Biden Announces Reelection Campaign

[MGuy]

If I tell a person quite clearly I reject that framing and they continue to insist on using it I am not going to change 'my' view on what they are saying just so they can have some special definition that suits them. If they insist on pushing it I will continue rejecting it.

[Omegonthesane]

Do you really think people driving around with American flags and "my country, love it or leave it!" bumper stickers don't have a personal relationship with the United States of America?

Of course they fucking don't!

Fanatical worship is not a "personal relationship" in fucking anyone's book except the person trying to pin MGuy for shit he didn't actually express.

[Kaelik]

Prior to this thread, the only time in the history of ever that I have heard "personal relationship" mean anything less than a romantic and sexual partner - not even a family member - is Christians claiming to have a personal relationship with their god, framed as "I talk to my god and sometimes he answers" and not as "the world architect makes decisions which roll down onto my face".

This thread is the first time I have heard the phrase "personal relationship" used to describe a relationship that impacts you personally. If you told me you had a personal relationship with your ISP, I would probably look at you as if you had grown an extra head.

I'm just going to say this is my view on the whole personal relationship thing. (what's above)

But what if, crazy idea,instead of arguing about this and fighting over being wrong about personal relationship they just used terms they do agree on the meaning of, and avoided that term for this conversation. Seems like that would solve the problem without us needing to figure out who is wrong about personal relationship.

Unless the goal isn't communication, and is just to be an asshole! In which case carry on! I won't be the first person to cast a stone at that behavior, but just you know, if that's not your goal.

[Sashi]

If I tell a person quite clearly I reject that framing and they continue to insist on using it.

Sashi's continued insistence on likening the relationship to a parent and child confirms over and over again that this is how they see it as well.

No I am not insisting on using it nor have I ever said that the government is a parent! Please practice an iota of reading comprehension:

Let me be clear that when I was saying we all have a "personal relationship" with the government I do not mean in the sense of parent/lover/sibling/friend. I mean just what you said: the consequences of politics can affects people's personal lives.
...
When I say that the government is not just a tool and does have a responsibility towards you (and you towards it) you react as though I am saying that I want the government to be a parent/lover/sibling/friend, rather than what I actually mean which is the Uncle Ben principle: with great power comes great responsibility. The government is not just a set of levers to be pushed and pulled by whoever has the most power to operate them, or at least it shouldn't be.

The only one insisting I am using that framing is you! I have explicitly denied I am using that framing and explained the framing I meant to use when I said "personal relationship". The fact that you have continued to insist I am using that framing while ignoring my explanations or explaining why you disagree with them is a straw-man argument and part of why you are not an ally.

Prior to this thread, the only time in the history of ever that I have heard "personal relationship" mean anything less than a romantic and sexual partner - not even a family member - is Christians claiming to have a personal relationship with their god, framed as "I talk to my god and sometimes he answers" and not as "the world architect makes decisions which roll down onto my face".

This thread is the first time I have heard the phrase "personal relationship" used to describe a relationship that impacts you personally. If you told me you had a personal relationship with your ISP, I would probably look at you as if you had grown an extra head.

I completely agree with you! The truth is that "personal relationship" is not a phrase I use in my day-to-day life at all and so I got locked into a mental cul-de-sac where I didn't realize I was arguing about terminology. I do think the argument you and PS are having is a super interesting linguistic and sociological question (especially in the context of the rise in awareness for parasocial relationships) but it's also completely irrelevant to the actual discussion about the responsibility that people and organizations have towards each other. I cede the point, mea culpa, Joe Biden is not my daddy and I do not have a personal relationship with the government. I will write "I will not anthropomorphize organizations" fifty times. After this post anyone who insists I think otherwise is arguing in bad faith.

[MGuy]

The only reason I'm even still talking about that is that PS brought it up. I know you don't have PS blocked. What I addressed to you, Sashi, were some very specific questions which I note you did not answer any of.

