you've worked out a few areas you can divert effort from.

Agreed on most of your points, but I would note that the Republicans are not exactly in a strong position here; they've alienated a huge portion of Americans and they don't have a strong core. They're very vulnerable... which is part of the reason that the Democrat's failures to seize that are all the more disillusioning.
Eh... at this point I'd ask who on the more left spectrum of US politics actually could have seized on that. Again, much of the problem is that the parts of the conservative spectrum that might just be vulnerable, are largely flat out not going to listen to a single bloody thing anyone leftward of 'em is going to say. Period, end statement, if christ physically came down from heaven and showed up at their door with a democrat sticker the door'd be shut. The fracturing's internal, basically, but the barriers against external influence haven't really weakened, and there's still not much opening to leverage anything on that front.

There's absolutely a platform to establish. We've run the Washington Consensus so threadbare that alternatives are barely even considered before being dismissed out of hand. What we need is strong support for localism and in preparation for reinvesting automation output into the communities that automation exists in.

They don't even fucking try.  Last election, you know how many seats that were even attempted to be contested below state level where I live?  Three, maybe four, most on the county level.  There were roughly fifteen spots up for election that I could vote for.  Pretty sure this makes a good amount of people around here tend to vote Republican on the higher levels because why should you vote for a party that doesn't care about you in the slightest?  Plus its even further hard to justify voting for Democrats when they're the ones running the nearby US per capita murder capital.
Over the course of my life pretty much every position in my local area's been contested party wise at some point or another. It's been going down as I've gotten older, though. They've tried sodding constantly, but yeah, effort in certain areas start to decrease when nothing gets positions and there's less and less support -- and more and more ostracization if you dare run blue -- in the area.

Despite that, most of anything in this area that actually does a single goddamn thing for it is being headed by dems or liberal independents, or is getting funding and practical support primarily or entirely from the political efforts thereof. Thing is, basically fuckall of the population notices that, or remembers it when they do. Folks don't tend to run when they know the support's not there and the electorate ungrateful/forgetful as hell besides. Most of the rural areas I've had substantial interaction with are in pretty similar spots, too.

How do you get people to pay attention to the extent you care when not a single one of them gives the least of goddamns about what you're doing, even if it's keeping their life from going entirely instead of just mostly to hell? What's the point of running for office when it's been proved repeatedly doing it with a D besides your name means you might as well have not ran?

It might honestly be a simple gap between their actions and their message. Or rather, they're not converting their (attempted) support of rural communities/etc to actual votes.
Oh, the latter is definitely a major issue so far as that goes. I said it a ways back, but at this point I'd actually accept voodoo curse as a realistic explanation of what the fuck's going on out here in regards to that side of things. Because nothing I've seen over the few decades of my life has managed to get those efforts to stick in the minds of the communities out here, nor has anything I've heard of with regards to folks further afield's efforts. Goddamn nothing. Not trying to do it via news, not word of mouth, not lives impacted, goddamn nothing. Persistence does nothing, vigor does nothing, volume does nothing, nothing does anything. I've seen people talking about somethin' of that sort in literally the previous sentence in a conversation, and then fail to remember the political affiliations involved in the sentence after. And I don't think I've seen a single explanation for it, particularly one that was worth even the most remote of damns. If anyone's even attempted to figure out what the hell's going on there, I haven't noticed it yet.

I'd be entirely unsurprised if you ran the message you popped out on every local station, radio and TV, 24/7 for a few months and still didn't get these communities to notice, never mind actually support you, basically. People who think getting that sort of message through to these communities isn't that hard have not tried to get that sort of message through to these communities, by and large, heh. You can talk at 'em, maybe even get some enthusiasm for a day or two. Week later? When they're at the polls? Heh. That's somethin' different, apparently.

8576
... probably not sarcasm. It's pretty legitimately what the economic outlook for these areas are, if put a bit bluntly. Particularly if they're trying to hold on or return to the previous state of things in that area of life. It's not really morbid, per se, but it definitely seriously bloody sucks. Living in these areas can be pretty shit so far as the larger picture/future goes, and it's made worse by it being so common to not really realize what's been happening until you're older, and find yourself starting to understand the world more only to suddenly recognize what's happening to your community but having missed most of the good windows to do something about it (for yourself and family, if nothing else). Folks bury their head in the sand and throw themselves behind impossibilities for a reason, even if it's damned foolish.

The economy's changed, and overall population grown besides. What could manage to compete and sustain these less dense areas a generation or two (or three, whatever) ago just flat can't manage that anymore, at the absolute least to the same extent. Folks that try get out competed by ones that aren't effectively handicapping themselves and either are able to support less and less of the areas population, or eventually get pushed out of their market and out of business, with the community just buggered maybe a bit slower than the next town over. It sucks! It sucks several different varieties of metaphorical and entirely too often literal dong.

