I wish this were true, but I think confirmation bias -- our tendency to thumbs up information that confirms our beliefs and to ignore disconfirming information -- is still hard at work.

Hard at work? I'd say inviolate.

The two reactions to the "total authority" statement seem to be: a) "don't fall into the trap of what he says, but what he DOES" and b) "but Hillary! but Obama! but Sanders! but Whoever!" — ignoring the fact that people, properly, would shit the mental bed if President Hillary Clinton claimed her authority was "total."

It's interesting. Someone - at The Hill or Townhall - said that this was just a trick of Trump's - he was just trying to make the media and his enemies angry so he could back off and let the governors do as they pleased, which was what he was planning in the first place. The writer then said, in effect: "Yet again, Lucy yanks away the football. When will they learn?"

Wasn't that the comment about his Article II powers regarding the Attorney General? In which case the AG serves at the pleasure of the president? I'd love to see the source and context of the quote. Half a truth is mostly a lie.

People were arguing that Trump had power he didn't use in February, and now, when he claims to have such power, they are arguing he doesn't have it, and the governors have the police powers of the state.

Trump hasn't stopped owning every news cycle following his idea that, if he has an emotional hook, he's got your vote, and hate is an emotion.

He pops off with these crazy things, and everyone chases them. He either squashes another story, or he accomplishes something invisible.

I notice the coronation of Biden and Biden's shadow government has received no oxygen.

Atomic,

No, that was a different time Trump claimed to have unlimited power as president.

This time he claimed he had the total authority to override valid state issued stay at home orders.

Amy is spot on in identifying what appears to be the complete surrender of Trumps base to his authoritarian rhetoric on nearly every subject imaginable.

This is my favorite quote from the article because it sums up pretty much everything one needs to know about this guy:

"He has managed in this crisis to tell us both that he is all-powerful and that he takes no responsibility for anything."

It turns out many conservatives do not actually mind totalitarianism... it just has to be packaged in red.

Civics (structure and function of state and Federal government) is no longer required in either high school or college. Correct?

Hey, you know what? Trump has a phone and pen, too.

I notice the coronation of Biden and Biden's shadow government has received no oxygen.

Heh. Why would the media arm of the DNC announce to us peons that the Dems are in another act of insurrection?

Heh. Why would the media arm of the DNC announce to us peons that the Dems are in another act of insurrection?

I R A Darth Aggie at April 20, 2020 6:25 AM

Artemis is apparently under the delusion that we are voting for Trump because we like him and believe him.

Most of us are now just acutely aware that voting for the dems is voting to turn the country over to politicians who are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Chi Coms.

Isab Says:

"Civics (structure and function of state and Federal government) is no longer required in either high school or college. Correct?"

Not really correct unless you are only concerned with course titles:

https://www.ecs.org/citizenship-education-policies/

Isab Says:

"Artemis is apparently under the delusion that we are voting for Trump because we like him and believe him."

I do not presume to tell you why you vote for anyone.

Unfortunately you are under the impression that every post I write is about your personally.

Many of the folks attending Trump rallies do in fact like and believe him.

Are you under the delusion that none of the conservatives like or believe Trump?

"Most of us are now just acutely aware that voting for the dems is voting to turn the country over to politicians who are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Chi Coms."

Why do you always presume to speak for entire populations of people?

Just speak for yourself, that is all you are qualified to do.

“Unfortunately you are under the impression that every post I write is about your personally.”

Incorrect. I think every post you write is about *you* personally. You have no insight or feeling for anyone else’s complex life or political motivations. Kinda like me, when I was 12.

It's amazing how many people who are today crying about Trump's rhetoric, were silent when Obama administration talked about its phone and its pen making the law of the land; who were silent as one party steamrolled the other to pass a healthcare law; who were silent as Obama appointed czars (without Congressional confirmation) to handle jobs that were in the purview of Cabinet secretaries (who are confirmed by Congress); who were silent as a party with absolute control over the government did nothing about the issues they now castigate an opposition party president for not solving.

Just like those people who scream to high heaven about the "abusers and rapists" in office when the accused is from "the other" party, but are silent when "our guy" is accused. "Believe all women," - well, except the ones who accuse our guy. Those women are nuts and sluts - "Drag a $100 bill through a trailer park...."

Trump can talk about his absolute authority all he wants. Every modern president from Nixon ("if the president does it, it's not a crime") to Trump has battled Congress with claims of authority beyond what the Constitution has specifically granted the office.

A modern president probably does need a little more freedom-of-action than granted the president - however, keep in mind that Congress, back then, was a part-time job, so the president tended to actually have more authority to act than specifically granted him when Congress was not in session.

Does that mean Trump's harmless? No president is, entirely. It means we, the people, have to stop thinking power grabs are okay when "our guy" does it and then rushing around shouting that the sky is falling when "the other guy" does it. A measured response in both cases is called for.

Is Trump going to stage a palace coup and take over as a dictator? Likely not. For reasons Sullivan states: that becoming (and being) a dictator is hard work. No one in the Trump administration is willing to do that work on his behalf; and he's more in love with the pageantry of the job than with the job itself.

Should we keep an eye on Trump? Definitely. Should we worry and obsess over his every utterance? No. The trick is to not take him literally. He throws bombs in conversation - a tendency that keeps him at the forefront of the news cycle, but those bombs are not policy declarations nor declarations of intent; they're just bombs.

George Patton used to do the same thing. His mouth got him in trouble far too often. He would say things intended to shock the people he was talking to. He once intimated that he was having an affair with a young woman on his staff (a family member too close for that to be dismissed lightly). General George Marshall and Mrs. Marshall (as well as Patton's own father) had dressed him down on more than one occasion for those tendencies. Marshall, however, recognized Patton's usefulness as a general and did not drum him out of the service, later reaping the reward as Patton's Third Army rolled across Europe in a stunning display of combined arms warfare.

Trump seems to have the same tendencies. Whether he's as useful in his current job as Patton was in his remains to be seen.

Isab Says:

"Incorrect. I think every post you write is about *you* personally. You have no insight or feeling for anyone else’s complex life or political motivations. Kinda like me, when I was 12."

Except I never talk about your life... you are always the one presuming to talk about my life. You also do so in the most simplistic and unsophisticated terms possible.

Based on that I am not convinced you are any different than you were when you were 12 based on your description.

In any case, how about you just stick to the topic instead of always diverting away from subject material that makes you uncomfortable.

In this case we are talking about Trumps totalitarian behavior.

That isn't my selected topic... that is the topic chosen by Amy.

The trick Trump has pulled off with his comments about having authority to over-ride the governors is that he now has Democrats defending federalism.

Those Democrats and fellow travelers who, in the past, have argued vociferously for federal control of health care, elections, welfare, firearms sales, etc. are now insisting that governors have the only legitimate authority to deal with those things, not the president.

Conan,

There is no "trick" to be had here. People in general are in favor of states rights... just not states rights to enslave people on the skin color or to disenfranchise minority votes.

People in general have been in favor of states rights to protect the lives of citizens during a crisis.

You are seeing hypocrisy where none exists.

There is nothing inherently wrong with things like federal election control that prevents something like the poll tax... there is something inherently wrong with the federal government trying to tell people to violate valid stay at home orders during a viral pandemic.

This isn't difficult to understand.

