7 ms·

That's neat. I would love to return to duels for Congress. Just look at this gerontocracy: Among congressmen 80 and over, 9 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans

That's neat. I would love to return to duels for Congress. Just look at this gerontocracy: Among congressmen 80 and over, 9 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans Among congressmen 70 and over, 57 are Democrats and 19 are Republicans Among senators 80 and over, 2 are Democrats and 3 are Republicans Among senators 70 and over, 18 are Democrats and 7 are Republicans Among senators 60 and over, 34 are Democrats and 28 are Republicans If McConnell and Schumer hate either other that much, they should have PPV duel with the proceeds to going some charity. If that's too grisly for folks maybe allow mutual combat. Remember when Biden told that voter to if he wanted to step outside and settle it? https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/10/you-wanna-go-outside-me-joe-biden-tries-fight-union-worker-after-disagreement-over https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/10/you-wanna-go-ou... Hell yeah I would've loved that.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
At those ages, they might run out of ammo before either of them hit the other.
betwixthewires 5y ago
Step outside and settle it is one thing. But we don't duel anymore because it is honestly pretty messed up. There's a whole lot of perverse incentives that come to mind, and the institution created a whole host of social problems. Imagine you're drinking beer with a buddy and someone you don't like comes up, and you say "yeah that guy is a total chode." He gets wind of it, is aghast and offended, and publicly challenges you to a competition where you try to shoot each other to death. You say no, and you're now a dishonorable coward and are never getting the company of a lady again, or any position of respect or business from many of your peers. You have to say yes, and kill someone or die or get grisly wounded for life. People romanticize it, but I wouldn't want to live in a society where I have to kill people or die over petty squabbles.
- sellyme 5y ago
  > People romanticize it You're clearly talking to different people than I am.
- mc32 5y ago
  I agree it’s not the way to settle scores in today’s society (though it’s still this way in ganglands, be they mafia or LA gangs). That said, it wasn’t an everyday thing, and given the dire consequences it wasn’t something done lightly out of the blue yonder. People knew not to offend or risk the possibility. And for the most part this was ritual for the upper classes and not for the village boors or even commoners.
- joshuahedlund 5y ago
  > People romanticize it, but I wouldn't want to live in a society where I have to kill people or die over petty squabbles. In a lot of inner city American neighborhoods today people do live like this. And it’s pretty horrid for the kids growing up in it.
- spankyspangler 5y ago
  > Step outside and settle it is one thing. What one thing, hateful toxic masculinity and bullying from a white male in a position of power and privilege? You're saying that like it is not also "honestly pretty messed up".
  - KMag 5y ago
    I only remember once being challenged to a fight outside. I didn't find it difficult to turn down. Biden surely shouldn't have used a threat of violence, but, especially in context, I doubt the recipient took the threat literally. The OP's point is that it's a difference in kind, not of degree. For the record, toxic masculinity is bad, and a power differential makes it worse. Toxic masculinity coming from Kamala would have been just as bad. It's the power, regardless of source, that makes the toxicity more destructive. (A friend and I had a code word for if either of us thought we had gotten into a bad situation. She had been flirting with a really drunk guy in a bar, not really interested, just liked the attention. The guy started following her around the bar. I wasn't sure if she was playing hard to get, until she got into a corner and started shouting our code word, which just confused the guy. I put my hand on the guy's shoulder and suggested he give her some room, at which point he suggested he and I take a step outside. A simple "nah, I think I'm fine" was sufficient to avoid a fight, but didn't really calm him down. The only time I used our code word was when we were vacationing in a developing country, had both gotten drunk, and some people we met invited us to a restaurant for some sober-up food. The restaurant didn't have a restroom, and one of the guys clearly took me a long twisting way to a restroom and promised to wait for me outside. 30 seconds later, my guide was nowhere to be found. I ran back, the short way, to the restaurant to find my guide and the others pressuring my friend to do some shots. I told her our code word and we left some money on the table for a couple shots and walked as fast as we could back to the main tourist strip.)
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Oh come off it. Is this how you approach discussion with everyone in your life? Talk about toxic. I'd engage but you've crammed every red flag codeword you could into your statement that tells me there will be nothing interesting coming out of it at all.
- endominus 5y ago
  I might be missing something, but it seems to me like the easier thing to do in a culture where you might have to back insults up with violence is to... not insult people. I mean, I agree that dueling is not something that we'd want politicians to do, generally, but one of the intended effects of it is to reduce just that sort of casual disrespect that harms group unity (and yes, I'm aware that "group unity" among a ruling class is a dangerous thing to the proletariat - see, for example, insider trading laws not applying to them). If you have a problem with someone, you keep it to yourself or deal with the matter privately between the two of you. To publicly insult someone meant something far more serious when there was a social expectation to put your life on the line for the insult. Again, not a fan of dueling, just steelmanning it. Giving more power (in terms of freedom to express oneself in a political context) to the more martial members of the ruling class would likely be a very dangerous thing, but I just wanted to point out that that specific example is something that dueling is meant to eliminate. Certain societies enforce politeness (with big, big air quotes over "enforce" for some) with social opprobrium and centuries of precedent. Others enforce it with threat of force (as others have pointed out, honor/warrior cultures tend to default to this). Having it not be enforced at all is interesting, and I wonder if over time rifts between factions will only deepen due to mutual disrespect. I wonder what effects that will have on public trust in the institution (already not at great levels, I'm aware).
  - baybal2 5y ago
    > To publicly insult someone meant something far more serious when there was a social expectation to put your life on the line for the insult. The only thing changed in most of the world today, IMHO, is that you are shot in the back instead of being shot in the face.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    > the easier thing to do in a culture where you might have to back insults up with violence is to... not insult people. Isn't that basically saying that libel laws should be enforced by the death penalty? If I say my local chiropractor knowingly promotes bogus treatments - should my life be in danger?
krrrh 5y ago
I ran the same analysis a while back and was really surprised how short team blue’s bench is compared to team red.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Mountain_Skies 5y ago

