Maurile Tremblay

Admin
  • Content count

    37,648
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Maurile Tremblay last won the day on August 30 2016

Maurile Tremblay had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,022 Excellent

About Maurile Tremblay

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    San Diego Chargers

Recent Profile Visitors

39,866 profile views
  1. I won't know for a while, but my final chemo treatment was a week and a half ago, the side effects are subsiding, and I feel better than I have in a long time. Thanks for asking.
  2. Yes, he's obviously a smart, articulate, independent thinker, albeit a disgusting troll. I kind of wish our resident FFA trolls had his command of the English language. It would make things more interesting.
  3. On Bill Maher's show, he said that she looks like a dude and that she's barely literate. Those aren't nice things to say, and he shouldn't have said them; but they seem factually accurate enough. (Looking through her twitter feed reveals that she is literate, but her punctuation is at about a seventh-grade level.) I don't know what he said about her elsewhere.
  4. Will Controversy Kill Milo Yiannopoulos's CPAC Debut? It Hardly Matters The Conservative Political Action Conference is already a clown show. Robby Soave | Feb. 20, 2017 12:15 pm It's been a whirlwind 48 hours for Breitbart tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos, who was recently announced as the keynote speaker for the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. Yiannopoulos, an out-gay man, may not seem like a natural fit for CPAC—an organization that once refused to let pro-gay Republican group GOProud serve as a co-sponsor. In 2015, the organization gave a freedom-of-speech award to Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson, who believes AIDS is God's way of punishing the gays. But that was then, and this is 2017. The modern conservative coalition isn't a set of beliefs, it's a cult of personality around Donald Trump and Trump-esque figures. It doesn't matter whether they hold conservative views. It doesn't even matter if they're Republicans. To be a right-wing hero in today's right-wing bubble, all you have to do is bash the left and say Make America Great Again. Or so it seems. Yiannopoulos, however, is suddenly in hot water, now that video footage of some of his past controversial statements has surfaced. Specifically, Yiannopoulos is accused of defending—or seeming to defend—pederasty: sexual relationships between adults and boys as young as 13. (Many in the media incorrectly characterized his comments as a defense of pedophilia, which is a sexual attraction to people younger than 13. While not quite the same thing as pedophilia, pederasty is of course despicable and rightly illegal.) Yiannopoulos called the videos "selectively edited… as part of a coordinated effort to discredit me." It's not clear whether Yiannopoulos's unearthed opinions about pederasty are beyond the pale for CPAC: the American Conservative Union, which hosts the conference, has not announced any change to its speaking lineup. But according to The Blaze, several ACU board members are upset. Keep in mind that this debate—whether or not to include Yiannopoulos at CPAC—has nothing to do with free speech. CPAC is a private organization that can invite and disinvite people at will. Just as the organizers of the International Students for Liberty Conference had every right to eject a provocateur who wasn't invited and isn't a libertarian, so too would CPAC be justified in choosing someone else to represent the modern face of millennial conservatism. In a very narrow sense, it's a good thing CPAC finally decided that gay conservatives exist, and should not be shunned. On the other hand, Yiannopoulos is well-known for making disparaging remarks about women, minorities, and transgender people. He's hardly the right spokesperson for a more tolerant, inclusive GOP. David Boaz, vice president of the Cato Institute, had this to say: But let's keep in mind that CPAC gave a platform to Robertson. It gave a platform to Ann Coulter. It gave a platform to Sheriff David Clarke. Would a Milo-free CPAC be less repulsive? Perhaps, but there's still plenty of hate to go around.
  5. Trump should not have anything to do with Milo if the guy is a pedo bear. We might as well make a habit of phrasing the charge correctly (as Henry did) so that Milo can't refute it on a technicality. He is opposed to pedophilia. What he's in favor of is pseudo-consensual statutory rape. Pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children. Milo says he's against physical relationships with prepubescent boys. He thinks priests and others should wait until boys have begun puberty, which typically happens by age 13.
  6. I've always been on Uber's side -- in their battles against cab companies and politicians to resist being made illegal, in hiring drivers as independent contractors rather than as employees, in their surge pricing practices, in their decision to turn off surge pricing during the airport protests... But this is going to make me boycott Uber for a while. Maybe for good.
  7. I guess this might be a big deal? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-big-shoe-just-dropped