It is amazing but not unexpected you can't see blatant hypocrisy Arty.

Amy, at this point it is just words. Trump voters are waiting to see what actually happens. What is more of a threat to Trump is keeping the economy closed without clear cause.

“There is nothing inherently wrong with things like federal election control that prevents something like the poll tax... there is something inherently wrong with the federal government trying to tell people to violate valid stay at home orders during a viral pandemic.”

The problem has always been selective nonsensical enforcement, and unconstitutionality. Somehow I don’t think the governors and municipalities ticketing people for attending a drive up church services are going to be quite so aggressive when Ramadan rolls around.

There are certain things government simplify cannot do Constitutionally without declaring martial law. I see a lot of states and municipalities trying to pretend like they have done that, because they want martial law lite, with them, and not the feds in charge,
It is against the politicians best interests to do so, and they know it.

Ben Says:

"It is amazing but not unexpected you can't see blatant hypocrisy Arty."

I certainly see the blatant hypocrisy Ben. I even mentioned it here:

"It turns out many conservatives do not actually mind totalitarianism... it just has to be packaged in red."

I just see the hypocrisy along an axis that has logical association with behavior.

Let me give you an example of the difference.

When Antonin Scalia died it just so happened that congress was in recess... in principle this would have allowed Obama to put up a recess appointment to the supreme court. He didn't do this and instead he waited for congress to resume its next session before putting up a nomination.

Trump on the other hand wants to nominate judges and has declare that if he does not receive approval from congress he will adjourn them himself and then put up all of his nominations as recess appointments.

One of these is not like the other.

Isab, that seems to be the case. Now that everyone is in lock down, they should *checks notes* watch a little Schoolhouse Rock.

People who should know better seem to think that the DoJ is a 4th branch of government, unaware that the AG serves at the pleasure of the president.

Newsflash: if your government employment level starts with the letters "ES" that means you can be terminated for any reason at any time.

Trump on the other hand wants to nominate judges and has declare that if he does not receive approval from congress he will adjourn them himself and then put up all of his nominations as recess appointments.

You're aware there's a legal basis for this? Go search thru Instapundit for linkies.

Isab says:

"Somehow I don’t think the governors and municipalities ticketing people for attending a drive up church services are going to be quite so aggressive when Ramadan rolls around."

Sure Isab… Mississippi is well known for its bias against Christians and in favor of Muslims:

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/church-goers-mississippi-issued-tickets-while-sitting-their-cars-drive-service-not-social

"There are certain things government simplify cannot do Constitutionally without declaring martial law."

While that is true issuing stay at home orders during a pandemic are not one of them.

Just like it isn't necessary to declare martial law to issue an evacuation order during a hurricane.

States have wide latitude constitutionally when they enact measures to safe guard the lives of their citizens against crisis or disaster.

I R A Darth Aggie Says:

"You're aware there's a legal basis for this?"

Not really... the president only has the power to adjourn congress when they cannot agree on a time to adjourn themselves.

The house and senate have already agreed on how to adjourn and resume session.

Trumps declaration that he can adjourn them regardless of their agreement has no constitutional basis... just another example of authoritarian nonsense conservatives are willing to swallow assuming it comes from a republican.

A note on recess appointments: Recess appointments expire at the end of the next Congressional session - unless approved by Congress during that session. They're mainly useful in getting a specific job done or in hoping an appointed official so impresses Congress that his appointment is a foregone conclusion.

So, Obama foregoing an appointment of Scalia's replacement seems less a matter of principle and more a matter of practicality. Without a specific case coming up during the session in which Garland would have been active, a recess appointment to SCOTUS would have done little more than inflame existing animosities without a reward for Dems. If Dems thought getting Garland through a Republican Senate would have been tough, it would have been much tougher after an end-around recess appointment. The Dems wanted Garland (or another justice sympathetic to empowering the federal government) as a permanent member of the Court, not as a stop-gap for a one-off upcoming case.

Trump's threat of making recess appointments to the judiciary similarly rings hollow - especially with an election coming up.

Remember, GW Bush appointed John Bolton to the UN in a recess appointment which was not confirmed by Congress in the next session. Bush needed someone at the UN immediately, but the temporary nature of Bolton's appointment limited his effectiveness in that body.

Recess appointments are temporary, not permanent, solutions to an immediate need.

“Just like it isn't necessary to declare martial law to issue an evacuation order during a hurricane.“

These evacuation orders don’t operate the way you think they do. But I’m not here to give lessons in Conlaw.

Only Martial law supersedes (some of) your constitutional rights.

You can’t allow people to go grocery stores, and then ticket them for attending a drive in church service.

Both generally require you to travel.

This is called *selective enforcement*

Conan Says:

"So, Obama foregoing an appointment of Scalia's replacement seems less a matter of principle and more a matter of practicality. Without a specific case coming up during the session in which Garland would have been active, a recess appointment to SCOTUS would have done little more than inflame existing animosities without a reward for Dems."

There were several cases that ended up with split 4-4 decisions where Garland would have been relevant.

"Trump's threat of making recess appointments to the judiciary similarly rings hollow - especially with an election coming up."

Got it... Obama didn't put up a recess appointment when he could and that counts for nothing in his favor... and Trump is threatening to put up recess appointments by force and that counts for nothing against him.

Isab Says:

"These evacuation orders don’t operate the way you think they do."

How on earth would you know how I think these orders operate?... you haven't asked.

"You can’t allow people to go grocery stores, and then ticket them for attending a drive in church service."

Based on what I have read that isn't what occurred.

You could also be ticketed for gathering in large groups and congregating in front of a grocery store.

The thing is people aren't generally doing that. They go in, get out, and go home.

People who disbursed from the church were not ticketed.

Only those congregating and refusing to disburse were ticketed.

That doesn't seem selective to me.

The Trump Doctrine: all the authority, and none of the responsibility.

“How on earth would you know how I think these orders operate?... you haven't asked.”

You used it as a supposed example of constitutional government emergency action without martial law.

I’m asking now. Exactly how do you think they work? What is the penalty for not obeying one and refusing to leave your private property or a rented accommodation? Will law enforcement remove you by force? Can they?

Isab Asks:

"I’m asking now. Exactly how do you think they work? What is the penalty for not obeying one and refusing to leave your private property or a rented accommodation? Will law enforcement remove you by force? Can they?"

There is significant state to state variance here in terms of how these things are approached.

In some states for example an emergency evacuation order is little more than a recommendation.

In other states there are misdemeanor penalties on the books, but the police aren't going around kicking doors in to see if anyone is violating the order... so enforcement is limited.

Still other states have laws that make you civilly liable for the financial burden of any rescue costs associated with your failure to evacuate.

None of that requires a declaration of martial law.

I think the idea of having a dictator who just goes ahead and does whatever you think is right is very seductive.

I was seduced by it in 2005 when the courts declared for gay marriage. While I think the outcome was absolutely correct, I do think having the courts just basically establish a change in law like that was not the right way to do it. At the time I didn't care about the means.

There were several cases that ended up with split 4-4 decisions where Garland would have been relevant. ~ Artemis at April 20, 2020 9:14 AM

Yes, but were those cases of import high enough that the Dems would have risked giving the Repubs a recess appointment precedent? Especially given RBG's advanced age and refusal to step down.

