[QuickTidal]

Found this in the comments on an article about Wolf's set and how the WHCA "apologized" for it (because they are spineless sycophants apparently), and it's a phenomenally accurate comment.

 Hillarity.png (35.72K)
Number of downloads: 0

[Abyss]

Didn't watch but read a transcript just now... highlights!

Quote

...And just a reminder to everyone, I'm here to make jokes. I have no agenda. I'm not trying to get anything accomplished. So everyone that's here from Congress, you should feel right at home....

,,, I am a woman, so you cannot shut me up — unless you have Michael Cohen wire me $130,000. Michael, you can find me on Venmo under my porn star name, Reince Priebus....

...Yeah, shoulda done more research before you got me to do this....

...I can't get to everything. I know there's a lot of people that want me to talk about Russia and Putin and collusion, but I'm not going to do that because there's also a lot of liberal media here. And I've never really wanted to know what any of you look like when you orgasm....

...Of course, Trump isn't here, if you haven't noticed. He's not here. And I know, I know, I would drag him here myself. But it turns out the president of the United States is the one p---y you're not allowed to grab. He said it first. Yeah, he did. Do you remember? Good....

...I think we should give the president credit when he deserves it. Like, he pulled out the Paris agreement, and I think he should get credit for that because he said he was going to pull out and then he did. And that's a refreshing quality in a man....

[this one cost me some perfectly good coffee this am...]

....He wants to give teachers guns, and I support that, 'cause then they can sell them for things they need, like supplies. ...

...I know a lot of you are very antiabortion. You know, unless it's the one you got for your secret mistress. ...

...I had a lot of jokes about Cabinet members, but I had to scrap all of those because everyone has been fired. You guys are going through Cabinet members quicker than Starbucks throws out black people....

...Democrats are harder to make fun of because you guys don't do anything....

... Ivanka. She was supposed to be an advocate for women, but it turns out she's about as helpful to women as an empty box of tampons. She's done nothing to satisfy women. So, I guess, like father, like daughter....

...Sarah Huckabee Sanders. We're graced with Sarah's presence tonight. I have to say I'm a little star-struck. I love you as Aunt Lydia in “The Handmaid's Tale.”...

...We've got our friends at CNN here. Welcome, guys, it's great to have you. You guys love breaking news, and you did it. You broke it. Good work....

...Fox News is here. So, you know what that means, ladies: Cover your drinks. Seriously....

...MSNBC's news slogan is, “This is who we are.” Guys, it's not a good slogan. “This is who we are” is what your mom thinks the sad show on NBC is called. “Did you watch 'This Is Who We Are' this week? Someone left on a Crockpot, and everyone died.”...

...There's a lot of print media here. There's a ton of you guys, but I'm not going to go after print media tonight because it's illegal to attack an endangered species....

...You guys are obsessed with Trump. Did you used to date him? Because you pretend like you hate him, but I think you love him. I think what no one in this room wants to admit is that Trump has helped all of you. He couldn't sell steaks or vodka or water or college or ties or Eric, but he has helped you. He's helped you sell your papers and your books and your TV. You helped create this monster, and now you're profiting off of him. And if you're gonna profit off of Trump, you should at least give him some money because he doesn't have any....

[QuickTidal]

Also:

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 01 May 2018 - 05:04 PM

[worry]

For the record, SHS and co. feigning outrage was always the plan: https://twitter.com/...069192077049856

I know, that's like "no duh" but people out there are falling for it hook line and sinker. And not just the beltway press, whose predictable response was -- as Abyss has quoted -- explained in Wolf's own remarks.

[worry]

The Koch Bros. literally pay colleges to determine faculty hirings & firings: https://apnews.com/0...8e69f9f54c7b889

But the real problem on campuses is that protesting neo-Nazi lectures, booing comedians whose punchlines amount to "stereotypical gay man voice", and reserving spaces where typically vulnerable groups can be free of the constant "Well, actually"s of the world, are all stifling free speech.

[D'rek]

QuickTidal, on 30 April 2018 - 04:39 PM, said:

Also: https://twitter.com/...3747964928?s=19

Luv2B_Sassy, on 30 April 2018 - 10:51 PM, said:

For the record, SHS and co. feigning outrage was always the plan: https://twitter.com/...069192077049856

I know, that's like "no duh" but people out there are falling for it hook line and sinker. And not just the beltway press, whose predictable response was -- as Abyss has quoted -- explained in Wolf's own remarks.

FYI: IPBoard (and therefore this forum) has a Twitter auto-formatter/linker. Try putting your twitter URLs in [twe'et][/tw'eet] tags (without the apostrophe). Like so:

[QuickTidal]

Sweet. Thanks for the knowledge Drek, I fixed mine.

[Nicodimas]

This should put a nail in the head for peak oil.. anytime soon.

https://www.reuters....s-idUSKBN1I00AP

By my math.. that puts the idea of peak oil about what 46 years down the road ? Why is this relevant here ? We should be putting more toward public policy toward more advanced systems...

