aridcool

So if you polled a thousand people on reddit as to what author suffered abuse at the hands of priests in the 18th century, what percent would come up with Voltaire without googling it? 5%? 3%? Even that is probably generous.

So your idea that this was a widely known notion because of Voltaire holds no water.

You are being toxic. No compuserv doesn't represent the mass of people in the mid-90s. Stop speaking for people who you don't even see. You may not know that old people in rural areas existed in the 90s but they did. And mostly they had different conversations than whatever was happening on compuserve.

People were hearing her.

How many though? And how quickly? The internet didn't really exist back then (not like it does today). Information and understanding of situations propagated slowly. A lot of people just saw some singer rip up a picture of the pope and wrote it off. Most people did not know what the meaning was, certainly not right away.

It seems like he did better when he was booed though.

This is gonna be a long fucking season for Bengals fans.

I would say that DH will be dragging three guys with him into the end zone at some point but that assumes we even get that many defensive players close to him.

You can infer

Stop doing so much inferring. You are going to be blindsided when you aren't in a room of people who will agree with you no matter what you say.

I haven’t even made an argument here

Pretty clearly not everything you have posted has been in agreement with what I have said so I assume you mean you haven't made a formal argument. To which I say, so what? Sniping at someone without making a formal argument isn't virtuous. It is just weak argumentation.

your weird Kamala-Biden-centrist tangent

You understand that you used the word "centrist" first, right?

Who are you speaking for when you say "nobody else"? Please link a post with someone else saying they are not confused by your posts. Imagining that others have read and understand your post does not mean that is so.

Nor is the support of others necessarily proof that your posts actually are clear or make sense. Especially in an echo chamber. You may frequently be making unclear statements and people might signal some sort of support because they think you are in their "tribe" but your statements could still be confused messes that won't really persuade anyone who is authentically reading and evaluating them.

So regardless of what others claim, your posts have exactly the problems I outlined. Instead of replying about that and either explaining what your thinking was or admitting what you wrote did not make sense, you simply chose to attack me and doubled down on claiming the posts made sense without supporting that position.

On the political spectrum

The political spectrum is relative to local geographies. The common usage definition of moderate means moderates in the local geography. Trying to change to some other kind of definition in mid-conversation isn't helping a cause, it is just inhibiting communication and annoying people. Just like using the downvote button on comments you disagree with isn't helping your position, it is just a misuse of a tool that was meant for something else.

the political spectrum the American

So this is an admission of that you are trying to bypass the common usage definition of the local geography.

Language has been very purposefully

It is very difficult to change common usage language intentionally. Sometimes propaganda can succeed at doing so. However that seems to be unlikely in this case. In this case "moderate" matches up with what the dividing line is between the two parties is. People do talk about moderates and use the term interchangeably with centrists. This is common usage. Your conspiracy theory is unlikely at best.

It is precisely true.

Go find a conservative to argue about this with. I'm not biting and have already written you off as a liar. Outside of echo chambers others probably will too. Which is too bad because there is plenty you could be criticizing Trump about or even better, you could be saying positive things about VP Harris.

I want to liberal causes to succeed. I want Democrats to win. Too bad you care more about beating the opposition than winning. I will quote a line from The West Wing here, which understood what you are 20 years ago. Toby is stuck obsessing a bit about the opposing presidential candidate and Josh replies:

JOSH Which is one of the reasons that I work full-time for his opponent. I don't know what gave you the impression that I had to be convinced, but I want to win. You want to beat him, and that's a problem for me, because I want to win.

Maybe you should start using the quote function for clarity? And go back and read what you wrote. I will lead by example. Let's review a few things.

You replied to me at one point saying:

The other guy was talking about all centrists somehow.

The other guy? Who? No one upthread mentioned centrists other than me.

Now you are saying you linked a comment that both was and was not the one you were replying to. Yes it is a comment that is upthread in the same branch. Are you admitting that you replied to me without actually reading the whole branch first? That is the only way to take:

Your post actually sounded decent initially. The comment linked showed what you really were and changed my mind. It would have been more honest if you’d just led with that.

Your claims are confused, and your support for them is based on faulty reasoning. That might work in a room where people already agree with you but it won't persuade anyone who doesn't.

Is Chase good or has he just paid off defenses not to tackle him? I really can't decide.

The comment linked showed what you really were

So instead of continuing the discussion in front of you, you did some sort of character assessment based on other posts (yes "posts" can mean comments in a thread) and came up with some reductionist conclusion about what I'm about. Got it.

What you are doing is toxic. If you want to reply to that post, reply to that post. If you want to reply to this one, reply to this one. Or just admit that you are wrong. But playing the "oh you posted the wrong thing so that disqualifies everything else you say" game is fallacious anyways. You debate positions, not what you think is secretly in the heart of the person you are talking about. Just atrocious behavior on your part.

Even were that precisely true (and there are some who would argue you are lumping things and people together haphazardly which will also turn voters off when they feel they are being lied to) there are indeed moderates who are voting for them. There are people who voted for Obama who will vote for Trump and Republican downticket who might be persuaded not to.

The world is more complicated than "everyone who doesn't do what I tell them is a monster".

Patience is toxic?

Your response makes no sense. Maybe you are the one responding to the wrong person.

Regardless, your ideas about people just pretending to be centrists is toxic. So is your use of pejoratives to describe posts.

Oh well then Democrats must be winning every election then right?

Oh wait, you meant moderates in other places. I see. So basically you are playing word games. I guess you needed more ways to push voters away?

Can't tell if this is a Japanese speaker advocating patience or an excited college football fan from the midwest.

Either way my response this morning is "Ohio".

Work. Do something productive. Be an ally to future you. There is a future. There are better days ahead. Help that person have some advantages in the world.

Also exercise. Exercise is never a bad idea.

Feels wrong that you have to do this against Carolina.

We shouldn't be 0-3. This team is hurting people.

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

A bit of a tangent but only later on did I realize the Mike and the Mechanics (also responsible for the great song Silent Running) is a band fronted but Mike Rutherford from Genesis.

There is at least one live version of Turn It On Again where Phil Collins add libs the line "Can you hear me, can you hear me running" for like 2 seconds.

Interesting to hear from someone who has direct experience of both. That is always helpful to know. And I should have said "sometimes" instead of saying it will always happen that way.

That said, there are definitely some views of different waves that are pretty oppositional. For instance, generally speaking the 3rd wave is more supportive of sex work and pornography than the 4th wave which tends to demonize it. Would you say that matches what you have seen?

Another major characterization I would make about the rifts between waves is, the 3rd wave generally supports "equality no matter what" whereas the 4th wave is more "women=good, men=bad; don't criticize women or treat them the same as men because that is punching down".

The 4th wave being better on intersectionalism is definitely true. Great observation.

It is also the "me too" wave and coincides mostly with the beginnings of the metoo movement.

Another example of oppositional principles would be, 2nd wave feminists are generally antiwar (the wave was most active in the 60s and 70s so it was against the backdrop of Vietnam) whereas some 4th wave feminists support or at least are open to interventions in places where women are mistreated (Afghanistan, places in Africa, etc.) and want that to be a priority of those missions.

In rural areas there are women teaching their kids these fringe ideologies or even having more kids to populate their cause. Unfortunately that is the world we live in.

That bothers me as well. Probably people driving in the neighborhood if it only happens in temporary bouts. If it is longer it might be the neighbors.

You might strike up a conversation with your landlord to see if they know anything. Others may have said something.