At those ages, they might run out of ammo before either of them hit the other.

betwixthewires 5y ago

Step outside and settle it is one thing. But we don't duel anymore because it is honestly pretty messed up. There's a whole lot of perverse incentives that come to mind, and the institution created a whole host of social problems. Imagine you're drinking beer with a buddy and someone you don't like comes up, and you say "yeah that guy is a total chode." He gets wind of it, is aghast and offended, and publicly challenges you to a competition where you try to shoot each other to death. You say no, and you're now a dishonorable coward and are never getting the company of a lady again, or any position of respect or business from many of your peers. You have to say yes, and kill someone or die or get grisly wounded for life. People romanticize it, but I wouldn't want to live in a society where I have to kill people or die over petty squabbles.

sellyme 5y ago
> People romanticize it You're clearly talking to different people than I am.
mc32 5y ago
I agree it’s not the way to settle scores in today’s society (though it’s still this way in ganglands, be they mafia or LA gangs). That said, it wasn’t an everyday thing, and given the dire consequences it wasn’t something done lightly out of the blue yonder. People knew not to offend or risk the possibility. And for the most part this was ritual for the upper classes and not for the village boors or even commoners.
joshuahedlund 5y ago
> People romanticize it, but I wouldn't want to live in a society where I have to kill people or die over petty squabbles. In a lot of inner city American neighborhoods today people do live like this. And it’s pretty horrid for the kids growing up in it.
spankyspangler 5y ago
> Step outside and settle it is one thing. What one thing, hateful toxic masculinity and bullying from a white male in a position of power and privilege? You're saying that like it is not also "honestly pretty messed up".
- KMag 5y ago
  I only remember once being challenged to a fight outside. I didn't find it difficult to turn down. Biden surely shouldn't have used a threat of violence, but, especially in context, I doubt the recipient took the threat literally. The OP's point is that it's a difference in kind, not of degree. For the record, toxic masculinity is bad, and a power differential makes it worse. Toxic masculinity coming from Kamala would have been just as bad. It's the power, regardless of source, that makes the toxicity more destructive. (A friend and I had a code word for if either of us thought we had gotten into a bad situation. She had been flirting with a really drunk guy in a bar, not really interested, just liked the attention. The guy started following her around the bar. I wasn't sure if she was playing hard to get, until she got into a corner and started shouting our code word, which just confused the guy. I put my hand on the guy's shoulder and suggested he give her some room, at which point he suggested he and I take a step outside. A simple "nah, I think I'm fine" was sufficient to avoid a fight, but didn't really calm him down. The only time I used our code word was when we were vacationing in a developing country, had both gotten drunk, and some people we met invited us to a restaurant for some sober-up food. The restaurant didn't have a restroom, and one of the guys clearly took me a long twisting way to a restroom and promised to wait for me outside. 30 seconds later, my guide was nowhere to be found. I ran back, the short way, to the restaurant to find my guide and the others pressuring my friend to do some shots. I told her our code word and we left some money on the table for a couple shots and walked as fast as we could back to the main tourist strip.)
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Oh come off it. Is this how you approach discussion with everyone in your life? Talk about toxic. I'd engage but you've crammed every red flag codeword you could into your statement that tells me there will be nothing interesting coming out of it at all.
endominus 5y ago
I might be missing something, but it seems to me like the easier thing to do in a culture where you might have to back insults up with violence is to... not insult people. I mean, I agree that dueling is not something that we'd want politicians to do, generally, but one of the intended effects of it is to reduce just that sort of casual disrespect that harms group unity (and yes, I'm aware that "group unity" among a ruling class is a dangerous thing to the proletariat - see, for example, insider trading laws not applying to them). If you have a problem with someone, you keep it to yourself or deal with the matter privately between the two of you. To publicly insult someone meant something far more serious when there was a social expectation to put your life on the line for the insult. Again, not a fan of dueling, just steelmanning it. Giving more power (in terms of freedom to express oneself in a political context) to the more martial members of the ruling class would likely be a very dangerous thing, but I just wanted to point out that that specific example is something that dueling is meant to eliminate. Certain societies enforce politeness (with big, big air quotes over "enforce" for some) with social opprobrium and centuries of precedent. Others enforce it with threat of force (as others have pointed out, honor/warrior cultures tend to default to this). Having it not be enforced at all is interesting, and I wonder if over time rifts between factions will only deepen due to mutual disrespect. I wonder what effects that will have on public trust in the institution (already not at great levels, I'm aware).
- baybal2 5y ago
  > To publicly insult someone meant something far more serious when there was a social expectation to put your life on the line for the insult. The only thing changed in most of the world today, IMHO, is that you are shot in the back instead of being shot in the face.
- michaelt 5y ago
  > the easier thing to do in a culture where you might have to back insults up with violence is to... not insult people. Isn't that basically saying that libel laws should be enforced by the death penalty? If I say my local chiropractor knowingly promotes bogus treatments - should my life be in danger?

krrrh 5y ago

I ran the same analysis a while back and was really surprised how short team blue’s bench is compared to team red.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]