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 02 May 2018 - 12:49 AM

[Macros]

So fuck the children yah? They don't need sustainable fuel sources

[Macros]

Also, even when the pollution clouds aren't visible I. Beijing, you can feel it in your throat, so no I don't want that all over the world. Green up

[Nicodimas]

Macros, on 02 May 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

So fuck the children yah? They don't need sustainable fuel sources

Macros, well peak oil suggests we are currently peaked if you follow this. This would be a rough reduction to 1/10 the population numbers when this occurs. Well that’s the supposition, next dark ages.

This gives us 50 years to rely on solar + wind. Pop out a few quantumn computers and solve the population/energy problem .. before we run out of oil!

This is a good thing in my eyes. I figured 20 years. Actual resources say 50 years. Now if we we as society redesign the way we built cities we use something like 1/20.. to 1/40th resources. Gates is starting this project outside Phoenix with one of these super cities.

Imagine in 40 years when we cut the use to 1/20th and find more via the oceans. That’s 200 more years and that more population and better management of active resources.

The path to walking away from oil is here, we just needed the time. This means we have the time, fifty years+ should be enough. Good news all around.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 02 May 2018 - 02:53 AM

[QuickTidal]

Nicodimas, on 02 May 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

Well that’s the supposition, next dark ages.

Not to be too pedantic but...

The Dark Ages weren't physically "dark". They were a period of time when the Church in Italy decided that without its broad, scoping influence of humans under the Holy Roman Empire, that there was a demographic, cultural, and economic deterioration of society as a whole. Which is utter twaddle.

The so-called "dark ages" were just the middle ages, and anyone who tells you it was this caveman like, lawless hellscape, is a liar, or a churchman from the 13th century.

~This has been a History Minute, with your host Quick Tidal. Now back to the debate, already in progress~

[Khellendros]

QuickTidal, on 02 May 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 02 May 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

Well that’s the supposition, next dark ages.

Not to be too pedantic but...

The Dark Ages weren't physically "dark". They were a period of time when the Church in Italy decided that without its broad, scoping influence of humans under the Holy Roman Empire, that there was a demographic, cultural, and economic deterioration of society as a whole. Which is utter twaddle.

The so-called "dark ages" were just the middle ages, and anyone who tells you it was this caveman like, lawless hellscape, is a liar, or a churchman from the 13th century.

~This has been a History Minute, with your host Quick Tidal. Now back to the debate, already in progress~

While there are some broadly in-the-ballpark notions here, ultimately there's so much wrong with this explanation of the Dark Ages concept that I'm not sure where to even begin

- Your friendly neighbourhood medieval historian.

[Abyss]

Khellendros, on 02 May 2018 - 01:37 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 02 May 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 02 May 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

Well that's the supposition, next dark ages.

Not to be too pedantic but...

The Dark Ages weren't physically "dark". They were a period of time when the Church in Italy decided that without its broad, scoping influence of humans under the Holy Roman Empire, that there was a demographic, cultural, and economic deterioration of society as a whole. Which is utter twaddle.

The so-called "dark ages" were just the middle ages, and anyone who tells you it was this caveman like, lawless hellscape, is a liar, or a churchman from the 13th century.

~This has been a History Minute, with your host Quick Tidal. Now back to the debate, already in progress~

While there are some broadly in-the-ballpark notions here, ultimately there's so much wrong with this explanation of the Dark Ages concept that I'm not sure where to even begin

- Your friendly neighbourhood medieval historian.

Yeah. Just for starters, lights hadn't been invented yet, so, it was Dark, for what felt like Ages, d'uh.

[QuickTidal]

Khellendros, on 02 May 2018 - 01:37 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 02 May 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 02 May 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

Well that’s the supposition, next dark ages.

Not to be too pedantic but...

The Dark Ages weren't physically "dark". They were a period of time when the Church in Italy decided that without its broad, scoping influence of humans under the Holy Roman Empire, that there was a demographic, cultural, and economic deterioration of society as a whole. Which is utter twaddle.

The so-called "dark ages" were just the middle ages, and anyone who tells you it was this caveman like, lawless hellscape, is a liar, or a churchman from the 13th century.

~This has been a History Minute, with your host Quick Tidal. Now back to the debate, already in progress~

While there are some broadly in-the-ballpark notions here, ultimately there's so much wrong with this explanation of the Dark Ages concept that I'm not sure where to even begin

- Your friendly neighbourhood medieval historian.

I had no interest in dipping into Petrarch and the nitty gritty...but feel free, I guess?

[Khellendros]

QuickTidal, on 02 May 2018 - 01:51 PM, said:

Khellendros, on 02 May 2018 - 01:37 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 02 May 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 02 May 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

Well that’s the supposition, next dark ages.

Not to be too pedantic but...

The Dark Ages weren't physically "dark". They were a period of time when the Church in Italy decided that without its broad, scoping influence of humans under the Holy Roman Empire, that there was a demographic, cultural, and economic deterioration of society as a whole. Which is utter twaddle.

The so-called "dark ages" were just the middle ages, and anyone who tells you it was this caveman like, lawless hellscape, is a liar, or a churchman from the 13th century.