[Sashi]

I also addressed some very specific questions to you which you did not answer so I think we're even, please stop clutching your pearls.

[MGuy]

Prime example of why not to let someone bust use whatever words they want. I say I'm not answering questions about parenting when taking about government. Oh but Sashi also didn't mean that government is daddy. It just do happens they then they don't want to ask a question about government but about how Daddies treat their children.

That's a cool dodge.

[Omegonthesane]

I also addressed some very specific questions to you which you did not answer so I think we're even, please stop clutching your pearls.

If you're on about the parental abuse thing, I don't think anyone is obligated to answer what amounts to a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. Giving a straightforward answer to an outright bait question does not rise to the same level as giving a straightforward answer to an actually straightforward question.

As for how you square the idea of being entirely drivenby the material interest of the specific people you actually care about as individuals with showing long term solidarity with a large group of semi-strangers who continue to have shared interests with you in the face of, say, a boss promising you a $5 raise to betray your union - a capitalist's promise famously being worth so very much more than the shit that you wiped off your ass using the paper it was written on... I can come up with an answer to that but I want to hear MGuy's take.

[MGuy]

I square that easily. I, personally, want people, all people, not to be poor. I've been poor all my life and it is not fun. I genuinely hate that we have a system that produces these outcomes. I also have no designs about being personally wealthy. I just don't want to be poor anymore. So for me, I think it's better that we all get paid.

However, I don't extend that same confidence to almost anyone else. Some people might be righteous sure. Others, I'd argue most, are not. Most people aren't outright malicious mind you but I do think people are mostly apathetic to the imagined suffering of others. So someone else, anyone else, might take that bribe. It is, then, very important to build a culture that convinces as many people as possible, in whatever ways that appeal to them, that we are better off, or that it is more moral, to keep acting in each other's mutual interest instead of falling to the exploitative squares in the prisoner's dilemma.

[PseudoStupidity]

Do you really think people driving around with American flags and "my country, love it or leave it!" bumper stickers don't have a personal relationship with the United States of America?

Of course they fucking don't!

Fanatical worship is not a "personal relationship" in fucking anyone's book except the person trying to pin MGuy for shit he didn't actually express.

Fanatical worship is a type of personal relationship you can have with a thing. If you fanatically worship something you have a deep personal relationship with the thing you worship, and that is literally the only type of relationship fanatical worship can be. In one last attempt to have you understand how people can have personal relationships with things that are not people I'd like to ask you just two more questions. Do people who marry body pillows or other inanimate objects have a personal relationship with the inanimate object they marry? If not, does a stalker have a personal relationship with their target even if their target does not know they exist? I am curious as to how you would answer these questions, but am happy to make a new thread to discuss this if you're interested to avoid derailing this one.

It is frustrating to have a degree in this shit and have to try to explain the English language to people. Personal is an adjective that can modify nouns, and relationship is a noun that simply means your connection to something. Every single person in this thread has personal relationships with things that are not people, they simply do not recognize those relationships are personal because seemingly everyone in this thread who isn't Sashi thinks "personal relationship" means "interpersonal relationship."

[MGuy]

You can stop defending that stupid point. Sashi has already abandoned it.

[Omegonthesane]

Do people who marry body pillows or other inanimate objects have a personal relationship with the inanimate object they marry?

Of course they fucking don't. An inanimate object is not a person capable of reciprocating a personal relationship.

If not, does a stalker have a personal relationship with their target even if their target does not know they exist?

Of course they fucking don't. Any more than Lyudmila Pavchenko had a pErSoNaL rElAtIoNsHiP with the over 300 fascists she disposed of using her sniper rifle.

It is frustrating to have a degree in this shit and have to try to explain the English language to people. Personal is an adjective that can modify nouns, and relationship is a noun that simply means your connection to something. Every single person in this thread has personal relationships with things that are not people, they simply do not recognize those relationships are personal because seemingly everyone in this thread who isn't Sashi thinks "personal relationship" means "interpersonal relationship."