  8. Here is a doomsday scenario that might follow a Trump impeachment. I don't agree with it, but it's an interesting read.
  9. Umm, his comments were a reaction to watching the President's press conference. Please explain where the fake news comes in, tia. The press conference was televised by NBC, among other mainstream media outlets, all of which are fake.
  10. Some of the people who I think have a special talent for being right about stuff, from most well known to least, are: Sam Harris, Megan McArdle, Scott Alexander, Arnold Kling, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Julia Galef. (Honorable mention: Radley Balko.) Of those, Arnold Kling and Scott Alexander -- while not denying Trump's many faults -- are, so far as I know, the only two who've gone out of their way to also say a few nice things about Trump. Kling thinks that Trump could do good things with regulatory reform, health care reform, and tax reform (and also expects Trump to nominate judges he'd prefer to Hillary's choices). Alexander thinks that Trump is probably less racist and sexist than he's generally accused of being, and that he'll actually be pretty good on LGBT issues (though he ultimately describes Trump as "an incompetent thin-skinned ignorant boorish fraudulent omnihypocritical demagogue with no idea how to run a country.") The others, as far as I recall, have said only negative things when talking or writing about Trump.
  11. Yes. I think he is finding himself biased against his own best interests (a successful President). That's not exactly what I mean by 'bias' in this context. When I say that I'm biased against Trump, I don't mean simply that I don't like him (which could be entirely rational) or even that I dislike him in a way that sometimes has me rooting against my own interests. What I mean is that I dislike him in a way that makes me less likely to evaluate things accurately and get the right answers to questions involving him. That wasn't obvious from the examples that I gave -- the examples were to show how I diagnosed my bias, not to show how they caused errors in my thinking. But that's what biases do: they cause errors. If some habit of thought doesn't cause errors, I wouldn't call it a bias (in this context). It is perfectly rational to think that Trump is a boob. Thinking so is not evidence of bias: in fact, it is evidence of clear thinking. But I don't merely think that Trump is a boob. I also find myself wanting Trump to be a boob so that I can be right about it. That means that I will give more weight to evidence that he is a boob than I will to evidence that he is not a boob, and the result is that I will overestimate his boobness. I'll get the wrong answer to "Exactly how big of a boob is he?" because biases systematically lead to wrong answers. (In some cases, biases can lead to correct answers, but that's just luck, like a clock being right twice a day. It's not systematic.)
  12. I haven't had a real political allegiance in a while, and have therefore felt fairly unbiased. I'd watch other people irrationally cheer on their political team or boo the opposing team and I'd feel all smug that I didn't have a team to cheer for or boo. When it came to politics, at least along the left-right divide, I may have been biased in any number of ways, but the bias was subtle enough that I didn't consciously notice it. That's no longer true. My anti-Trump bias is now consciously noticeable to me. A few recent examples. 1. Yesterday, I read that Trump's press conference was a complete disaster for him to the point of hilarity. There's a big part of me that wants Trump not to be an imbecile, and wants the United Stats not to be a global laughingstock for electing him. But there's another part of me that wants to be right about my prediction that his imbecility would make him a terrible president. And so when he stumbles, that part of me feels gratified. When I got around to watching the press conference myself and concluding that it wasn't as terrible as I had been led to believe, I was a bit disappointed. There's no explanation for this other than bias. 2. Today, I saw this piece in The Atlantic arguing that Trump will soon defeat ISIS. My first reaction should have been: "Woo hoo! ISIS sucks. The sooner they're defeated the better." But my actual reaction was more like: "What? Trump is going to get credit for doing something awesome? Dang." Then I saw the next part of the headline saying that the Obama administration did most of the hard work and really deserves the credit. And my reaction was, "Oh, good. That makes more sense." Again, there is no explanation for this reaction other than bias. I can feel the bias in a way that I haven't felt bias on political matters in a while. I can feel myself rooting against Trump the same way that I can feel myself rooting against sports teams that I don't like. It's irrational. And the fact that Trump has made me (more noticeably) irrational makes me irrationally dislike him even more -- a positive feedback loop that can end only in outright extremism. In case you're wondering, a few months or years from now, how I became completely unhinged about politics ... it was Trump. It's his fault. Thanks for understanding.