All of that is, of course, moot as the Supreme Court had already invalidated a president-mandated adjournment of Congress and recess appointment of Garland in NLRB v. Noel Canning. The case arose from Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The majority in this case consisted of Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. From Justice Breyer’s majority opinion in that case:

"We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business."

Like the title of McConnell's book, politics is a long game. The precedent you set today has repercussions tomorrow.

When Robert Byrd died, there was no one left willing or powerful enough to defend the Senate's prerogatives. Harry Reid failed to do so when he was in charge, bowing to pressure from Obama and Pelosi to do the expedient thing.

Under Obama, McConnell kept the Senate officially in session during breaks to block recess appointments. And he did the same thing three years ago to keep Trump from making a recess appointment to replace Sessions. What's more, he's doing the same thing now, scheduling pro forma sessions for the break. McConnell has shown he will not let a president run roughshod over the Senate - no matter which party the president represents.

That's where Reid failed. He set a short-sighted procedural precedent on filibusters that was later used against the Dems. Kinda like the Biden rule that McConnell invoked to block Garland; Dems never expected it to be invoked against them, never conceived that it could be.

If the Senate Dems (Repubs, too) learn nothing from the Reid-McConnell years, they should learn the importance of playing a long game and of defending the Senate's prerogatives against political expediency.

Conan Says:

"Yes, but were those cases of import high enough that the Dems would have risked giving the Repubs a recess appointment precedent?"

There is no "risk" here.

The same way McConnel argued that he refused to even give a vote to Garland because Obama was in his final year... and then has indicated that if a supreme court seat opened up in Trumps final year he would fill it.

The democrats "risk" nothing because the republicans are just going to do whatever they please anyway if they believe they have the power to get away with it.

"All of that is, of course, moot as the Supreme Court had already invalidated a president-mandated adjournment of Congress and recess appointment of Garland in NLRB v. Noel Canning."

That is an incomplete understanding of what the supreme court held in that case.

The courts concluded that three days is not long enough to allow the president to make recess appointments. The high court held that a Senate recess or adjournment has to be at least 10 days before the president may do so.

The Noel Canning case was about making recess appointments during a pro forma session.

When Scalia died, congress was not in a "pro forma session"... it had decided it was in actual recess.

So the point is that Obama could have put up a recess appointment... and chose not to.

You should give credit where credit is due.

While I think the outcome was absolutely correct, I do think having the courts just basically establish a change in law like that was not the right way to do it. At the time I didn't care about the means. ~ NicoleK at April 20, 2020 10:40 AM

I agree NicoleK. When the decision was handed down, I had no issue with the decision, but I did think that it should have been accomplished via legislative action.

Unfortunately, legislators at both the national and state levels have discovered that it's politically expedient to avoid taking a stand on an issue and instead let courts decide.

Conan Says:

"Kinda like the Biden rule that McConnell invoked to block Garland; Dems never expected it to be invoked against them, never conceived that it could be."

This is and always has been a silly analogy.

If you were so keen on being careful about setting precedent you wouldn't even use this as an example.

The reason why is as follows.

Biden made some speech in 1992 where he argued that Bush should wait until after the election to put up a nominee if a vacancy opened up over the summer.

Great... so did a vacancy open up over the summer of 1992?... nope... did anyone refuse to vote for any of Bush's nominees... nope.

So your example is of one politician saying something stupid that never had any impact on anything and was never used... and that sets a "precedent" for future actions.

If that is all it takes you should be very concerned with Trump merely suggesting he would force congress into recess to put up his appointments. His words alone set the precedent according to your standard.

And yet you categorized his words as "hollow":

"Trump's threat of making recess appointments to the judiciary similarly rings hollow"

Shouldn't you now be extremely concerned that he has already set the precedent now known as the "Trump rule"?

How many other "Trump rules" now exist based on his words alone?

The courts concluded that three days is not long enough to allow the president to make recess appointments. The high court held that a Senate recess or adjournment has to be at least 10 days before the president may do so.

That is an incomplete understanding of what the Supreme Court (capitalize proper nouns, Artie) held in that case:

"The Clause does not say how long a recess must be in order to fall within the Clause, but even the Solicitor General concedes that a 3-day recess would be too short. The Adjournments Clause, Art. I, §5, cl. 4, reflects the fact that a 3-day break is not a significant interruption of legislative business. A Senate recess that is so short that it does not require the consent of the House under that Clause is not long enough to trigger the President’s recess-appointment power. Moreover, the Court has not found a single example of a recess appointment made during an intra-session recess that was shorter than 10 days. There are a few examples of inter-session recess appointments made during recesses of less than 10 days, but these are anomalies. In light of historical practice, a recess of more than 3 days but less than 10 days is presumptively too short to fall within the Clause. The word “presumptively” leaves open the possibility that a very unusual circumstance could demand the exercise of the recess-appointment power during a shorter break."

In this case, ten days was not an absolute standard established by the Court but a guideline for determining whether a recess constitutes an interruption of the Senate's normal business.

When Scalia died, congress was not in a "pro forma session" ~ Artemis at April 20, 2020 11:12 AM

Never said it was.

And it's "Congress." Proper nouns are capitalized.

Conie,

That is what is known as a style over substance fallacy.

See... we are helping each other now :)

Please continue to point out capitalization issues on informal blog posts... and I will continue point highlight your critical reasoning failures.

Please continue to point out capitalization issues on informal blog posts... and I will continue point highlight your critical reasoning failures.

Artemis at April 20, 2020 12:26 PM

Boy howdy. Patrick sure tore you a new one on the number of planets thing.

Guess we will need to sweep that under the rug quickly to get back on to the subject of other people’s logical failures.

The whole business about recess appointments to the Federal judiciary is simply nonsense. Recess appointments are possible only for Executive Branch positions. The "advice and consent" of the Senate is constitutionally mandated for Federal judges.

Isab,

I don't think you can follow the plot.

I was trying to explain to Patrick that in science classifications change as we learn new things.

He then went off on a rant about how much he believes Pluto is a planet.

That was missing the entire point.

The point is that if you lock yourself into something you learned when you were 10, or 20, or 30 for the rest of your life you are going to be very frustrated when the world moves on without you.

Patrick can want to believe Pluto is a planet all he likes... but ultimately it isn't up to him.

Those things are settled by experts in the field.

The same applies to things like generational definitions.

That is the point.

Given the chaotic and fast-moving pace of the epidemic, many people think Trump moved quickly and properly closing plane travel. Trump set a standard for governors to follow with closures and then mobilized (or tried to) PPE production. Remember that CDC and FDA delays of permissions (like for testing equipment or masks) are not directly manageable by the president. He has then had daily briefings by the top gov scientists on what we know and what to do. He was correct (as far as I can tell) about malaria meds being possibly helpful. He mobilized the navy hospital ships (even if that turned out to not be as helpful as hoped). Did trump do everything right? Who knows. Given that even with social distancing and testing we have already had 42000 deaths in the US in basicly a single month, this is far worse than the flu.

Sullivan is highly partisan. His claims about trump are presented without evidence or examples.

That is what is known as a style over substance fallacy. ~ Artemis at April 20, 2020 12:26 PM

No, Artie, that is what is known as bad grammar. Buddy, yours is terrible - fourth or fifth grade level at best. And it's not just your capitalization, its your punctuation, word choices, and sentence structure, too.

