Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: POTF 35 - Nominations

  1. #1
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,779

    Default POTF 35 - Nominations


    POTF is about recognising the very best posts, the best arguments and discourse in the D&D, and appropriately rewarding it.

    You shall progressively earn these medals once you achieve enough wins, but first you must be nominated in threads such as this one. And it works like this.

    Post of the Fortnight - Rules
    -Each user can nominate up to 2 posts per round, and the only valid form of nomination is by quoting with a link as shown below the chosen post in the PotF thread designated for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Looking forward to getting this kicked off for real!
    -Each 15 days there will be a new Nomination thread put up, and all the posts written during this period are considered eligible, if properly nominated. Exception are posts who are somewhat breaking the ToS; upon being acted by Moderation, they are always considered uneligible.

    - Remember: It is possible to nominate up to 2 posts each round of the competition; it is also possible to change a nomination anytime before the actual round of nominations ends.

    - There will be two competitions held every month, with a period for nominations followed by a period of voting. The submitted posts can be discussed in a dedicated space.

    - Only posts that have not participated in a previous poll and that have been published in the current period of given time in any section of the D&D area may be nominated.

    - The authors of the nominated post will be informed so they can withdraw the candidacy if that is their wish.

    - The maximum number of participating posts in the final vote will be ten. If more than ten nominations are submitted, seconded nominations will take priority. After seconded nominations are considered, earliest nominations will take priority. If the number of posts submitted to the contest is less than ten, the organizing committee may nominate posts if it considers it appropriate.

    -The members of the committee will never nominate a post belonging to one of them, but the rest of the users can nominate their posts (organizers posts), and vice versa.

    -In the event of a tie, both posts will be awarded and both posters will receive rep and 1 competition point.


    - Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the running contest.

    - People are expected to consider the quality and structure of the post itself, more than the content of the same. While it's certainly impossible to completely split the two aspects when making our own opinion on a post, it remains intended, as also explained in the Competition Commentary Thread, that commenting and discussing on the content rather than on the form/structure of the post is considered off-topic for the purpose of this competition. You are free to nominate and vote for whatever reason you want, but what happens in public has to strictly follow up with the competition rules.


    A nominated post should:

    1. Be focused and relevant to the topic(s) being discussed.
    2. Demonstrate a well-developed, insightful and nuanced understanding of the topic(s) it is discussing.
    3. Be logically coherent, well organized and communicate its points effectively.
    4. Support its contentions with verifiable evidence, either in the form of links or references.
    5. Not be deliberately vexatious to other users.


    Good luck everyone!

  2. #2

    Default Re: POTF 35 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Islam has never been expulsed from the European continent, though, but, on the contrary, it can boast an uninterrupted presence there since the 7th century AD. That's significantly more than the most recently Christianised regions of the same continent in the extreme north and east, like the Baltics and Scandinavia. I suppose you are referring to the Reconquista achieved by the Iberian kingdoms, but Muslims continued to have presence in several parts of Europe, like Bosnia, Thrace and Crimea. By that logic, someone could argue that the Jews were also removed from Europe, because the degrees of the Catholic monarchs of Portugal and Spain targeted not only Muslims, but Jews as well. However, both these persecuted religious groups successfully found refuge in more tolerant lands, where Jewish and Muslim communities already existed and prospered.

    As a result, Muslims existed in Europe well into the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and, at a certain degree, participated in a few of its major historical events. When it comes to Muslims in European wars, for example, we usually think of French colonial regiments, which defended France's territorial integrity in 1871 and to which Bismarck explicitly ordered the Prussian soldiers to give no quarter. However, Muslim soldiers, indigenuous to Europe, fought in both World Wars for the interests of all four different sides, the Central Powers and the Entente, the Axis and the Allies.