There just ain't really much you can do about it... and a lot of what you can is pretty unpalatable for the cultures involved, unfortunately. Problem ain't really the time involved (though that's definitely contributed, especially hand in hand with efforts to sabotage most attempts at something effective -- means that a lot of the stuff that could have done more, hasn't), but the nature of what the actual options are and what takin' advantage of them entails. That'd be the identity part I mentioned, heh.

8577
Explain the trend seen in this analysis (link to conclusion which also has links to the other three parts in the series) then. While it doesn't explain why and how it happened and doesn't offer solutions, it does explain what happened as far as the trend because explaining how they got to this point is going to be cruicial to understanding how to bounce back and move forward.
I mean... explain what part? The stuff linked slots in pretty well with what you quoted from me, as near as I can tell. Dem/liberal efforts in these areas have remained pretty strong throughout the period being analyzed, but acknowledgement or recognition of those efforts very much haven't (and were only so strong to begin with, really). If you're looking for a how, worsening economic conditions, what amounts to media ossification -- the communities solidifying around certain sources of information, many of them just flatly inaccessible to a democrat message, to say nothing of what the messages that are being transmitted look like -- and a side of demographic shift (people getting older, et al).

In the conclusion bit, though, what I'd disagree with pretty strongly is that it is reversible, at least not by any external actor. The situation on the ground in these areas is not what it was 30, 40 years ago, and it's pretty much physically impossible for them to get back to it. What worked to get rural and lower density areas population to vote for dems decades back is not going to work now, and more likely than not you've outright lost, and permanently, many of the points you once would have used for leverage. They're just not freaking there anymore, and the populations that remain (and aren't trying to get out, anyway) are largely pretty staunchly against acknowledging the stuff involved with that.

The Democrats can absolutely steal Trump's base, and without compromising any of their values in the process. The working class and rural vote went more to Trump because of his practically impossible but unchallenged economic policy regarding them. Economic relief for these areas is their most cared about issue, and even just establishing a meaningful platform on it beyond trying to ride long-term economic success would serve the Dems massively.
... MSH, that's the thing. There isn't a platform to establish when it comes to that, for these areas. The only substantial economic relief they're going to see is by welfare and government investment,* either directly, or indirectly via subsidies and tax breaks to offset of the costs of doing business in these areas. Long term economic success -- retraining (education funding, good luck), moving out of particularly impoverished areas into ones that can support you (welfare, tax breaks for travel et al, scholarships, etc., see previous paren, add in a dash of non-economic concerns like family history and environmental comfort and crap) -- is pretty much it. There's not a single other bloody option, particularly not one that's not going to dry up again within a generation or two at most.

Like. Businesses will not come to these areas. They're out of the way (transport costs), they're varying degrees of run down (infrastructure costs), the population is generally having one sort of problem or another (human resource costs, as well as shortage of qualified workers which adds even more because you have to bring folks in), and if there's no resources in the area (extractive, temporary, sometimes a net loss for the community due to working hazards et al t'boot), then there's no reason to be there because there is nothing there. Anything that will be able to profit in those conditions, will not be large enough to support more than maybe one or two communities, out of significantly more than that.

*And to a fair extent, the culture/general attitude in these areas, again particularly for the ones that have been there as things slid to shit, will refuse those as an option. You cannot get their votes with that message, because they will be significantly more likely to listen to someone saying there's another way -- even if said option is a complete impossibility -- over someone that is acknowledging the raw economic reality that has been shitting on their dignity and future for years.

8578
I mean, most of it really isn't that complicated. You had people that wanted to get conned -- wanted simple, easy solutions to complex problems that they don't exist for and were willing/desperate enough to suspend all disbelief if someone said they had one loudly enough -- and so they did. Add a sprinkle of FTFE and voilą.

Still, the Democrats problem isn't so much the identity politics, it's that they have been neglecting the rural areas and towns. Yes identity politics is part of it, but there are certainly minorities in the rural areas being hit by the same problems as said 'straight white male' demographic.
Haven't been neglecting the goddamn rural communities, the rural communities have been ignoring and/or rejecting attempts at attention while electing people that were intent on making sure their areas kept going to shit. Consistently. For decades. Identity politics are a pretty sizable part with that, but it's the conservative ones that are the key issue on that front, not the bits related to minorities (they're still an issue, but a smaller one), and in complete honestly there's functionally pretty much nothing the dems can do about that. You cannot spread a message when every venue you are willing to use is ignored or maligned. If they want to break into that about their only option is going to be to abandon every last iota of integrity and stridently lie out of every orifice. It's either going to take that, or the demographics in question becoming willing to listen to things from your corner that aren't blatant lies... and it's now pretty clearly demonstrated that anything that happens from that direction is going to come from inside the demographics in question and no where else.