Those things are settled by experts in the field.

The same applies to things like generational definitions.

That is the point.

Artemis at April 20, 2020 2:02 PM

No real science or policy is ever *settled* by experts in the field. It is always open to further questions. and no gold stars for the hubris of assuming you have the one correct answer.

Your discomfort with the uncertainty and dispassionate interest required to truly be a scientist has been duly noted by almost everyone on this board.

Trump's base had been deserting him, cracking, whatever word the Trump haters want to use since before he was elected.

Andrew Sullivan is just wishful thinking with his anti-Trump hat on.

Nothing new.

Trump's base had been deserting him, cracking, whatever word the Trump haters want to use since before he was elected.

Andrew Sullivan is just wishful thinking with his anti-Trump hat on.

Nothing new.

Conan,

That is also the style over substance fallacy.

When you ignore the actual content of an argument to focus in on whether or not someone has properly capitalized something you aren't engaging in intellectual discourse.

However, since that is your focus I will simply point out that in your "correction" you didn't manage to actually comprehend what you were reading.

Here is the part you quoted from me:

"The courts concluded that three days is not long enough to allow the president to make recess appointments. The high court held that a Senate recess or adjournment has to be at least 10 days before the president may do so."

Here was your criticism of that passage:

"That is an incomplete understanding of what the Supreme Court (capitalize proper nouns, Artie) held in that case:"

Did you fail to notice that in the portion you quoted I never said "Supreme Court"?

I said "the courts" and "the high court", neither of which are proper nouns.

I also did capitalize "Senate" which is a proper noun.

In other words, you chopped out an entire section of text to identify errors that did not exist there.

Furthermore, I will point out that this isn't something I usually bother doing to others.

For example, I am often critical of Isab for bad ideas, faulty logic, poor argumentation, etc... but I completely ignore her typographical errors, such as the one here:

"There are certain things government simplify cannot do Constitutionally without declaring martial law."

There is no point to focus on those things when what matters is the substance, not whether or not someone fails to hit the shift key or makes a typo.

You resort to these tactics when the substance of your argument is lost.

Isab Says:

"No real science or policy is ever *settled* by experts in the field. It is always open to further questions."

Those items aren't mutually exclusive Isab.

Settled just means resolved or that an agreement has been reached.

The experts in the field are the ones that resolve and agree on what terms and classifications are taken to mean.

They are the ones who set the definitions... even if they are subject to revision later.

You don't get a free pass to define scientific terms however you like by hiding behind the idea that it is subject to change at some point in the future.

You can declare the sun to be a planet all you like and it means nothing when astronomers have defined it as a star.

You can't get away with such a gross abuse of language by asserting that maybe some day new questions will be asked that define it as a planet in the far future.

You are stuck with the working definitions of the experts until such a time as they change.

That was actually my entire point to Patrick that seems to have gone over your head.

He is sticking to antiquated definitions that have been supplanted, I'm the one saying he needs to be comfortable with change.

He is sticking to antiquated definitions that have been supplanted, I'm the one saying he needs to be comfortable with change.

Artemis at April 20, 2020 3:23 PM

You must be a nightmare as an employee.

Those things are settled by experts in the field. ~ Artemis at April 20, 2020 2:02 PM

Those "experts" are still debating the definition of a planet.

The IAU demoted Pluto based on a definition of "planet" devised in 2006. There were three requirements to be classified as a true planet:

1. It must circle the sun and no other object (so, moons are out)
2. It must be big enough to be rounded into a sphere or spheroid by its own gravity, but not so large that its innards host the fusion reactions that power stars
3. It must have "cleared its neighborhood" of other orbiting bodies

It was failing to meet the final requirement that got Pluto demoted.

Some astronomers, astrophysicists, and other experts in the field are arguing that the IAU definition is arbitrary and capricious. The issue is far from "settled."

--------------------------------------------------

In other words, you chopped out an entire section of text to identify errors that did not exist there.

Ah, but they do exist, Artie. That was the point.

May I present the following:

When Antonin Scalia died it just so happened that congress was in recess... in principle this would have allowed Obama to put up a recess appointment to the supreme court. He didn't do this and instead he waited for congress to resume its next session before putting up a nomination. ~ Artemis at April 20, 2020 8:04 AM

[All emphases mine]

There are more, lots more, but I don't care enough to go looking for them.

Furthermore, I will point out that this isn't something I usually bother doing to others. ~ Artemis at April 20, 2020 3:03 PM

Good. It's best that you don't comment on other people's grammar. I put a few of your posts through an online grammar and punctuation checker. They were rated with a grade level of 4.2.

I usually ignore grammar and spelling errors as typos or errors missed in on-the-fly editing, possibly as fat-fingered typing on a phone. And, before you go looking for my typos, I'll admit to having made several on this forum in the past and predict I will make several more in the future.

If you wonder why I singled you out, Artie, you repeatedly insulted me (does "loathsome piece of human garbage" ring a bell?) and tried to insult my command of the English language. Grammar is part of written communication - making a message clear and readable - unles yu think we awl shud rit foneticlee.

As for others losing the argument, how would you know? You cherry pick comments and argue minute and irrelevant points. You frequently lose the forest for the trees. If you worked for the Park Service, you'd be a tree ranger, not a forest ranger.

Conan,

The experts are indeed debating what defines a planet.

They are even debating if the term planet has the expansive meaning that we currently attribute to it.

For example, why are terrestrial planets and gas giants put into the same bucket?

The point is that until there is some clarification as to the new classification standard it doesn't make much sense for folks without expertise to weigh in.

"Some astronomers, astrophysicists, and other experts in the field are arguing that the IAU definition is arbitrary and capricious."

Yes, and those experts are qualified to make those arguments.

The concern is that item 3 seems too arbitrary... which it might be.

One could add in a different criteria that requires the body in question to be within the orbital plane of the rotation of the star it orbits for example.

That would also exclude Pluto because its orbit is so tilted.

One could add in a criteria that required the body not to cross the boundary of a closer orbiting planet... which would also exclude Pluto because it sometimes crosses within the orbit of Neptune.

The point being that until a *new* agreement is reached, the *old* agreement remains in place.

Settled just means there is an existing agreement, not that it is set in stone for all time.

Right now the agreement is there are 8 planets.

If new and better criteria were adopted tomorrow that would change.

"Good. It's best that you don't comment on other people's grammar."

It is best that no one comments on the spelling and punctuation of anyone on an internet blog.

Such places are for casual discourse.

"If you wonder why I singled you out, Artie, you repeatedly insulted me (does "loathsome piece of human garbage" ring a bell?) and tried to insult my command of the English language."

I've told you before and I will tell you again.

Do not dish it out if you cannot take it.

You have called me every repugnant name under the sun whether or not I was even in a conversation... and you have done so for years.

One itty bitty insult has you tied up into knots.

If you behave civilly you will be treated civilly.

If you act like an ass you will be treated accordingly.

As for your "command of the English language"... you misused a word to try and win cheap points in a completely unnecessary argument.

You messed up the definition of a word... admit it and move on... it's not a big deal.

You have called me every repugnant name under the sun whether or not I was even in a conversation... and you have done so for years.

Every name under the sun? Okay, name one. Tell me one "repugnant" name I've called you. And provide a link so it can be verified - your trustworthiness is heavily doubted on this forum.

