maybe, in this kind of situation, forecasters should tell people that the uncertainty is too high to present a forecast, rather than pretend that they can provide one. i'd rather get an honest shrug than end up misled....

i don't know why the weather forecasting has been so pathetic over the last few weeks, but it's particularly awful today.

they keep changing the forecast, and the weather keeps doing the exact opposite of what they're saying it's going to do.

i mean, i get that there's some unpredictability when you've got cold and warm fronts hitting each other like this, but i planned yesterday for 25 degree humidity overnight (which is a beautiful over night....) and now they're telling me it's going to be 12 degrees with a wind chill. that's just ridiculously wrong. and, i may have to cancel plans over it. not sure yet...

it could always warm up still. i mean, it keeps doing the opposite of what they're saying...why not again....

TPP language could be recycled, if everyone's politically savvy enough not to emphasize where it's from. 

 weeeeell, we'll have to make sure to yell and scream when we see it, then, won't we?

there are two realistic successors to putin.

1) smiley dmitri:

and, you can't hate smiley dmitri.

he's smiley....

2) the fucking communists, who are the only other force with any remote chance of winning an election at all.

these other options being thrown around are not grounded in reality.

the only way out of these options is to replace smiley dmitri with somebody else.

no.

stop.

no leftist would ever use the term "cultural appropriation" or argue for exclusive property rights based on ethnicity. leftists are about abolishing insular cultural traditions and tribal divisions, in favour of the construction of a single global atheist culture.

it's a right-wing idea through and through; it traces back to edmund burke, not karl marx or john locke.

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/cornell-death-family-1.4123225

but, in the context of jazz and blues music (rap music is different, because it was purposefully racialized), why are we talking about "black music" instead of "american music"?

no, let's get the question right: why do you want to talk about "black music" instead of "american music"? what does that accomplish? what interests are you serving?

see, if you define jazz as an american art form, there's no issue. it's only when you define it as black music in the first place that you run into any kind of debate.

and, i think that jazz is far better described as american than it is as black, and think it's so obvious that i'm not even willing to provide an argument. jazz could never have developed in africa without the influence of european instruments and music theory, but likewise could never have developed in the strict confines of the european musical tradition. and, it needed the influence of white folk musicians as much as it did the influence of traditional black music. it is american music more than it is black music.

so, i deny your premise, and pull the rug out from under you. and, you can get mad if you want, but i'm right.

it's just one example. but, this is how the left should deal with conservative critics of cultural integration, more generally: instead of getting stuck in these tiring arguments, it needs to question the way that the debate is being framed in the first place.

i mean, if you want to come up to me and start talking about great spirits and talking birds, you'll have to excuse me for not listening, and preferring to consult an anthropology textbook. sorry.

i don't want to tell you that you can't talk about turtles, if you really want to. but, i'm not interested in listening. and, i'll take deep exception to anybody trying to tell me what i should or shouldn't listen to.

i don't want to live in a tribal society, and i will continue to stand with those that wish to tear down tribal divisions, and in opposition to those that want to erect them.

yes - that is inherently disrespectful towards your tribe, because i don't recognize it's legitimacy.

this woman is obviously white. but, that's just the point - why should your ancestry give you property rights over ideas? it's an incoherent premise. of all of the bad arguments in favour of property rights, it's hard to come up with one that's worse. it's some kind of reverse-feudalism or something.

i don't need it explained to me; it's not well thought out, which is why it doesn't and shouldn't make sense to people. these are economic concepts that we did away with centuries ago...

she claims that her claimed indigenous ancestry means she has an exclusive economic right; i'd be more likely to argue that the reality that she's white doesn't take away her ability to speak.

but, what i wanted to say is that this is actually the correct argument. you don't win arguments by silencing opponents, you win arguments by convincing people that you're right. in this case, they're not right, in the sense that these different narratives can and should exist side by side. but, you only get to that realization by putting the narratives side by side and realizing that they're not in conflict with each other.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-cultural-appropriation-debate-is-over-its-time-for-action/article35072670/

i don't even think you need to get beyond the good old harm principle. can speech harm people? sure - and when it can, we should push back. but, the bar needs to be set extremely high. speech is almost always harmless.

like most things, i'm more likely to lean towards chomsky than foucault on speech, but i'm not as absolutist as he is. i think we're using the same framework, i'm just more likely to recognize the potential for harm.

but, the basic point is expressed here: you have to be reasonable about what you're trying to shut down, or you're just being a terrible hypocrite.

if you can tell me who you think that a novelist is harming in exploring the viewpoints of different people, i'd like to hear your argument. i'm not likely to take it very seriously, though.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-do-anarchists-believe-in-freedom

if there's a realignment going on, i have to suspect it's going to end with a merger of conservatives and progressives in the democratic party (both of which are actually historical democratic bases), leaving liberals and libertarians fending off the corporatists in the republican party. and, that's going to be more or less the worst possible outcome for the left, as it will make both parties completely unelectable.

if you're concerned that white authors are taking your voice (and how did the "appropriation" debate get warped into that?), the solution is not to tell white people to stop writing, but to write the stories you want to hear and then promote them ahead of those white authors. you'll need to convince the academies in the process.

but, i ultimately don't see how a fiction writer taking on a viewpoint of somebody that is not them is in conflict with a historian of a particular culture, as though only one is allowed to work in some kind of zero sum game, or how opening up more space for certain types of story-telling requires that another type of story-telling cease altogether.

and, this is the problem that free speech liberals are continually expressing against these confused sjws and progressives on the right: arguing for greater inclusion does not and should not mean shutting people down. there's really not even any reason for there to be an argument, as few people nowadays are going to argue against the premise that there should be a broader inclusion of representative voices. the point where liberals push back against conservatives and progressives is when you start trying to police what people type.

and, i'm sorry - if you think such policing is ok, then you're wrong.