I could retort that in most instances the state of "having a relationship" is intrinsically reciprocal. If I have a personal relationship with Steve or Sally or, hell, God himself, that also means Steve/Sally/Demiurge has a personal relationship with me.

Instead I will focus on the point of view that informed my first impulse, which was to dismiss your actual words as "some nerd shit about nerd shit" before explaining my point. But this is the most "nerd shit about nerd shit" forum I've been part of that I am aware of, and was even more so in its heyday, so that would seem a bit of a silly objectoin.

The English language is not like C or LISP or QBASIC or Python or VBA or HTML. Where the Python dictionary is the thing that defines what words mean in Python, the English dictionary is a collection of observations of the meanings that words and phrases have acquired in the wild. Human language is defined by its use. For example, hot dog is not a sandwich, not because of any property of hot dogs or sandwiches, but because you cannot expect to receive a hot dog if you go to a hot dog stand, put a [insert note large enough to purchase one hot dog from this fictional stand], and speak the ritual incantation "Please make me a sandwich".

[Omegonthesane]

I square that easily. I, personally, want people, all people, not to be poor. I've been poor all my life and it is not fun. I genuinely hate that we have a system that produces these outcomes. I also have no designs about being personally wealthy. I just don't want to be poor anymore. So for me, I think it's better that we all get paid.

However, I don't extend that same confidence to almost anyone else. Some people might be righteous sure. Others, I'd argue most, are not. Most people aren't outright malicious mind you but I do think people are mostly apathetic to the imagined suffering of others. So someone else, anyone else, might take that bribe. It is, then, very important to build a culture that convinces as many people as possible, in whatever ways that appeal to them, that we are better off, or that it is more moral, to keep acting in each other's mutual interest instead of falling to the exploitative squares in the prisoner's dilemma.

See, my answer was going to focus a lot more on how a system that makes people poor also has knock-on effects that diminish the QOL of the labour aristocracy even if they remain relatively rich, meaning that even the scab prison wardens shrinking "middle-class" who would legitimately see a pay cut from a more equitable society are ultimately missing out on material benefits that their larger cut of the table scraps cannot buy. In other words, constructing an angle to convince the unrighteous that not only "we" collectively but they, individually, are better off if they act in our mutual long term interest instead of their personal short term interest.

[Sashi]

I also addressed some very specific questions to you which you did not answer so I think we're even, please stop clutching your pearls.

If you're on about the parental abuse thing, I don't think anyone is obligated to answer what amounts to a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. Giving a straightforward answer to an outright bait question does not rise to the same level as giving a straightforward answer to an actually straightforward question.

I did not ask "when did you stop beating your wife". What I asked was more like: is the reason Mguy believes that having a "personal relationship" with the government is disgusting because they think a the personal relationship between a husband and wife allows a husband to beat his wife?

I have even said I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming that is not the case, giving Mguy an opportunity to explain that I'm wrong and why. I honestly hoped that such an explanation would help to clear up the issue, but I managed to clear that up despite that. The fact is that I wouldn't even have arrived at this kind of question if Mguy hadn't continually responded to my assertion that Joe Biden has a responsibility to protect the rights of labor with "What? Like a parent? Ew! Next you'll want him telling me how to have sex."

I see now that Mguy thinks this is "disgusting" because they're imagining me cuddling a Joe Biden body pillow to sleep when I say "Joe Biden personally failed the Rail Workers", and I vaguely see how they get from "personal relationship" to "sexual relationship" and start talking about sex, but even then that still brings up the question of why Mguy thinks me cuddling a Joe Biden body pillow means I would believe Joe Biden gets to control the sex lives of consenting adults. You can call me an asshole for implying that deflecting this question means Mguy believes child abuse is okay, but I hope you understand why I am frustrated at receiving the answer "I will not answer your question about parental responsibilities because you cuddle a Joe Biden body pillow" as an answer to the question "I am worried that you believe parents are allowed to abuse their kids because they are responsible for their kids welfare which is why you don't want the government to be responsible for your welfare, while I try to figure out what's going wrong with this argument can you please assure me that this is not the case?"