Artie, if you think anything you call me will strike home, you're highly delusional (or is that a "repugnant" name?).

Artie, you would have lost that bet - on the terms you offered when you proposed it. Apparently you know that, because you keep bringing it up, trying to argue you would have won. The rest of us have moved on. You should, too. No one cares anymore.

Conan Says:

"Artie, if you think anything you call me will strike home, you're highly delusional (or is that a "repugnant" name?)."

Well yes... calling someone delusional is repugnant.

I for one find being called delusional distasteful, which is all repugnant means.

It looks like I didn't have to go very far to prove my point.

Do you insist that I provide a verifiable link to this thread?

The point is that you "singled me out" because I repeatedly insulted you.

Get real Conan, you've been insulting me for years and now you have decided I am being too mean to you?

Act in a civil manner and you will be treated in a civil manner. That is typically how people get along.

"AArtie, you would have lost that bet - on the terms you offered when you proposed it. Apparently you know that, because you keep bringing it up, trying to argue you would have won."

Um... Conan... I didn't bring up anything.

You started complaining that I "insulted" your command of the English language.

That is the only item that comes to mind where I pointed out that your usage of a word was incorrect.

Regardless, what is your argument exactly? that if there existed evidence somewhere that didn't use the word "by" (because for you that is an ambiguous term) prior to when the challenge was proposed you would accept it as valid and move on?

> You have no insight or feeling
> for anyone else’s complex life

There's no evidence of attunement to even his own.

> the delusion that we are voting
> for Trump because we like him
> and believe him

How could anyone think otherwise? The Trumpanoids in this forum brook no critique of their Beloved Savior, and would never risk one of their own. Their robotic adoration has no features... It's polished and colorless, like those stainless steel appliances from a few year ago. Their metaphysical rejection of new information doesn't suggest loyalty or choice, it conveys fear. For the rest of their lives, they'll sacrifice every nuance which they might once have learned to decode in submission to a simpleton's terror of a zombie from the North Shore.

Suddenly it's clear: Of course Orion/Artemis says insane shit here! The forum is largely populated by commenters who are unconcerned with integrity, relevant experience, interpersonal competence, curiosity about the larger world, engagement with facts, or even with receiving value for their own social participation.

This very comment stack received fifty comments for being mildly challenging to the Trumpista twaddle.

Why wouldn't our little Chinese bot from Mom's basement expect the same result? Year after year, he's seen how low people here will crawl.

Well yes... calling someone delusional is repugnant. ~ Artemis at April 20, 2020 5:39 PM

Wait a minute. "Delusional" is a repugnant insult?

Oh man, you really need to get some perspective. And a thicker skin. Seriously, dude, the world outside your walls is gonna eat you alive.

There's no evidence of attunement to even his own. ~ Crid at April 20, 2020 5:58 PM

There's no evidence in his commentary that he's gained any hard-won insights into human nature - either his own or anyone else's. He's led a profoundly sheltered life.

Conan,

lol... You are the one whining and moaning about me being mean to you.

My skin is plenty thick.

I mean really Conan... I call you "loathsome" and you whine and cry for weeks about how much you have been "insulted"... but you call me delusional at the drop of a hat and that is all perfectly fine.

You even complained that I "insulted" your command of the English language as if that was some great affront to your dignity.

This is precisely why you are loathsome.

"The forum is largely populated by commenters who are unconcerned with integrity, relevant experience, interpersonal competence, curiosity about the larger world, engagement with facts, or even with receiving value for their own social participation."

Such drama. :) I (and you) find it worth reading every day. Not every post is equally valued, ahem. Maybe I'm easily amused. Maybe the lineup was better ten years ago? Most other comment sections quickly make me ashamed of my species!

This is precisely why you are loathsome. ~ Artemis at April 20, 2020 7:11 PM

Thanks, Artie. You've confirmed my already very low opinion of you.

And just to be precise, I didn't call you "delusional." I said "if you think ... [then] you're highly delusional." An if-then statement.

"Whining and crying?" "For weeks?" Artie, you truly are delusional. You've been demanding civility toward you without being willing to extend it to others. I call you on it using that as my Exhibit A and you think I've been "whining and crying" about you being mean to me? You are indeed delusional.

Artie, that's not a repugnant insult; and calling "delusional" a repugnant insult is not the sign of someone with thick skin.

Artie, you are the same person who commented to Crid, "you don't say nice things about others" - like a Victorian spinster aghast that she heard a discouraging word over the garden wall and was forced to retire to her bed with the smelling salts.

"Delusional" is a mild insult at best. Take a hot bath, you'll get over it.

This is precisely why you are loathsome. ~ Artemis at April 20, 2020 7:11 PM

Being considered "loathsome" by the likes of you is burden I can easily bear, willingly even.

Good night, Artie.

Conan,

Everything said here is a mild insult at best. Any compliments are essentially meaningless as well.

This is just a random forum on the internet, nothing here has any great or profound meaning.

There is nothing so horrible about being referred to as "loathsome" and nothing so mild about being referred to as "delusional".

It is all just words on a screen.

Someone complaining that their "command of the English language" has been insulted reminds me of a story about Tycho Brahe entering into a duel because someone insulted his command of mathematics.

Needless to say that is how he lost his nose.

"You've been demanding civility toward you without being willing to extend it to others."

I do not demand civility... be as rude as you like, this is a rude place after all. It was rude long before I arrived and will be rude long after any of us leave. Just don't whine and complain when you aren't treated with tender loving care in response.

Crid Says:

"The forum is largely populated by commenters who are unconcerned with integrity, relevant experience, interpersonal competence, curiosity about the larger world, engagement with facts, or even with receiving value for their own social participation."

I don't get the sense that some folks here will really pick up on your meaning.

What I will say is this... there is no particularly high standard for being qualified to comment on the internet.

There should have been a high standard for selecting someone for the presidency.

The same guy who is busy feeding random internet posts into grammar checkers to search for typos will be casting a vote in November for president tweets-a-lot who has certainly impressed us all with his true mastery of the English language and his invention of "hamburger" and "covfefe".

Self aware these folks are not.

*hamberder

Conan... not to worry, I corrected this one on my own.

Pluto is the best planet precisely BECAUSE it is the smallest. It's so cute!!!

“For years---decades really---the partisan left media has attacked conservatives and the GOP, without any real pushback or response. So the media got used to rabbit punching the right, without ever getting hit back in that time. The media came to think that was the proper way of things. They mistook the restraint as a proper and due deference owed to the partisan media.

All President Trump does is treat the media like a partisan political player in the contest. Trump punches back at them. The partisan media on the left was emotionally unprepared to suddenly have someone punching back. The first taste of leather in the boxing ring was not to their liking,so they had a tantrum, and ran at Trump, swinging wild haymakers. None landed. Trump kept putting leather into the media's mouth.

Now, like a weak bully who never had a real fight before this one, the media has snot running down its face, blood, and tears. They are yelling at the referee they think is in charge of the fight (i.e., some collection of their east coast buddies) that Trump is not supposed to be punching back, and losing their cool. What the media does not get, however, is the real referee is that large body of spectators called the American public.

And about half of us are laughing, pointing, and telling Trump to hit them again. Harder.”