The easiest way to start pulling in votes would be to try to reach low class white people instead and weaken Trump's base, right?
Trying to court trump's base would do sod all. Trump's base is not going to move, and there's pretty much nothing the dems can try to do about that that haven't been doing for longer than pretty much any of us have been alive. That doesn't boil down to "fuck our platform and everything we've attempted to stand for", anyway. Minorities there's at least traction with at the mo', and turnout actually was a problem this last election, so trying to improve on that front is a pretty solid idea.

They do seem to be learning something from this election, really. They're learning that you cannot convince people that will not listen, that no amount of help or emphasizing that help is going to get people to notice what you're doing when they are willfully ignoring what you do, and that putting much effort into either is a waste of that effort. So direct your campaigning resources elsewhere, because you've clearly identified an area investment isn't going to do you much good. mind, you keep efforts to improve the areas going because, unlike your opponents in this case, you're not complete bastards on the net and basic governance is kinda' yer shtick, but you acknowledge that you're not going to get any electoral advantage worth note from it

8579
Eh... there's more he could do to the USCIS than cut pay, from what I recall of the few minutes I spent checking the relationship there. Pretty sure it's more or less directly subordinate to the stuff the presidency has full/substantial control over (vis a vis structure, functioning, etc.), so the scope of capability is... kinda' anything, roughly speaking. Least it looked like if he really wanted to, he could more or less fire any/every one in the USCIS, tell them all to stop working, freeze hiring (campaign promise), etc., etc., etc. Can't self fund if you're no longer allowed to do the stuff that funds yeh, heh. It'd be a procedural/legal hell to actually go through with, but the question is if that'd actually stop the folks involved.

Presumably there's some sort of limit(s) on what could happen there, based on whatever bit of legislature the USCIS has been being used by the executive branch to fulfill its obligations toward, but I can't recall there being a legal/procedural issue if the executive branch wants to just kinda' get rid of/gut one of its subordinate organizations by/while claiming intent to reorganize/restructure/etc. to (better) fulfill legislative responsibility (regardless as to if the intent to fulfill that responsibility is there, ha*). It probably hasn't happened much/at all, because deep sixing a major governmental organization without having transitioned its duties elsewhere/readied some kind of replacement/etc. is basically monumentally freaking stupid and by and large our previous executive branches has managed to at least have the cognitive stability to avoid something that colossal of a cock up, but...

*Structural inertia and whatnot being what it is, it's entirely possible for the process alone to take longer than a presidential term, which basically means if you had a particularly bad faith president, you could probably end up with them intentionally screwing around for their whole term and not really having to deal with consequences, because the results of their mess gets dumped on whoever comes after. Happens pretty often with lower levels of government, tbh. Governors or somethin' doing crap during their term(s) that have repercussions/don't really come into effect until afterwards, that the state/next governor/whatever ends up getting screwed by a few years down the road.

8580
but here's the problem, everyone's projecting the worst possible outcome always. seems right when they tell they're under attack all the time from all the fronts.

the real issue is that hating everything equally is gonna shadow the real bad stuff he's gonna push like on abortions.
See, the thing is everyone isn't projecting worst possible outcomes always. They're mostly projecting "what will probably happen when you do Shit X" rather than some sort of "do not pass go, go directly to fail state omega" thing. It just happens that a lot of said Shit X is, y'know. Not good. Or even neutral or whathaveyou. The problem isn't everything is being hated equally, it's that there's a lot of stuff to hate and the people doing stupid shit are trying to get off the hook by saying the issue is all these other people, not anything th'shit people are doin'.

It's disturbingly effective, as you kinda' demonstrate. People get drawn in by an underdog narrative pretty easily, and it's a pretty standard con/abuse tactic to take advantage of that. "Don't listen to all of your friends and family, or the cops, or whoever. They all just hate me for no good reason, and you know better, right?" Stuff along those lines. If you can convince someone all the ire directed at you is the fault of those throwing slings an' arrows instead of what you're doing, suddenly your bad behavior becomes their bad behavior instead and you get off the hook. It's scumshit but it works more than one might think it would.

Other problem being is what you're suggesting is just as much of a lose state. If you don't object to the less serous shit, that shit normalizes, and then either the real bad shit isn't seen as (at least as much) out of line or they start shitting everywhere and you're buried under a dung pile of incremental excretion that's about as much or more of a dump. 'Bout all you can really do is stay steady on pointing out shit and hope people buying that said shit isn't that big of a deal eventually pull their heads out of their collective ass and stop listening to the jackasses trying to make their bad behavior acceptable. Also, sometimes a turn of phrase gets away from you, especially when you've been awake for like ten minutes. I kinda' regret it, but when you've got a streak like that you keep wipin' 'till yer done.

Pages: 1 ... 570 571 [572] 573 574 ... 1929