    Not that, in my opinion, a hypothetical complete ethnic cleansing would legitimise any current harsh treatment of a religious group, solely based on their creed. Western Europe is supposedly proud of its humanitarian principles, according to which, secularism and religious tolerance are endorsed, while sectarianism and collective guilt are rejected. Unfortunately, our debate here is not theoretical, because the hateful fruits of Islamophobia have already matured in post-Soviet Europe. Terrorist attacks have claimed the lives of tens of innocent victims in Norway, Germany and elsewhere, in the name of religious purity, while the most recent massacre, almost unanimously recognized as a genocide, on European soil targeted one of the oldest Muslim communities in Europe, which had been left largely intact, despite the violence, discrimination and population exchanges that had so dramatically altered the demographic composition of the Balkans during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    Therefore, I can rationalise Islamophobia and, generally speaking, the oppression of Muslims under the guise of European identity, only from a Christian fundamentalist or nationalist western European perspective, according to which, only certain parts of the continent and only certain aspects of the cultures that have influenced Europe, are entitled to define the so-called European civilization. That methodological approach usually focus on the "Latin" and "Germanic" parts of Europe, but, as previously illustrated, that strategy is dangerously inconsistent and can lead to a couple of embarassing self-contradictions, which further weaken the already fragile logical foundations of the Islamophobic narrative.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  3. #3
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Civitate

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    7,789
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: POTF 34 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The BBC article is filled with misleading and false claims (shocking, I know). Let's analyze.



    This is false. Felony sexual assault (rape) is a heinous crime. The article specifically omits mentioning Blake's charges in order to maintain this fiction. This is a copy of the criminal complaint.



    This is also false. Blake precipitated the violence by resisting arrest, gripping one of the officers in a headlock and brandishing a deadly weapon. The police are not obliged to facilitate the escape of an armed, violent suspect who is accused of sexual offenses. We employ them to do the opposite.





    This, too, is likely false. The police association claims that the SUV did not belong to Blake. There is also no particular indication that Blake "would be easy to find" and arrest later, simply because the police had the car's licence plate number.



    I believe that the two officers in Blake's immediate vicinity had discharged their tasers, and both strikes had failed to incapacitate the suspect.



    That is correct. It is also a straw man. No one has claimed that resisting arrest, in and of itself, provides "carte blance to use deadly physical force".



    It is not "disturbing" that the officers persisted in their efforts to effect the arrest up until the shooting. On the contrary, they are required to exhaust all viable alternatives prior to using deadly force.



    Blake was almost certainly armed at that time.



    The responsibility for bringing the altercation into the vicinity of the children lies with Blake. If it is shown - as I believe the available evidence does show - that the officer reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, then the risk created by firing at close quarters (which, it is worth nothing, also applies to the officer himself) ceases to be unreasonable.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Settra View Post
    If language is fluid banning words is pointless.

  4. #4
    Flinn's Avatar Hasta el Bunga Bunga siempre!
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Gaming Director

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    13,852
    Blog Entries
    28

    Default Re: POTF 35 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    I'm sorry... but there's nothing more fun than screaming at a screen while watching Love Island.

    It's like Instagram Hunger Games. The survivors get the most followers as reward.

    It's also a great example of how we're chimpanzees and gorillas at heart. The Love Island house is an artificially created human troop. The troop has no assigned alphas. So the competition for love, is actually a de facto competition for alpha status within the troop. That's why the men strut topless around the house, lounging poolside in self selecting groups preening themselves on display, displaying their muscles on the gym equipment. It's why women gather in groups, showing off the visual elements of their sexuality as best they can, seeking the attention of the alphas. Those who fail at the competition are forced to leave the troop.

    I'm surprised it's not being taught in anthropology classes.

    It's true of any human troop.

    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22 & Socrates1984 & Kilo11 & Vladyvid & Dick Cheney of the Imperial House of Hader

  5. #5
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Civitate

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    7,789
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: POTF 35 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    "My heart goes out to any Black person who invited Jessica Krug into their sacred space under the assumption that she was Black too." lol

    The only real crime here is that this woman is being bullied into cancelling herself by a mob of anti-trans bigots. If she identifies as black, she should double down.