Saw this on the comment thread over at Instapundit. I don’t think people have any idea how much admiration of Trump is being driven by an utter loathing of the American media.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend (at least temporarily)

I’m sure glad Hillary isn’t President.

The official boot licking and ass kissing is on hiatus for now, and so is cozying up to the Chi coms.

The last three years have exposed a lot of rot in so many federal agencies.

> Self aware these folks are not.

You're not one whose judgments of such things will be trusted.

Crid,

Didn't you get the memo?... this is the internet, no one cares what anyone else thinks about their judgment or if they can be trusted.

Isab Says:

"Artemis is apparently under the delusion that we are voting for Trump because we like him and believe him."

Later Isab Says:

"I don’t think people have any idea how much admiration of Trump is being driven by an utter loathing of the American media."

Got it... no one likes him... they just admire him greatly.

I wonder how many other folks in history have been admired by so many and yet so very disliked.

Orion, check all that apply—

☐ Chinese / Immigrant

☐ Impairment / Handicap

☐ Skinner Box / Institution

And then he got reeeeal quiet.

“Got it... no one likes him... they just admire him greatly.”

I’m sure some have a general admiration for Trump. Mine is very specific.

But I mostly just loathe the media, and recognize that the electoral college makes my individual opinion (and vote) worth less than nothing. (And I am quite happy with that)

I vote my interests, recognizing that I am not now, nor I ever will be, one of the Democratic party’s protected constituents.

And I have come to really hate the GOPe.

Oh, and did I mention? Really liking the part where Hillary isn’t President.

I’ve had a schadenboner about that for the last three years and a half years, but who’s counting?

I've never defended Trump's rhetoric, with the exception of pointing out that he gives the left a taste of their own medicine and they are appalled at their own tactics.

That said, he's been far less totalitarian than his predecessor and will be far less totalitarian than anyone who could conceivably beat him this year.

So, given a choice between bad rhetoric of Trump and bad totalitarian policies of the democratic establishment, I say "four more years."

Crid,

Your bigotry is showing again.

There is nothing inherently distasteful about Chinese people or immigrants or people with handicaps.

Did a disabled Chinese individual accidentally run over your puppy when you were a small child and now you are holding a life time irrational grudge against more than a billion people?

Isab Says:

"But I mostly just loathe the media..."

I'm going to hazard a wild guess here and suggest that your intense hatred for the media does not include Rush Limbaugh.

> Did a disabled Chinese individual
> accidentally run over your puppy

No. A morally deficient and professionally incompetent individual lost control of samples in a lab a few blocks away from a "wet market"… And then —not as an individual but as the world's largest culture, a seething mass of lesser authoritarians and 5,000 generations of feckless submissives— Chinese people arrested, silenced, imprisoned and quite possibly killed the medical professionals who would have sounded the alarm to prevent, to date, two and a half million severe illnesses and two hundred thousand deaths.

More Americans died yesterday from this Chinese plague than died on 9/11.

Your rhetorical fecklessness, and your social obliviousness, might not be truly Chinese, however strong my suspicions. But avoidant, needy minds like yours are precisely the problem.

Despising the Chinese no longer requires "bigotry," but your sudden recourse to that insinuation affirms my presumptions.

You're at home with your parents, right?

Is it just me or has there been more fighting than usual on this forum? Everyone OK?

Nicole, perhaps the level has increased but the same cast of characters has always belittled and insulted others.

It's about the same from what I see NicoleK.

NicoleK,

I have my own suspicions on the increase in aggressiveness... particularly as it relates to the pandemic and Trump.

There is no possible way this looks good for his administration and his supporters are stuck at home and frustrated.

I think this is the natural result.

Outside of that JD is correct that it is the same cast of characters.

Crid Says:

"Despising the Chinese no longer requires "bigotry," but your sudden recourse to that insinuation affirms my presumptions."

Sure it requires bigotry.

People are responsible for their own actions.

Deciding that an entire nationality of people are now to be despised is a defect in your own moral compass.

Judge people on an individual basis.

Hatred of entire groups on the basis of your perception of actions of a member of that group is ugly.

I'm going to hazard a wild guess here and suggest that your intense hatred for the media does not include Rush Limbaugh.

Artemis at April 21, 2020 11:59 AM

Rush isn’t really news media is he? More of an entertainer?
I don’t listen to radio or watch tv much. He is a great social influencer though. Probably almost as influential in getting Trump elected as Obama was.

Isab,

You said "But I mostly just loathe the media..."

Now you are adding in new terminology specifying "news media".

So you don't actually "loath the media"... what you loath is the "news media".

Is that correct?

The rest of the media is fine so long as it isn't "news"?

You said "But I mostly just loathe the media..."

Now you are adding in new terminology specifying "news media".

So you don't actually "loath the media"... what you loath is the "news media".

Is that correct?

The rest of the media is fine so long as it isn't "news"?

Artemis at April 22, 2020 9:12 AM

I will amend that. I do basically just loathe the media. In a free country, I’m allowed to do that. And I exercise my option to turn off most of it, including Rush who I find tedious.

He is almost as tedious as you are. Rush is not a free thinker. Some of his positions are well indoctrinated drivel from the right. Just like all of your opinions (which you mistake for facts) are well indoctrinated drivel from the socialist left.

Isab Says:

"Just like all of your opinions (which you mistake for facts) are well indoctrinated drivel from the socialist left."

I didn't realize you were so aware of *all* of my opinions.

Do you remember when you said the following:

"You have no insight or feeling for anyone else’s complex life or political motivations. Kinda like me, when I was 12."

I want you to notice the difference between your behavior in this conversation and my own.

I ask questions to clarify your positions on items.

You assert to *know* what my opinions are on every subject there is.

Remind me again how you have this deep insight into the complex life and political motivations of other people?

You haven't actually changed since you were 12, you are exactly the same person... you just think you are wiser now.

Aw c'mon, little feller… You don't know anything about 'bigotry.' You just think it's a way that Americans blow weird noise at each other… Your own culture's bigotry is so ingrained you'd describe it as you would oxygen. "Fish don't know they're wet," etc.

I doubt you've ever touched the skin of a black person, or an Irish one, or any other kind of Asian, for that matter. CERTAINLY not in the most pleasant ways, which would make your family disown you.

C'mon, out with it. You're Chinese, and Mom still prepares your food.

Crid,

What's there to know... the concept isn't very challenging given the details you have now made available about how you view the world.

You've indicated that you despise an entire nationality of people on the basis of your perception of the action of the subset of that group.

That makes you a racist.

You can hem and haw and parse it out if you like... but that is what it boils down to.

I know you like to think of yourself as a deep and insightful intellectual... but there is nothing more shallow and myopic than the kind of thinking you are engaging in.

This isn't about you being an internet troll Crid… this kind of talk is really a stain on your character as a human being.

When you're an American in other countries, you quickly get used to and grateful for the idea that people can despise your political leaders and what they do, while not applying those sentiments to the collective people of your country.

It's the same with the Chinese. It *is* bigotry to hate "the Chinese", if we are talking about the individuals that make up the group.

But I assume the people on the board mean they hate the Chinese government and what it does, and perhaps the collective volksgeist of China... not that they hate Chinese individuals.

Nicole,

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being critical of the Chinese government... or any government for their actions or inactions.

Unfortunately that isn't what was stated.

