Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Why on earth would I waste money on a town that has been consistently let down because it keeps electing democrats.

Have you noticed that my dear? That these horrific inner cities. The mismanaged ones, the corrupt ones. Consistently year on year elect democrats. Gee whiz I wonder why nothing ever improves.

You're a partisan hack and you deserve every bit of mind break you're going to get in 2020.

[Sinekein]

So I was curious about that statement that mismanaged cities voted Dem. I found a site named realtor.net - so a site of professionnals, not politicians - about the US cities with the best and worst infrastructures. It goes as follow:

Best:
1 - Minneapolis, MIN (D)
2 - Seattle, WA (D)
3 - San Francisco (D)
4 - Eugene, OR (D)
5 - Salt Lake City, UT (D)
6 - Omaha, NE (R)
7 - Austin, TX (D)
8 - Miami, FL (R)
9 - Chattanooga, TN (D)
10 - Atlanta, GA (D)

Worst:
1 - Harrisburg, PA (D)
2 - Jackson, MS (D)
3 - Trenton, NJ (D)
4 - Providence, RI (D)
5 - Huntington, WV (D)
6 - Springfield, MA (D)
7 - Lafayette, LA (R)
8 - Oklahoma City, OK (R)
9 - New Haven, CT (D)
10 - Virginia Beach, VA (I)

So, that's just a sample, but you get 8D, 2R for the best and 7D, 2R, 1I for the worst.

Which kinda lends credence to the fact that management is a nonpartisan issue, that there are good and bad mayors of both parties, and that you pulled the following point out of thin air.

Have you noticed that my dear? That these horrific inner cities. The mismanaged ones, the corrupt ones. Consistently year on year elect democrats. Gee whiz I wonder why nothing ever improves.

I also looked at this page and counted the parties of Mayors that were part of scandals of corruption - those who had a WK page with a party on it. I found 13 Democrats and 6 Republicans, which is also pretty much in line with the fact that there just are more Democratic mayors than Republican ones, which explains why there are more bad Democratic mayors than bad Republican mayors - but also, why there are more good Democratic mayors than good Republican mayors.

TL;DR: there are more Democratic mayors overall, but no significant difference in honesty or efficiency on those random samples.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

>Any list that has San Francisco in the top best

That's a pretty funny joke not gonna lie. You're a funny frog.

[Sinekein]

Indeed! Look, another one here.

I know, what an evil place, spending tax money for services that benefit the population as a whole. A true socialist hellhole.

It's satisfying to be praised by the greatest comedian on this forum. To stay in character for so long as someone thoroughly denying reality deserves an award.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

A state drowned in soy and socialism. Truly a fate I wouldn't wish on anyone. Even someone from the Continent.

[Vol]

Rush Limbaugh was this close today to saying that the goal of the left was white genocide. He was walking through the logic of the downplaying of the alien caravan, of the ridiculous amounts of unchecked immigration, the hot fad of putting down honkies, and so on, and as he put the threads together, he began to slow down and very carefully choose his words. It was amusing, followed by his speech on why oil is a natural occurrence of the Earth and not ancient organic matter and how capitalism ensures that increased populations leads to increased resources because of the power of the human mind. Made the drudgery mildly entertaining.

[Mobius_118]

Oh look, Minneapolis is top of the list. Truly a socialist hellhole, that Minnesota, with it's best healthcare, education, and infrastructure...

Gotta love my home state. Continuously making people like GAC look like absolute fools.

By the way, this?

Why on earth would I waste money on a town that has been consistently let down because it keeps electing democrats.

Have you noticed that my dear? That these horrific inner cities. The mismanaged ones, the corrupt ones. Consistently year on year elect democrats. Gee whiz I wonder why nothing ever improves.

You're a partisan hack and you deserve every bit of mind break you're going to get in 2020.

Is false. There are plenty of ways to verify Census data about how Democratic cities and states are actually better, and the Conservative/Republican/Libertarian cities and states are worse off, unless those Republicans actually do what they're supposed to do. All you have to do is travel. That should get rid of the shitty attitude you have. But I know you won't. You're too scared, too miserable.

Are you that blind? To disregard everything real in favor of your own shitty narrative?

It's a sad existence you live, GAC. All the riches, none of the reality. You are King Midas, except everything you touch turns to shit.

By the way, trump has been dissing on Veterans because of a little rain, and pushing Pence to handle everything while he watches TV and shits his pants about the midterm elections. And what happened to that refugee caravan he was shitting his pants over? Not a single tweet since the midterms. My brothers and sisters in arms are at the border separated from their families for nothing.

It's fucking shameful. As are you.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

That's some good edge there my dude.

Little too hyperbolic to be proper bantz but it is better than your usual showing so congrats.

I do legit love how you think a narrow win in the House while losing even MORE ground in the Senate is a wave though. You've been like this ever since 2016. Honestly before that Theo was right about you after all.

Anyway I'll make sure to tune into CNN to see what your next talking point will be. That's pretty much always how it goes with you.

[Mobius_118]

Such big talk for a boy trying to be a man.

[Mazder]

Oh look, Minneapolis is top of the list. Truly a socialist hellhole, that Minnesota, with it's best healthcare, education, and infrastructure...

Well to be fair it's also the only thing worth noting in the entire fly-over state.
That and a border state to Canada.
So it's not hard to be good at managing something no-one cares about.

By the way, trump has been dissing on Veterans because of a little rain,

Well that's one thing I agree on.
Trump should have "suffered" in the rain to go to the Remembrance service.
Some say "Oh he went to the US graveyard and had his own ceremony moment there" and to that I say who gives a fuck? The whole point of Remembrance Sunday is for everyone to come together and remember their dead and their sacrifice together.
It's the one time when being an isolationist doesn't matter.

My brothers and sisters in arms are at the border separated from their families for nothing.

But for this I have to go right back to disagreeing as they're now also being sent there to defend against a potential foreign invader.
Doesn't matter their strength or their reasoning the people trying to forcibly cross into your border are doing it because they want to.
They've been offered asylum, they've refused it. They wish to force their way in via numbers and abusing the humanitarian nature of the USA.
The USA has refused them passage. They still wish to force their way in. If a show of force is what's needed to deter them from trying to forcibly enter illegally then it's warranted. It is not the best solution but it's a necessary step.
If they still refuse to listen to that situation and accept the asylum they've been offered then they're no longer asylum seekers in my book but economic migrants and any economic migrants that try to forcibly cross is within the range of being dealt with to the full severity of your law.