    There was a half black guy in one of my graduate level anthropology courses who successfully argued that he shouldn't be required to write the term paper that was the basis for the grade in the course because "African peoples were not historically literate". Instead he (and he alone) was able to turn in an art project, which consisted of images from the internet printed on a color printer and glued to poster board, digital printing and glue sticks evidently being technologies more traditionally associated with "blackness". Same guy used to douse himself with watermelon scented spray before going into any faculty member's office to make one of his unreasonable demands, with the idea that the faculty member would be so unnerved by his/her own racist thoughts that he/she would agree to almost anything just to end the uncomfortable situation. Which is obviously not fair to the other students, yet I still managed to find hilarious.

    As far as the other dog whistle, it's not coming from alhoon. You see, it's very important to some people that Ashkenazi Jews be considered white, for essentially the same reason that this guy must be a white Hispanic:



    White people are bad... On the other hand, if you're someone who thinks being white is exceptionally good and that being non-white is bad, then it is important that Ashkenazi Jews be considered non-white.

    In reality, if white = ancient European ancestry, then Ashkenazi Jews are about as white as Obama is (that is half).
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Settra View Post
    If language is fluid banning words is pointless.

  6. #6
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: POTF 35 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidin View Post
    Well, I mean, if you want a political platform with such a lack of morals and ethics that its sole goal is to win, sure. You have no long game. You're only goal is to gain seats. You have no idea why you're gaining seats. About all the Republicans can do with the Senate is fill Judgeships, because, again, gain seats. Right now the Republican Party is nothing more than a conspiracy to seize power. They don't even have a platform I can fundamentally disagree with. They just want power. And there is something fundamentally wrong with that from the concept of a political party.

    Meanwhile, let's look at the history. From the 1930's on. The New Deal has been passed and it's about time for FDR's next election. Sadly, seventyish years after the Civil War you can't just trade on the idea that you're the party that freed the slaves alone. You actually have to do something. Roosevelt has passed the New Deal, albeit in a rather neutral fashion. After Hoover did a crap job of saving the country from the Depression. The Black voters stuck by him for 1932, but after the New Deal and its contingent agencies were put in place, FDR put in place what the press like to unofficially call his Black Cabinet. The informal term for the group of African Americans that served as public policy advisers to FDR and Eleanor during his terms and by mid-1935 they were working in federal executive departments and New Deal Agencies to help provide insight and shape policy for the needs of African Americans.

    For all black party identification was roughly evenly matched at slightly below 40 R - slightly above 40 D for 1936, the black vote for 1936 was 71% Democrat, and didn't lower perceptibly until 1956 when Eisenhower ran for his second term and got 40% of the black vote, in part because of voters' disillusionment with Southern Democrats anti-civil rights efforts. Even those inside Eisenhower's aministration knew something was off though. E. Frederick Morrow, the first African American to service in an executive staff position at the White House, spotted the GOP's often indifferent efforts to court black constituencies.

    Here's the thing. Even as late as 1960, only about two thirds of black voters were identified with the Democrats. When you count the vote, that's a big number. But compared to today, that's pretty small.

    But, Barry Goldwater happened.

    This 'revolutionary shift' happened when hundreds of college students, most white, journeyed to Mississippi to help black citizens register to vote. The states response was swift and violent. And less than a month before the GOP's national convention in San Francisco. Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner were kidnapped on a back road in Neshoba County and the only clue they existed was a charred Ford station wagon.

    Two weeks later Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law.

    Events outside the GOP's convention hall affected what went on inside. Supporters of presumed front-runner Governor Nelson Rockefeller were blindsided, and Senator Barry Goldwater was nominated. "Mr. Conservative" would run. He believed the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional - although he said that once it had been enacted into law, it would be obeyed. But states should implement the law in their own time. White southerners, segregationists, caught the message, and were reassured.

    Black Americans also caught the message, and were not.

    In his acceptance speech, Goldwater told the convention "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" while speaking of a very specific notion of liberty. Small government. A government that doesn't have laws that interfere. A government that is not conducting a war on poverty. Goldwater attracted the white Southern votes his advisers thought were essential, opening up the doors for the "Southern Strategy" that Nixon and Reagan would use to great success.