These are the exact quotes:

"...And then —not as an individual but as the world's largest culture, a seething mass of lesser authoritarians and 5,000 generations of feckless submissives..."

and

"Despising the Chinese no longer requires "bigotry,"..."

Everything in context makes it abundantly clear that Crid is not talking about the Chinese government... he is talking about people of Chinese descent en masse.

None of that is justified or reasonable.

But I assume the people on the board mean they hate the Chinese government and what it does, and perhaps the collective volksgeist of China... not that they hate Chinese individuals. ~ NicoleK at April 23, 2020 7:40 AM

I tend to assume the same, Nicole. It tends to be the moralizers who interpret every "I hate...." statement as evidence of racism or phobia.

I also tend to think there is some blame of the individuals due to not resisting their corrupt government more vigorously. We live in a democratic republic that offers an opportunity to significantly remake the government peacefully every two years. We also have more guns than citizens - which keeps our government relatively under control. I think we don't always understand how people can live under a real dictatorship without hoisting the black flag and taking up arms.

In addition, when you've never lived in a society that values individuals, you tend to accept collectivism as normal, you tend to be submissive to authority. Individual responsibility is scary. China has never had an individual-oriented social construct, even during the various empires and dynasties.

By the way, a nice graphic of Chinese history laid alongside European and American history.

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." ~ Henry Louis Mencken

Crid is trolling. It is something he appears to enjoy quite a bit. He is just trying to find which words hurt the most so he can harass his 'enemies'. There doesn't need to be much logic or thought involved.

It is like the Beavis and Butthead 'that's gay' stuff.

Just an interesting contrast to note:

NickoleK Says:

"It *is* bigotry to hate "the Chinese", if we are talking about the individuals that make up the group."

Followed by Conan's response:

"I also tend to think there is some blame of the individuals due to not resisting their corrupt government more vigorously."

This discussion has already gone to a dark place...

Which is precisely why trolling or not it is a bad idea to make ugly statements like "Despising the Chinese no longer requires "bigotry,"..."

This discussion has already gone to a dark place... ~ Artemis at April 23, 2020 8:55 AM

So, you don't think people unfamiliar with living in a dictatorship have a tendency to blame the citizens of a dictatorship for not resisting the government, for allowing a dictatorship to take power? You think no one blamed the German populace for the rise of Hitler, for not resisting or overthrowing him?

Conan,

Simple question for you.

Who were placed in internment camps in the united states?... was it German-Americans... or was is some other group?

You are going to an ugly place.

You are going to an ugly place. ~ Artemis at April 23, 2020 9:22 AM

Artie, I'm not going any place ugly. I simply pointed out that there is tendency on the part of people who've never experienced a dictatorship to blame the citizens of a dictatorship for that dictatorship.

Americans live in a fairly democratic and relatively free society, so we don't always understand how people can tolerate or become subject to a government that is not held to account by the governed.

Stop assuming a moral failing on the part of anyone who doesn't immediately agree with you and sing your praises. Moral people can, and will, disagree with you.

Who were placed in internment camps in the united states [sic]?... was it German-Americans... or was is some other group? ~ Artemis at April 23, 2020 9:22 AM

Yes, in fact, it was German-Americans, among others.

American residents of German ancestry were interred during World War I. American residents of German and Italian ancestry were interred during World War II - under the same law signed by FDR that was used to inter American residents of Japanese ancestry. Many German- and Italian-Americans were later released after being investigated by the DoJ. Others were detained for the duration.

Japanese residents of the US were also placed in internment camps - to a much greater degree and for a much longer period. The Asian Exclusion laws - pushed, by the way, by prominent California politicians like governor and future Chief Justice, Earl Warren - prevented Japanese immigrants from becoming US citizens. When the war broke out, US residents of Japanese ancestry were interred in camps, two-thirds of them were second-generation and US citizens by virtue of their birth in the US.

Later, many of those second-generation Japanese-Americans would volunteer for the US Army and be organized into the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. Fighting in Italy, the 442nd became the most decorated combat unit for its size in the US Army - 18,000 medals and awards in less than 2 years. Others would serve as interpreters and code breakers in the Pacific theater.

Artie, this little side trip into the history of US xenophobia has nothing to do with the tendency of a free people to hold the citizens of a dictatorship responsible for that dictatorship.

The population of Germany was, in fact, blamed by many in the US for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany, especially in the years following the war and the revelation of the true horrors of the Nazi regime. Americans just could not wrap their heads around a government that was not being held to account by the governed.

Even today, many historians contend that the Holocaust and the rise of the Nazis had deep roots in German society and "stemmed from a long history of uniquely German traits."

How many German-Americans changed their Germanic-sounding names, during and after both wars to avoid being stigmatized? By one account, Friederich Drumpf changed his family name to Trump in 1918 (there seems to be some confusion about the exact date of and reason for the change).

Conan,

I am not going to engage in the Gish gallop you are presenting here because you are not actually addressing the core issue with your arguments and are instead dancing around it.

It is precisely the "tendency" of people to place blame on certain individuals for the actions of other superficially similar individuals that defines what things like prejudice, bigotry, and racism are.

If you are arguing that the fact that this "tendency" exists insulates people from responsibility for holding those views you are engaging in the naturalistic fallacy.

That something might be a natural tendency doesn't excuse the behavior.

Of course tribalism is "natural"... that isn't a ground breaking observation.

The point is when one looks at the actions of the Chinese government... and then defined people of Chinese heritage in the following way:

"a seething mass of lesser authoritarians and 5,000 generations of feckless submissives"

and goes on to say the following:

"Despising the Chinese no longer requires "bigotry,"..."

That is an ugly position to take... and the fact that people have a "tendency" to behave this way isn't a justification.

Such beliefs are in fact a moral failing.

We should all strive to be better than that.

"Gish Gallop." You've been reading Patrick's 10-year-old posts, haven't you? He always had a flair for archaic snark, one that you lack, so I don't think you came up with that one yourself.

You've misapplied the phrase in this case, but I don't care enough to take offense.

Artie, I was not defending tribalism. In fact, I've often spoken out against it.

In this case, I was merely pointing out that people accustomed to the American system of individualism often do not understand how a collectivist system might be allowed to take hold - for instance, why people would not rise up and rebel against a brutal oppressive system taking over their country. This tendency can lead them to think that if such a system takes over a country it must have been with the implicit consent of the majority of the people in that country. And, perhaps in a way, it was.

The legitimacy of China's various governments has always been based on the ability of the government to provide the people internal order and external security. The basis of the Confucian "Mandate of Heaven" was that a government which could not provide internal order and external security had lost divine favor and thus lost the right to obedience from the people. Hence, the Chinese acquiescence to authoritarian regimes, even brutal ones.

The inability of the Qing Dynasty to protect China from foreign predations in the Opium Wars and to quell domestic unrest in the Taiping Rebellion led to that dynasty losing the Mandate of Heaven and its eventual downfall in 1912, as well as to the current Chinese government's obsession with national prestige and saving face - an obsession which caused Xi's government to hide the truth about the viral outbreak in Wuhan.

Xi peppers his speeches with references to China's past imperial greatness, stoking the nationalism and xenophobia of the nation's Han majority.