Unless you'd rather have them all escorted up to Minnesota and you guys can house all, what number is it up to now, 7000 people?
If you're so open to the problem then you can deal with them.
Or maybe these celebrities in their million dollar mansions (the ones that are still left after being burnt down in Malibu) can house them in their MASSIVE homes with gated communities with loads of armed guards if they feel so strongly on the issue of open borders and these migrants coming in. Let them house them, feed them, pay for their shit and medical and childcare if they feel like things should be open while they put their walls up. Let them give these economic migrants what they want, which is to be richer and have an easy life.

[Raga]

Indeed! Look, another one here.

I know, what an evil place, spending tax money for services that benefit the population as a whole. A true socialist hellhole.

It's satisfying to be praised by the greatest comedian on this forum. To stay in character for so long as someone thoroughly denying reality deserves an award.

Not that I'm wanting to condone what GAC is saying (who I mostly ignore, frankly), but San Francisco is hardly a poster child for decent living for the non-super rich. Having nice trains doesn't do much to improve livability when it costs like $1000 a month to rent a garage. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/ ... on-valley/

Now that's not something you can just chalk up to "Democrats" or Republicans," but zoning is certainly a nontrivial part of San Francisco's problem. And purely on anecdotal terms, I see Democrats barking about the "need" for zoning a lot more than Republicans. I don't know if that actually bears out in the data though. It would be interesting to find out.

[Raga]

Well, I'll be. It appears there actually *is* a useful niche for Maxine Waters: https://www.npr.org/2018/11/15/66754603 ... anel-chair

Turn the vitriol on the banks by all means. It certainly won't hurt my feelings.

[Sinekein]

best healthcare, education, and infrastructure...

something no-one cares about.

Wat.

Not that I'm wanting to condone what GAC is saying (who I mostly ignore, frankly), but San Francisco is hardly a poster child for decent living for the non-super rich. Having nice trains doesn't do much to improve livability when it costs like $1000 a month to rent a garage. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/ ... on-valley/

I know that SF is among the most expensive cities in the world. But I live near (and lived in) one of those - Paris - and at the moment it can hardly boast to top lists such as this one. While it's obviously easier to do so when you have wealthy residents, it is not a given.

As for attitude, while I can totally understand you - that's what I mostly do, except when sometimes my teacher self takes over and I correct obvious bullshit - I think it is also one of the keys of the 2020 election: how whoever is elected by the Democrats will react to the lies and insults that (s)he will suffer from Trump during the election.

Because Trump's global behavior is entirely predictable already, no matter what actually happens or doesn't happen: he'll say that America is the best it has ever been because of him, that he stopped a migrant invasion by himself but that there still are millions of brown people who want to come in to behead good Americans because Democrats are making it possible, that the wall hasn't been built because of Democrats obstructionists and that if he's reelected he will build it, he'll say that the media are lying about what he says and very unfair, and he'll find choice insults for whoever is facing him, probably something catchy so that his followers can easily create memes. It's not even a "If" at this point.

So the Democrats will get total freedom as to their agenda - whether they focus on healthcare, taxes, equality, security, I don't know, they can prepare already because they already know what he will campaign on. However, they need to think about how they'll react when a huge lie or insult makes the headline. They can do the same, or defend themselves, or accuse back, or ignore, or educate, or laugh - but they need to think about it first, because that's likely to factor in turnout, and the bigger it is, the most likely they are to win.

Now that's not something you can just chalk up to "Democrats" or Republicans," but zoning is certainly a nontrivial part of San Francisco's problem. And purely on anecdotal terms, I see Democrats barking about the "need" for zoning a lot more than Republicans. I don't know if that actually bears out in the data though. It would be interesting to find out.

Again, how much of this has to do with actual policies, and with the fact that Democrats are more likely to be in charge of areas where zoning is a touchy subject - since they control more large cities?

If big cities are three or four times more likely to be led by Democrats, then you are three or four times more likely to hear a Democrat speak about zoning.

[Mazder]

Wat.

One city mate. One city in one state, plus I'm joking about a evident by the " ".

[Raga]

If this is all just about campaign strategy, anybody thinking chiefly in terms of how they're going to respond to Trump has already got it wrong. Doing that puts the focus on Trump and what he's saying and doing, which is precisely what he wants.

Also out of curiosity, I looked up some stuff about partisanship and zoning. Basically cities that push zoning end up becoming more Democratic because they attract lots of rich educated white people into exclusive expensive neighborhoods.

[Sinekein]

If this is all just about campaign strategy, anybody thinking chiefly in terms of how they're going to respond to Trump has already got it wrong. Doing that puts the focus on Trump and what he's saying and doing, which is precisely what he wants.

But they can't avoid his antics. He is going to be an asshole on a regular basis, and his assholish quotes will make the headlines. It's not a "if", it's a "when".

At that point it's impossible to act as if he isn't there. Now I agree that only running on "we are against Trump" would be a mistake, but no Democrat can hope for a campaign that will be polite, respectful and decent, focusing on ideas instead of Twitter ramblings.

It's one of the few things that Trump is honestly good at - drawing the attention to himself. The media won't stop repeating his stupid quotes, because if they do, he wins - because all that remains is Fox's shilling, and he'll have succeeded in changing the way medias treat information. If they keep repeating it, then it's just the same "Witch Hunt" and "Fake News" accusations he has been throwing left and right for the last two years, so, basically, business as usual - and the democrats should be prepared to answer in some way, else they don't deserve to win the election.

It's really not an easy thing to think about, because there are pros and cons to every attitude when it comes to reacting to these tweets. The two that come to mind are either to go the "Macron" way, ie mostly ignore the insults, and focus on how you are going to govern, which might draw moderate Republicans who want stability and a functional Congress (if they still exist), or to find someone charismatic enough to laugh about the insults (Trump is incredibly easy to bait - I'm pretty sure that his idea of insulting France on the three year anniversary of the Paris Terror Attacks was due to the French Army tweet making fun of his no-show in the cemetary because of "the rain" - the problem is that you don't bait him with outrage) while still showing that politics are a serious topic - but Obamas are not growing on trees as far as I know, and it would be avery perilous strategy to follow.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

If this is all just about campaign strategy, anybody thinking chiefly in terms of how they're going to respond to Trump has already got it wrong. Doing that puts the focus on Trump and what he's saying and doing, which is precisely what he wants.

Also out of curiosity, I looked up some stuff about partisanship and zoning. Basically cities that push zoning end up becoming more Democratic because they attract lots of rich educated white people into exclusive expensive neighborhoods.

