You literally linked to two people saying it was rigged with the link text “they didn’t decide”

Lol, the reason it’s in quotes is because it’s quoting you.

This branch of the argument derives from as a response to my original rebuttals. Which was “has the responsibility to remain impartial, and when it doesn’t, it’s not surprising that the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses”

You interpreted this as the DNC decided the election. In the article I provided, there is plenty of evidence to prove that the DNC did not remain impartial and chose to meddle the democratic process. You chose to ignore the entirety of the context to fixate on pedantry that furthers you logical fallacy.

Again, you don’t even realize you are fighting your own strawman argument.

You’ve got yourself so tied up trying to be right or trying not to be wrong, rather than figure out what’s right, that you don’t even know which way’s up anymore.

Said the man to the mirror.

I used the word argument, not claims.

Yes, you made an assertion which is also known as a claim, I made a rebuttal.

Are you suggesting you aren’t making an argument?

An argument is between two sides, one making an affirmation and the other a negation. Since you were the first to make a claim, you are the affirmation. The negation of this claim is not in fact creating a new claim, or assertion.

My rebuttals are dependent on your assertions, so you are in fact steering the argument. So asking if I’m “pretending if that’s been my argument the whole time” is nonsensical.

So, how exactly did they rig it? You’re making some vague claims, but can point to nothing.

I never claimed anything was “rigged”, that’s a strawman of your own making. My rebuttals was that DNC was impartial, and the article I provided already explains how.

You are mostly arguing with yourself via shoddily applied logical fallacy.

Are you pretending that’s been your argument up to this point?

My dude, you are the one making claims. I’m just negating them as they come.

Btw, why didn’t you point out that both of them backtracked the comments?

Again… Manufactured consent. Why would two senior politicians make claims and then backtrack upon them without admitting they were wrong in the first place? Could it be that both of these politicians are dependent on the DNC for their political careers?

Just because someone is pressured into retracting a comment does not mean that it erases the material evidence the comments were based on.

They didn’t decide

Because that’s the type of candidate they believe they want.

Guessing you’ve never heard of the term “manufacturing consent”?

Yeah, tolerance for valid self criticism in politics is dead. The only thing people want to hear is full throated support and validation. Anything else is automatically labeled as extremism in one direction nor another.

No, I’m saying that the DNC has the responsibility to remain impartial, and when it doesn’t, it’s not surprising that the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses.

Only after the rest of the moderate candidates were convinced to drop out before the debate and voting… Sanders would have likely won the primaries if there were more moderates on the ticket to split the vote.

Hillary was unlikeable because she was a woman who wasn’t submissive. Sexist people hate that. Everyone who ever met her loves her.

I mean, that’s just validating her own reasoning on why she lost the election. She didn’t win because she was arrogant, and decided she didn’t have to campaign in Michigan.

People also didn’t like the fact that she and the DNC colluded together to torpedo Sander’s primary at any given chance.

I personally don’t like her because of what the Clinton’s have done to the DNC over the last 2 decades, particularly their championing of 3rd way politics.

Offhandedly blaming every valid criticism as Republican propaganda does nothing but drive people away. Hillary Clinton was obviously a bad candidate, this is self evident in the fact that she lost to a conman.

It’s not the job of the DNC to blame voters for not voting for their chosen candidate, it’s their job to give us candidates that we want to vote for.

It is fairly rare for either party to control Congress and the executive for long, so I’m not sure if that’s exactly the main pitfall we’ve run into.

I think this is mostly an unforced error on the part of neoliberalism, specifically 3rd way political ideology. In the 80s and 90s 3rd way politics grew as an idea to work around congressional gridlock.

Basically, the democratic party figured they would work across the aisle with moderate Republicans on policy they could both agree on. Hoping that this would show the American population that they were the party that could get things done.

This worked in part, Bill Clinton the main architect of American 3rd way movement became very popular. However, it had two repercussions that we are still dealing with today. It gave the policy initiative to the Republican party, allowing them to be the directors of this across aisle cooperation. It also drastically shifted the democratic party to the right.

If the DNC is rating Congress members based on criteria of Third way ideology, then the members most willing to cooperate with moderate Republicans are going to fill leadership positions. Which is why the DNC leadership is currently full of center right senior citizens conditioned to bending backwards to the whims of Republican economic policy.

Pretty hard to argue against radically different biological design between our brains.

I don’t really see the argument… For one, all mammals share fairly similar brain structures, with the main difference being the over or under development of particular regions of the brain.

However, even if we accept the claim that they are “radically different”. A mere difference in brain structure does not preclude the ability to have complex emotions.

Yes, humans can be psychopaths and sociopaths.

I’m not sure if that’s really relevant, sociopathy and psychopathy are defined by the subjects inability to conform to social mores. These terms cannot definitionally be applied to animals. However, there are plenty of examples of animals being shunned by their social groups, or animals who choose to stray from their social norms.

I’m not claiming animals share the same emotional capabilities as humans, but it’s unscientific to claim that they are incapable of complex emotions based on the evidence presumed in this thread.