[MGuy]

That's one hell of a misinterpretation of my position and reasoning. I guess in your head parental relationships are sexual ones. Please don't push your fetishes on me though. What I actually am disgusted by with that framing is unironically outlined more by PS referencing fanatics. Lots of fascists believe government and political figures are just like dear old dad. I also still think that it's interesting/revealing that you think you're going to get an accurate reading on what I think government should do based on a question about parenthood.

[Sashi]

I guess in your head parental relationships are sexual ones. Please don't push your fetishes on me though.

Hey you stupid asshole that is not at all what I said, stop trying to derail the discussion by pushing purposely bad faith interpretations of argument.

[MGuy]

The irony that you're accusing me of bad faith interpretations after that last screed is not lost upon me.

[PseudoStupidity]

Ok are you sure you don't want a thread for "Pseudo teaches English" or something? This is just such an odd side conversation.

Do people who marry body pillows or other inanimate objects have a personal relationship with the inanimate object they marry?

Of course they fucking don't. An inanimate object is not a person capable of reciprocating a personal relationship.

A personal relationship does not require reciprocation, a relationship that requires or involves reciprocation would be a reciprocal relationship. Personal actually means something different from reciprocal, they are different words with different meanings. You can have a personal relationship with your favorite object, or really any object.

If not, does a stalker have a personal relationship with their target even if their target does not know they exist?

Of course they fucking don't. Any more than Lyudmila Pavchenko had a pErSoNaL rElAtIoNsHiP with the over 300 fascists she disposed of using her sniper rifle.

A stalker has a personal relationship with their target. It is a creepy and wrong relationship that the victim does not want, but the stalker does have a personal relationship with them, and victim also has one with their stalker even though they might be unaware the relationship exists (you don't need to know something is connected to you for it to be connected to you). It's the stalker's personal relationship with the victim that makes them stalker and victim.

It is frustrating to have a degree in this shit and have to try to explain the English language to people. Personal is an adjective that can modify nouns, and relationship is a noun that simply means your connection to something. Every single person in this thread has personal relationships with things that are not people, they simply do not recognize those relationships are personal because seemingly everyone in this thread who isn't Sashi thinks "personal relationship" means "interpersonal relationship."

I could retort that in most instances the state of "having a relationship" is intrinsically reciprocal. If I have a personal relationship with Steve or Sally or, hell, God himself, that also means Steve/Sally/Demiurge has a personal relationship with me.

Instead I will focus on the point of view that informed my first impulse, which was to dismiss your actual words as "some nerd shit about nerd shit" before explaining my point. But this is the most "nerd shit about nerd shit" forum I've been part of that I am aware of, and was even more so in its heyday, so that would seem a bit of a silly objectoin.

The English language is not like C or LISP or QBASIC or Python or VBA or HTML. Where the Python dictionary is the thing that defines what words mean in Python, the English dictionary is a collection of observations of the meanings that words and phrases have acquired in the wild. Human language is defined by its use. For example, hot dog is not a sandwich, not because of any property of hot dogs or sandwiches, but because you cannot expect to receive a hot dog if you go to a hot dog stand, put a [insert note large enough to purchase one hot dog from this fictional stand], and speak the ritual incantation "Please make me a sandwich".

This is quite frustrating, you aren't arguing in bad faith and are instead just wrong about something that is difficult to explain as it's fundamental to the very language you are speaking. If you can simply accept that adjectives can modify nouns and that "personal" has the definition it has and "relationship" also has the definition it has we can easily reach an understanding where the words "personal relationship" mean the relationship a person has with a noun. That noun could be anything! Someone can have a personal relationship with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, God, or a hotdog stand. Fuck, this is a board full of filthy communists, right? Your personal relationship to the means of production determines which class you are in. I could remove personal from that sentence and it would still be correct, "your relationship to <thing>" implies a personal relationship (otherwise it would not be yours), but it certainly isn't doing harm by being there. For someone who knows the difference between private property and personal property you sure do seem to struggle with the word personal.