Honestly the Soy infused rich white progressive element is the most intolerable part of the democratic base. The Union guys are abandoning them in droves especially in the Midwest and the ethnic votes are just voting their interests.

But there is literally nothing more annoying than a starbucks swilling soyboy from the coasts going on about privilege

[Raga]

But they can't avoid his antics. He is going to be an asshole on a regular basis, and his assholish quotes will make the headlines. It's not a "if", it's a "when".

At that point it's impossible to act as if he isn't there. Now I agree that only running on "we are against Trump" would be a mistake, but no Democrat can hope for a campaign that will be polite, respectful and decent, focusing on ideas instead of Twitter ramblings.

It's one of the few things that Trump is honestly good at - drawing the attention to himself. The media won't stop repeating his stupid quotes, because if they do, he wins - because all that remains is Fox's shilling, and he'll have succeeded in changing the way medias treat information. If they keep repeating it, then it's just the same "Witch Hunt" and "Fake News" accusations he has been throwing left and right for the last two years, so, basically, business as usual - and the democrats should be prepared to answer in some way, else they don't deserve to win the election.

It's really not an easy thing to think about, because there are pros and cons to every attitude when it comes to reacting to these tweets. The two that come to mind are either to go the "Macron" way, ie mostly ignore the insults, and focus on how you are going to govern, which might draw moderate Republicans who want stability and a functional Congress (if they still exist), or to find someone charismatic enough to laugh about the insults (Trump is incredibly easy to bait - I'm pretty sure that his idea of insulting France on the three year anniversary of the Paris Terror Attacks was due to the French Army tweet making fun of his no-show in the cemetary because of "the rain" - the problem is that you don't bait him with outrage) while still showing that politics are a serious topic - but Obamas are not growing on trees as far as I know, and it would be avery perilous strategy to follow.

Why are his tweets worth responding to? Really, seriously? He's done like 500,000 actual *things* that merit criticism. Policies, executive actions, crappy congressional shenanigans he's vouched for, sleazy asshat politicians he's endorsed. I don't see how any strategy which makes a point of responding to tweets can be anything but faux outrage antics, which don't work on Trump. They actually help him.

The brouhaha about this has died down, but a major talking point back in 2016 when it became apparent that, no really, he was going to win the Republican primary, and, no really, he just might win the presidency, was complaining about how the press basically covered all his campaign costs for him gratis because they would not shut up about him. Why bother buying adds when CNN is talking about him 24/7? There is no reason to think this won't happen again. The Trump base is going to show up to vote no matter what. The women's march outrage brigade is going to show up to vote no matter what. What Democrats need to do is to get disgusted moderates worried about healthcare to show up and suburban moms and working class black people. And, though they seem to sincerely hate it, some working class, rural white people. And you won't get these people with faux outrage.

I'm not saying roll over and show your belly like Ted Cruz. Defend when attacked. When asked by reporters about "stupid thing X Trump said" condemn it. But what more do you need than that? "Basket of deplorables" type attack dog won't work on anybody but the activist base, who was always going to show up anyway.

This is a basic thing of logistics I think a lot of Democrats don't get. The Republican activist base outnumbers the Democrat activist base by a factor of like 3 to 1. Fomenting the base just won't cut it.

[Raga]

Honestly the Soy infused rich white progressive element is the most intolerable part of the democratic base. The Union guys are abandoning them in droves especially in the Midwest and the ethnic votes are just voting their interests.

But there is literally nothing more annoying than a starbucks swilling soyboy from the coasts going on about privilege

Minus all the internet troll buzzwords, I mostly agree. I think the old-fashioned term "Limousine liberal" covers it pretty nicely.

[Sinekein]

I'm not saying roll over and show your belly like Ted Cruz. Defend when attacked. When asked by reporters about "stupid thing X Trump said" condemn it. But what more do you need than that? "Basket of deplorables" type attack dog won't work on anybody but the activist base, who was always going to show up anyway.

But if you "defend when attacked", then the Dems will only defend, because they are going to be attacked all the time. And you don't win voters by defending yourself. "What Trump says is BS" is not a program.

The issue with the "basket of deplorables" is that it was strategically inane. Clinton could have attacked many things in Trump or his entourage, it's not like he is lacking obvious flaws, but attacking his base validated Trump's mention of the Democrats being elitists. It's not that it's wrong, because "deplorable" is extremely mild a term to describe the most rabid Trump fanboys, but she shouldn't have said it.

Now what the solution is, I don't know, but 100% defense is not it IMO. It would be too similar to 2016, and would likely lead to the same conclusion: a campaign spent reacting to the constant flow of stupidity coming from his Twitter account.

[Sinekein]

I think the old-fashioned term "Limousine liberal" covers it pretty nicely.

I can't help but think that it shows that objectivism has permeated far too much into society. As if altruism was inherently worthy of suspicion, because anyone should only ever care about itself, and saying that you have privileges - too many, sometimes - is bad.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I think the old-fashioned term "Limousine liberal" covers it pretty nicely.

I can't help but think that it shows that objectivism has permeated far too much into society. As if altruism was inherently worthy of suspicion, because anyone should only ever care about itself, and saying that you have privileges - too many, sometimes - is bad.

The wealthy and powerful making grand gestures to signal their virtue has left a poor taste in the mouth of many for as long as there have been wealthy and powerful people.

The "Limousine Liberals" as Raga described then tend to rub people the wrong way because meant with good intent or not the way they go about things often feels as if they are talking down to the people they want to help or the people they think need to "Get with the program".

Nobody wants to be talked down to. Especially if they feel the person doing it is talking out of their ass.

[Raga]

I think the old-fashioned term "Limousine liberal" covers it pretty nicely.

I can't help but think that it shows that objectivism has permeated far too much into society. As if altruism was inherently worthy of suspicion, because anyone should only ever care about itself, and saying that you have privileges - too many, sometimes - is bad.

Altruism isn't the issue. It's hypocrisy. I can't fish up the exact quote because it's somewhere in the middle of this podcast: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/649/it ... -i-want-to but it goes over this progressive long-shot running for some office and having issues with the DNC, who are obsessed with fundraising and specifically leery of anything amounting to income redistribution. His statement basically amounts to something like "They ask me 'Why can't you focus on LGBT?' instead of single-payer or Wall Street regulation? So basically, 'why don't you focus on something we can unify around that requires 0 change in our most powerful constituents lifestyles?" And that stuff about zoning I mentioned before feeds into this as well. Or the DNC's shenanigans towards Bernie Sanders.