    The relatively few, but still not trivial, amount of black voters still in the Republican Party? Message recieved. They moved aggressively, and almost unanimously, into the Democratic Party. They've stayed there through the generations ever since. Not that all of them want to be there. To be shown why later.

    The Black Vote for Republican president in 1964 was then less than 10%. The Black percentage of registered Republicans in 1964 were then roughly 10%. Democrat percent appropriately skyrocketed. Barry's loss was massive. 486-52. Johnson with 61% of the popular vote.

    In 1967, George Romney fell from great heights, killing the Moderate Republicans Last Stand. While explaining his former support for the war during an interview, he said, "When I came back from Vietnam, I just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get." Claiming the military and diplomatic establishment brainwashed you wasn't a good thing to say then or now. Nixon acted quickly to stab him in the back. Having long understood the amount that he could win with just 5% more of the black vote, but also understanding the racist forces in play in the Republican Party that brought Goldwater to the nomination remained the center of power despite Goldwater's defeat, Nixon acted to play them. He argued the primary civil right in America was to be protected from violence. White voters fears of Black Americans' demands for civil rights made them uncomfortable with politicians who might support them. Politicians like Romney. Nixon, famously running as a "law and order" candidate, wanted these white voters. He got the nomination after a messy convention argued over how tightly to tie to the Southern Base. Reagan tried to make a run. It all ended only after Strom Thurmond stepped in on Nixon's behalf.

    More than half a century later, over and over again, Republicans have faced the choice between a big-tent strategy and specific appeals to white voters. And it's not as if people aren't pleading for Republican racial attitudes to change.

    This time it worked. Though ironically for implementing the Southern Strategy they got very little of the South. George Wallace ran independant and got the deep south. Nixon wiped the floor with Humphrey.

    In 1978 the Republican Party chairman Bill Brock invited Jesse Jackson to talk to party notables in DC as one of the few militant blacks preaching racial reconciliation. According to Jackson, there were seven million unregistered black voters waiting to be wooed by the GOP. "The Republican Party needs black people if it is to ever compete for national office -- or, in fact, to keep it from becoming an extinct party." Jackson got a standing ovation from the crowd, good feelings of the day left them hoping the right 1980 candidate could hope for anywhere from 30-40 percent of the black vote.

    Reagan would get only 14 percent.

    So Jackson made the argument that Black voters should want the two parties to compete for their votes. He worried the Democrats would take the Black voters for granted. (And, well, 40 years later, Joe Biden tells a radio host: "I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't Black.") Here's the thing, Jackson's personal conservatism could pretty much be seen as emblematic of that of Black Americans. Something that could be potentially courted by the GOP. He denounces abortion as murder. He insists that when prayers leave schools the guns come in. He suggests that while he supported women's liberation, his wife should at least stay in her place...his home.

    But the 1978 vibes didn't last long. Republican bureaucrats coalesced around the idea that minority voters were unwinnable. A few months before Jackson's speech, President Carter introduced electoral reforms. An end to the Electoral College and same-day universal voter registration, that Brock had praised. Thing is, an essay soon appeared in the publication Human Events that expressed the view that Carter's proposal "could blow the Republican Party sky-high" given that most of the new voters in higher-turnout elections would be Democratic. Brock's flip-flop embodies many of the internal struggles of the GOP of the last few decades: should the GOP invest in appeals to new voters or pluck racism's low-hanging fruit? By the time Reagan appeared at a 1980 campaign stop at the National Urban League, it wasn't to win over Black Voters. Just to show he wasn't anti-black.

    In 1981, Trenton, New Jersy, around the largely Black and Hispanic districts ominous signs hung outside several polling places:

    WARNING
    THIS AREA IS BEING PATROLLED BY THE NATIONAL BALLOT SECURITY TASK FORCE
    IT IS A CRIME TO FALSIFY A BALLOT OR TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAWS

    The Task force was composed of county deputy sheriffs and local police who patrolled polling sites with guns in full view. A court complaint later lodged described them harassing poll workers, stopping and questioning prospective voters and forcibly restraining poll workers from assisting, as permitted by state law, voters to cast their ballots.