This is absolutely nerd shit, but I am a word nerd and that's why I went to word college for words. And then went right into coding, because it requires even more pedantry than human language does.

[Kaelik]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-bui ... 023-10-05/

Love to Build the Wall, the only campaign promises Biden keeps are Trump's.

LMAO WHAT, I just discovered that the Biden DOJ is siding with the hotels to try to effectively repeal the ACA in the Supreme Court.

[MGuy]

What are hotels trying to do to the ACA? Also why hotels?

[Sashi]

I could retort that in most instances the state of "having a relationship" is intrinsically reciprocal. If I have a personal relationship with Steve or Sally or, hell, God himself, that also means Steve/Sally/Demiurge has a personal relationship with me.

What PS said about relationships not actually being intrinsically reciprocal. More than that, you've actually done the same mistake that I did originally but in the opposite direction. "Relationship" is something of an auto-antonym which can mean both "how things are organized" like events being related to each other in time or objects being related to each other in space and also "a very close romantic pairing". So "Steve and Sally are in a relationship" means Steve and Sally might be fucking but you'd have to be a crazy asshole to respond to "What was your relationship with Mr. Smith?" with "Ew, why do you think I'm fucking Mr. Smith?". And yet here we are in a world where I accidentally used a term to mean something far beyond the accepted meaning and then a crazy asshole decided that I was a delusional moron who thought Joe Biden was my daddy even after I continually said I did not. At least we got to find out Mguy supports pulling up ladders but only after they get to climb them.

It also reminded me of the Pentagon's reaction to The Fisher Protocol:

My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, 'George, I'm sorry but tens of millions must die.' He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It's reality brought home.

When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, "My God, that's terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President's judgment. He might never push the button."

[Kaelik]

What are hotels trying to do to the ACA? Also why hotels?

There is no OSHA org for the ADA. The only thing that enforces the ADA is private actors suing to enforce ADA provisions.

The way this happens is that law firms that do this work hire people who are experts in disability law and also disabled to review hotel websites and pictures to find violations, and then sue. One such suit is currently in front of the Supreme Court to say that actually, you can't let these fucking disabled people do testing like this, and the only people who should be able to sue are people who just accidentally stumble into a hotel breaking the ADA.

The Solicitor General wrote an amicus brief and argued today that the plaintiff doesn't have standing and can't sue because the person never intended to BOOK A ROOM, therefore, they can't REALLY have standing to sue under the ADA, so the case should be dismissed.

So yeah, if the court decides the ADA cannot be tested, the ADA ceases to exist, because most disabled people don't know what is actually an ADA violation and can't be reasonably expected to sue after stumbling into one and then hiring a lawfirm to ask if that breaks the rules. But if the court instead follows the "narrow" ruling the Biden admin prefers, then the ADA will also cease to exist, because as soon as someone looks at a hotel and sees a violation and then books a room, the hotels will point out that they didn't intend to book a room until they found a violation.

[Sashi]

It's especially egregious because the law being tested is whether or not hotel websites clearly state their accessibility accommodations and hotels are butthurt over the testers being able to catch them obviously not complying with the law with a few clicks of the mouse and a screenshot instead of having to travel to that hotel and take a picture of every entrance showing that there aren't any wheelchair ramps (which they are also butthurt about people being able to do, to be clear).

[MGuy]

That is crazy that it works like that currently at all.

[Omegonthesane]

to be clear: "personal relationship with X" has exactly one meaning in actual use, people might at most say "personal relationship to X" using personal as a synonym for individual, you can't change my mind, I'm not interested in this discussion except insofar as it facilitated a "when did you stop beating your wife?" style allegation framed as a legitimate inquiry.

As for the ADA thing, of course America found a way to make a law not protect a marginalised group. I don't know what I expected.