It's not the Soroses and Bill Gates of the world that this is really directed at who can drop millions and millions of dollars on flat altruism or be taxed at like 60% income or whatever and not really feel it. It's the upper middle class. These people: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... cy/559130/

*Edit* Relevant: https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... -news-npr/

[Raga]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/opin ... ctionfront

Seriously? Allowing people to pass through is hardly analogous to offering long term settlement. (Though Mexico did actually offer that and the bulk of the "refugees" turned it down).

[Sinekein]

Altruism isn't the issue. It's hypocrisy. I can't fish up the exact quote because it's somewhere in the middle of this podcast: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/649/it ... -i-want-to but it goes over this progressive long-shot running for some office and having issues with the DNC, who are obsessed with fundraising and specifically leery of anything amounting to income redistribution. His statement basically amounts to something like "They ask me 'Why can't you focus on LGBT?' instead of single-payer or Wall Street regulation? So basically, 'why don't you focus on something we can unify around that requires 0 change in our most powerful constituents lifestyles?" And that stuff about zoning I mentioned before feeds into this as well. Or the DNC's shenanigans towards Bernie Sanders.

Well there's hypocrisy but there's also strategy. In some minds, every kind of income redistribution equals to socialism and automatically labels you as a proto-Fidel Castro. It is an idea that has always been popular among certain classes, but that has more or less stagnated in popularity.

LGBT rights are viewed more and more positively over time, in large part because more and more people are born with LGBT people around them, and they realize there is zero reason to hate them. So it's a safe, non-polarizing opinion to have, where only the evangelicals will be riled up.

Those people you mention look a lot like former Republicans who were pretty moderate on society issues and switched sides when the GOP drifted further and further right. They are influential not because they are numerous, but because they have money and access to high spheres. So the Democrats are afraid of the consequences of angering them and losing their support. It's a matter of crunching numbers really, which is basically US politics in a nutshell. Since you have huge statistics on each and every citizen, age, race, income, religion, etc..., then anyone running for any kind of position has to adapt to the field, instead of coming with original ideas and trying to convince people.

Funnily enough, if the split is indeed impossible to solve, then the US might eventually end up like France, with a moderate party emerging by gathering free-market Democrats and moderate Republicans.

[Raga]

I don't know. That's been a term for like 40 years. Those guys go back a long time. They are hardly a last 10 years phenomenon.

And yea, I wish the neolibs/cons would just go off and make their own party. Then I wouldn't have to keep voting for them because they've dominated the other two parties until the recent past.

[Vol]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/briannahe ... e-n2536352

I remember being on forums back when most of us were entering college and some were being exposed to feminism. "Back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!" vs "You can't understand feminist theory and literature without special training, misogynist!" And The Vagina Monologues, as ridiculous and other adjectives as I found it was, it was still one of the few feminist works worth remembering.

Sometimes you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

[Alienmorph]

I'm starting to think this whole culture war bullshit is just a complete and utter lose-lose situation. We're at the point where even putting two people sitting in a grey room, not doing anything will be either considered offensive or controversial by someone.

[Vol]

Where do you think the factions want to go to?

I picture either Harrison Bergeron from the left, an amalgamation of the 80's/90's without the religion from the right, and a mix from the center.

[Alienmorph]

Thinking if that the extrele left crowd had it its way, we might get a situation like the super-P.C. future in Demolition Man, but more matriarcal, and racially segregated.

The anti-SJW people instead... I just don't think they can accomplish much other that raise awareness by making noise. Again... look at damn Sargon. He had a chance to talk with the EU about the copyright laws, and he wasted most of that hearing whining about extreme feminists. They're just gonna eat each other the moment Trump gets out of the White House and public outrage from the left goes down a notch or two. Hell, thei're already doing it.

As for people who are less easily outraged by everything and actually put some thought in their positions... hard to say, but I'd love to find out.

[Mazder]

Well, yeah, shit... If you're gonna wan to "cheat" then go right ahead

The article in question.

Turns out if you can't secure the majority in your own party you should just suggest the Queen should give you the win automatically because you think she should because that's "fair".

It'd be like Trump, if the Presidency was impartial and not run by one party or another, selecting a bunch of small time Democrats to fill in for him as President.

[Augustei]

Well, yeah, shit... If you're gonna wan to "cheat" then go right ahead

The article in question.

Turns out if you can't secure the majority in your own party you should just suggest the Queen should give you the win automatically because you think she should because that's "fair".

It'd be like Trump, if the Presidency was impartial and not run by one party or another, selecting a bunch of small time Democrats to fill in for him as President.

They actually did that in Australia in the 70s. Governer General John Kerr dismissed the prime minister when he had a 1 vote majority, and put the opposition in power under Malcolm Fraiser (Kerr's Cur). The Labour Party and the Unions were up in arms, calling for a revolution. Buuut it never came, we just bent over and said thank you for the ramming. Dark day in Aussie history.

I'm conflicted on the whole affair though, I'm a fan of Whitlam and the Labour Party here (generally speaking, there are exceptions, especially in recent years in some sections), but i'm also a monarchist tbh (For pragmatic reasons) so go figure.

[Mazder]

They actually did that in Australia in the 70s. Governer General John Kerr dismissed the prime minister when he had a 1 vote majority, and put the opposition in power under Malcolm Fraiser (Kerr's Cur). The Labour Party and the Unions were up in arms, calling for a revolution. Buuut it never came, we just bent over and said thank you for the ramming. Dark day in Aussie history.

I'm conflicted on the whole affair though, I'm a fan of Whitlam and the Labour Party here (generally speaking, there are exceptions, especially in recent years in some sections), but i'm also a monarchist tbh (For pragmatic reasons) so go figure.

I mean if Liz goes FULL MONARCHY!!!! again I'd like to see it because it'd be so hilariously out of place.
It's be interesting to see if the Commonwealth would ever reunify under any circumstances. I don't think there would be.

[Augustei]

They actually did that in Australia in the 70s. Governer General John Kerr dismissed the prime minister when he had a 1 vote majority, and put the opposition in power under Malcolm Fraiser (Kerr's Cur). The Labour Party and the Unions were up in arms, calling for a revolution. Buuut it never came, we just bent over and said thank you for the ramming. Dark day in Aussie history.

I'm conflicted on the whole affair though, I'm a fan of Whitlam and the Labour Party here (generally speaking, there are exceptions, especially in recent years in some sections), but i'm also a monarchist tbh (For pragmatic reasons) so go figure.

I mean if Liz goes FULL MONARCHY!!!! again I'd like to see it because it'd be so hilariously out of place.
It's be interesting to see if the Commonwealth would ever reunify under any circumstances. I don't think there would be.

idk about full monarchy, but a lot of people seem to think ol' charlie will be throwing his weight around a lot more when he gets the crown.

[Mazder]

They actually did that in Australia in the 70s. Governer General John Kerr dismissed the prime minister when he had a 1 vote majority, and put the opposition in power under Malcolm Fraiser (Kerr's Cur). The Labour Party and the Unions were up in arms, calling for a revolution. Buuut it never came, we just bent over and said thank you for the ramming. Dark day in Aussie history.

I'm conflicted on the whole affair though, I'm a fan of Whitlam and the Labour Party here (generally speaking, there are exceptions, especially in recent years in some sections), but i'm also a monarchist tbh (For pragmatic reasons) so go figure.

I mean if Liz goes FULL MONARCHY!!!! again I'd like to see it because it'd be so hilariously out of place.
It's be interesting to see if the Commonwealth would ever reunify under any circumstances. I don't think there would be.

idk about full monarchy, but a lot of people seem to think ol' charlie will be throwing his weight around a lot more when he gets the crown.

If, if he gets the crown.
He could very well pop his clogs before Lizzy could. You can never tell with illnesses these days. Even so I don't think he'd have long, 10 years tops.

[Vol]

This "Thot Patrol" drama is pretty fun. Bunch of people realized that camgirls are making bank with their premium video services and whatnot, also that they might not be paying tax on self-employed income. And apparently the IRS offers 15-30% on tips that lead to recovered income. So, naturally, a bunch of thots are getting patrolled.

Which has led to the lovely situation where internet left-wing authoritarians are very much against paying taxes, while internet right-wing libertarians are for it. Madness!

[Mazder]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fucking EU accepted that shite deal that May put forth!

So if Parliament can agree on this deal we'll be going forth with a terrible Brexiit and it will be an even bigger shit show than before.
If not we're back to square fucking one.

Fuck this country.

[Vol]

What does that mean, Mazzy? What are the terms?

[Alienmorph]

It is that terrible accord where you essentially pay to be second class EU citizens for several years, then maybe you're fully out? I don't remember all the details, but it sounded like some serious bullshit just made to save the face of the governments involved.

[Mazder]

What does that mean, Mazzy? What are the terms?

So right now the deal is a very EU biased deal, making any sort of bargaining very much in favour of the EU's interest, rather than the UK's interest.
I've not read it all yet but it's not great in terms of our interests that were put forth during the whole Brexit vote.

Right now the biggest things that jump out for me is the solution to the whole Irish border thing that is if it goes down the Northern Ireland remains a part of the UK, but within an EU customs union, but with some levels of it being in the new, UK customs union that would have to be drawn up at a later date. Sounds like a convoluted mis-mash. Sounds like the EU all over TBH...

As far as immigration up until 2020 all EU citizens and their families that work in the UK shall be allowed to continue to do so.

A lot of it is still undecided and plans to be put into place at the end of the transitionary period at the end of december 2020, that could be extended once, but with no statements on how long that extension is allowed to be.
Oh and we have to pay 39 billion pounds, not euros, pounds, for the privilege.
39 billion pouns is about 44 billion euros. Or just shy of 50 billion dollars.


That's IF there is nothing to stall this being agreed upon by Parliament. Like a general election after more votes of no confidence.

[Sinekein]

So right now the deal is a very EU biased deal, making any sort of bargaining very much in favour of the EU's interest, rather than the UK's interest.
I've not read it all yet but it's not great in terms of our interests that were put forth during the whole Brexit vote.

That's what happens when you campaign on "the EU is a mess" and "they will bend before British might" and "Brexit is going to be a triumph", except the EU stays united, doesn't bend, and you end up in negotiations alone against 26 countries.

The entire plan of the Brexiters for the deal was to profit from the discord between EU members. Except that in the meantime France elected Macron, Germany reelected Merkel, and the rest of the countries realized that they're better off within the EU than outside of it. So they fell in line and the UK never got the multiple bilateral agreements Brexiters sold them as "going to happen". They had to get into a fight on their own against 26 people, including some of them who wanted to make sure no one else would get the same idea. And since the EU doesn't follow the law of conservation of ninjutsu but the law of reality instead, 1v26 proved to be better for the 26.

(Oh, and sidenote: the UK Brexiters probably hoped that guys like Orban or Salvini would support them, but like all nationalists, they only care about their own asses, and since they are having their own issues with the EU, they obviously saw unfit to put out their neck to support the UK and risk angering the people they are negotiating with themselves and weakening their own position)

(Sidenote 2: Same thing happened with Trump. Trump didn't care about the UK, he only wanted the EU to implode. As soon as Brexit was voted, there was no way he'll give the UK a super nice deal to compensate, because "being nice" is not how he does diplomacy, especially with countries that are manufacturing their own weapons and don't have to buy his)

So now Tories are split between the realists like May who know that they won't get a better deal because unicorns don't exist, and Rees-Mogg, BoJo and their ilk who claim that they would get a better deal (spoiler: they won't, but it's not like one more lie from them is going to matter).

But, see, there's a bit of a dilemma.

Because JRM, BoJo & co want to kick May out. They want to be in charge, act as if they're negotiating for something reasonable while asking for things the EU is going to obviously refuse because they're not stupid, and then get a no-deal Brexit that's going to mildly inconvenience the EU and fuck the UK sideways - BUT they'll get to act as if they're tough, uncompromising dudes and blame everything bad happening on the EU (or May's tenure). They'll screw their country, but they might gain points among their electorate, so I assume it's a small price to pay.

Problem is, conservatives have a tiny majority at the moment. It's highly doubtful someone else than Theresa May will be able to get another government up and running - it's unlikely all Tories, some of them are Remainers, will go along with the English Trump or Mr Topper. Which means new elections and considering the horrendous shitshow the Tories have displayed since Brexit was voted, it's not guaranteed they'll win.

And if Labor gets in charge, then there is either the possibility that A) they get another deal that's similar to May - so the only thing the Tories have done is losing their majority B) they get a better deal than May, which means that on top of actually delivering Brexit, they get a huge credibility bonus or C) they decide to go for another vote which is unlikely to be favorable to Brexit considering how the last two years have exposed the lies coming from their campaign.

So, yeah, theyr'e in a bit of a bind at the moment. A bind that they forced themselves into, so I have a hard time being compassionate, except of course for those who voted against Leave.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I'm still greatly enjoying the rise of the 4th Reich in Europe.

It was a masterstroke really. Enslaving an entire continent to the will of some multinational corporations. It's going to crash and burn sooner or later as every Imperial project in Europe always does.

But that's not going to stop it from being incredibly entertaining.

[Mazder]

Brex-snip

I mean, there's a big difference between us getting no changes and us getting an unfair change. This current change is an unfair change in the sense of we basically get nothing at all and we're punished for it AND we still have to pay out on top of it.
Like I expect the EU to want an advantage but to have literally everything and we get nothing well it's only going to stall us longer, and while we're still in the union it's going to affect the union for longer.

TBH most of the less/non-vocal Leavers are mostly against the EU because of the fact that the EU isn't led/controlled by any of the member states and they don't have easy info in the EU and stuff like that. It's 26 people deciding what 508 million people should do that aren't elected by any of those people. So long as they can shove some of their other crap alongside it they will though.
I mean if it was the leaders of each country deciding stuff it'd be a little better as they'd at least be elected officials that are known by every citizen.

Personally I am more for reform of the EU as right now it's a bureaucratic clusterfuck that needs change, it just does.
But honestly the mainland has never liked the UK having too much influence over anything really.

So now Tories are split between the realists like May who know that they won't get a better deal because unicorns don't exist, and Rees-Mogg, BoJo and their ilk who claim that they would get a better deal (spoiler: they won't, but it's not like one more lie from them is going to matter).

But, see, there's a bit of a dilemma.

Because JRM, BoJo & co want to kick May out. They want to be in charge, act as if they're negotiating for something reasonable while asking for things the EU is going to obviously refuse because they're not stupid, and then get a no-deal Brexit that's going to mildly inconvenience the EU and fuck the UK sideways - BUT they'll get to act as if they're tough, uncompromising dudes and blame everything bad happening on the EU (or May's tenure). They'll screw their country, but they might gain points among their electorate, so I assume it's a small price to pay.

Problem is, conservatives have a tiny majority at the moment. It's highly doubtful someone else than Theresa May will be able to get another government up and running - it's unlikely all Tories, some of them are Remainers, will go along with the English Trump or Mr Topper. Which means new elections and considering the horrendous shitshow the Tories have displayed since Brexit was voted, it's not guaranteed they'll win.

And if Labor gets in charge, then there is either the possibility that A) they get another deal that's similar to May - so the only thing the Tories have done is losing their majority B) they get a better deal than May, which means that on top of actually delivering Brexit, they get a huge credibility bonus or C) they decide to go for another vote which is unlikely to be favorable to Brexit considering how the last two years have exposed the lies coming from their campaign.

So, yeah, they're in a bit of a bind at the moment. A bind that they forced themselves into, so I have a hard time being compassionate, except of course for those who voted against Leave.

Right now as it stands if Labor gets in charge it'll be another split party as right now they're just as split as the Torries are. The only thing that helps them is the Torries that are split from May make more of a number in the current Parliament than their own splitters. If they were to win a new election those seats could get replaced, which would make their split even wider and get them less support, or they could find that if Corbyn stacks his side with too many of his own followers that another vote of no confidence might spring up and we'd repeat this cycle again.

Mind you I am also not a supporter of Labor, being a left leaning centrist, I think they're going a little too far left.

As far as another referendum is concerned if it does happen I'd want more clarity on what exactly is being voted on. None of this "oh, it needs to be sorted out at a later date" no, give us all of the options. I do't care if my voting ballot is then 588 pages long like the original draft has been, let me see everything that's going to be decided and let me show you where I think we should go for my vote. That way they can get a better view of public opinion than a march/crowd of people shouting.

[Raga]

but like all nationalists, they only care about their own asses

As opposed to what exactly? Stateless "citizens of the world" who care equally about everybody? Does this include people like Merkel and others in the German government who are quite happy for Germany to run indefinite trade surpluses even though it means somebody else must then have chronic trade deficits? Basic economics. If somebody has a surplus somewhere, somebody else *has* to have a deficit somewhere else. And chronic deficits do cause long term problems for a country's economy. Does this include people in France or Italy or wherever who get super anal about the labeling of products calling themselves Bordeaux or Mimolette because they want to protect their cozy markets in luxury goods from cheaper competitors?

How do you propose to *actually* create fair treaties or trade agreements or international organizations if a given country's leadership doesn't say "Here's what we need and we are willing to fight for it because to do otherwise will hurt our citizens." Yes, this requires give and take between countries, but you negotiate by making demands and then ceding ground as needed. Not by incessantly going back and forth insisting "No, you first. No, YOU first. No, you first." because you don't want to be the pushy rude guy who always tries to go first.

There are many manifestations of nationalism run amok. Imperialism is one of them. Militarism is one. Jingoism or chauvinism is one. But nationalism, defined as pride in the country you are from - sufficient pride to believe that it is something worth defending and sticking up for, to believe that the citizens of that country need and want things that are not "one-size-fits-all" needs and wants and that they have a right to have them - is not malicious or untoward or unseemly. It is in fact necessary to world order.

A world filled with states whose citizens think they are worthless, useless, and meaningless is a world filled with states plagued with incessant coups, collapsing governments, civil wars, sectarian conflict, religious extremism, and various harebrained radical political movements that promise utopias if only you kill or violently depose enough of X people.

Far from runaway nationalism producing strongmen, strongmen usually emerge because of a *dearth* of nationalism. They appear because a group of people feel week, disenfranchised, and lowered. There is no Third Reich without the low state Germany entered after WWI and public dissatisfaction with the Weimar Republic and its various stabbers in the back. There is no radical socialist independence movement in Vietnam without Vietnam being trampled on and treated as so much chattel by French colonialism and then later America.

Healthy nationalism is the human equivalent of self-esteem. People with low self-esteem or self-loathing are not healthy. They are much more likely to engage in either self-harm or violence. The same is true of states.

[Mazder]

Continued from main thread;

Ffs, did I ever said or done anything that made me look like a pedo to you in the almost decade we've known each other?

That's why I said you're being a mood killer. Not because I endorse or enjoy loli porn or shit like that, but because how immediately serious and judgemental you had become at the mere mention of the word.

Not calling you a paedo specifically, unless you do actually like loli's/pseudo loli's. In which case you are by association with that as that shit is what it is.
It could be the only thing you're paedo in, I'm not saying you are or aren't in other areas, but when it comes to the whole loli thing it's the same as paedos for me.
If you don't like me calling it for what it is then I'm sorry for being so blunt with the word paedo. There is no other way to describe it though.

And I still don't know why fans of anime are okay with it being a thing. Like, if you find it creepy it should creep you out and it should not be mentioned as even an option. It shouldn't be on the list if you're that against it, even at the bottom of a very, very long list is still on the list.
Accepting it as "just a weird culture difference between us and Japan" isn't good enough IMO for anime fans.

I'm sorry for killing the mood but if that mood is being even remotely accepting of very close to paedophilia and other rather creepy shit like it then maybe it's something that still needs to be made aware of more as some things you shouldn't just let it pass because it's just "weird japan stuff".

Sorry but it's one of the very weird things that gets a free pass that is not just "quirky" but is rather dangerous, especially as those types of shows are marketed to impressionable men/teens via fanservice that could very easily adopt it as "acceptable behaviour".

Once again I apologise but this shit is just very weird to see getting a free pass when if this was Western based entertainment it'd be shut down before even getting to the storyboard stage.

[Alienmorph]

Well the problem is that the cultural gap you mention isn't just a made up thing. It is there. There's several things in japanese culture, and in the anime subculture derived from it, that are just... different from our own. Not necessarily better or worse, just different, and that need to be seen in the proper context. Is it true that certain kinds of underage content are legal in japan, and that is most certainly creepy, but at the same time thei're very VERY strictly regulated by law, and Japan is also a morbidly repressed culture as a whole. They get off blurring the line between what's acceptable or not just as much as they do smashing it with a hammer and making all kinds of messed-up adult content. It's why things like fake lolis/legal lolis and traps and femboys are so damn popular in manga and anime.

As for the people in the west, alot of times I've seen people liking lolis in an ironic, almost meme-like way... "oh look, Japan is at it again...". Then there's the whole "moe" thing, that to me seems to be a case of "cute carton girls are cute" rather than "I wanna FUCK cute cartoon girls!". And then there's the actual perversts that make all anime fans look like creeps. Which are probably a lot more than both you and me would like to think, but it's definately not ALL anime fans.

In my experience it's often a case of "hate the player, not the game". There's a few cases of anime and games with loli-related content that I enjoy, and that have more "fanservice" than I'd like, but thei're endearing to me because of the story and the characters, the fanservice is the annoying part I try to ignore, or make fun of. And I think that's the case for the majority of people who don't just want to jack off at little girls.

[Mazder]

Well the problem is that the cultural gap you mention isn't just a made up thing. It is there. There's several things in japanese culture, and in the anime subculture derived from it, that are just... different from our own. Not necessarily better or worse, just different, and that need to be seen in the proper context. Is it true that certain kinds of underage content are legal in japan, and that is most certainly creepy, but at the same time thei're very VERY strictly regulated by law, and Japan is also a morbidly repressed culture as a whole. They get off blurring the line between what's acceptable or not just as much as they do smashing it with a hammer and making all kinds of messed-up adult content. It's why things like fake lolis/legal lolis and traps and femboys are so damn popular in manga and anime.

As for the people in the west, alot of times I've seen people liking lolis in an ironic, almost meme-like way... "oh look, Japan is at it again...". Then there's the whole "moe" thing, that to me seems to be a case of "cute carton girls are cute" rather than "I wanna FUCK cute cartoon girls!". And then there's the actual perversts that make all anime fans look like creeps. Which are probably a lot more than both you and me would like to think, but it's definately not ALL anime fans.

In my experience it's often a case of "hate the player, not the game". There's a few cases of anime and games with loli-related content that I enjoy, and that have more "fanservice" than I'd like, but thei're endearing to me because of the story and the characters, the fanservice is the annoying part I try to ignore, or make fun of. And I think that's the case for the majority of people who don't just want to jack off at little girls.

I would say that in this regard because there is a difference in the culture does not mean that it should be accepted/passed over to accept the things you like. And I am sorry but loli's are tantamount to paedophilia and should be spoken against. They're not just "different" they're straight up bad as well. Because it is different does not remove how bad it is. We can not accept a different culture as being "okay" when it's a very small slipper slope or gives the true Paedo's and out/excuse/grey middle-ground to be accepted into.
Traps and Fem-boys are a slightly separate beast as they're more for subversion of conventions rather than being just under-age. Being under-age isn't a subversion.

And yes, I recognise the age of consent for Japan is 12-13 but that doesn't make it acceptable, especially from a western market perspective. A western market should not accept it if it is also against paedophilia as by their own laws it's still under-age. Just because it's form a place that has a lower age of consent laws doesn't make it acceptable in a part of the world where it's higher.

Trouble is that "ironic" acceptance isn't ironic. The "Japan is at it again" is 100% bullshit as it perpetuates this shit being acceptable to their western audiences. And some anime do rely on western audiences. The more it's just "Oh Japan-sama" the more it's going to keep happening as all the studio's will see is "oh, Western audiences are okay with this concept" and would keep allowing it to be put in.
The more it's not actively ridiculed/denounced the more stuff will have the shit you have to "ignore" to get to the good parts.
I'm not telling you to boycott all the anime you like, but at the very least be aware that just the revenue of a show with loli shit in it is enough of an acceptance for more of it to be produced.

And as far as the whole "Moe" stuff, it's a few steps back but still a little odd to me so far as if it's deep-end Moe then it's creepy as they're falling in literal love with pixels, but then I'd remember that they're either individuals that need true affection to know the difference or who just don't know the concept and can kind of forgive them for that. If not then....well it's weird and I just don't get going that deep into that.

And as far as "hating the player not the game" it's kind of a bit of both. As I said, if there wasn't an audience for it it wouldn't be produced. So if there is an anime that has a bunch of loli shit that does well the studio is more likely to produce more. If there isn't an audience that refuses it then they won't make any more. Now yeah there is a risk to that, I get it, you're risking less anime in general and to those who are fans that's a massive blow, but if it's necessary to stop something that is bad from being produced maybe it's time to vote with the wallets.
But that's never happen as the good things apparently outweigh the very bad.

[Alienmorph]

I would say that in this regard because there is a difference in the culture does not mean that it should be accepted/passed over to accept the things you like. And I am sorry but loli's are tantamount to paedophilia and should be spoken against. They're not just "different" they're straight up bad as well. Because it is different does not remove how bad it is. We can not accept a different culture as being "okay" when it's a very small slipper slope or gives the true Paedo's and out/excuse/grey middle-ground to be accepted into.
Traps and Fem-boys are a slightly separate beast as they're more for subversion of conventions rather than being just under-age. Being under-age isn't a subversion.

And yes, I recognise the age of consent for Japan is 12-13 but that doesn't make it acceptable, especially from a western market perspective. A western market should not accept it if it is also against paedophilia as by their own laws it's still under-age. Just because it's form a place that has a lower age of consent laws doesn't make it acceptable in a part of the world where it's higher.

Trouble is that "ironic" acceptance isn't ironic. The "Japan is at it again" is 100% bullshit as it perpetuates this shit being acceptable to their western audiences. And some anime do rely on western audiences. The more it's just "Oh Japan-sama" the more it's going to keep happening as all the studio's will see is "oh, Western audiences are okay with this concept" and would keep allowing it to be put in.
The more it's not actively ridiculed/denounced the more stuff will have the shit you have to "ignore" to get to the good parts.
I'm not telling you to boycott all the anime you like, but at the very least be aware that just the revenue of a show with loli shit in it is enough of an acceptance for more of it to be produced.

The point I was trying to make is not that I justify certain things, but that Japan works that way, wether we like it or not. The western's audience, perspective and sensibility means very little to them, as thei're a very closed culture. If we give them money and attention we're a bonus check for them, if not they won't give a shit becuase we were never the target audience. Or at least in the majority of cases. So it's up to use decide if and how to deal with certain things that are unlikely to go away regardless of what we say and do against them. If for you it's just entirely creepy and unacceptable well... I can't say you are 100% wrong, because you aren't, just be careful not to have the wrong impression of everyone who doesn't immediately agree with you.

And as far as the whole "Moe" stuff, it's a few steps back but still a little odd to me so far as if it's deep-end Moe then it's creepy as they're falling in literal love with pixels, but then I'd remember that they're either individuals that need true affection to know the difference or who just don't know the concept and can kind of forgive them for that. If not then....well it's weird and I just don't get going that deep into that.

That can literally be said about anyone who ever felt some kind of simpathy or attachement to a fictional character. Which considering this little community of us is a thing because of the affection we all had for a fictional nerdy alien girl, seems to me a rather hypocritical position to have.

And as far as "hating the player not the game" it's kind of a bit of both. As I said, if there wasn't an audience for it it wouldn't be produced. So if there is an anime that has a bunch of loli shit that does well the studio is more likely to produce more. If there isn't an audience that refuses it then they won't make any more. Now yeah there is a risk to that, I get it, you're risking less anime in general and to those who are fans that's a massive blow, but if it's necessary to stop something that is bad from being produced maybe it's time to vote with the wallets.
But that's never happen as the good things apparently outweigh the very bad.

Not "apparently". As a comic-book fan who have seen what used to be his favorite form of mainstream media being censored and emasculated up the ass in the name of political correctness, I can tell you 100% unironically that anime is much better off spawning some whatefuckery but being free to be creative and endearing the rest of the time. Having to deal with some weird shit is better than risking to sanitize an whole art form, trust me.

[Mazder]

The point I was trying to make is not that I justify certain things, but that Japan works that way, wether we like it or not. The western's audience, perspective and sensibility means very little to them, as thei're a very closed culture. If we give them money and attention we're a bonus check for them, if not they won't give a shit becuase we were never the target audience. Or at least in the majority of cases. So it's up to use decide if and how to deal with certain things that are unlikely to go away regardless of what we say and do against them. If for you it's just entirely creepy and unacceptable well... I can't say you are 100% wrong, because you aren't, just be careful not to have the wrong impression of everyone who doesn't immediately agree with you.

Just because it's acceptable for a certain culture doesn't make it right. Because it sells for them doesn't mean an audience should accept it in any way.
Saudi Arabia still incarcerates gay people, does that mean I need to be accepting of them if they start selling shows in the European Market that shows this and marketing it as an okay thing to do/accept, or should I speak out if what i see is fucking creepy/bad?

I mean we're obviously not the target audience but does that make it less unacceptable?
If this was done from a western studio and they said "oh but it's for the Japanese market" would we still say "Ah, okay, so you're just being weird because that's who you're trying to sell to"?

If those that like loli's for being loli's can't handle the fact someone is going to find them weird/creepy then I am sorry but they can take their opinion and shove it as no matter what excuse they make it's still creepy and I am going to call them on it.
If there is stuff you like with loli's in it, fine, whatever, just don't think I'm not going to be as accepting of it as you are, for example.
I mean there is a lot of stuff you admit you have to ignore to get to the stuff you enjoy, all I am saying is wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to do that work-around if the anime sold to western markets didn't have the stuff to avoid in it in the first place?

That can literally be said about anyone who ever felt some kind of simpathy or attachement to a fictional character. Which considering this little community of us is a thing because of the affection we all had for a fictional nerdy alien girl, seems to be a rather hypocritical position to have.

There is sympathy and there is loving.
My distinction is those who appreciate the character and those who adore the character to death, to the point where they nearly think they're real.
Like those bloody fiction-kin/character-kin kids on Tumblr, only for anime.

I know we all here have an appreciation for the character of Tali here, but I don't think any of us here are literally in love with her if they said the phrase "I love Tali in Mass Effect", but if one of the types that does love the thing in anime it's usually Moe to the extreme. It's slightly more common/vocal.
That's what i mean more than anything when it comes to Moe stuff.
When it gets to that level it's a bit cringe-y.

Not "apparently". As a comic-book fan who have seen what used to be his favorite form of mainstream media being censored and emasculated up the ass in the name of political correctness, I can tell you 100% unironically that anime is much better off spawning some whatefuckery but being free to be creative and endearing the rest of the time. Having to deal with some weird shit is better than risking to sanitize an whole art form, trust me.

I'm not asking for censorship, I am asking for western audiences to get invested and actually say if they don't like certain parts and make that heard. A comic that doesn't sell well because of a shitty plot point or bad artwork isn't usually continued past that once the audience stops buying it. Right now in this terms you're buying the comic with the bad art but instead of saying "this artwork is bad, I won't buy it any more" you're instead going "well, this artwork is done by the artist using their wrong hand so I guess it's still fine to keep buying it" and then they keep doing it that way and you keep justifying it.

You want to do weird shit Japan, that's fine, but don't become all aghast when I call you weird and state the reason for why you're weird and where the potential dangers might lay.
Yeah, most to even all of loli fans might never have a paedophillic thought in their minds, but those who do have paedophillic thoughts and desires might have access to that group given how close those two groups could parallel in some anime.

[Raga]

So, something that pops up over and over and over in the news. Who exactly are these crazy people who consistently seem to think that throwing fist-sized rocks at people is an action roughly equivalent to throwing snowballs? Like, seriously? Who the hell are these people?

(Specific situation: Migrants throw rocks. Migrants get pepper-sprayed. Egads! The Border Patrol has committed a human rights violation! They have escalated the violence out of control! They have shot people for throwing clods of dirt and spray painting walls!)