This isn't @SenBooker's "I am Spartacus" moment, it's his Obi Wan Kenobi "You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" moment.

If he's expelled from the Senate for blowing the whistle on Kavenaugh, it won't end his political career, it'll launch his 2020 Presidential bid.

Email from an this morning. "From your lack of response, I'm getting the sinking feeling you're not interested in our Machine Learning Next Gen That Would Have Stopped Wannacry!"

Gee. Can't slip anything past these guys.

When someone tells you they're letting Nazis speak at their event because they want to include all viewpoints, ask them how many phlogiston chemists and flat earthers they have lined up.

Part of debate and discourse is we reach a consensus and discredit ideas when that's supported by experience and data.

The only reason to give a platform to a Nazi is because you want to re-credit the discredited.

strength 1
dexterity 2
constitution 1
intelligence 1
wisdom 3
candles 75
charisma 1

someone who is good at d&d please help me redistribute this. my character is dying in a well-lit cave

“BuT ThE MaRkEtPlAcE oF iDeAs!” I hear you bleat. Shut up. Markets are regulated. You can’t zip down to the corner store and buy plutonium. (10)

This bears repeating clearly: Someone at the @NewYorker is a white supremacist. They may have better table manners that Bannon, but they thought he’s closer to “New York Pizza is better than Chicago Pizza” than to “Eat babies.” And that person has no business having a job in any position of responsibility. (9/)

Placing Nazism outside the bounds of civilized discourse isn’t a quantitative product of science, but it is a qualitative product of experience. It’s sort of like “We should resume human sacrifice as a religious practice” or “We should eat babies” is outside the bounds of civilized discourse. The only reason to even suggest Nazis should be brought back within the bounds of civilized discourse is as part of an effort to uphold white supremacy. That’s what the @NewYorker did. (8/)

“Jews are subhuman and should be exterminated” is not a debatable topic. The very proposition is incitement to violence that places the speaker outside the bounds of civilized discourse. That goes for Black folk, Latinx, LGBT folk, any demographic you can name that people in power have historically oppressed by structurally treating them as lesser. (7/)

“New York Cheesecake is better than Chicago Cheesecake” is not a debatable topic. It just is. (6/)

“Gravity is an attractive force between all particles that possess mass” is not a debatable topic. The evidence is so overwhelming that anyone suggesting otherwise without new data isn’t to be taken seriously.

“Tobacco smoke is a carcinogen” is not a debatable topic. The evidence is so overwhelming that suspecting anyone who disputes it of being a cigarette industry shill is the only reasonable stance. (5/)

Once the topic of debate is chosen, the “pro” (for) side argues in favor of the resolution and the “con” (against) side argues in opposition. Each side researches the topic, prepares relevant arguments, presents them, and rebuts the arguments made by the opposing side. But without a debatable topic, there is no debate. And the very term “debatable topic” suggests that there are topics that aren’t debatable. (4/)

But it starts with a debatable topic. For example:

“Resolved: These united Colonies are, and of Right out to be Free and Independent States.”

“Resolved: New York Pizza is better than Chicago Pizza.”

“Resolved: Whatever nincompoop at the thought it’d be a good idea to give Steve Bannon a platform should be fired with prejudice post haste.” (3/)

In debate, one starts with a debatable topic: a proposition that can be resolved for or against. Something on which reasonable people disagree. In some settings, debating a topic is a method of seeking truth, or deciding which of two possible truths is the better one. In other settings, debate is a sport in which two people compete to see who can craft the better argument. People confusing the two is part of why so many of you hate debate, by the way. Not unreasonable. (2/)

debate, the , why offering a platform to is , why someone at The @NewYorker should be fired and all that. Let’s start by talking about what debate – real, honest-to-Gods-debate – even is. (1/)

Twitter Jack’s going to keep letting Nazis harass people until that stops resulting in you scrolling through condemnation after snarky condemnation, which is how he gets a chance to get paid by slipping in a promoted tweet. He doesn't have better angels to which you can appeal.

DC's going to keep
telling shitty stories as long as you write about how bad it was after buying a ticket to see it, and they'll save more and more on the lighting budget each time.

What you buy is what you get.

I don't think many of you understand that if someone makes bad media and you buy it and then write an angry think piece, you've rewarded the behavior.

They're going to keep on making "reality shows" with shittier and shittier premises until you stop watching them.

You are allowed to do stuff just because you want to.

Even if it uses up all your spoons/matches.

Even if it leaves your exhausted and broken the next day.

Even if you need to let other stuff slide a bit while you recover.

You are allowed to have fun, to go out, to take a day once in a while and do what you want with it.

Being #disabled, or #chronicallyill, or a #parent, etc doesn't mean you can't take time for you.

(I needed to hear this today, so I figured other folks might too.)

Show more

Generalistic Mastodon instance for open-minded people. Instance Mastodon généraliste pour personnes ouvertes d'esprit.