If traditional German hatred of Jews can be blamed by modern historians for the Holocaust, perhaps traditional Han nationalism and disdain for the country's Muslim and Christian minorities lies at the root of the Wuhan crisis.

Maybe the Han as a group do in fact deserve castigation for the government hiding the truth about the viral outbreak in Wuhan. Whether Crid is right to castigate them as a group can be debated endlessly. However, you hectoring him about morality is unlikely to change his mind.

Conan,

The Gish gallop is a form of fallacious argumentation that you often engage in.

It's when you flood a conversation with completely tangential and weak arguments that end up distracting from the main thrust of the conversation.

If you are so very convinced that the following statement is perfectly fine:

"Despising the Chinese no longer requires bigotry"

Why not put your money where your mouth is and do the following:

1 - Post it on your non-anonymous social media
2 - Post it on any LinkedIn and professional media you use
3 - Print it on a shirt and wear it around in public

If you are willing to do those three things maybe I'll believe that you believe the statement isn't deeply ugly.

Conan,

Also... just to point something out to you... the Gish gallop isn't "archaic".

So far as fallacies go it is practically a new born.

It relates to a tactic used by Duane Gish a young earth creationist during the 20th century.

This is hardly some centuries old term.

Artie, I'm well-aware of what a Gish Gallop is and after whom it's named. I'm also aware that you would not have used it had you not read it in a post by Patrick. He has a flair for obscure, sometimes archaic, insults that you lack.

In addition, the nineties feel far enough away these days that "archaic" seemed a suitable enough adjective to convey my point.

Conan,

Well it certainly didn't seem like you were all that familiar with the Gish Gallop when you called it "archaic" when it was coined in the 1990's.

I mean, normally the term archaic is reserved for ancient time periods like the classic period of Greece... but then again someone such as yourself with an unmatched "command of the English language" would know that.

As for this claim that I somehow lifted the term from someone else... it's not really all that impressive of a feat Conan. Anyone who is familiar with the "ancient history" of the debates with creationists would be extremely familiar.

In any event... as far as I can tell this could very well be the first time anyone has ever mentioned the Gish Gallop fallacy on this blog.

The fact that you keep calling it things like "obscure" and "archaic" and insist that I had to get it from some other source really suggests that you didn't have the slighted clue what I was talking about and had to look it up.

In any event... as far as I can tell this could very well be the first time anyone has ever mentioned the Gish Gallop fallacy on this blog.

Sorry Charlie. As I mentioned before, Patrick already used it. And since you've been quoting Patrick's decade-old posts in an effort to discredit me, it seems likely you read his use of it and decide to use it yourself. You're not that original.

Conan Says:

"As I mentioned before, Patrick already used it. And since you've been quoting Patrick's decade-old posts in an effort to discredit me, it seems likely you read his use of it and decide to use it yourself. You're not that original."

Um Conan... you specifically asked me to cite and name historic events on this blog where you were regarded as dishonest:

"Oh? I'm regarded as such by whom, Artie? Names and cites." - Conan the Grammarian at April 21, 2020 3:26 PM

So now your bitching and moaning that I actually did what you asked me to do?

Color me shocked that you would be so very disingenuous in your demand.

As for your claim that Patrick has at some point mentioned the Gish Gallop on this blog before... let's see the citation.

I'll just go ahead and predict that this is where you say goodbye and/or refuse to demonstrate your claim.

Also... there is nothing particularly "original" about the Gish Gallop fallacy... this is really elementary stuff.

Big difference in saying someone is regarded as the most dishonest interlocutor on the forum and saying someone is not the first to use a phrase, Artie. Your level of outrage in this is overdone.

I looked for a citation before posting my earlier comment, but couldn’t find the specific post to link or cite. I remember him using it before because it was the first time I’d seen it and I looked it up afterward. I then researched Gish and Eugenie Scott, the coiner of the phrase.

I don’t believe that you haven’t seen his use of it in an old post because it doesn’t fit your writing style; it fits his, though. Not to mention that you’ve been quoting him in your effort to denigrate me, so I know you’ve seen some of his older posts.

Conan Says:

"I looked for a citation before posting my earlier comment, but couldn’t find the specific post to link or cite."

Right... so your claim is free of evidence.

"I'm also aware that you would not have used it had you not read it in a post by Patrick."

"As I mentioned before, Patrick already used it."

"I don’t believe that you haven’t seen his use of it in an old post because it doesn’t fit your writing style; it fits his, though."

Well now that the bellman has said it thrice it surely *must* be true.

Keep hunting those snarks Conan.

(and for reference... The Hunting of the Snark is a poem by Lewis Carroll lest you get confused and think I stole the reference from someone on this blog)

Brilliant!

Trump juked the dems into defending federalism and states' rights. Is there anything he can't do?

Richard,

Well apparently he just figured out today that disinfecting ones hands kills germs... this is sure to go down as a discovery for the ages.

He said this of course after "sarcastically" suggesting people should be injecting themselves with disinfectant.

What a stable genius!!! (which I think just means he is smart for a horse)

(and for reference... The Hunting of the Snark is a poem by Lewis Carroll lest you get confused and think I stole the reference from someone on this blog) ~ Artemis at April 24, 2020 7:49 AM

I'm quite familiar with the works of Lewis Carroll, Artie - his puzzles, games, and writings. I've used the Red Queen's race comment to describe the bureaucracy at numerous workplaces.

"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

I'm just glad to see that you've read a second book. Keep up the good work.

Artie, Patrick did use "Gish Gallop" on this forum long before you did. I know you like to think of yourself as a trendsetter here, but you're really not.

Now, I have a very nice rosé from Provence chilled and waiting for me, so I'm gonna say good bye and leave you so I can drink it. If I can find the cite for Patrick's comment, I'll post it here, but I'm not going to spend much time looking for it.

Conan Says:

"Artie, Patrick did use "Gish Gallop" on this forum long before you did. I know you like to think of yourself as a trendsetter here, but you're really not."

There is absolutely nothing impressive about mentioning the fact that you often commit the Gish Gallop fallacy.

You often are guilty of many logical fallacies, sometimes so many it is a challenge to identify where one ends and the next begins.

I haven't the slightest idea if Patrick or anyone else has accused you of using the Gish Gallop before. That is the fundamental point.

You made the claim that I obtained this knowledge from review statements on this blog and yet you cannot even demonstrate that anyone has ever used the terminology here before.

Logically speaking you would need to at least demonstrate the existence of such a statement to even make your claim possible.

The fact that you are wrong anyway would remain because it would require demonstration of my knowledge of such a statement even if it were to exist.

All you have done here is made a fallacious argument from assertion... you assert it is true and yet you have not even provided evidence that your assertion is possible.

To put it simply for you, you've made an unfounded assertion and expect your word alone to be the final say on the matter.

To put it in more sophisticated terminology, your claim represents an ipse dixit approach to logical reasoning, which is a deeply flawed way of presenting an argument.

"Now, I have a very nice rosé from Provence chilled and waiting for me, so I'm gonna say good bye and leave you so I can drink it. If I can find the cite for Patrick's comment, I'll post it here, but I'm not going to spend much time looking for it."

Consider me shocked... you've said goodbye and won't be demonstrating your claim.

It's almost as if I predicted this would occur yesterday.

Conan,

Also... you always struck me as more of the type to enjoy a nice Amarone della Valpolicella.