    This was not some rogue enterprise or ill-conceived product of extremists. It was funded by the Republican Party. While the group's goals were, ostensibly to prevent illegal voting, one couldn't take that at face value from behavior. It was more like an intimidation effort. The Republican National Committee was forced into a court-enforced consent agreement that it would not engage into such "efforts", efforts the court deemed racially motivated, until 2018.

    In 2005, RNC chair Ken Mehlman appeared at the NAACP convention to formally apologize for the GOP southern strategy. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

    Maybe befitting a party whose sitting president ran as the "compassionate conservative". No accident. "I felt compelled to phrase it this way," Bush said. "Because people hear 'conservative' and they think heartless." Rove is a bit more blunt. "It helped Bush indicate he was different from previous Republicans."

    Bush's platform aimed to be inclusive. We hack on No Child Left Behind in hindsight. Just like many other large laws. But the funding it tried to push to low income students, many of them home to black and Hispanic students, is key. Bush signed it into law with Ted Kennedy's support and two black children standing directly behind him. Today that's a picture for a war crimes trial.

    Despite this compassionate conservatism rhetoric and even large policies that seemed to try to go somewhere and maybe run into a wall, the GOP of the Bush era continued to pursue policies hostile to Americans of color. Especially on voting rights.

    No figure from the Bush Civil Rights Division emerged more controversial than Hans von Spakovsky. He promoted voter ID laws in Georgia starting in the 1990s, and once in DoJ gained infamy for pseudonymously writing a law review paper under "Publius" which promoted such laws. His identity was revealed later, and he refused to recuse himself from a controversial case involving voter ID in Georgia. The case led career DoJ lawyers to resign and enforcement came to a standstill. Only 48 changes out of 81,000 submitted, ten times fewer than the first four years of Reagan. He also served on Trump's now-disbanded Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, created to investigate whether Trump lost the vote to Hillary Clinton because of voter fraud. No evidence was ever produced.

    The loss of the 2012 election prompted a crisis of confidence among the GOP leadership. They would author what is known as, officially, the "Growth and Opportunity Project" that placed the GOP's problems in harsh terms. "Many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country."

    Three years after the report's publication, the GOP nominated Donald Trump, an anti-immigrant, race-baiting candidate. "How did people abandon deeply held beliefs in four years? I think the only conclusion is they don't. They didn't deeply hold them. They were just marketing slogans," Stuart Stevens said. "I feel like the guy working for Bernie Madoff who thought we were beating the market."

    The party has circled the wagons around Trump and his rhetoric and policies. Gone are the days of articulate philosophies like "compassionate conservatism". Now, contrarianism to distinguish itself and stoke the good feels among its core members. Russia was once our number one Geo-political foe. Now the party heaps praise on Vladimir Putin. The North Star: reliance on politics of race and racism. Membership in the party wanes and America grows more diverse all the while.

    Republicans know the Faustian bargain they've made. A 2007 interview of John McCain during his presidential run speaks to scary awareness of the short-term strategy of placating the white base and how it can damage the GOP's long-term demographics. McCain is asked the political ramifications of the immigration debate: "In the short term, it probably galvanizes our base. In the long term, if you alienate Hispanics, you'll pay a heavy price. By the way, I think the fence is least effective, but I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it."

    So why are generations of Black Voters 90% large voting Democratic in spite of what their beliefs are? In spite of how conservative or liberal they are? How do you provoke an entire race 30% of the population large to outright shift against you? You turn hostile and you stay hostile. These people aren't the hispanics where California is different from Texas is different from Florida. The Republicans just outright turned completely hostile and the Democrats doing mostly nothing and occasionally dropping them a few bits and pieces is better than the Republicans destroying their lives.
    Last edited by Flinn; September 21, 2020 at 05:13 AM. Reason: removed an invalid nomination

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •