MC Prussian

Good to see read from you, too!

Just started with South Park again, straight from Season One, Episode One. It's funny when you notice the initial, relatively crude approach to animation or when you finally pick up on some of the nuances. Wendy Testaburger's name makes much more sense now. In "Cartman gets an anal probe", at around the 9:32 minute mark, you can see one of Trey Parker or Matt Stone's hands for a millisecond.

Post more often, then. I think it's been a while since I've seen you contributing. All well at your end?

The Kinder thread brought a few names back - quite an impressive list, really: @AoWW @lavrentis @SOCCERROO FOX @Walkers @Hitesh @James. @Libertine @The Reverend @Bryn @Edmund @isaidno @potter3 @stez @Wet Trump @Kilworthfox @Fox You Forest @Nick @theessexfox Vålerenga (@davieG?) @Koke @Houdini Logic @AjcW @Bellend Sebastian @Jay @Haydos @Jackirius @MikeyT @Wymsey @Amin @EnderbyFox @I am Rod Hull @Benji @Ross-Kemp @fox123 @Sparky @The Blur @Unit @Bugg @lcfc_jme @Salieri @Tilley @GLC @Asha @Tabou @FoxyPV @The Year Of The Fox @Itsthejoeker @DB11 @Steve_Walsh5 @kingcarr21 @Out Foxed @Darkon84 Don't see them posting much anymore. Lost a bit of quality with them gone. Give us a shout when you can and tell us how you're doing and why you've left! Even @Bert, @Babylon and @Corky have gone rather quiet lately.

The irony of the story is they went after the wrong guy. And later charged this innocent man for "resisting arrest". https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/sacramento/sacramento-county-sheriffs-office-launches-excessive-force-investigation/103-80227c9d-0447-4233-bfdc-ddd2255a5a6f Some cops...

It's kicking off in Atlanta - CNN headquarters vandalized: https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/cnn-center-heavily-vandalized-during-atlanta-protest-against-death-of-george-floyd

Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich. Money can't replace character if there ain't none.

It's possible to stick to the current system: You can guide people with regular voting booths accordingly, but only if you prepare it correctly, of course.

Well, some may see that as an explanation or a reason, some may call it an excuse.

Well, why putting the idea of mail-in voting forward only now? The Democrats and particular, Dem-dominated states have had three years to come up with something more "just". The timing now, in the year of the presidential election, seems rather odd.

You want proof of looting? https://www.startribune.com/mayor-frey-calls-for-peace-as-looting-flames-erupt-around-police-station/570816112/ Also, check Andy Ngo's Twitter. From your statement, I gather that you claim that the increase in polarization (certainly done by the president, the media and both major US political parties alike), would negatively influence the population (or certain minorities), thus leading to more violence and/or criminal offenses. And that's definitely not the case, especially given the fact that crime rates are going down whilst the population keeps increasing. Which, in this context, is nothing but positive. What "groups of protesters" are you referring to?

Oh, definitely. Sadly, we as a society and the media are putting too much emphasis on what people are saying (not just on Twitter) instead of what people (not just politicians) are doing. Twitter's just the convenient excuse for the media not to do any proper journalism and the convenient excuse for people not to engage in a proper, personal debate. It's mad.

You don't seem to get that Trump was stating an opinion, not fact. Just like every other Twitter user. Twitter themselves say that as long as you don't target an individual repeatedly, this is just fine and everyone's entitled to their opinion. It's not as if Twitter aren't innocent in all of this: They have a very odd way of moderating tweets, and tend to allow more leeway on the left than on the right (I'm not talking about extremist views here). As somebody else once said: If Twitter disappeared overnight, the world would be a better place. Twitter is toxic, Twitter is an absolute trash heap of people swinging their useless opinions around. As for centralized voting, it's not perfect, sure. There's voting suppression, as demonstrated in 2016 in California: https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression/were-suing-california-because-it-threw-out-more-45000 I just find the timing rather odd now. I'm all up for a thorough voting system reform in the US - right after the elections. You don't get there with a hasty decision within less than six months (before November 2020).

If the polarization were such an issue (and I do believe the US media play a big part as an often despicable third party with their sensationalist and selective take on issues), then how come US crime rates have decreased lately? https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2019-preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-released-012120 Crime rates since 2017 have gone down each year (with the odd exception in the report on 2017). All of that whilst the US population keeps increasing, it rose by three million in between 2017 and 2019. As for the Yahoo UK report, just google it ("Minneapolis, looting"). https://www.google.com/search?q=minneapolis+looting&client=safari&rls=en&sxsrf=ALeKk02tDQmQ96vhlcOm8MqCGjeq0RvjhA:1590592471787&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWkY3aqtTpAhXKsaQKHWM1D0kQ_AUoAnoECAsQBA&biw=1440&bih=789 Maybe this one works: https://newsone.com/playlist/minneapolis-george-floyd-police-protest-photos-video/

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/minneapolis-police-fire-flash-grenades-200000916.html On a sidenote, I think many of the links you post in politics threads aren't political per se, and I do hope you're not using socio-economic or cultural issues in the US for example as a mean to imply it has something to do with the current government. Now that'd be clinging onto straws. Police brutality in the US has been around for a long time, and so does one-sided media coverage. Look up "Kelly Thomas, Orange County" and ask yourself why we've hardly ever heard of him.

Two wrongs: a) Excessive police force while apprehending a suspect. b) Rioting, breaking & entering and looting. People had a field day disguising themselves with masks. I thought mass gatherings were still not allowed, even in the US?

Just another case of you attacking the messenger instead of the message. I mean, it's Twitter - it's a cacophony of useless opinions. How is reporting on an opinion on Twitter even news? Sure, Trump makes an exaggerated point, but the point still stands. There is a higher risk of election fraud with mail-in ballots due to the increased amounts of people involved in handling the votes. Anyone coming into touch with the mail in this chain could tamper with the mail, from start to finish. Non-voters can be coerced to sign against their own interest, envelopes can be tampered with before they get to the ballot box or the point of collection, mailmen can make bags disappear, the list goes on. Voting in person is still possible in these coronavirus times, and who knows, by the time the elections are around the corner, there's no need to be in quarantine any longer. For years, it was "Russia, collusion, Russia, collusion" - now exposing the voting process to more risk is the answer? Are you kidding me? Also, why change the laws in an election year? Hmm... Democrats want the option for all 50 states - it is currently in place in 27. California is going down the drains economically right now (just like New York, for example). Sounds to me a particular governor is keen on securing a particular set of votes and voting demographic. Newsom is now being sued by the GOP: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-sue-california-governor-gavin-newsom-claim-his-vote-by-mail-order-is-illegal-power-grab/

Probably one of the best singer-songwriters of his generation. Greatly underappreciated and vastly unknown.

Monbiot's cheap "racism" card wasn't aimed at the documentary, but his perception of recent history. That's how I understand it. Some people have always exploited others in some shape or form for various reasons, the world was a much darker place some hundred years ago - until the end of WWII, one may argue. Since then, and on the whole, it's been one magical growth ride. It's clear that it comes with its costs, especially when previously under-developed countries start to play catch-up with Western counterparts, as is/was the case with, let's say, India, China, Nigeria, Brazil. I think we unfortunately live in time and age where sensationalism trumps reason. And the climate change discussion is currently just the newest demonstration of that. Neither side is fully ingenious here, Moore has to sell a product and Monbiot can't lose his sponsors. Both have their respective fanbase. I used to like Moore a lot because I remember him from his "Roger & Me" days, where you could sense a tangible pride in unions (not that I'm much of a leftie, but there was the spirit). He's aged and lost a lot of his drive and edge over the years. One could call both of them sell-outs. I agree that there needs to be a return to a more sensible approach to consumerism. I, for my part, try to abstain from buying the newest smartphone or too many new clothes on a regular basis, I've had the same wristwatch for years and keep having it repaired in case of troubles. I have holes in my pants repaired by a lady tailor. I don't have a car (because public transportation is reliable and relatively inexpensive) and I live cheaply cost-wise, but nicely. I don't need expensive holidays every quarter and I'm not keen on flying long distances too often (it's been more than a decade). I try to buy regional or biologically-produced food and try to keep the amount of waste down. I don't define myself through my possessions and I find luxury in some of the most common of things.

