Lord Raven
-
Posts
9,206 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Lord Raven
-
-
44 minutes ago, eclipse said:
Because calling representatives isn't a thing for everyone. I see it as completely unnecessary and detrimental in my specific case.
The ones I'd call were those that I didn't elect and were against net neutrality.
Then you should still make your voice heard. I’m annoyed that your view is “I don’t want to do it” under the implication that it is inherently useless when continuous public pressure is beneficial, regardless of whether or not you in particular elected your local official.
I have to call Arizona Republicans who I definitely didn’t vote in but they’re my local representatives and that is the state I live in most of the year. Their purpose is to listen to the constituents and that kind of pressure (if done by most — and it’s best not to assume others will do it for you) will make them fear their seat. Being part of this process is definitely better than indifference, and your local house representative is an even better person to contact because the house does not have the partisanship issues that the senate will have.
This was part of the reason why healthcare died (Republicans actually were under significant pressure and only voted knowing it would die before it got to the president) and this is part of the reason senators like Flake are retiring after this cycle ends. This kind of civic duty is more beneficial to you than you think.
If you don’t personally care to do it, then clearly and plainly state your reasons rather than remaining vague. As it stands, you’re currently preaching a sense of indifference for no reason other than you not wanting to contact your officials. If you honestly do not want to, then I am not requiring you to, but my advice is for people to ask “what can I do?”
Class action lobbying agencies are also great causes to donate to, holding politicians feet to the fire in town hall meetings and active vigilance and contact is significantly better than actively doing nothing even in the situation where you do not feel your voice is useful.
in what way is it “not a thing” for everyone anyway? I seriously do not understand the point you are making other than “well I don’t want to do it, because I hate my representative.”
EDIT: I am also not saying you need to call every rep in your state, only the ones you personally elect or the ones in the district you reside. In my case, it’s two representatives and four senators due to my fluid living situation.
-
Then why bring it up if it’s not worth discussing to you? You just went from “okay, I don’t want to do it because reasons” to “stop trying to change my mind.” It defeats the purpose of a discussion forum to tell me to stop and shut up.
If that’s your ultimate point then why did you even bring it up in the first place? Come on, I know you know way better than to soapbox like that then aggressively tell me to stop calling out (what I view as) a rather flimsy argument, and anything posted in a public forum is deserving of scrutiny.
-
Then be tactful. Say "I stand by net neutrality and appreciate your support, but I have other concerns. For instance, I personally feel that the representative's viewpoint towards this particular issue is misguided based on such and such a thing that I've researched and read."
And so on. I really don't know what point you're necessarily making, because these complaints seem solvable by an application of basic social tact and common sense which I know you have.
-
Just now, eclipse said:
That's fair. I have my own personal issues with my representatives, hence why I'd rather NOT call them.
Isn't that more of a reason to call them?
-
1 minute ago, eclipse said:
I'm in Hawaii. They despise Trump. Like, we have two on record calling him out on various bullshit. I doubt they'll be swayed.
Okay, but voicing your concerns is always beneficial, and the calls take ~2 minutes apiece. There's no reason for this nihilism, and calls do sincerely make a difference. If you have other concerns, go ahead and voice them and top them off with net neutrality. You don't need to keep arguing in favor of nihilism towards the process; if you simply don't want to call, then don't call, but don't give the argument that it is meaningless.
I call representatives in both states I live in just to make sure my voices and concerns are heard, no matter how much I agree or disagree with their politics.
-
We'll have to see in the playoffs. Cardinals rallied around Stanton after Palmer and Ravens rallied around Schaub and Mallet after Flacco went down. Hell, the 91 Giants didn't have Simms starting when they won the Super Bowl. There's plenty of precedent both ways.
-
Just now, eclipse said:
My congresscritters voted no. As much as I'd like to yell at other state's representatives, I don't think that will be very effective.
Was there a vote and is their position consistent? Calling also encourages that they remain on the side of NN. Just because they are in agreement does not mean that they can't be swayed.