~This has been a History Minute, with your host Quick Tidal. Now back to the debate, already in progress~

While there are some broadly in-the-ballpark notions here, ultimately there's so much wrong with this explanation of the Dark Ages concept that I'm not sure where to even begin

- Your friendly neighbourhood medieval historian.

I had no interest in dipping into Petrarch and the nitty gritty...but feel free, I guess?

If it was only about not discussing specifics, I wouldn't feel compelled to say anything - but the Dark Ages concept has very little (if anything) to do with the Holy Roman Empire, certainly not with the opinions of 13th century churchmen, and even to a good extent little to do with the Italian Church (after all, why would it denigrate the period in which it saw its biggest accomplishments?).

[QuickTidal]

Khellendros, on 02 May 2018 - 02:03 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 02 May 2018 - 01:51 PM, said:

Khellendros, on 02 May 2018 - 01:37 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 02 May 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 02 May 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

Well that’s the supposition, next dark ages.

Not to be too pedantic but...

The Dark Ages weren't physically "dark". They were a period of time when the Church in Italy decided that without its broad, scoping influence of humans under the Holy Roman Empire, that there was a demographic, cultural, and economic deterioration of society as a whole. Which is utter twaddle.

The so-called "dark ages" were just the middle ages, and anyone who tells you it was this caveman like, lawless hellscape, is a liar, or a churchman from the 13th century.

~This has been a History Minute, with your host Quick Tidal. Now back to the debate, already in progress~

While there are some broadly in-the-ballpark notions here, ultimately there's so much wrong with this explanation of the Dark Ages concept that I'm not sure where to even begin

- Your friendly neighbourhood medieval historian.

I had no interest in dipping into Petrarch and the nitty gritty...but feel free, I guess?

If it was only about not discussing specifics, I wouldn't feel compelled to say anything - but the Dark Ages concept has very little (if anything) to do with the Holy Roman Empire, certainly not with the opinions of 13th century churchmen, and even to a good extent little to do with the Italian Church (after all, why would it denigrate the period in which it saw its biggest accomplishments?).

I won't get into it as this isn't the thread, but you can't broadly talk about the Dark Ages as a concept without the fall/decline of the Holy Roman Empire, the fact that it began as a concept in the 13th century by a scholar/poet, but was very much taken up by the church.

My main point was that the dark ages weren't dark. It's a construct of elitism masquerading as "humanism". Apologies if I was too broad?

[Khellendros]

QuickTidal, on 02 May 2018 - 02:15 PM, said:

Khellendros, on 02 May 2018 - 02:03 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 02 May 2018 - 01:51 PM, said:

Khellendros, on 02 May 2018 - 01:37 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 02 May 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 02 May 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

Well that’s the supposition, next dark ages.

Not to be too pedantic but...

The Dark Ages weren't physically "dark". They were a period of time when the Church in Italy decided that without its broad, scoping influence of humans under the Holy Roman Empire, that there was a demographic, cultural, and economic deterioration of society as a whole. Which is utter twaddle.

The so-called "dark ages" were just the middle ages, and anyone who tells you it was this caveman like, lawless hellscape, is a liar, or a churchman from the 13th century.

~This has been a History Minute, with your host Quick Tidal. Now back to the debate, already in progress~

While there are some broadly in-the-ballpark notions here, ultimately there's so much wrong with this explanation of the Dark Ages concept that I'm not sure where to even begin

- Your friendly neighbourhood medieval historian.

I had no interest in dipping into Petrarch and the nitty gritty...but feel free, I guess?

If it was only about not discussing specifics, I wouldn't feel compelled to say anything - but the Dark Ages concept has very little (if anything) to do with the Holy Roman Empire, certainly not with the opinions of 13th century churchmen, and even to a good extent little to do with the Italian Church (after all, why would it denigrate the period in which it saw its biggest accomplishments?).

I won't get into it as this isn't the thread, but you can't broadly talk about the Dark Ages as a concept without the fall/decline of the Holy Roman Empire, the fact that it began as a concept in the 13th century by a scholar/poet, but was very much taken up by the church.

My main point was that the dark ages weren't dark. It's a construct of elitism masquerading as "humanism". Apologies if I was too broad?

The decline (or not) of the HRE is itself a heavily-debatable issue and one which I wouldn't feel altogether comfortable bringing into a discussion of the origins of the concept of 'Dark Ages' (I might focus far more on the Avignon papacy and the 14th-century French monarchy, for instance - although note also that how we conceive of the Dark Ages now has as much to do with early modern Protestant thinkers as with the guy who originally used the term a couple of times and humanist modes of education). Although, again, it's not the broadness I mind (for instance, if you just stuck with 'elitist construct' I might never have said anything!).

I'm happy to let this get back to being a US politics thread

...But I think you mean 14th-century scholar (Apologies, now that really is being pedantic).

[QuickTidal]

Khellendros, on 02 May 2018 - 02:30 PM, said:

...But I think you mean 14th-century scholar (Apologies, now that really is being pedantic).

Dammit, you're right. I spoke too quickly. I bow to the Medieval scholar!

[D'rek]

Something something Baghdad House of Wisdom