If climate change is indeed the result of consumption, as Monbiot suggests... Well, where does that increase in consumption stem from? Exactly, an increase in population. More people want more stuff. Monbiot contradicts himself even more: The global population may have increased at a rate smaller than consumption since 1963, but that still means more people want more stuff. It means on average, we have become more wealthy, more prosperous and are thus able to consume more or more expensive items than ever before, all over the world. Global poverty rate has come down from 36 to 10 percent in the space of 25 years (1990 to 2015). That is a price we pay for progress and prosperity. Climate change isn't just a thing since 1963, we've had industrialization kicking it all off in the late 18th/early 19th century, think of all the dirt we let mix with air for 200 years or so before 1963 - without filter, with little legislation against it. We can't just ignore these 200 years prior and say it didn't have an impact. We all know climate doesn't change in between today and tomorrow. There are massive ecological systems and planetary influences involved. So, the population die-off may sound harsh, and I don't see it as the sole solution, but it is one possibility for the system to be corrected again. As mentioned before, global population is said to start to decline by 2050, anyway. And the racism card, really? "White people" vs. "the others"... Oh, dear. It just happens to be that the drivers of the industrialization were mainly - but not exclusively - white. Rich? That's open for debate. What about all the impoverished inventors who did gain little to no money from their ideas? Totally glossing over the fact that the population in the Western World is becoming more and more diverse... We are all part of that consumption and production culture, not just "white people". No word on the increase in pollution in China or India? Or where the most polluted rivers are to be found? Africa, India and China mostly. And birth rates in Africa or parts of Asia or the Near East (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan) are still (way) above those in Europe or most of the Americas. It's just statistics, nothing to do with racism. I think Monbiot is very populist, ignorant and simplistic here - just as much as Michael Moore. And that is not helping the discussion at all. Just as he criticizes Moore for a lack of solutions, I don't hear any at all from Monbiot.

Well, the WHO needs to be held accountable, no matter what. Just like the EU. It can't be that a worldwide organizations's decisions and recommendations go unchecked. There may be some sort of national posturing involved, but as far as I can tell, you rarely or never hear of other nations critizicing the WHO, which is rather weird. It's a nation's prerogative to tend after its own interests. US, UK, South Korea, you name it. I suppose you've seen the video interview with the WHO representative - when asked about Taiwan, he just ended the video chat. Very weird. Taiwan is a sovereign nation. Seems to me the WHO doesn't want to piss off China for some odd reason. To come full circle, I suppose Trump and the US have a point. A supranational construct can't or shouldn't give in to particular interests. Be it China or somebody else.

There's two matters here - the press conferences and the reactions to them. Let's separate them for argument's sake. Lying is one thing, saying "something outrageous" another. One could potentially include legal action (if it's proven to be unlawful), the other is just pure self-serving aggrandisement by loons on Twitter (and elsewhere), with some people buying into it without much resistance. I haven't heard Trump claim hydroxychloroquine being a "one-for-all" solution or that he's forcing the population to use it. There's also the responsibility of doctors and drugstores (depending on the availability) to hand out prescriptions - if the prescription is justified. Just based on that tiny snippet, all he says is that he is allegedly using it and that it hasn't hurt him. Science doesn't know yet whether the drug is working against coronavirus or not, studies are still underway: https://www.bbc.com/news/51980731 Your comparison to chemotherapy or cancer treatments thus falls flat. Trump isn't dangerous (well, to whom exactly? To mankind, the US or simply just the Democrats? Why?), nor is he an idiot. Part of these claims are made up by the (US) mainstream media, who still want him gone so desperately. Sure, he does come up with the odd blunder here and there and his vocabulary and demeanor aren't so presidential (compared to some of those who came before him). As far as I can tell, he hasn't started a war yet and until coronavirus came along, the US economy was going pretty strong. He may not be a great, sympathetic or convincing president, but he's the president the US deserve at this point.

One of the minor headlines over here: "The idea that the coronavirus could've been developed in a lab is comforting" Really? If it were the case, I don't want to know what else we're experimenting on in labs these days. Very comforting indeed. Another headline: Soldier gets fined £300 for reporting food waste in the army.

I don't see what all the fuss is about with these nit-picked statements. Employees can still refuse not to look after their boss's dog, picking up dry cleaning or making dinner reservations. Unless it's illegal to ask. Otherwise, of course, it may be somewhat odd or more extraordinary, but "wrong"? How often did this take place? Once, twice? Shocking! That's just an opinion, and we all know everyone has one. This is why I don't do Twitter, it's an echo chamber, limited space allows for limited statements, and thus it all becomes rather toxic and self-serving. As for taking hydroxychloroquine, the drug has been approved in my country for over 20 years and I've never heard of any serious side effects connected to it or people dying as a consequence of taking it. It does have its potential side effects, just like any other drug, one of the more severe but also ultra-rare ones being cardiac arrhythmia, which isn't "fatal" per se. But hey, who needs facts when you can have Twitter outrage?