-
5 minutes ago, Slumber said:
Losing a QB, especially one that's a pillar of the team, can shake up a whole team. So I will attribute their problems on defense to the NYG to that. But their offense was limp against the Raiders, which is a bit easier to attribute to the loss of Wentz. If the game was at Oakland, I think they would have lost that game.
If it can shake up a team, then surely they wouldn't have beaten the Giants like they did.
I actually think that losing a QB can motivate a team too. Some anecdotes: the Ravens-Dolphins game this year (CJ Mosley came out and said that they played their asses off because Miami hurt their "family," and this is despite constant poor play from our offense all season) and a Cardinals game from 2014. Palmer tore his ACL, and the very next play was a deep TD pass from Drew Stanton to John Brown (like 50 yards). They won that game because Todd Bowles called some of the ballsiest blitzes, especially in one of the last plays in a close game where they sent 6 guys at the QB and he ended up getting rid of it quick and into the arms of a defender.
Doug Pederson seems like the kinda coach that motivates after a loss or after unfortunate incidents happen, rather than someone who lets his team succumb to hopelessness, just like Arians.
-
1 hour ago, Slumber said:
After the loss of Wentz and the Eagles struggling to pull out a win for the second week in a row against a mediocre/bad team, it seems like a lot of places are putting Vikings at the top of the NFC.
Well, the loss of Wentz didn't cause the defense to suck ass against New York. They've basically only had two games with Foles. The NFC is hard to predict because of the QB situation of the top teams.
-
28 minutes ago, Anacybele said:
...Okay, wow. I hate the guy as much as the next Steelers fan, but that is going too far. I wouldn't want him DEAD. Sheesh.
That and it’s highly, highly racist. It’s definitely one of the more horrid ways I’ve seen fans lash out at players.
-
48 minutes ago, chococoke said:
What does that mean
There was an effigy of Vontaze Burfict hanging in Pittsburgh that was in a noose, hanging from an electrical line. How much clearer can I be?
Anyway, it’s better than us who have always closed against Cincy where playoffs were on the line.
-
Man some Steelers fans lynched an effigy of vontaze burfict... smfh
-
I think that republican voters aren’t fearful so much as they are indirectly told to be fearful by politicians. I think that happens on both sides, but one side preaches it from a personal safety angle and the other from xenophobia.
Im still trying to be careful to detach the voters from the leadership, because it feels like a bunch of snake oil salesmen who know who to sell it to. I also dont think the Democrats have put forth legislation to restrict evangelical voters. I think Zasplach is mainly making the point that we shouldn’t blame constituents for their politicians.
-
I think Democrat voters in general are more fickle than Republican voters who have the evangelical block in lockstep. I don’t think this is much less than an objective fact. But on the other hand some Republicans refused to vote Trump, kind of along the same lines as anti-Clinton democrats.
It’s an anecdote though but you didn’t see some people come in here and stand against Clinton because in the past she was against gay marriage? I think the democrats rely on huge voter turnout and republicans rely on suppression. The republican politicians actively want to subvert democracy — I think it’s kind of trivial to call it “pragmatism” because effective politicians are naturally pragmatic.
-
Yeah he’s the real deal, holy lord
bengals beating the lions annoys me
browns bout to go winless
-
hes won us a super bowl before he can do it again
11 hours ago, Anacybele said:I hope too. Because it seems like every time the Ravens make the playoffs, the Steelers have to face them. We get enough of them in the main season, seriously. Go away! >_<
Buuut... I can forgive them if they do us a favor and kick the Pats' butts first...
tbf we're 1-3 against the Steelers in the playoffs, but Harbaugh in the wild card round is historically ridiculous. our worst win in the wild card has been by 13, due to a blocked punt (shoulda been 15 otherwise, and maybe a few more if some small things happened).
27-9, 33-14, 24-9, 30-17, 30-7
-
1 hour ago, chococoke said:
Fucc the Ravens. That's a team I'm not trying to see in the playoffs. I wonder if Marv can do me a solid and beat them next week
dude you need other shit to go your way too even if we do lose to cincy
i personally am excited to see us troll in the playoffs
-
18 minutes ago, Slumber said:
If anyone is going to shut out the Packers, it has to be the Vikings. It's too poetic.
men in purple already shut them out earlier try again
-
16 hours ago, Harvey said:
The thing that bothers me about this is that why did the FCC think that it was necessary to even get rid of net neutrality? Its not benefiting anyone. If anything, it removes competition entirely just practically making big corporate lose more money because people like me can't afford to constantly pay to various websites...