Imo there’s been a bit of an overcorrection in science when it comes to trying to curb anthropomorphizing. And a lot of that is due to people like Thomas Nagel, who have a vested interest in stripping animals of terms like consciousness.

I think there’s mainly 3 choices here , it could be that we’ve created a society where people with little to no empathy or regard for social norms excel. It could be that amassing so much wealth in our society requires people to adopt an ethical flexibility, and that flexibility eventually spills over into all aspects of their lives.

Or, it could be that morality and ethics are simply social construct that are quickly set aside as soon as society loses its ability to enforce its social mores.

All options appear to be not very groovy.

Pretty sure every human who understands the concept of death are stressed about it at some point in their life.

Right, but how does one express their anxiety over the concept of death? And if someone does not express their anxiety in a perceivable way, does that mean they do not experience it?

If we took away a person’s ability to vocalize their grievances, what kind of behavior of theirs would we attribute to an existential crisis? And how would we determine that type of anxiety from normal interaction with the external environment?

I mean, that could just be a fault in observation. The same line of thinking was utilized by people like Thomas Jefferson to validate his own use of slavery.

The language we use to describe intellect and emotions are inseparable from biased interpretation by humans. Can all humans “stress about theoretical concepts”? If a human lacks the ability to do so, do they become less human, or more animalistic?

Yeah… My oldest cat makes different noises for different requests. Yowling near door to go outside, chirping near bowls for dinner, and little mews while following you around to be picked up. And I’m not really sure it’s an outlier case as the other two younger cats are starting to learn to do the same.

If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly.

That’s a pretty big ask for a democratic government where half of the politicians are actively sabotaging climate initiatives…

The only countries where this is really feasible are places where federal powers can supersede the authority of local governments. A nuclear based power grid in America would require a complete reorganization of state and federal authority.

The only way anyone thinks nuclear energy is a viable option in the states is if they completely ignore the political realities of American government.

For example, is it physically possible for us to build a proper deep storage facility for nuclear waste? Yes, of course. Have we attempted to build said deep storage facility? Yes, since 1987. Are we any closer to finishing the site after +30 years…no.

Wikileaks was never really a beacon of free speech its always been more of a platform where people can leak information about goverments and other powerful individuals or organizations doing bunch of shady or downright evil stuff behind our back. These often offer rare glimpse behind the scenes allowing us to be little less blind when voting during whather elections comes next.

When WikiLeaks first came about it’s original goal was aimed at leaking information about authoritarian governments, primarily China and some countries in the Middle East. It was pretty big news at the time because assange had wrangled together a team of some pretty high profile Journalist and privacy tech people.

However, most of those people were never really involved in the organization, and were mainly utilized as a marketing scheme. The rest slowly left the organization as works in their fields within WikiLeaks stagnated, or left over security and leadership concerns.

Imo Assange has always been a duplicitous attention seeker. However, if that were illegal, pretty much everyone involved in media would be thrown in a cell. I think his biggest failures that should tarnish his public image is his handling of the leaks. Him rushing to release information against the advise of his security experts, information that hadn’t been properly vetted to protect the whistle blowers from prosecution.

Multiple people have had their lives ruined because he didn’t take the time and effort to protect his sources. And not because they didn’t have the ability to, or lacked the proper protocols, but because Julian didn’t care so long as his name got air time.

Yet here we are, talking about it. “There’s no such thing as ‘Bad Press’”, I guess? Are they right?.. maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?.. also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?.. no, not really.

Right, but we are talking about it knowing the consequences of not enacting changes. In the US fox news is watched by something like 40% of active voters. Meaning a significant portion of voters actively distrust news about climate change, another significant portion do not think about it on a day to day basis.

Giving the news network ammunition like this only further entrenches these audiences in anti climate change reactions.

Seems like something I’ll have to read more about.

Would knowing that this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress that lives in a 33m dollar home affect your opinion?

Sorry for believing a protest should help your cause more than it harms it?

You do know this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress, right?

Surely we’ll all be okay as long as people are teaching us to be civil and not… harm the cause.

I never claimed that I wanted people to remain “civil”, you can attack that strawman as you wish.

I don’t mind people engaging in violent disobedience or civil disobedience, every MLK needs a Malcom X. However, I just don’t see the benefit in this particular situation. If you are going to do something that could potentially harm public sentiment you should at least be doing something that materially changes things for the positive.

I’m done, a lot of us are. Good luck.

Get off your high horse, were all dealing with the same problem here. Just because someone differs in opinion on how political capital should be spent, it doesn’t mean your perspective has a monopoly on morality or anything.

I say they’re building political capital. They’re creating a fuss.

The people who think of this as a net positive are already supportive of climate change initiatives. So who exactly are they building political capital with?

They’re creating noise, which can then be turned into action.

How? In what situation is there a problem that is more easily solved when people “make a fuss”?

What are you doing?

Not turning potential allies into enemies?

What are you doing?