I think working under the assumption that our government works for the good of the people makes it hard to wrap your head around their actions. Working pragmatically as a conduit for private profit as well as attempting to keep power in a democracy will add a ton of context to their actions.
Would like to continue to emphasis that the democratic senators and representatives may not be on board with NN and I'm fairly confident that they are lukewarm on it unless we actively make it clear to our senators and representatives that it is extremely important to us. I think Democrats at least stay pragmatic for the people as a whole, even if they have many corporate ties, due to the diversity of their constituents and voters. Republicans just pander to their rich base and their evangelical base. If NN is important to you, call your local members of congress. Their job is to represent you, and the calls will make a difference if a bunch of people make them.
-
On 12/20/2017 at 2:23 PM, Shoblongoo said:
Organized religion is like a bad Jeigan that’s outlived its early-game utility, and should have been benched 5 chapters ago. (Bear with me here and allow me to draw out the analogy)
FE6 Marcus, because he falls off hard after like Chapter 13. I think FE6 Marcus is the best example for your metaphor, given that his fall off applies to every game mode.
-
A) you consider yourself center-right? You seem quite centrist in the sense that your views are guided seemingly by research and logic rather than ideology, which makes you in favor of free markets etc (which I don’t believe makes you right wing — but left/right is stupid and being pro-free market should be independent of the spectrum).
B) I feel like you’re trying to explain the Machiavellian politics in congress so we can see it from the politician’s point of view, but I think we all understand that and hate it. I complained not because I’m surprised but because my Wednesday was an awful travel day (the most awful) and the smug ass press conference with McConnell, Ryan, Pence, and Trump was on in the airport and made my blood boil
-
Yes, and using this tax bill for political purposes rather than ideological purposes or to help the American people isn’t moral behavior.
You’re arguing that this is okay.
-
“I think Democrats are not going to be interested in entitlement reform, so I would not expect to see that on the agenda,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at a breakfast sponsored by Axios. “What the Democrats are willing to do is important, because in the Senate, with rare exceptions like the tax bill, we have to have Democratic involvement.”
- mitch mcconnell
seriously what a piece of shit. tax reform is exempt because they wanted THEIR own tax reform
-
5 minutes ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:
Why not both (da dada da da)? He's certainly a rather successful con-man, but his post-election actions indicate a clear lack of understanding of the political world.
I think it's apathy and not idiocy.
His speaking style is really awful though. I cannot listen to a Trump speech the whole way through without something close to an aneurysm.
FCC plans to repeal net neutrality this thursday
in Serious Discussion
Posted · Edited by Lord Raven
A) You will need to spell it out for me every single time. I sincerely do not remember every single detail.
B) Okay? I wasn't saying everyone will want to, I'm saying that if you want to do something or try something, here are a few suggestions that I recommend. You're telling me to let it go when your argument is literally "not everyone wants to," to which I did not suggest if you do not want to, do it anyway. I am not against not doing stuff, I am against arguments I perceive to be weak, like yours. I have brought up arguments which show why your argument against it is weak, while acknowledging that people may not want to call representatives anyway. There is nothing wrong with not doing something; there is something wrong with implying it will be futile anyway, when that is not necessarily true.
This is why you continue to press the issue no matter what they try. Mail letters, email the campaign, organize a group protest for town halls and learn how to do it within legal means. I am not saying to do these things because I do not have time to do some of the things I suggest, I am saying that there are plenty of options given we live in a liberal democracy that swears by the first amendment. College campuses are great ways to participate in things like this.
I merely counter arguments I perceive to be lacking in good faith or are inadequate reasons. Legitimately lacking time or energy to do these things is 100% reasonable, but saying it won't work or it's futile or feels futile is not. Regardless, continual re-assurance helps the cause if your congressman votes with your viewpoint, to help ensure that he's fighting the good fight.